User talk:Kelzorro

Thanks for the tips on being a tool, you're helping me learn from the best. --Golbez (talk) 22:56, 16 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Don't mention it :PKelzorro (talk) 00:10, 17 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Aaahh!!! Real Monsters‎

I see no way to make the character section NOT trivial, thats why I removed it. Active Banana (^bananaphone 17:34, 21 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

A list of characters with a small description would be better than just deleting them.Kelzorro (talk) 17:38, 21 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Iron Man 2

Hi, Kelzorro. With all respect, I need to ask that you temper your edit summary comments. Writing, "Several articles that note this has a source to it. This is a bullshit policy that only info that 'admins' deem legit can be included despite that several articles indicate it already." We all try to speak civilly with each other here; there's no reason not to, after all — others get less defensive when we aren't being rude or insulting, and reasonable people can speak reasonably.

As to the particular issue at this article, User:Rdfox_76, who also reverted what two editors in this case consider an "Easter egg", is simply asking for a source to be cited and footnoted. I'm sure you don't find it unreasonable to ask that an encyclopedia's claims be scrupulously cited; who would? The policy WP:VERIFY is, in fact, one of the core tenets. In a previous edit summary, you mention directors (plural?) confirming this point. Are there citations for this?

It's important to note that in the case of a film, we can only use the actual, concrete, nuts-and-bolts of what is actually shown and said onscreen. And things do change when a book, a play, a comic or anything else gets adapted to a movie. What's true in one medium may not be true in its adaptation.

In any event, we can all make our points like civilized human beings. Sometimes we let our emotions get the better of us; when that happens, just take a second before pressing the "Save page" button to ask if our edit summary is really the most constructive way to say what we want to say. I wish you a productive time on Wikipedia. With regards, --Tenebrae (talk) 03:47, 4 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry about that lol. I just wanted to make it clear that several articles concerning the IM2 movie have also indicated that the new element is vibraninum and has been proven with several sources. However, I just want to be sure that my point gets a fair chance as well. But yeah, sorry for the civility issue.Kelzorro (talk) 04:37, 4 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

That's quite alright; I appreciate your note above. I did add a civility comment just now at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Dark Knight Rises. Please feel free to remove this post along with my post there once the issue has been addressed. With regards, --Tenebrae (talk) 15:06, 17 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Aaahh!!! Real Monsters

(since this seems like a continuation from 2 weeks ago) Was it really necessary to cuss and tell someone to "get lost"? –MuZemike 21:47, 18 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not intimated by threats, but this guy really needs to stop trolling articles..Kelzorro (talk) 02:37, 5 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop accusing editors of vandalism when it is clearly not. http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Aaahh!!!_Real_Monsters&curid=342083&diff=412761388&oldid=412723679]. Your personal attacks and unwillingness to base your editing upon actual Wikipedia guidelines is becomeing an issue. Active Banana (^bananaphone 18:52, 8 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

If it walks, talks, and quacks like a duck, then it's a duck.Kelzorro (talk) 23:58, 8 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 1 week for persistent edit warring on Aaahh!!! Real Monsters. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions. If you would like to be unblocked, you may appeal this block by adding the text {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}, but you should read the guide to appealing blocks first. JamesBWatson (talk) 09:33, 4 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

Kelzorro (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

What, the guy goes and vandalizes the article, and you block me? I don't think it's right to block me when Active Banana was edit warring as well. And for one week? This is not a fair block Kelzorro (talk) 21:21, 4 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

Content disputes are not vandalism. --jpgordon^{::==( o )} 21:27, 4 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

Kelzorro (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

I disagree. It is not fair that I get blocked while Active Banana gets to go free with a "friendly" warning. I don't care how many edits he has done. He shouldn't get a light slap on the back and walk away with it. No, either you serve us equally or I am taking this as high as I can because I am not going to be pushed around by an admin who wants to only hand out blocks when the other guy is just as guilty. Kelzorro (talk) 2:20 pm, Today (UTC−5)

Decline reason:

I think you've misunderstood the purpose of the unblock template. The template should not be used to a) discuss other editor's behavior (see WP:NOTTHEM) or b) continue your dispute. Your unblock request should focus solely on your behavior and how you plan to avoid future problems. Future unblock requests that do not do this will most likely be declined and may lead to the loss of your ability to edit this page for the duration of your block. TN X Man 19:34, 8 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

Kelzorro (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

Fuck it, this site can kiss my arse. You admins are nothing but a bunch of bigots. You abuse your power, you don't care about fact, no. You depend on consensus and you really think I am going to drop on my knees and smooch your asses for punishment that idiot Banana should have gotten? I don't even care about being blocked. This site is a pathetic joke and sad thing is the creator has to depend on donations to keep it running. Far as I care, you and the admins can shove it. Block me permanently, I don't care. The unfairness here is ridiculous and it just goes to show you that you admins got nothing else going for your sorry lives, so you try and flaunt your authority on a site that's seen as a joke by everyone in academia. Go on ahead and block my page. I'm not even going to bother editing anymore on this shitty site. Consensus, and you guys wonder why Wikipedia is a joke. Kelzorro (talk) 18:46, 12 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

Procedural decline: block has expired. Favonian (talk) 18:57, 12 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

Kelzorro, you should know by now that just because you disagree with another's edit doesn't mean that is vandalism. –MuZemike 21:24, 4 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I never said it was. But I don't find it fair that I get blocked and he edit as much as I did. Unless he gets the same punishment, I'm taking this up because this is bullshit.Kelzorro (talk) 02:23, 5 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yes you did say it was vandalism. Anyone who looks at the declined unblock request just above here can see that.
Active Banana has not reverted as many times as you have.
Active Banana is not the only editor to have reverted your edits. There is 3rd party support for Active Banana's version, but not for yours.
The block is not a "punishment". It is preventive action to stop disruptive editing.
Nevertheless, I have warned Active Banana about edit warring. JamesBWatson (talk) 10:59, 5 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Don't give me that. He was doing it well before the other editor came in, a warning is not fair when I got blocked and he didn't. Either you unblock me or block him just as well because he was as wrong as I was if you're going to start handing out punishments. Kelzorro (talk) 19:20, 8 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Offering a procedural hand

I noticed you on the Iron Man 2 talk page and when I came to your talk page and saw the block and the circumstances I felt I could help. I have a lot of experience talking and gaining consensus on various articles. I am fair and central and I can keep my cool under fire. I may be able to help you and show you some of the easier ways to prove your point on Wikipedia without getting blocked. If you find yourself in a conflict let me know and I'd like to help. I may not agree with you but I'll give you a direct, lucid reason why and I'll go out of my way to avoid you being blocked. Padillah (talk) 13:57, 15 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The Dark Knight Rises

Hi Kelzorro,

I see you have reverted edits to The Dark Knight Rises with the following comments in your edit summary:

"Wait until it's released before spoiling the plot"

The film has actually been released - Australia and New Zealand got it on the 19th, with most of the rest of the world getting it tomorrow. Furthermore, WP:SPOILERS clearly states that it is unacceptable to remove content from a page because it spoils the plot. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 10:28, 19 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Official release worldwide is tomorrow, so wait until then.Kelzorro (talk) 10:30, 19 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, the official release in Australia and New Zealand was today. I know - I've seen it. And a release in one country is good enough for outlines of the plot to go up. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 11:19, 19 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]