User talk:Kalamrir

Welcome!

Hello, Kalamrir, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your messages on discussion pages using four tildes ~~~~; this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask your question and then place {{helpme}} before the question on your talk page. Again, welcome! JACOPLANE • 2007-10-26 20:00

Brotherhood of Nod

Isn't it about 50 years, not 100? The beginning of the first war starts at about 1999, and the third in the 2040s. That seems like a 50 year span to me... Erythromycin (talk) 19:20, 16 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Only if you take the Tiberium story arc itself into consideration. The first Red Alert game, however, is confirmed to be the prequel of the original Command & Conquer game and by proxy the prologue of the entire Tiberium story arc. With Red Alert taking place in the 1950s, and with Tiberium Wars in 2047, this makes Kane's appearances span nearly a full century.

If you're looking for source material, the best place to start is to read through the official Red Alert FAQ by Westwood Studios[1], particularly these two chapters: "1.1 What is Red Alert?" and "1.6 Where are GDI and Nod?". Kalamrir (talk) 20:57, 16 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Zeality comments

Yeah, I've been mostly absent from active editing, but I do need to replace the Las Vegas Weekly links at FK with Wayback archived equivalents and fix the Chrono articles I helped author. If there's one unique thing I've contributed to C&C, it's the fictional universe as described by the Petroglyph employees. It's no longer canon since Electronic Arts has gone a different route, though. Still, it was a controversial addition at the time and has probably been removed by now. I wonder if there's a place for it on one of the C&C articles. Zeality (talk) 23:30, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

These issues have been addressed by me. Read up on the C&C task force discussion page sometime for the precise details of it all. Kalamrir (talk) 23:38, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

RE:C&C template

I noticed that it was up for merger which is why I didn't replace the link, however it did just say other and together they do form the "Generals series" of games and not just others which aren't related to each other in anyway. --Mollsmolyneux (talk) 21:26, 30 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. The problem however is that a single title and its expansion pack do not really qualify as a "series". We'll have to debate this issue in length after the merger of the two articles is completed, and see what we can come up with for the template. Kalamrir (talk) 22:32, 30 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Three revert rule

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Command & Conquer: Tiberian series. Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions in a content dispute within a 24 hour period. Additionally, users who perform a large number of reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring, even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing. Please do not repeatedly revert edits, but use the talk page to work towards wording and content that gains a consensus among editors. If necessary, pursue dispute resolution. You just broke this rule, but since you have not been warned, I am not going to report it. --MrStalker ^(talk) 16:30, 1 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Tip

Hello Kalamrir, I just want to give you two links: WP:VAND#NOT and WP:RM. --MrStalker ^(talk) 17:06, 1 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hello MrStalker, and thank you for the links you provided. I have taken note of the information in WP:VAND#NOT, and was made to conclude that the nature of your earlier edits - which I had marked as vandalism - do not appear to be among the list of edit types which are often wrongfully mistaken as cases of vandalism. This appears to suggest that my revert of your earliest edits on the premise of vandalism was in fact correct, and was also supported by Wikipedia guidelines, since they seemed to constitute "repetitively and intentionally unconstructive edits", as defined by WP:VAN. Thank you.

Admittedly, I am not without fault in this dispute either. Reading over WP:VAN, I appear to have repeatedly acted against a Wikipedia guideline described in "How not to respond to vandalism". For that, I do apologize. Kalamrir (talk) 11:00, 3 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You might also want to read this: WP:AGF. --MrStalker ^(talk) 11:42, 3 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

On what do you base the assumption I originally did not assume good faith in your edits? I believe we have both been active as members of the C&C task force for quite a while prior to this dispute, without any incident worthy of note. What do you believe it was that altered this? Kalamrir (talk) 12:00, 3 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I happend to know that Tiberian Dawn is not an official title, and that Tiberium is not part of Tiberian series, and thus I'll do anything in my power to present this correctly on Wikipedia. I do this in good faith. Honestly, I think you are frustrated because you believe otherwise but doesn't gain any support from other editors. Thus, you become easily acceptable to the assumtion that my edits are of bad faith, which they are not. --MrStalker ^(talk) 12:22, 3 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I think this comment is quite emblematic of the origins of this dispute. Numerous forms of source material are readily available for you to consult that prove your assessment false, and secondly, these sources have been added by other editors than myself in the past. Thus, your assertion that I "do not gain support from other editors" is a fallacy. It should also be noted that thus far, only a single editor has made a single edit in your favor, which was a highly misinformed one as well. Since you have consistently and systematically ignored all the source material we have available in order to to press a case of blatant misinformation, I am left with no other option than to conclude that you operate on bad faith, and are intentionally attempting to disrupt the quality of our articles. I will act accordingly. Kalamrir (talk) 12:28, 3 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

See response on my talk page. --MrStalker ^(talk) 12:51, 3 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Blocked

You have been blocked for a period of 24 hours for violating the three reverts rule on Command & Conquer: Tiberian series. You may resume editing after the block expires but continuing this edit war will result in longer blocks without further warning. Kafziel ^{Take a number} 16:57, 3 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hello there. With regards to the C&C-related dispute; I hope it is now settled, as I'd much rather invest my time here on Wikipedia into improving the quality of this website's articles. This is something I've been doing for these past two to three months with quite a bit of commitment and investment of time, as my history pages will demonstrate in no uncertain terms.

I've noted most editors appear to receive barn stars for this. I've apparently been rewarded with a baseless edit war from another user and a one-sided temporary block from Wikipedia by an administrator. I'm aware that a single administrator is hardly representative of the Wikipedia website and its mission in general, and as such I will be able to shrug this off without any real loss of motivation in the long run. But even so, the experience has been so distasteful Wikipedia can quite frankly blow me for an undetermined period of time, with this particular administrator as the first standing in line.

With kind regards,

the primary and most active editor of Wikipedia's Command & Conquer-related articles. Kalamrir (talk) 08:20, 5 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I assure you, my blocking you is very much representative of Wikipedia and our policies; I didn't do it for fun. The (sometimes unfortunate) truth is that no matter how much expertise you have, no matter how much time you invest here, you never earn the right to edit war. I've dealt with similar things over the years (the article on Star Wars: Battlefront comes to mind) and sometimes all you can do is step back and let the page go to the dogs for a while. You'll find that, in the long run, everything will sort itself out with or without you, so there's no need to panic. Kafziel ^{Complaint Department} 16:04, 5 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]