Welcome!

Hello, KiTA, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few good links for newcomers:

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Where to ask a question, ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Again, welcome! 

TheRingess 08:32, 26 February 2006 (UTC)Reply

Disgaea 2

edit

You obviously haven't played the game, and so really shouldn't be removing content from the article based on ridiculous assumptions, as this is really little more than blatant vandalism. Please don't do so again. Omgwtflolz 13:12, 26 February 2006 (UTC)Reply

Actually, it's in my PS2 right now, and I spent most of last night playing it. KiTA 17:27, 26 February 2006 (UTC)Reply

Why the hell are you claiming that all of that isn't true, then? If you have the game, you can verify them yourself. Why don't you, instead of simply deleting content and claiming that it was made up by someone? Omgwtflolz 19:54, 26 February 2006 (UTC)Reply
Because there was a near riot on about 3 NIS forums I visit because of the text, I was attempting to belay some of that. Since, you know, story spoilers don't belong in a character list anyway. -KiTA 21:07, 26 February 2006 (UTC)Reply

Like? Omgwtflolz 20:55, 27 February 2006 (UTC)Reply

Sig

edit

It's done in Javascript (which I don't know). You would edit User:KiTA/monobook.js and add in the signature-related content that I have in my monobook.js, replacing it with your signature. After saving and pressing CTRL+F5 to refresh the files, you should be able to click the signature button at the top of the edit page and it will paste in all of the code, instead of pasting in ~~~~. — 0918BRIAN • 2006-03-14 22:21

You can also simply go to my preferences and enter a signature in the "Nickname" field. Checking "Raw text" lets you edit it using wiki formatting. VodkaJazz/talk 21:33, 15 March 2006 (UTC)Reply

using references

edit

to link to a reference that has already been created, use < ref name=Batman / > (without the extra spaces) the reference → link at the bottom of the page points to #_ref-Batman_0, where Batman is the reference name, and 0 is the instance of the link (because there can be multiple uses of the same reference. Hope that helps! Jabrwock 14:09, 15 March 2006 (UTC)Reply

Regarding edits to Malal

edit

Thank you for contributing to Wikipedia, KiTA! However, your edit here was reverted by an automated bot that attempts to remove spam from Wikipedia. If you were trying to insert a good link, please accept my creator's apologies, but note that the link you added, matching rule \bmembers\.aol\.com\/.+, is on my list of links to remove and probably shouldn't be included in Wikipedia. Please read Wikipedia's external links guidelines for more information, and consult my list of frequently-reverted sites. For more information about me, see my FAQ page. Thanks! Shadowbot 00:08, 3 May 2007 (UTC)Reply

Regarding edits to Malal

edit

Thank you for contributing to Wikipedia, KiTA! However, your edit here was reverted by an automated bot that attempts to remove spam from Wikipedia. If you were trying to insert a good link, please accept my creator's apologies, but note that the link you added, matching rule \bfreewebs\.com\/.+, is on my list of links to remove and probably shouldn't be included in Wikipedia. Please read Wikipedia's external links guidelines for more information, and consult my list of frequently-reverted sites. For more information about me, see my FAQ page. Thanks! Shadowbot 00:08, 6 May 2007 (UTC)Reply

Please stop adding inappropriate links to Wikipedia. It is considered spamming and will be removed. Thanks. Shadowbot 00:15, 6 May 2007 (UTC)Reply

Please stop adding the links to Malal. Our guidelines for external links mean that neither of those links are acceptable. One is in French, which is inappropriate due to this being the English Wikipedia and the other is a fansite. If you continue you will end up being blocked. Thanks, Localzuk(talk) 00:32, 6 May 2007 (UTC)Reply
Greetings! Specifically, the guidelines state "English language links are strongly preferred in the English-language Wikipedia. It may be appropriate to have a link to a foreign-language site, such as when an official site is unavailable in English, when the link is to the subject's text in its original language or they contain visual aids such as maps, diagrams, or tables, per the guideline on foreign-language sites."
The French site does contain such visual aids, as such I do believe it qualifies as an exception. The "fansite" quotes extensively from the original Games-Workshop source material, and is the only source of such outside of several long out of print (over 20 years OOP, if I understand correctly) books.
The Fansite I will admit would be better served merging the information into the article than merely linking to a website with the information on it. I will look into confirming the "fluff" that is listed on that website and work on editing the Malal article with it, rather than merely linking to the fansite.
I will, however, discontinue linking to either until I can confer with a friend who is an experienced Wikipedia editor who is much more familiar with the policy than I. KiTA 00:53, 6 May 2007 (UTC)Reply

"Edit war"

edit

It's not an "edit war". It's a "Sillygostly makes the same stubborn edits even though everyone says he's in the wrong". You're going to find that he'll try to do it during the discussion when everyone's back is turned, even when something is STILL under discussion. Watch. JAF1970 (talk) 14:31, 25 February 2008 (UTC)Reply

JAF, please step back and look at what you have done over the past week or so. Can you not see that to a 3rd party, you appear to be doing the same thing? KiTA (talk) 14:41, 25 February 2008 (UTC)Reply
Your version is fine and acceptable - the "edit" I made was just a quick backtrack, I didn't mean to wreck your contribution - it's fine within the context of the article. JAF1970 (talk) 14:44, 25 February 2008 (UTC)Reply
Oh, Gawd. Thankfully JAF1970 has seen the light and is discussing (though still a bit aggressively). Sillygostly should do the same. I'm pretty close to reinforcing the 1RR rule here. Thanks for letting me know, though, now I can watch. Cheers, Master of Puppets Call me MoP! 01:58, 26 February 2008 (UTC)Reply

Help at Spore (video game)

edit

I've proposed a vote on the terminology debate at Talk:Spore (video game). JAF1970 wants to close it but I don't think all the major players in the discussion have cast their vote. Would you care to add your vote on the matter? Nanobri (talk) 18:35, 27 February 2008 (UTC)Reply

We want your input at the spore video game mediation, for sure. We've mostly reached a consensus, and I suppose adding more opinions could risk breaking that unity apart. But I really do believe in the spirit of collaboration, and think your opinion can be of help. Right now, the consensus is to display multiple genres in the infobox, along with a link to the section. Which genres and which section, though, is still being disputed. (I think the issues are "do we say strategy or RTS?", and "do we say see below, or see genre, or see gameplay?)
If you look here, you can see what we've got so far. It seems to mostly agreed upon. Thanks for checking in. Randomran (talk) 19:14, 27 March 2008 (UTC)Reply

Inappropriate contribution to talk page (don't worry! just letting you know!)

edit

  Welcome to Wikipedia! I am glad to see you are interested in discussing a topic. However, as a general rule, talk pages such as Spore (video game) are for discussion related to improving the article, not general discussion about the topic. If you have specific questions about certain topics, consider visiting our reference desk and asking them there instead of on article talk pages. The section referred to is "Clothes"


  The Random Acts of Kindness Barnstar
for being nice to The Dark Fiddler on the Spore talk page! Samtheboy (t/c) 16:36, 11 May 2008 (UTC)Reply

Knight In Tarnished Armor?

edit
That would indeed be me. But forgive me, I do not know enough about Wikipedia to get your email address off it. Mine is j2ehyp at google's email service, if you are so inclined. :) KiTA (talk) 12:29, 8 July 2008 (UTC)Reply

AfD nomination of Malal

edit
 

An article that you have been involved in editing, Malal, has been listed for deletion. If you are interested in the deletion discussion, please participate by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Malal. Thank you. Do you want to opt out of receiving this notice? Terraxos (talk) 06:28, 24 July 2008 (UTC)Reply

Citing Sources

edit

Hey there, seen your edits to Neverwinter Nights 2: Storm of Zehir, great work providing those infos and sources. Just a thing if you don't mind: You should try and use sources in a nicer way, maybe even using the {{cite web}}-template (see WP:CS). It's nothing you have to do, just if you didn't know and have enough time, you might want to think about it :-) Thanks again for your edits and regards SoWhy 20:43, 15 August 2008 (UTC)Reply

Welcome to the Dungeons & Dragons task force

edit
  Hi KiTA! You are receiving this message because we've noticed your edits on Dungeons & Dragons video game-related articles. We could use your help at the D&D task force! Don't be shy, head over to the project page and help us enhance and increase the coverage of D&D video game articles on Wikipedia!
Levi van Tine (tc) 11:43, 26 April 2009 (UTC)Reply

Singularity

edit

You start by saying that it’s not about raw power or raw speed, quote: “I believe if you think all the technological singularity theory is raw computer power magically solving all problems, then you haven't read enough about the theory” unquote. But you seem to be missing the point. The point is that power and speed are not sufficient to create a singularity. Do you see? We have no evidence to support the belief that a singularity will occur purely by increasing power and speed. And lets just clear something up. The singularity is the moment when a machine becomes self-aware and intelligent, right? It’s not about having tools that are more efficient than we are, because we already have that. Computers do tons of things faster than we can. But then you go on to say that power and speed will create a singularity. That is a contradiction. But why do you believe that anyway? What argument or evidence do you have to say that power and speed are sufficient to trigger a singularity? If you have a logical argument that doesn’t rely on power and speed, then let’s see it. But one can’t say it’s about power and speed, because intelligence does not logically or physically follow from those things. Do you see? Its actually a primitive argument. You are basically saying that as computers get faster they will eventually become self-aware because of some singularity. But what evidence is there to support such a belief? And don't confuse computing power with intelligence. Computers are already better than we are at many tasks, but we don't say they are intelligent. The point is that technology has already beaten us at lots of things. But that technology has not become self-aware. It’s important not to get confused by these two separate issues. So the question remains: why do you believe that power and speed are sufficient to trigger a singularity? Best regards. WillMall (talk) 16:41, 30 March 2010 (UTC)Reply

You are still missing a key point. Singularity Theory states that inventions and new technology are helped along by the creation of new technology. That new technologies will lead to new technologies until the process starts going faster than what we can predict or understand. The current obvious path to this is augmented intelligence -- either human augmented, artificial intelligence that's more intelligent than us, or something similar. Once a sentient, sapient intelligence can think faster and better than a human... everything goes out the window -- we couldn't begin to figure things out. That is why power and speed are so important, but other things, such as mind-computer interfaces (we're already well on the way to those), memory augmentation, etc will also get us there just as fast. That is why I, alongside a lot of other futurists, believe that the singularity is inevitable, barring external forces. KiTA (talk) 07:34, 1 April 2010 (UTC)Reply

IF technology becomes conscious, then you are correct. But it’s a big and completely unsubstantiated IF. You say: " Once a sentient, sapient intelligence can think faster and better than a human..." but you haven’t given any reasons why you believe that technology will become sentient. Some people believe the world will end in 2012; they even believe that they have good reasons to believe that. But that does Not mean it will happen. What evidence do you have to assume that technology will become sentient? You keep talking about exponential technological progress. But technological progress, exponential or otherwise, does not entail self-awareness. Sure, you can choose to believe that technology will one day become conscious; but, unless you can provide some evidence, it is just an unfounded belief. WillMall ~(Pv~P) (talk) 21:39, 15 April 2010 (UTC)Reply

October 2014

edit

Please read this notification carefully:
A community decision has authorised the use of general sanctions for pages related to the Gamergate controversy.
The details of these sanctions are described here.

General sanctions is a system of conduct regulation designed to minimise disruption in controversial topic areas. This means uninvolved administrators can impose sanctions for edits relating to these topics that do not adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, our standards of behaviour, or relevant policies. Administrators may impose sanctions such as editing restrictions, bans, or blocks. An editor can only be sanctioned after he or she has been made aware that general sanctions are in effect. This notification is meant to inform you that sanctions are authorised in these topic areas, which you have been editing. It is only effective if it is logged here. Before continuing to edit pages in these topic areas, please familiarise yourself with the general sanctions system. Don't hesitate to contact me or another editor if you have any questions.

This message is informational only and does not imply misconduct regarding your contributions to date.

Acroterion (talk) 11:41, 28 October 2014 (UTC)Reply

Gamergate

edit

Please read this notification carefully:
A community discussion has authorised the use of general sanctions for pages related to the Gamergate controversy.
The details of these sanctions are described here.

General sanctions is a system of conduct regulation designed to minimise disruption in controversial topic areas. This means uninvolved administrators can impose sanctions for edits relating to these topics that do not adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, our standards of behaviour, or relevant policies. Administrators may impose sanctions such as editing restrictions, bans, or blocks. An editor can only be sanctioned after he or she has been made aware that general sanctions are in effect. This notification is meant to inform you that sanctions are authorised in these topic areas, which you have been editing. It is only effective if it is logged here. Before continuing to edit pages in these topic areas, please familiarise yourself with the general sanctions system. Don't hesitate to contact me or another editor if you have any questions.

This message is informational only and does not imply misconduct regarding your contributions to date.

Regards, The Land (talk) 12:33, 28 January 2015 (UTC)Reply

A suggestion

edit

Hi! So I applaud you for trying to wade into the waters, but you do need to be aware that there are going to be a lot of people looking to use the sanctions very quickly once ArbCom closes, and a lot of that is going to be based on tone and content. Please be careful about how you're wording specific allegations, and be careful about how you're directing comments toward those you disagree with. I can tell you that administrators are not going to be shy about pulling the trigger very quickly on what they perceive as disruptive discussion, especially from people they perceive as single purpose accounts (which they might list you as given your lack of editing until recently). This is not a "warning" or anything like that from me, but just a note of caution as I've seen how these things went down. Good luck. Thargor Orlando (talk) 15:21, 28 January 2015 (UTC)Reply

Roger that. I think it's still not looking like the article can be properly fixed for NPOV right now -- the climate still appears somewhat hostile to dissenting points of view -- and I've said my piece for the time being so I'll probably bow out again. And yes, someone tried the ad hominem "you're just a SPA" thing back when the bad apples were still around and I first returned to editing, that and the impression I got that someone was attempting to cause an edit war to get me punished caused me to give up last time. Hopefully someday that article will be less of an embarrassment to the English language wiki. KiTA (talk) 19:00, 28 January 2015 (UTC)Reply

ArbCom elections are now open!

edit

Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 12:58, 23 November 2015 (UTC)Reply

ArbCom Elections 2016: Voting now open!

edit

Hello, KiTA. Voting in the 2016 Arbitration Committee elections is open from Monday, 00:00, 21 November through Sunday, 23:59, 4 December to all unblocked users who have registered an account before Wednesday, 00:00, 28 October 2016 and have made at least 150 mainspace edits before Sunday, 00:00, 1 November 2016.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2016 election, please review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. Mdann52 (talk) 22:08, 21 November 2016 (UTC)Reply

ArbCom 2017 election voter message

edit

Hello, KiTA. Voting in the 2017 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 10 December. All users who registered an account before Saturday, 28 October 2017, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Wednesday, 1 November 2017 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2017 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 3 December 2017 (UTC)Reply

ArbCom 2018 election voter message

edit

Hello, KiTA. Voting in the 2018 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 3 December. All users who registered an account before Sunday, 28 October 2018, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Thursday, 1 November 2018 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2018 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 19 November 2018 (UTC)Reply

ArbCom 2019 election voter message

edit
 Hello! Voting in the 2019 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 on Monday, 2 December 2019. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2019 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:04, 19 November 2019 (UTC)Reply