User talk:Kesh/Archive-Jan2007

Intro

Thanks for stopping by. Feel free to leave a comment! --Kesh 00:18, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

Welcome

Hello, Kesh/Archive-Jan2007, and welcome to Wikipedia. Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. If you are stuck, and looking for help, please come to the New contributors' help page, where experienced Wikipedians can answer any queries you have! Or, you can just type {{helpme}} on your user page, and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Here are a few good links for newcomers:

• The Five Pillars of Wikipedia
• How to edit a page
• Editing tutorial
• Picture tutorial
• How to write a great article
• Naming conventions
• Manual of Style

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! By the way, you can sign your name on Talk and vote pages using three tildes, like this: ~~~. Four tildes (~~~~) produces your name and the current date. If you have any questions, see the help pages, add a question to the village pump or ask me on my talk page. Again, welcome!

• grins* Tony Fox (speak) 04:31, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the welcome, Tony! n.n --Kesh 18:10, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

Copyright problems with Image:Alumni Yeenoghu 3rd.jpg

An image that you uploaded, Image:Alumni Yeenoghu 3rd.jpg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Copyright problems because it is a suspected copyright violation. Please look there if you know that the image is legally usable on Wikipedia (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry), and then provide the necessary information there and on its page, if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you.

Muchness 00:51, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

The image was uploaded under my understanding of the Promotional fair-use rules, as this is part of Wizard's online advertising for one of their newer books. However, I see the point that the Wizards ToC does not allow copying off-site. Nor can I link directly to the image, according to the ToC (and I don't believe Wikipedia allows off-site images anyway, does it?). Drat. I suppose this one needs to be deleted.
Should I allow it to be done on its own, or delete the image from the entry personally?
Kesh 17:38, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

Don't bully me

Your capricious comments about what is or is not appropriate for inclusion in discussion pages are misguided. It is solely your subjective personal opinion that the comments are not relevant to the article. Your opinion is heavily informed by your intent to maintain a political bias in the article. If you can't edit collaboratively and respect the contributions of others, maybe you need a new hobby. We won't be pushed around and we aren't so stupid as to beleive your silly claims that discussion about facts of articles are not relevant to articles they discuss. Mahkmed 22:45, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

There is no bullying here. Wikipedia's Talk pages are meant for discussing the article, not broad debates on Wikipedia's policies nor political debates. I'm merely requesting that individuals keep the Talk page on-topic, rather than filling it with arguments and accusations. My intention is to prevent political bias from entering articles, and these comments on the Talk page are not helping. Please refrain from personal attacks, as your own comments are treading that line. -- Kesh 22:50, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

Your comments on the talk pages were far over that line before I responded, demanding that you stop intimidating those who, for the purpose of creating more accurate articles, offer explanations of events relevant to articles contrary to your understanding of those events. Immediatly stop your misrepresentation of my involvment on talk pages. You are attacking me personally by claiming I am too ignorant to appreciate the purpose of discussion pages and incapable of responding to my peer with an argument contrary to yours. My comments are helpful. Your insulting me for helping is a personal attack. Back off NOW!Mahkmed 22:58, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

You seem unable to recognize polite discourse. My comments were merely to point out Wikipedia policy and to keep things on-topic. That is not an insult. If you have concerns, please take them up with an admin.

As a further note, it is also against policy to remove or edit warning templates from your user talk page. I don't want to see you banned, but at this rate you are trampling on policies left and right. Please stop this behavior before you lose your access. I'd hate to see a contributor go over something so trivial. -- Kesh 23:03, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

Protection

Hi Kesh. Just to explain about the protection (or lack of it) on Abu Musab al-Zarqawi, if you check the logs [1] you will see that an admin deleted and restored the page after protection was applied. This has had the effect of making the protection simply fall off (though you won't be able to tell if you are logged-in). See [2]. If protection is still needed you should apply to either the admin who protected the article, or the admin who deleted and restored it, or at WP:RPP. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 02:23, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the explanation. I was wondering what was going on there. Hopefully it's been long enough that protection was not needed, but I wanted to make sure the proper process was followed. Thanks again! -- Kesh 02:24, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

posted the reply

I have posted the reason on Fake death.Yousaf465

As I explained before, the Talk page is not for speculation, only for discussing the article itself.

However, since this is not the article's talk page, I'll say flatly: that picture does nothing to support your argument. It's only an image of his face, which proves his identity. Your speculation that he should be "more injured" doesn't really hold up to reality. If he were directly hit by the bomb, perhaps, but it appears he was killed by the debris of the collapsing building. - Kesh 21:15, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

Removal of image from Furry fandom

I don't get it. That pic is from a San Antonio area furry gathering last week. Why do you get to remove it? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Cramleppot (talk • contribs) 17:27, December 27, 2006

The picture was not relevant to the article. It doesn't really enhance the article to include, and it was rather large to boot. There's already an image showing fursuiters, which handled the subject better. No offense, your picture just didn't add much to the article as it stood. If you really feel it should be in there, bring it up on the article's Talk page, so other people can look at it and weigh in.

Oh, and please remember to sign your comments by typing four ~ signs at the end, or clicking the "Sign your name" link below the Save page button! -- Kesh 22:34, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

Wendy's Whinny

Wow, that horse-meat comment stayed for about a week. How did that get through? And from that other possible vandalism, it seems that they're talking about someone they know personally who works at Wendy's. Pumeleon^T 04:01, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, I figured it got lost in a bunch of other anti-vandal edits. Plus, I agree, I think someone is using the article to comment on someone they know, which is completely inappropriate. -- Kesh 04:11, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

Regarding your fact tags on the Wendy's article: I appreciate your point, but that really seems kind of... excessive, somehow. In any case, this is about the vanilla frosty: [3] but with a URL like that, I'm not sure how stable that is. I didn't find anything about the chicken strips, just that they added the other sandwich. --Mdwyer 02:23, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

It may have been a bit excessive, sorry. However, at this rate, we'll have a list of menu changes that keeps growing and growing. I figure it's either cite each of the changes, or just remove that stuff from the list. Otherwise the article becomes more of a news blog about the menu than an encyclopedic entry.

You're right, that URL probably won't stay put for long. Plus, it's a primary source, which is less preferable than a news article. I just don't think the menu changes are notable enough to be included in the article. -- Kesh 02:32, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

No apologies needed! I see your point and agree with you entirely. --Mdwyer 02:42, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

Thank you

Thank you for looking at the issue with Christian extremist terrorism. Samboy 21:11, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

No problem. I tend to find myself mediating disputes a lot offline, so I don't mind helping out on here from time to time. Hopefully I can help everyone involved improve the page to their satisfaction. Edit warring doesn't help anyone. - Kesh 21:13, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

Cyberbludging

$Insertformulahere$

Hi Kesh,

Thanks for your recent advice and help on the Cyberbludging article. I just have one question you mentioned that I should submit any further changes to the talk page to avoid conflict of interest issues which makes sense. Do you mean my talk page? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Cheunema

Many thanks

Cheunema —Preceding unsigned comment added by Cheunema (talk • contribs) 23:52, January 5, 2007

I meant, the Talk page for the article itself. So, Talk:CyberBludging. That way, anyone who is watching the page will see your suggestions on the Talk page, can review them and include them in the page itself if warranted. -- Kesh 04:54, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

Vandalism

Indef block the username, long soft block the ips. Viridae^Talk 02:52, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for dealing with that! -- Kesh 02:55, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

No probs. Viridae^Talk 02:57, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

Message

I believe the user Steth, TheDoctorIsIn, and CuTop are all the same editor. This is clear to me. I will stay out of this situation. I will let you take it from here if anything could be done. Thanks. --QuackGuru 19:02, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

That's a very serious accusation. If you honestly feel that is the case, I suggest you submit a request to have their IPs checked. -- Kesh 04:40, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

Your reverts to my edits at iphone

You left a warning at userpage claiming I had violated 3RR. I would to remind you that it is you who reverted my edits first. This is obivously a dispute and I have said so on my post there, yet you ignored it. Then you accused it of violating 3RR. May I remind you that I reverted once and have not done any reverts since as this is a dispute. I do not take kindly to such false blame and you can expect I will take this to the whatever wikipedia authority necessary. Good day sir.--Wiki Fanatic | Talk 22:41, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

Note that I reverted your edits once. You performed three reversions in less than 24 hours, hence the warning. Also note I did not report this to WP:ANI as normally would be called for, because I believed you would see the dispute and work with other editors to resolve it, rather than continuing to revert. I see you have not reverted since, which is appreciated.

Feel free to bring this up at WP:RfC, as I will have no qualms explaining my actions to any dispute resolution you bring it up with. (also posted to user's Talk page) -- Kesh 22:50, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

I looked at: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Iphone&action=history. It shows I only reverted once. I have no idea what you are talking about. I only reverted once and added a disputed tag, after you redirected it. See for yourself above. I fully intend to bring this up with WP:RfC, so I'll see you there soon.--Wiki Fanatic | Talk 23:35, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

Your first edit was to revert the Iphone disambiguation page back to a link to iPhone (Linksys). You then performed two more reverts in less than 24 hours to continue reverting to that article. This is 3RR. See the History for that disambiguation page. Relevant changes listed below:

• 21:12, January 10, 2007 Wiki fanatic (Talk | contribs) (avoiding POV, see talk page)
• 21:53, January 10, 2007 Wiki fanatic (Talk | contribs) (correcting POV, see talk page first, before editing)
• 05:44, January 11, 2007 Wiki fanatic (Talk | contribs) (reverting back and adding disputed tag, see talk page)

(also posted to user's Talk page) -- Kesh 23:48, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

Ahh, I see your point. I did not relize my first and second posts counted as reverts. The first edit you listed I did independently of any previous revert by anyone else, or so I thought. Therefore, I did not think of it as a revert; I thought I was the first to redirect to iphone linksys. The second edit on your list was unintented as a revert, as I was attempting to change the other "IPhone" redirect (with the captiol I) and got mixed up. The third and final edit you listed was intented as a revert (hence my count of one revert). Given my apparently incorrect way of counting reverts, I thought you were trying to accuse me of something I did not do. I understand the 3RR rule and certainly would not intentionally violate it. As this is a misunderstanding, I give you my apologies and hope it did not inconvience you greatly.(also on my user's talk page)--Wiki Fanatic | Talk 01:32, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

Please note that I still dispute the redirect of the "iphone" article.

No problem! I figured that was where the confusion came in. And that's why I posted the template, thinking you didn't realize you hit 3RR. I also understand where you're coming from on the iPhone redirect. I have a feeling it will take some time to resolve that one, and may require an RfC on the redirect itself. -- Kesh 01:44, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

Thanks!

That mobile external graphics card looks pretty useful, if underpowered. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Rgrasell (talk • contribs) 20:17, 14 January 2007 (UTC).

Keth

• Reply. Kesh. It seems you do not understand the situation, sir. Another editor mixed up my comments with his/hers. This caused confusion to who wrote what there. I origianlly wrote comments in the discussion, then another editor wrote over my comments. It became very confusing to who wrote what in the discussion. Mixing up comments has nothing to do with the article. You are completely mistaken and off base. Thanks. --QuackGuru 19:07, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

Oh, I understood perfectly. You were referring to his placing his own comments inside your own. While not necessarily the most polite, it's allowed on Wikipedia. I've seen it quite often when someone wants to reply to specific points in another user's (lengthy comments). My comments were about your habit of claiming the article as your own, which continued on the talk page.

Also, you don't have to put 'Reply here. This is a talk page, not a vote. -- Kesh 17:46, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

I beg to differ. According to an admin. it was the wrong thing to do to write inside my comments which causes confusion. You were just an observer to the situation. Just because other people do that does not make it right. Sometimes common sense prevails IMO. BTY, it is not allowed on Wiki. Read this! --QuackGuru 17:58, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

You may disagree, but it's not true. There is no rule, guideline or otherwise regarding this practice. Believe me, I searched for it. As I said earlier, it is considered impolite, but not against the rules. Either way, it's a moot point. -- Kesh 21:30, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

Spiritual Humanism Afd update

I appreciated your vote and comments on Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Spiritual Humanism (second nomination). Meanwhile, as original nominator, I think the situation has sufficiently changed to appeal once more to your interest. Kind Regards. — SomeHuman 21 Jan2007 04:22 (UTC)

Hi Kesh!

I've done my research from Wikipedia and source citing, I have placed my firm arguement in the discussion page in First World. I am still doing extra research as we speak, I guess in a way this is contribution that is worth it. Thank you for being a firm admin. Anyway hope you had a great night out (fun and party-booz I hope!). P.S I have also invited Dycedarg, since he is very mature in making valid and insightful points, I thought it would be a great idea, now its a 5 party talk.

Kind Regards, Seong

--Seong0980, 28 January 2007.

Reporting a problem

Hi there Kesh, today a group of interesting folks deleted South Korea from the 1st World list again, funny thing though was that the member who deleted it was from Mexico, which raises eyebrows because I suspected Cali567 to be of Mexican decent. He should have atleast went to the discussion board and discuss about why South Korea is not 1st world, instead he just deleted (possibly the same IP). Please give your thoughts on the arguements on the 1st world discussion board, I was told my sources were not stated? I have written such a long arguement with all sources and statistics, how are there not cited?

Another thing is that he has been vandalising my talk page. I think his last warning was issued already, which I think now he should either be given an extra warning or blocked.

Kind Regards, Seong0980 29 January 2007.