User talk:Kasreyn

I always cheer up immensely if an attack is particularly wounding because I think, well, if they attack one personally, it means they have not a single political argument left. -Margaret Thatcher.

NOTE: Please add new sections and commentary at the bottom of this page. Also, please sign your comments with four tildes ( ~ ) so I can keep track of who I'm talking to. Thanks!

I once cried because I had no shoes; then I met a man with no feet.

http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20100511172222AAx8aYp

Best Answer - Chosen by Voters Sa'di (pen name of Muslih-ud-Din, Persian poet ca. 1184-1291)

I never complained of the vicissitudes of fortune, nor suffered my face to be overcast at the revolution of the heavens, except once, when my feet were bare, and I had not the means of obtaining shoes. I came to the chief of Kufah in a state of much dejection, and saw there a man who had no feet. I returned thanks to God and acknowledged his mercies, and endured my want of shoes with patience. - The Gulistan, or Rose Garden

The version you quote, a modern condensation, first appears in various publications in the early 1950s http://books.google.com/books?lr=&as_brr… Source(s): Yale Book of Quotations http://books.google.com/books?id=w5-GR-q… ""Once, when my feet were bare, and I had not the means of obtaining shoes I came to the chief of ... returned thanks to God and acknowledged his mercies, and endured my want of shoes with patience " Sadi, The Gulistan"

The Gulistan by Sa'di Chapter III, Story 19 http://www.intratext.com/X/ENG0160.HTM Regards, 4B

Kapiowa (talk) 03:03, 2 April 2011 (UTC)kapiowa@q.com

Ann Coulter poll
Hi, you have participated in Ann Coulter discussions in the past, please see here to cast your thoughts about whether Ann Coulter should be described as a "civil rights advocate" in the intro. --kizzle 07:24, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

Accusation
While I would respect (but disagree with) your assertion that my "gay boy comment" removal is not NPOV, please refrain from accusing me of deliberately inserting non-NPOV statements into articles on the article talk page unless you have substantial evidence that I am doing so deliberately. Argue facts, not personalities, and an accusation that serious belongs on my talk page. Even there, don't accuse me of such things unless you're willing to seek administrative action either, lest you be perceived as being in bad faith. If you make such an accusation without doing so in an environment where I have an ample opportunity to defend myself against such an accusation, it would seem like an underhanded attempt to discredit, rather than an attempt to enforce policy, don't you think? Psycho Master (Karwynn) 16:19, 28 June 2006 (UTC)
 * I'm not certain what you're referring to. I suspect you may have misread one of my comments, because such was not my intention.  Mind quoting what I said that you feel is an accusation?  Kasreyn 23:38, 28 June 2006 (UTC)


 * Sorry for the delay... I was talking about this "I think you're grasping at straws to support your personal opinion that Coulter didn't say that. 


 * I wasn't really happy with that I guess. It frustrated me that you seem to be arguing my motivations rather than my claims about the source (which in all fairness I should tell you is a dispute I'm shortly renewing).  I kind of felt like my concerns were being dismissed as trivial, and that either the issue of the quotes existence was being treated as a proposition of opinion rather than fact, or I just wasn't being taken seriously.  While that comment still seems a little like an accusation of deliberate POV-ness, it's possible/likely thatmy judgement was obscured by frustration.  So if you say it wasn't an accusation, I'll take your word for it, and I'll try to be less defensive in the future.  Happy editing, Psycho Master (Karwynn) 15:13, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

Bush
Hi Kasreyn - I'd appreciate if you make some recommendations in the peer review of George W. Bush. I'm working to make it an FA, so I'd appreciate your criticism directed to help that goal. Rama&#39;s Arrow 00:05, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

Congressman Coulter
Her aborted congressional campaign is still in there. Somebody renamed it as "Flirting with public service." Sheesh! Lou Sander 16:07, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

67.160.229.147 and WP:3RR
I agree with your assessment. I'm not sure if the anonymous user has technically violated 3RR (he seems to purposefully miss it by just minutes) but I have reported him here. Comments by other editors might influence the reviewing admin to take action.--WilliamThweatt 23:57, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

Articles you might like to edit, from SuggestBot
SuggestBot predicts that you will enjoy editing some of these articles. Have fun!

SuggestBot picks articles in a number of ways based on other articles you've edited, including straight text similarity, following wikilinks, and matching your editing patterns against those of other Wikipedians. It tries to recommend only articles that other Wikipedians have marked as needing work. Your contributions make Wikipedia better -- thanks for helping.

If you have feedback on how to make SuggestBot better, please tell me on SuggestBot's talk page. Thanks from ForteTuba, SuggestBot's caretaker.

P.S. You received these suggestions because your name was listed on the SuggestBot request page. If this was in error, sorry about the confusion. -- SuggestBot 03:51, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

Statement on elimination of anon voting?
Hi Jimbo, I have a question for you. On Talk:George Washington, someone recently suggested the article should be permanently protected from unregistered users due to persistent vandalism. Terence Ong mentioned that people have suggested protecting the entire Wiki from anonymous editing, but that you had "said no" to previous attempts.

The only reason I raise the issue is because Kaiwen1 has a poll going on whether to ban anon editing, the results of which he's planning to forward to the Board of Trustees. I'm still pretty new here, so I don't know exactly how much authority you, personally, wield over issues like this. Is Kaiwen1's vote a waste of time? I'm curious as to what you have said in the past that Terence Ong remembers so clearly. I asked Terence, but he never replied.

(Full disclosure: I'm against blocking anon editing, and voted so on Kaiwen1's page.)

Kasreyn 23:49, 24 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Kasreyn, if the poll is on his userpage rather than listed as a formal proposal, it would not affect policy. The issue of concern with anon editing is often related to 'open proxies' which are shared by many users and attempts to block them also block legitimate editors, some of whom are registered. See Blocking policy proposal for some info on an alternative. Antonrojo 12:39, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

Answer to your question in Mongol (Talk)
I have a question for you. How can anything predating modern recordkeeping and scientific method be "verified", ever? Doesn't that require some sort of lowering of standards due to the lack of trustworthy documentation? -Kasreyn

Usually paylists of soldiers (often individually listed) are the most accurate way of determining real troop strength. It is therefore commonly used in science to verify numbers and is even conserved for several Medieval armies. Historians usually exagerated numbers. There is proof by comparing differnt sources on the same event and the mentioned paylists. Such lists also exist for other items like food supply or horse`s values made prior to combat. Knights often lost their horses in battle and received compensation based upon their estimated value.

Wandalstouring 00:30, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

Paris Hilton talk page.
Why are you encouraging a known vandal? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:195.93.21.136 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:195.93.21.100

Celebrity-Benji 15:16, 5 July 2006 (UTC)
 * I wasn't aware the user had a history; all that attracted my attention was that you seemed to be refusing to discuss the issues he raised. You were also both being pretty incivil towards each other.  Kasreyn 23:45, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

Honeypots
Honeypot is also used to denote any kind of scheme where you use something attractive in order to subversively lead someone to your desired goal. Scammers using porn to entice people to install software and thus bypass the normal security measures used when browsing the web is thereby a honeypot. But I agree with your current wording and won't got revert-battling with ya. :) --J-Star 08:18, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

Requests for comment/F.O.E.
I noticed you were in some recent edits with User:F.O.E. and decided to notify you on his newly opened RFC. Thank you! — The King of Kings  00:39 July 08 '06


 * Thanks for pointing out the mistake I made with the Image detail. I have striken that part of my comment. ;-) — The King of Kings  06:26 July 08 '06

Just so you know, F.O.E. did post something on the RfC's talk page, so he knows about it. SB Johnny 15:59, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

Savage's comment
Not that this is necessarily definitive, but I wanted to say that I strongly disagree with the view Savage is expressing in that sentence, and yet I don't feel like it needs stronger distancing than "asserted." I'm aware of the problem of half-endorsing an opinion while citing it, but I don't think that's happening here. I won't revert, but I think it was better my way. Nareek 03:16, 11 July 2006 (UTC)


 * I agree with Nareek on this one (from the second comma on, anyway). I have edited the section, removing "what he sees as", adding quotes around the entire assertion and requesting a source. I think that is best as everything within the quotes will be seen as being entirely his assertion and a source should be provided anyway, otherwise it might appear to be Original Research.--WilliamThweatt 04:26, 11 July 2006 (UTC)
 * That is an even better solution than mine, William. I will be content with your version.  Kasreyn 04:29, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

Category:Anti-Semitic people
Hello, information pertaining to individual articles should be discussed at the articles talk page, the +cat talk page would not be the appropriate place for that. Please stop putting the information back at the talk page. Porky Pig 17:22, 12 July 2006 (UTC)
 * I think this above comment can rather safely be fully disregarded. Thanks for you comments on the WP:ANI report Kasreyn. (→ Netscott ) 21:43, 12 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Well, until Porky Pig is officially declared a sockpuppet, I'll continue to treat him as a unique editor. I still think he's out of line removing an ongoing discussion without consensus, though.  Kasreyn 21:44, 12 July 2006 (UTC)
 * With no disrespect meant towards yourself I'd say it's safe to rely upon Occam's razor in this case Kasreyn. If it walk, quacks, and smells like a duck, calling it a mallard doesn't change the fact that we're talking about a duck. :-) (→ Netscott ) 21:47, 12 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Oh, I am aware... but I also remember SIB's facility with WP policy.  If Porky Pig is not SIB, then he deserves my assumption of good faith.  If he is SIB, he does not deserve my assumption of good faith (as I pointed out, no need to assume good faith when you have knowledge of bad faith), but I do have to act that way or else I make myself vulnerable to a counter-attack (an SIB specialty, if I remember correctly).  Kasreyn 21:52, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

Please do not misuse edit summaries
I didn´t even make the Jesus edit and second of all, do not lecture me about the conventions of the English language ESPECIALLY not in edit summaries which are reserved for just that. Stanley011.

Thanks
Thanks for the help on the List of religions page. -- Jeff3000 01:24, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

If you want to see why the 75% threshold is used
See Wikipedia talk:Requests for adminship. It's a real free-for-all. Despite Wikipedia not being based on voting, it appears that this little corner is -- yet people are very uncomfortable with those that what to describe it as such. --ScienceApologist 02:02, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

3RR and List of religions - involved editors, please read
I am currently involved in an edit war of sorts on List of religions. Anon user User talk:69.225.13.17 is involved in pushing a particular non-notable link and "religion" on the article against the consensus of the other editors of the article. The anon has been warned of WP's policies on consensus, notability, spam, and 3RR, and has violated every one of them. I believe this is an attempt to WP:OWN an article.

In specific, the anon's edits constitute a violation of WP:3RR. I note that this policy includes a specific exemption for reverting cases of "clear vandalism". I believe this constitutes clear vandalism, and so I have chosen to disregard WP:3RR for the purposes of reverting this vandal. I do not do this out of any sort of disregard or contempt for WP:3RR, a policy I strongly adhere to.

I will immediately desist reverting the vandal if any editor other than the vandal asks me to. Kasreyn 20:34, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

User:SirIsaacBrock
At this point there is no need to request arbitration. Consensus for an indefinite block was reached. Since when that decision was made there has been no dissention regarding it. (→ Netscott ) 17:18, 16 July 2006 (UTC)
 * All of his socks have been blocked as well save User:Battlefield. He is a recognized sockpuppetier and if an username is editing in his manner that account will be liable for indefinite blocking as well. I'm not sure why User:Battlefield has so far escaped blocking but I suspect if you notify User:JzG the blocking admin he'll liable block that one as well. (→ Netscott ) 17:23, 16 July 2006 (UTC)
 * OK, cool. Let me know if Battlefield confirms your suspicion.  Take care, Kasreyn 17:26, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

There is no "s" in "organize"
Depends on where you live, cheeka. Not saying that there was anything wrong with this particular edit, but please do be aware of Manual_of_Style. - brenneman  {L} 04:05, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the head's up
on the sock puppetry at Gay ICP. Hope I haven't caught the attention of the deranged, they're SO difficult to get rid of, even when you try to back quietly away LOL! (BTW, nice greeting on your user page. Long live the elves!) Bookgrrl 12:24, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

Impersonation
He appears to have done it multiple times. How do we go about getting him blocked? Some guy 21:29, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

The Louisville Vandal
"I am but a man and not a stone"

You can continue to pretend - and hide - in your elitest fort of protection -- but truth is of the essence. I added to Wikipedia relentlessly for months and months -- and received not only no praise, no "Good job", no (physical or symbolic) barnstar / but only complaints about such frivelous things as spelling and grammar errors. When the truth was compromised -- I -- fought back and received (attempted -- but failed) banishment. It is pretty clear that no one here gives a shit about my contributions to this "experiment".

Now I am back to gain what was rightfully mine --but never given.

Respect. Acknowledgement. Recognition.

No one can ignore me now -- for I am giving light to truths which the politically correct treasonists want to cover up.

Until my box of stole treasure (of things never given) is full.

- The Louisville Vandal —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 4.225.119.146 (talk • contribs).

SPROTECT
Thanks for clarifying. I've edited the George W Bush page once or twice (as anonymous) and hadn't even noticed, so I thought there would be a comment in the Talk section of Holocaust or Nigger saying "Jimbo says don't unprotect" if anything.

I've always just thought anonymi get a kick out of wikipedians going totally apeshit on vandalism, and that's what gives them the drive to keep going at it.

—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Liu Bei (talk • contribs).

Gail McKenna
The article was a a brilliant piece of work. I've seen the articles in question: Gail never did anything to challenge the story that she had snorted cocaine in a London Club, or posed totally nude for adult magazines, or had many trivial relationships, because these are facts beyond doubt with lots of supporting evidence.

Hi
Just feeling like saying hi to a D'ni fan who greets with 'elen sila...'. Nice to meet you :) Pictureuploader 09:27, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

Paris Hilton Media Spotlight: "News"
I removed the text from the Media Spotlight section due to the fact that it's making the page look like a news site. When I first started editing Wikipedia, I had my edits reverted many times because they were, quite simply, news, and not encyclopedic. I had to learn to differentiate, as others do.

I'm following:


 * News reports. Wikipedia should not offer first-hand news reports on breaking stories (however, our sister project Wikinews does exactly that). Wikipedia does have many encyclopedia articles on topics of historical significance that are currently in the news, and can be significantly more up-to-date than most reference sources since we can incorporate new developments and facts as they are made known. See current events for examples..

I don't feel the way in which the text was presented was entirely notable, it's being presented just as news, you wouldn't see it presented like that in an Encyclopedia. I'm very tempted to remove it again, unless you can point to me how it is appropriate.

Thanks.

Celebrity-Benji 04:52, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

Moving
Good luck, I hope all goes smoothly for you! KillerChihuahua?!? 01:33, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

Image:Tange-bikini_bottom.jpg
The requested link is: http://www.flickr.com/photos/clona/53753167/

Regards! --ALE! 21:37, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

User:YaR GnitS 73
Yeah, User:YaR GnitS is back, and slandering you with fake quotes from other users on Talk:Insane Clown Posse. Big surprise, I know. He's getting spotted pretty quickly though.--Rosicrucian 03:34, 29 July 2006 (UTC)
 * He's edit warring over the article, so I've reported him at Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents --Rosicrucian 03:44, 29 July 2006 (UTC)
 * They found another one - User:Kaseryn - he tried to recreate the article that always gets speedied, and while he was doing it he had a redirect set to your userpage to try to get you blocked for it. Bugger's getting creative, but but nearly creative enough.--Rosicrucian 20:39, 6 August 2006 (UTC)
 * After his latest bout with vandalizing disambiguation pages, I finally sat down and edited his sock page with the full list of his vandalism history.--Rosicrucian 14:02, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

Kokota
I put the suspected template on him. So far it seems to be his only vandal edit, so I've only issued him a warning.--Rosicrucian 14:02, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

No problem!
Actually, it was the Michael Savage article. 216.141.206.202 (the anon vandal) was accusing you of being a right-wing lunatic for trying to keep up the appearance of neutrality there. Funny stuff, huh? Hope everything's going good for you, I know from experience that moving can be a real pain in the [bunch of expletives deleted]. By the way, that article will probably need a good going over if you're up to it when you get back. I tried to keep up with it for a couple days but I've just been too busy in real life (final vacation of summer, kids going back to school, work, etc) to maintain proper vigilance.--WilliamThweatt 03:20, 3 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Welcome Back!

Known opiate addicts
Hi. I saw that you had posted about changing the name of this article and would like to entreat you to go one further. I think that the article is egregiously mis-titled as it is. Since many people on the list are long dead, we are in the uncomfortable position of foisting a modern medical label onto those who lived and died when this terminology was non-existent. Figuring out whether so-and-so meets the current definition of "addict" is, literally, a fool's errand. Furthermore, it seems that our standard of proof for who is an "addict" amounts to: did they die from, or ever use, any opiates. "Addict" is a medical term and we should not use it colloquially in an article title. (This problem is exacerbated by the fact that at least two celebrities listed are, undeniably, not opiate addicts.) I believe the title should be changed to "Celebrities known to have used opiates", or something of that ilk. Sorry to write so much, what do you think? Levi P. 04:05, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

Please help.
I'd love to do them one at a time, could you please enlist editors help?TipPt 18:39, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

Here's two (only) small specific changes: 



That's all for today, save reinstating the pov on the circ topic.

And frustrating results trying to communicate with Jakew. He does great damage to this topic.TipPt 23:19, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

PGUK
I have read your recent posts, and would caution you to make sure you act in an impeccable and respectful manner to all, if you wish to pursue the question. It is easy to get frustrated, when you feel that you are not being heard. Perhaps save your draft for ten minutes, then go back and have another look, to make sure you have not said anything in heat, or which might get misinterpreted. Tyrenius 16:31, 31 August 2006 (UTC)


 * I think you presented your case very well, and there's nothing disasterous on the uncivil front, but I could sense the frustration and where it could easily lead to; and there's no need for that. Prevention is better than cure. Don't get too caught up in what's in front of you right now: things will move on, and, as you say, you're not the only one who feels things may not be entirely as they should. Slow and steady does it. Feel free to email me if you want to get things off your chest &mdash; better in private than logged for ever in that elephantine memory behind the history tab! :) Tyrenius 21:40, 31 August 2006 (UTC)


 * LOL. OK - keep your balance with the WP people! Tyrenius 22:43, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

Hi, in this edit you said important talk sections on this subject have been (I hope accidentally) deleted, may I ask which pages? HighInBC 21:55, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

Email
I'd like to send an email to you but your Wiki-email isn't enabled. JoshuaZ 22:44, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

Maybe this is also my problem. I'm a novice and don't know anything about the system. But I appreciated your comments on my comments on the prostitution entry. Haven't done anything about that cos I've been busy all week with two related entries ... one to drop into the Sustainability entry (see my comment in Discussion there) and a related proposed main page entry on PUblic Management. Its all in Word at the moment. But I want to get it out for comment from colleagues today so that I can work on it again next week end (9th Sept +) and finalise it before I go away for 3 weeks on 14th Sept. So can I send it as an attachment to what I now understand to be your (currently not enabled) wiki e-mail address ... and do I need such an address of my own to do so ... or can I send it from my regular e-mail address? Quester67 10:01, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

Guy/Gal
The corrections have been made Max The Dog 15:20, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

Reply
Regarding the title, I still like it. I'm sure he won't care. Aaрон Кинни (t) 20:20, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

YG attack
''He's at it again, revert warring with me on Juggalo. Could you help out? I've been marking his IP socks as well. Kasreyn 21:11, 3 September 2006 (UTC)'' -- copied from User talk:Rosicrucian.
 * I'm not sure if we can flag those as they're AOL proxy IPs. I'm reporting it to WP:AN/I.--Rosicrucian 21:18, 3 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Hmm... My understanding may be wrong, but I think that since the Blocking Policy Proposal went through and was implemented, it should be possible to block any IP range or address while still allowing account creation from that IP range or address.  (Personally, I think all of AOL ought to be blocked from IP editing (restricted to logged-in editing only), but so I don't seem to be in the majority.)  Kasreyn 21:23, 3 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Moot point now. They obliged us with a semiprotect.--Rosicrucian 21:31, 3 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Indeed. Wonder how long before the sprotect brings more of his socks out of hiding?  Kasreyn 05:33, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Beats me. All it seems to have accomplished for now is him vandalizing ICP as usual, then branching out into Joseph Utsler, Joseph Bruce, and The Dark Carnival before inserting nonsense into Articles for deletion/Juggalo. All safely reverted now.--Rosicrucian 06:16, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

Talk:George_Bush
Genuinely sorry about that; I mixed up your nick with Kalsermar's, who had posted in between two of your posts. So, I didn't mean to say anything about your biases, etc. I'm going to strike out your name and put his, and I'm happy to leave it like that, but, if you'd like, I'm amenable also to just editing my comment and removing your alltogether.&mdash;Nat Krause(Talk!) 02:38, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

Nichelle Nichols
Hi, I saw your message on my talk. Sure it's possible, the picture is licensed under CC-By which means you can edit the picture anyway you want, provided you give credit to the original photographer. See also Creative Commons License. I am not that good with photoshop, so can't do it myself. Garion96 (talk) 00:03, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

Thanks
Your earlier comment about the abuse I was recieving was very much appreciated. Thankyou :) --Crimsone 00:23, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

Belated barnstar thanks
Many thanks for your barnstar apropos of my note on Theresa's talk page, for the tardiness of which thanks I apologize; I must say that I'm rather distressed to hear of the damage to your internal organs, though, but I would suggest that there are many ways by which one may procure organs at a relatively low cost. As someone who frequents comedy clubs, I have found it quite useful to stockpile organs, such that no harm should befall me should I lose one or two laughing. You will encounter resistance when you ask a doctor to insert a third or fourth kidney or second liver, but there are some esteemed medical professionals (Dr. Nick Riviera, for one) who will gladly oblige. Best of luck... Joe 04:16, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

P&T BS
I haven't seen that episode for a while, but IIRC they really took circumcision out to the woodshed. Most of that show was a good one, except their one on Second Hand Smoke where they cited a guy from some neoconservative think tank who was paid by the tobacco lobby - they didn't know he was a corrupt source at the time. Lordkazan 14:47, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

Barnstar

 * I... I don't know what to say...  Truly, this is the proudest day of my life.  ^_^  Kasreyn 00:59, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

Rtc
Doesn't pay much attention to my page as far as I can tell. You may want to put your message on his page (and/or over at his page on .de) JoshuaZ 04:51, 15 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Gotcha. Kasreyn 04:53, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

Matrix talk page comments
....It approaches is original research.

--Antelope In Search Of Truth 18:32, 21 July 2006 (UTC)


 * Not approaches, it outright is original research, and should not be included. Not even the idea that the self-mutilation is due to his loathing for his own human form - that's original synthesis, another kind of original research.  No dice.  Let's just report what he did and the readers can draw their own conclusions, eh?  Kasreyn 05:43, 15 September 2006 (UTC)


 * Touche'. I was being kind in the spirit of inclusion and compromise.....  but there really can't be compromise on original research.


 * Although when I say, "We may show that he has expressed disgust with humans or with being trapped in the Matrix with them, etc," I mean overall in a Smith article. Not as a compilation meant to lead people to a conclusion.  (i.e., synthesis.)
 * --Antelope In Search Of Truth 03:51, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

Coulter on evolution
Kas, I think it's time to delete this section from the Coulter article. The subject IS covered in great and gory detail in the article on the book. Though I really, really, really think that the evolution stuff belongs in the book article alone, I don't want to delete it if such an action would unduly bother you. What do you say? (Please respond on my talk page) Lou Sander 19:32, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

You're soapboxing
...here. But I shall resist the temptation to argue. Please remember WP:NOT. :-) Jakew 20:31, 5 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Problem is, now someone's probably going to reply at length, and the thread will continue on it's inappropriate tangent. :-(
 * Incidentally, could you modify your comment on my talk about Atom's education? I'm sure it wasn't your intent, but it could be taken as incivil... Jakew 20:45, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

Coulter on evolution
Sounds good to me. I'll leave some sort of note about her views. I'm just going to delete the stuff in the Coulter article, and not move it to the book article. It surely could be over there, but I couldn't figure out a way to fit it in. You are welcome to try, of course. Lou Sander 20:41, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

noticed your post about not finding "song of the south"
a simple torrent search finds at least one copy perhaps future orphaned works legislation will apply towards its distribution.

Covenant book pages
Thought you might be interested to know, I've just executed the plan you suggested (which I thought needed doing before I saw your comment) on the talk page for The Chronicles of Thomas Covenant, the Unbeliever of moving the 2nd chronicle book synopsies into separate pages --Mortice 18:47, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

Sex Tourism
Kasreyn, good work on the prostitution page. You have a lot of good information to contribute. Would you please take a look at the Sex Tourism page. We are at the end of a dispute and there is still a flag on the links. Would you remove the flag if you find the links acceptable. Daniel E. Knodel, M.A. 22:12, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

WP Sex
Hi, I thought you may be interested in joining WikiProject Sex. It's an exciting new WikiProject which I'm sure has huge potential, but there's a lot of work to be done. So if you feel that you're up to it, please join! Atlantis Hawk 06:56, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

Restoring page blanking
Regarding  I don't think there is a consensus right now about whether or not keeping warnings on should be enforced unless they are pure vandalism warnings on an IP or a vandal-only account so it may make sense to let the matter drop. JoshuaZ 06:53, 17 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Alternatively, you could ask Ken to archive the talk page which would obviously be preferable. I'd ask him but he has made clear on my user page that he doesn't want to hear from me. JoshuaZ 06:54, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

Comment related to Talk for FF:TSW
This isn't really appropriate article talk page discussion, so I'm placing it here. I just wanted to point out that FF VIII is not the only game which fails the "S-named, long-white-haired, sword-wielding male ultimate villain". In fact, none of the mainline games outside of VII do.


 * Starting in FF I, you have Chaos, a demonic form of Garland (no S, no long hair).
 * In II, the ultimate villain is the Emperor Paramecia, which fails on the "S" name point, the sword, the white hair.
 * In III, your ultimate villain is the very feminine looking Cloud of Darkness, which is summoned by a man but is your ultimate foe.
 * In IV, there's Zeromus, the dark soul controlling the bald, unarmed Zemus and by far one of the most grotesque things I've ever seen in a game.
 * In V, you've got ExDeath and Neo X-Death, which is much like Exodus in XII (at least initially), but fails on your naming point and is ultimately a tree which deforms into a strange demon.
 * In VI, there's Kefka, who's most definitely no Sephiroth.
 * In VIII, Ultimecia's a woman... but that's already addressed.
 * In IX, Kuja fails the name and sword test.
 * In X, and perhaps a most critical point that everyone misses, Yu Yevon, the tick, is the ultimate villain, NOT Jecht, Seymour or Sin.
 * In XI, you actually have a variety of ultimate villains, depending on your expansion point (Shadow Lord is a demonic sword wielder in dark armor with no hair to speak of, Promethia is a very odd looking energy being god, and Eald'Narche is neither long-white haired nor sword-wielding.
 * In XII, I'm pretty damn sure the ultimate villain is Vayne Solidor, who again... fails the name test.

The closest you come to having a second example is the non-mainline X-2, with Shuyin, who looks a lot like Tidus (thus failing the long-white haired test), and not Vegnagun as the ultimate villain. Generally speaking, yes, many are male, but beyond that it's very hard to say anything more about the mainline villains. You can't even really say they all share the same motives for becoming what they are (Ultimecia wanted to stop her own death at the hands of SeeD, but in so doing guaranteed her death; Yu Yevon wanted to protect Zanarkand, but went about it in such a way as to create a spiral of death [the road to hell is paved with the best intentions], the mad genius world domination goal of Kefka... all distinctively different motivations for their evils.) Just wanted to point all this out because I know some fans get nasty about these things (you should have seen it a while ago over the Ultimecia = Rinoa controversy) and I hate flame wars over this kind of stuff. Baryonyx 09:52, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

coulter
thanks for your comments on Coulter, that page could use your level-headedness right about now. --kizzle 07:04, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

Thank you for your kind comments. Kyaa the Catlord 07:20, 1 December 2006 (UTC)
 * That's odd. You didn't seem to appreciate them elsewhere, considering your repeated attempts to delete or hide them from view.  Maybe we're not talking about the same comments, though.  Are you feeling quite well?  Kasreyn 08:04, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

Winningest
I'm a bit confused by your implication that winningest is not real English word. It's the usual word in sports articles for describing a coach with the most wins (or highest winning percentage). It's even in at least two dictionaries, if that's your criterion for "real world". I certainly wouldn't change it to "successful". Successful at what? Teaching basketball? Molding young minds? Winning games?

I'll go ahead and revert the change. -Dmh 00:04, 15 January 2007 (UTC)


 * I've recast the offending sentence as "He has won more NCAA Division I basketball games than any other head coach." This is shorter, clearer yet (it avoids the ambiguity between total wins and win-loss ratio) and more direct.
 * In reply to your reply on my page, Knight does not have the best winning percentage (OK, so it's usually given as a three-digit fraction, e.g., .500, not with a percent sign, and it's probably not "best" if you don't like Knight). As I recall, either Mark Few or Roy Williams is the current DI leader (once you set some reasonable minimum number of games).  For that matter Dean Smith's record is still better in that sense (read the article :-).  The "Division I men's" is important as well.  Both Jerry Tarkanian and Gene Bess have won more college games and &mdash; oops! &mdash; so has Pat Summitt (fixed now; sorry, Pat).
 * Yes, I saw that one of the dictionaries gave winningest as "informal". I don't really care.  I strongly suspect that it's listed as informal because it appears more frequently in sports writing and less so in general use.  This is not a problem here.  As you say, it's probably been around for at least a generation.  Are we to eschew mobile phone (more formally cellular telephone) and such?  In any case, I was mainly peeved that a more precise word, widely used in the context at hand, was replaced by a less precise one on the grounds that the more precise word was not "real English."  Of course it's real English.  That said, it's gone now and the article is better for it.  -Dmh 07:24, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

Sexual Intercourse
My edit comment was directed as the removeal of the fact tag on the religion ans sexuality portion. The removal of the drawing was incidental. I noticed the vandalism when removing the fact page as it was in the next section. Regarding those, we already have strong consensus that we don't desire those in the article. There is an entire article on sex positions, a large proportion of which is sexual intercourse of some kind, and the drawings are much better. The poor quality drawings added to the sexual intercourse article were not much more than an attempt at vandalism, IMO. I should have made a better edit commentary, it just didn't seem to me to be important, as several other people have been clear about that too. Atom 15:47, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

Jakew's nomination
First, I've learned lots about writing in Wiki, much from you, so thanks.

I hope to provide information that may lead to you changing opinion re Jakew. When I first started writing in Circumcision I presented intro paragraphs ... lots of work deleted by Jakew (generally). Look at it now, and you'll find most of my goals (intro paragraphs at least) have been met. The point is that Jakew was obstructionist. What should have taken a day in discussion in fact took months. The overall outline is still a mess, the relative sizes of sections crazy, the risks/benefits text coverage heavily skewed to benefits, UTI missing a recent finding in Israel almost a 50% infection rate post ritual circ...

My current goal is to make Sexual Effects balanced. It needs to summarize the main article, or contain the information from main article. Right now it's mostly AAP and AAFP statements, which in turn, are mostly about the glans! but the article should be mostly about the foreskin. Jakew blocked information inclusion in the main (sexual) article regarding glans (and corona and frenular zone) sensitivity ... nerve types and function and density/location. Just peer reviewed cited facts, but jakew claims "biased source" and NOR.

Here's four recent instances of Jakew puching pro-circ bias: 1. Jakew adds "benefits" to the intro which are covered properly in the cite, and twice in the body of the topic, before being covered again in it's own main section. See 2 below for link; 2. Jakew removes critical statements from the Australasian Med Assoc. Statement on Circumcision. Here’s the original source and the result   Note what he took out relative to what he forces left in the CPS Statement;  3. Jakew removes a critical sentence from a paragraph. Here's a discussion with the original source, see number 10..28I_reply_indented.29]; 4. He forces me to place the resulting paragraph way away here. Note he now let me leave it in.TipPt 16:18, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

PS...I did catch him misrepresenting reverts (revert to xyz, when it was actually revert to jakew's). One other editor was also very upset by that behavior. Is there any way to see deleted history from the discussion?TipPt 16:45, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

Your comments at my RfA
Thanks for your support at my RfA, Kasreyn. It's particularly meaningful for me because we disagree on so much of the content. I've withdrawn on this occasion because I want time to think about the excellent advice I received. Thanks again, Jakew 16:39, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

Please help
PS PS ... He may add some more back, but using Procedures as an example, it won't be complete. Please see (most but not all mine) the cited relevant facts he replaced with his version. Does he own this article?TipPt 01:08, 23 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Please see the bold paragraph at the end of this discussion...


 * You you find it violates NOR? How could I make it better?  Can you help me put it in the article ... Jakew's claiming it's original reasearh?TipPt 17:40, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

Please help protect vandalized woman article
Women are increasingly taking an active role in many societies. User:TRFA is stripping out a section on women's advances and is stripping out a list of women premiers and other political leaders such as Tansu Ciller, Condoleezza Rice and Nancy Pelosi. Dogru144 13:47, 4 February 2007 (UTC)
 * User:TRFA is back to his vandalism of the woman article.

It would seem to me that habitual gutting without a nuanced, extended justification or dialog on the Talk:woman page or the Talk pages of his opponents would amount to vandalism. Dogru144 02:18, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
 * He is violating Three-revert rule . Dogru144 02:20, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

Photos in woman article
I made some changes following up on your comments. Maybe you want to re-upload the photo of Dr. Jameson. On the other hand, one problem can be that the images do not have settled copyright-free status. I've had photos stripped out that I have derived from the Web. (All of the photos that I added to woman came from wikipedia itself.) Dogru144 02:18, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Spelling correction. I meant Mae Jemison. Dogru144 08:24, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

Dawkins
Could you please clarify your comment at Talk:Creation-evolution controversy? Thanks! Gnixon 05:30, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

Diablo Article
Kas: This is Oncal. Long time, no see. Anyway, to the point. Regarding Diablo Article: The article itself seems really massive compared to other video game articles. I think we really need to do a good job of shortening the article, or finding a way to create a new page with some of the info from this page.

For example, look at the pages for many other significant games over the past: Fallout, Starcraft, Super Mario Brothers, Elder Scrolls IV: Oblivibion, all have shorter articles (Note: Starcraft's article was even featured once).

Feel free to respond at my talk page 03:57, 24 July 2007 (UTC) RegainTheTruth

Alpha Delta Sigma Article
Please undo the delete of the Alpha Delta Sigma Article. The text of the article was also from the webpage because I designed/wrote the webpage, as a member of the sorority myself. BettyAnn 11:58, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

Emily Proctor
Here is the policy I was looking for in regards to the publicity images. I was struck down with it as well when uploading images, so thats why I knew there was a policy on it. Hope it helps! :)

Non-free content 3.6, No. 12. "Pictures of people still alive, groups still active, and buildings still standing; provided that taking a new free picture as a replacement (which is almost always considered possible) would serve the same encyclopedic purpose as the non-free image. However, for some retired or disbanded groups, or retired individuals whose notability rests in part on their earlier visual appearance, a new picture may not serve the same purpose as an image taken during their career." Ejfetters 07:08, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

Dispute on FGC
Hi. I am having a dispute with a user on FGC. I noticed your previous contribution and hoped you might provide some third-party commentary on a dispute at Blackworm’s objections. Your opinion would be greatly appreciated. Thank You. Phyesalis (talk) 01:28, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

AfD nomination of Prussian Blue (duo)
An editor has nominated Prussian Blue (duo), an article on which you have worked or that you created, for deletion. We appreciate your contributions, but the nominator doesn't believe that the article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion and has explained why in his/her nomination (see also "What Wikipedia is not").

Your opinions on whether the article meets inclusion criteria and what should be done with the article are welcome; please participate in the discussion by adding your comments at Articles for deletion/Prussian Blue (duo) (2nd nomination) and please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes ( ~ ).

You may also edit the article during the discussion to improve it but should not remove the articles for deletion template from the top of the article; such removal will not end the deletion debate. Thank you. BJBot (talk) 02:01, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

Wikinews
I just saw you asked on Wikinews about merging accounts. To merge your accounts click here. Anonymous101 (talk) 16:11, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

Survey request
Hi, Kasreyn I need your help. I am working on a research project at Boston College, studying creation of medical information on Wikipedia. You are being contacted because you have been identified as an important contributor to one or more articles.

Would you will be willing to answer a few questions about your experience? We've done considerable background research, but we would also like to gather the insight of the actual editors. Details about the project can be found at the user page of the project leader, geraldckane. Survey questions can be found at geraldckane/medsurvey. Your privacy and confidentiality will be strictly protected!

The questions should only take a few minutes. I hope you will be willing to complete the survey, as we do value your insight. Please do not hesitate to contact me or Professor Kane if you have any questions. Thank You, BCproject (talk) 17:38, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

AfD nomination of Criticism of Bill O'Reilly (political commentator)
An editor has nominated one or more articles which you have created or worked on, for deletion. The nominated article is Criticism of Bill O'Reilly (political commentator). We appreciate your contributions, but the nominator doesn't believe that the article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion and has explained why in his/her nomination (see also "What Wikipedia is not").

Your opinions on whether the article meets inclusion criteria and what should be done with the article are welcome; please participate in the discussion(s) by adding your comments to Articles for deletion/Criticism of Bill O'Reilly (political commentator) (3rd nomination). Please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes ( ~ ).

You may also edit the article during the discussion to improve it but should not remove the articles for deletion template from the top of the article; such removal will not end the deletion debate.

Please note: This is an automatic notification by a bot. I have nothing to do with this article or the deletion nomination, and can't do anything about it. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 01:30, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

Frank Luntz
After making some edits to the Frank Luntz article, I noticed there is an NPOV dispute. I'm not so sure the article was not NPOV so much as incomplete. I added a paragraph and an extended quotation concerning Luntz's role in coining or popularizing the phrase "death tax." My edits include a citation to Luntz's claim to have coined it and a third-party description of his role in promoting it in the context of the Contract with America. I made the edits not to make the article less "positive" but to make it more complete; however, I think my edits might help resolve the NPOV issue as expressed by a number of users on the talk page and ask if you might consider helping getting others to review it, so that the NPOV dispute might be resolved. A.T.S. in Texas (talk) 06:53, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

ArbCom elections are now open!
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) 22:15, 30 November 2015 (UTC)