User talk:Kesh/Archive-Nov2007

Todd Baker
The problem mentioned had been fixed. Hence the reason for the deletion of the notes asking for the fix. 24.45.196.36 18:17, 17 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Still, it's bad form to delete other people's comments from Talk pages. It's very bad form to blank the Talk page entirely. Just leave a note that the concern has been fixed, and that will take care of it. -- Kesh 18:19, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

David Foster Wallace
Kesh -- thanks for taking the trouble to answer my editing question, on David Foster Wallace. However, I am surprised that you think my edit was in some way subjective because I quoted the DFW article and, where I did not, summarized his points quite well and clearly. I don't want to get in an editing spat over this but I can't see what was wrong with my note. Have you read the original item in the Atlantic I was recording? I think there will be a storm about the article -- it's just that very few people are aware of it yet -- it is a small tucked away item in the most recent issue of the mag, which I got on Saturday. I note that my contrib ution (and your excision of it) is not mentioned on the history page.Cross Reference 12:03, 17 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Actually, they do appear in the history. Your addition is here and my revision is here. That said, things like "(by which presumably he meant Americans)" and "By comparison, we accept the ..." were additions of your own interpretations and facts, which violates our rules & guidelines. If you rewrote it to just be the facts & quotations presented in the article, I'd have no problem with it. -- Kesh 15:21, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

I wrote:

In the November 2007 issue of The Atlantic, which commemorated the magazine's 150th year, an invited series of authors, artists, politicians and others were asked to prepare 300 words or so on 'the future of the American idea.' DFW asked whether some things were still worth dying for, and presented a 'thought experiment' in which we (by which presumably he meant Americans) might decide 'that a certain baseline vulnerability to terrorism is part of the price of the American idea.' In other words, we might accept that every now and then a democratic republic might have to accept that it could not 100% protect itself from terrorism without in effect 'subverting the very principles that made it worth protecting.' By comparison, we accept the 40,000 highway death each year as the price we pay for the convenience of the motor car. Cross Reference 03:49, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

End of what I wrote. My 'by which I presume. . Americans' was simply a note to others reading this that the article was in an American magazine and probably addressed mostly to other Americans. Possibly superfluous, and if you really felt strongly about that parens you could have deleted it. The item about the 40,000 dead on the US highways was a reduction of several sentences which quoted exactly that number and made exactly that point. So it really neeeds no rewriting to avoid 'violating our [presumably Wikipedai's] rules & guidelines.' Cross Reference 00:08, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

Note added later. I am not sure what is going on with the formatting of my above comment. I cut and pased from the history section of the DFW article, but when I saved it and went to your talk page, it just extended well off to the right without wrapping. So I went back to the quote and inserted  judiciously and it was half in a quote box and half outside. Cross Reference 00:15, 18 October 2007 (UTC)


 * The formatting was because you put a space in front of a line, or it was inserted when you copy/pasted. Looks like your copy kept the line-breaks, which is why it looks odd in the editing window.
 * That said, if you want to re-insert your paragraph, be my guest. Just don't be surprised if someone else removes it for the same reasons. It does need rewritten to avoid your original interpretations of the text. -- Kesh 18:57, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

Thein Sein
Would you mind helping? Therequiembellishere 02:13, 21 October 2007 (UTC)
 * It will probably be a couple days, as my work schedule will be busy, but I'll see what I can do to help mediate. -- Kesh 02:18, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

Sonic Mountain
Hi, I don't think that CSD:G11 is appropriate for this page per WP:Spam. I removed your Speedy Deletion tag. I understand that an article about a company can appear as spam, but if you examine it further I'm sure you'll see it's from a neutral point of view, and therefore not spam. If you disagree please drop me a line. Alex brewer {talk}  02:15, 21 October 2007 (UTC)
 * I see nothing but material about the company's market and executives. With no other information, it seems like nothing but promotion for the company. Please do not remove speedy templates. Instead, place a template on there instead and either expand the article, or make an argument on its talk page that it is not deletable material. -- Kesh 02:18, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

An Attack?
Hi there, I notice that you are one of those typical Wikipedia types who delight in roaming the site posting annoying and patronising messages. I absolutely refute the suggestion that I 'attacked' another user. Please substantiate this allegation or post an apology for your disgraceful post on my talk page. Many thanks - in advance of another patronising post! 9 11:37, 21 October 2007 (UTC)
 * I also note that the original discussion point had nothing to do with you at all - why did you get involved? 86.138.205.127 18:02, 21 October 2007 (UTC) on a work computer - I'll be back later to sign in as me. BrianJ.
 * Considering you called the other user "a joke," along with your current uncivil tone, I'll decline to apologize. I posted because you trolled someone whose User page I watch, precisely because of previous vandalism. -- Kesh 19:28, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

sofia Vassilieva
Hi Kesh,

I still need to figure out how to make the reference to the original info I had provided, aside of the fact that I personally was on the set of “Hurt” while it was shooting; still there are references I can give you right away:

http://pro.imdb.com/name/nm1100839/maindetails

http://pro.imdb.com/title/tt1046936/

I would REALLY appreciate your REAL help as to put these references yourself If not…we I’ll figure this out after Sofia’s B-Day, which is TODAY. And I am a bit busy. Thank you very much for your wish to help. Regards, Larissa Vassilieva, PH.D —Preceding unsigned comment added by Otherdrop1 (talk • contribs) 21:56, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
 * I won't have time to do much work tonight, but I'll take a look at it Tuesday or Wednesday. I think you've got a good start for an article! Of note, IMDB is not considered a reliable source, as anyone can submit rumors on it. However, if the movie is in production, we can probably find some better sources. I'll look into it. -- Kesh 22:36, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

diastolic dysfunction
Would appreciate further elaboration regarding last post. Diastolic dysfunction and the terms we use to peel back the mysteries of the essential workings of the heart are essentially theory. Theory lives and dies in discussion and publication. How does one write an article that excludes contemporary theory and mathematical derivations to support it?

Diastolic dysfunction is suggested as an excellent addition to a compendium of a rapidly expanding definition of myocardial work. Should I start at "Myocardial Work" and proceed backwards to "Diastolic Dysfunction"? I'm not sure where my observations fit, but feel certain that some of the larger pieces of the puzzle of the myocardium are starting to fit togetether. Thanks, Leslie Beben —Preceding unsigned comment added by Lbeben (talk • contribs) 00:37, October 23, 2007
 * Wikipedia is not a forum. It's not a place to discuss the subject, but to write an encyclopedic article about it. If you want to showcase your work, you should be visiting a medical forum, or publishing a blog of your own. -- Kesh 00:40, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

Could you please explain more fully?
Could you please explain more fully what a BLPE1 violations is?

I have recently reviewed WP:BLP. I don't see any E1 clause there.

Cheers! Geo Swan 00:42, 23 October 2007 (UTC)
 * The issue is that the subject is not notable for anything outside being incarcerated. Thus, we cannot write an accurate biography, only a POV-slanted account that only takes into consideration his incarceration. It's like writing an article about someone whose only notability is that they were kidnapped, or that they are accused of commmitting a murder. The article slants heavily into the accusations, as there's no other information we can glean to create an actual bio article. WP:BLP1E was written after consensus came about that such articles are not compatible with Wikipedia's goals of providing a neutral, factual account of notable individuals. The phrase "do no harm" came up at the heart of that discussion.


 * In cases such as these, another article could be written about the incarceration status of these men as a whole, just like an article could be written about a kidnapping or a murder (to go along with my earlier examples), without inherently biasing the reader as to what makes the person notable. -- Kesh 00:53, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia Users' Alliance
Please note: this message is being sent out to all involved parties. Dear Friend, the Wikipedia Users’ Alliance has been deleted. I am sure that perhaps you already knew this. I myself just found out. Anyhow during the debate many mean and rude things where said. I am not innocent myself; I too contributed to the unpleasantness. But now Wikipedia Users’ Alliance is dead, gone forever. But we all must move on, for me and my friends, we have to deal with this loss. However it is important that all of us work together to fight vandalism and not argue with one another. There are many things that I want to say, but I know that they would only add to the mean sprit that fills the “air”. As a Buddhist (Risshō Kōsei Kai) I was reading the Holy Dhammapada yesterday. I came across this line, “Holding onto anger is like holding on to a hot coal with the intent to throw it at someone, in the end you are the one who gets burned,” how true! Lets us progress forward. WUA Founder User: King of Nepal has expressed similar views such as these to me via e-mail. His majesty said, “We have to move on, move forward. It is in the best interest of Wikipedia and us all.” I agree and hope that you do to. Thanks. --Greenwood1010 13:08, 23 October 2007 (UTC) Co-founder of the WUA. If you feel that you recived this message in error please let me know. Feel free to responed on my page if you wish.

your behavior
Hi,

Thank you, for caring so much about the article “Sofia Vassilieva” and watching it like a hawk. My questions to you are the following: 1.	What references you think are needed, aside of already added for “Hurt” (I am afraid you overlook that it in the heat of your hunting) to satisfy “THE RULES? - The copies of. Drs. Certificates? Yes, I am sarcastic! Refer me to these specific rules. What exactly do bother you in this article? 2.	 What rights DO YOU have to behave the way you do? What is your status? Should I report on your obnoxious behavior? 3.	If you indeed care so much- it is easy to find a lot of SV’s pictures on line and add them in here- you do not, I assume- you chose the action of destroyer (vandal, hence vandalism) instead of creator/ helper). 4.Do something good with your time; create, if you cannot - let it be what is already made.

Try to be happier Best, T. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Toolsenemy (talk • contribs) 19:02, 24 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Thank you for commenting. Reliable references are needed for facts claimed. We have the rules for a reason, to prevent falsehoods from being claimed as fact. So, we want to be careful that the references provided are reliable and verifiable. I'm currently reworking the references so it's easier for people to verify the facts being stated in this article.


 * How is my behavior obnoxious? I have the same rights as any other editor, so long as we stick to the rules. If you really feel I'm behaving inappropriately, you can file a request for comment on my actions so that others will look it over and determine if I've done wrong. If you believe I am committing vandalism or breaching another rule, you can report it to the administrator's noticeboard.


 * For your third point, no we cannot just add random images off the internet to the article. Images have copyrights, and Wikipedia is very careful about not violating another person or company's copyright, as it could result in the organization being sued. With regards to living persons, the rule is that a freely available image can be made, so images that are not free of copyright cannot be used to illustrate them in their articles.


 * Finally, I am doing good! I'm taking an article and editing it to fit what Wikipedia considers to be the proper format for an encyclopedia article. Is that somehow less creative? Is an artist that paints a still life less creative than one that creates an abstract from their imagination?


 * Again, thank you for sharing your opinions. I hope I made my reasoning more clear. -- Kesh 19:11, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

Sofia Vassilieva
I replied to your message on my page to keep the convo in one place. --NrDg 03:38, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

Reversion of non admin closure on Articles for deletion/Shinigami (Bleach)
Hello. You reverted my non admin closure of Articles for deletion/Shinigami (Bleach). I accept that I misunderstood the five-day requirement and closed this debate a few hours before the five days were up (I counted five days as Day 1 being the 20th - nomination day) and therefore Day 5 being the 24th). However, I am concerned by two issues.  Firstly, you state in your edit summary that we "need an admin to sort this one out" - yet the consensus on the page is extremely clear.  Secondly, you have made no less than six contributions to the discussion yourself prior to you reverting my closure.  That causes a considerable conflict of interest and you should not have done so.  The rules covering closure of afd's by non admins state that decisions are open to review and that the discussion "may be reopened by any administrator" (my emphasis).  You are not an administrator, you did not take it to review, and you should not have taken a reversion action on a discussion in which you have such a strong conflict of interest. All I did on this page was close the debate (allbeit a few hours early); but I feel that now gives me a conflict of interest and I won't seek to close the page when the time is genuinely up. You on the other hand have a very real and person COI yet took this decision. I'm not concerned that the discussion has been re-opened. I know that is a consequence of non admin's getting involved in this area. But I am concerned about the WAY in which it was done. It would have been more appropriate if you had asked an administrator to review my actions and re-open the discussion if necessary; it would even have been better to have placed a note on my talk page to explain your actions. But you did neither. B1atv 07:54, 25 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Thank you for bringing this up on my talk page. I apologize if my actions concerned you. My reasoning for overturning it was that an early closure would have to follow WP:SNOW, which is done by an admin. Non-admin closures are generally only appropriate when an action has already been taken (such as a speedy delete was done by an admin, but they forgot to close the AfD). My concern was that almost all of the Keep reasons were WP:ILIKEIT and WP:USEFUL, and failed to address policy reasons for keeping, so it needed to continue until an admin made a final decision. I decided, rather than tying up resources with a DRV, I would be bold and revert the closure to let the AfD run its course. Finally, I believe WP:COI does not apply here: I was interested in seeing the AfD to its normal end, rather than an early non-admin closure. I don't believe the number of times I commented in the AfD matters. Often, people only post once to an AfD.


 * I have no intention of making a habit of this kind of action. I think WP:IAR is overused, and this was the one, rare time I decided it applied. Again, I apologize if I offended you or if my actions seem out of line. -- Kesh 15:03, 25 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the comments. I'm not offended, I was simply concerned.  Your reply as asuaged my concerns - and your edit summary caused me to re-read the rules on non-admin closure which led me to realise I was getting the five-days wrong, so it did serve a useful purpose!  Thanks again.  B1atv 06:32, 26 October 2007 (UTC)
 * No problem. It looks like the AfD was ultimately closed as Keep, and I don't think I'm going to challenge it. I still disagree with the reasoning folks gave, but consensus seems to be that it deserves an article for now. -- Kesh 12:32, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

question
I'd like yo ou to take these as serious questions. If his case really is notable enough on its own...
 * So, would you mind telling me waht it would take to convince you a captive's case was "notable"?
 * What would it take to convince you a captive was himself "notable"?

I've got a lot of problems with how the deletion fora work in practice. One of which is the structure of the process makes it very difficult for anyone to actually reverse themselves, admit they made a mistake.

One of the earliest experiences I had with someone who thought something I had contributed was written from a biased POV. He had several concerns. He was specific about them. That was very helpful. I remember there was a passage where I had paraphrased some Guantanamo spokesmen. I altered the article to name the officer, and directly quote the officer. That satisfied him over that concern. His other challenges got me to address some other weaknesses I was unaware of. This took about as long as an afd. But it was much better. In the end neither one of us had felt we had to compromise. We both agreed that the article was better after his challenges. We gave one another some wikilove, although I odn't think that term had been popularized yet.

The situation I am in now? I don't know what it would take to satisfy you.

Tell me, what should I have said about the mistake the nominator, you and the other fellow all voicing a delete opinion for Zahid Al-Sheikh? How tactful should I have been?

Nominator must not have read the article carefully, or he never could have called him a Guantanamo captive because the article never said he was a Guantanamo captive. Nominator has been very disrespectful, so I pointed out in the afd. Maybe that was a mistake, because it probably multiplies the difficulty he would have in openly acknowledging if he were to realize he made mistakes.

I don't know how frank I should be with you. You wrote that you changed your opinion on Zahid Al-Sheikh because of the improvements I made. But frankly even if I had made no improvements you should have reconsidered your opinion on that article because the justification you offered was inapplicable. Maybe by being frank I am making it more difficult for you to openly acknowled a mistake, if you begin to have doubts.

I am going to be frank, bearing in mind tht I am fallible, that I can it difficult to openly acknowledge my mistakes, when I think that acknowledgement is going to trigger mockery, crowing, etc. Frankly, just as the nominator showed he hadn't read the article your echoing of his mistake gives the appearance that you stated an opinion on the article without really reading it yourself -- that you didn't reach your own informed opinion. It gives the appearance that your stated opinion was based solely on the nominator's evaluation.

The nominator used word for word identical nominations for Zahid Al-Sheikh, Abdullah Gulam Rasould and Fahed Nasser. I am not trying to embarrass you, but please see how this would make me wonder whether you really read the other articles.

I regret that I allowed the hostility directed at me to relax my control over my own temper, and that I didn't stick completely to sweet reasonableness.

Your last comments sounded like it left room for reasoned dialogue. I strongly prefer civil, serious, specific dialogue.

I honor the truth. I find I am more apt to find my mistakes by talking to people who don't agree with me than by talking to people who agree with me. I honor the people who disagree with me, who can manage to keep on being respectful to me, even when we disagree. In spite of the relatively bad start we have had in these afd I want to respond tp your last comment, which looked like it left room for reasoned dialogue to benefit one another, by giving one another the kind of reasoned dialogue most apt to help us find our errors

If there is anything I wrote that you think you need an apology for first, before you can have a real dialogue, let me know what that is.

Seriously Geo Swan 22:48, 27 October 2007 (UTC)


 * You seem to be taking the whole situation far too personally. Yes, I did read the articles, and I got the same impression that the nominator did, that the man was a Guantanamo prisoner. Even when that was corrected, he's still not notable for anything be being detained and charged by the US government. Notability requires multiple verifiable sources about a person, and BLP states we can't just have an article about the situation a person is in.


 * I'm afraid I'm very tired right now, as my work schedule is hectic this weekend. I'll try to explain more at a later date. -- Kesh 18:39, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

Tags
Hello, Kesh. Just curious to learn your point of view on the large semiprotected template. Why do you think that wikipedia readers need to know that the article was recently vandalised? Do you think that when a newly registered user or anonymous user goes to edit the article that the default boilerplate on the 'view source' screen will not convey enough information to them to understand why they can't edit it? If so, wouldn't a recommendation to wikimedia developers to revise the boilerplate be in order? Or is your concern that the small lock icon will not advertise to non-editors who do not try to edit it, that the article has been recently vandalised? Because if the latter, then why should our readers need to be burdened with such wikipedia editing and maintenance information when they came here to use the wikipedia as a learning reference about the subject of the article, not the process of creating and maintaining the encyclopedia itself? JERRY talk contribs 02:48, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
 * It has nothing to do with the "recently vandalized" and all to do with letting contributors know why they may have problems editing the article. I've worked on the Help desk to know that even the big banner gets misunderstood by anon users. The tiny lock icon isn't informative at all. -- Kesh 21:01, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Sounds like we might agree than, that the default boilerplate on the 'view source' screen should be modified so that ONLY those persons who attempt to edit an article but can't because of its current protection status should be given very clear instructions to let them know why they can not edit the article. Something like "THIS PAGE SHOWS YOU THE SOURCECODE FOR THE ARTICLE YOU ARE TRYING TO EDIT.  THIS PAGE HAS RESTRICTIONS THAT CURRENTLY PREVENT YOU FROM EDITING IT, PLEASE SEE THE HISTORY PAGE OR THE ARTICLE TALK PAGE FOR DETAILS AS TO WHY IT IS PROTECTED AND INSTRUCTION ON HOW TO REQUEST UNPROTECTION OR FOR SOMEBODY ELSE TO EDIT THE ARTICLE FOR YOU."  The mediawiki developers could probably easily make such a change. JERRY talk contribs 22:10, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Mmm, close, but not entirely. I still believe a notice on the page itself is appropriate, though perhaps something in the middle between the current large banner and the proposed lock icon. A longer explanation can be given to those prevented from editing, as you suggest. That's certainly a better direction to go. -- Kesh 01:36, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

Help Please
Kesh you and i spoke a month or two ago about the LOTAR page this pages has been redirected to the KAPAP page again over and over this keeps happening and it is why I tried to fix the information on the LOTAR page to begin with please help me with this issue it keep happening over and over again...Someone keeps highjacking my page.... thank you Ronin6969 —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ronin6969 (talk • contribs) 05:37, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

kesh i could use your help on this you have tried in the past and know more about it than anyone else...please help
I did see that you merged my page with the KAPAP page, I do understand what you are saying but It is a direct conflict of interest with my business I do understand that I have a conflict of interest as well with writing the Lotar page but the page kept getting redirected to KAPAP and it makes it seem as though the KAPAP training center is the LOTAR center and that hurts my business I am sure that you would understand this. I have asked for help many times in tiring to figure out how to solve the problem, I do not have an issue with being linked to Krav Maga but I can be linked up to KAPAP due to COPYWRITE issues between us..Once again I have put up the info on LOTAR to be reviewed with an article for source reference. Please review it and let me know if it works to help my issue... Thank you very much —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ronin6969

what you are doing is taking the copywritten name of my company and attaching it to a competetor how is that right...i have asked for help on this as well as including an artical written about lotar from a third party website and this was you response....why..how is this ok... --Ronin6969 20:19, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Atari400"--Ronin6969 20:22, 31 October 2007 (UTC)


 * I personally suggested merging both articles into the Krav maga main article. I'm going to begin a discussion to either a) merge Kapap (including Lotar) into Krav maga, or b) moving Lotar into a mention in Krav maga, if it's deemed that Kapap is notable enough for its own article. However, this may take some time. I've cut back my editing recently due to medical issues. You may find it more productive to make these merge suggestions on Krav maga yourself. I hope this can be resolved for you in an amicable manner soon. -- Kesh 21:05, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

Halo 3 Link : Undo
Hi there Kesh, could you give reason for removing the link to Halo3Media from the Halo_3 article? I think this website is a valuable addition to the article. Thanks, Cam. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Webmatrix (talk • contribs) 00:17, 7 November 2007 (UTC)
 * It's a non-notable fansite. Please read our guidelines on external links. -- Kesh 01:04, 7 November 2007 (UTC)


 * Meh, you're probably right. It does provide interesting content, but is not notable! Have a great day. Webmatrix 01:24, 7 November 2007 (UTC)


 * You too! Thanks for understanding. :) -- Kesh 01:26, 7 November 2007 (UTC)


 * Np, you're doing a great job. Webmatrix 01:30, 7 November 2007 (UTC)