User talk:Kasreyn/archive1

NOTE: If you wish to comment on any material here, please add a comment to my main talk page, not here. Thanks, Kasreyn 23:25, 12 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome

Welcome!

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

How to edit a page
Editing, policy, conduct, and structure tutorial
Picture tutorial
How to write a great article
Naming conventions
Manual of Style
If you're ready for the complete list of Wikipedia documentation, there's also Wikipedia:Topical index.

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!

Gareth Hughes 00:49, 8 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Hypocrisy

While your concern over the relevance of morality in the discussion on mind control appears fairminded, please don't be too hasty in buying into Antaeus' deletionism. Rather than assisting a newcomer through focusing on editing content, he has enticed rebukes, repeatedly inserted problematic assertions into the New Freedom Commission on Mental Health article, and tagged VfD proposals on several related articles, Thought police, Elliott Valenstein and Moral compass. Ombudsman 17:54, 21 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Terri Schiavo

Good to see someone talk sense on Talk:Terri Schiavo. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 07:02, July 27, 2005 (UTC)

Brainwashing and Mind Control

Please take part at the merge vote under Talk:Mind control#Merge vote --Irmgard 16:20, 4 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Done. -Kasreyn

Condom

Hi Kasreyn, saw your comments at Talk:Condom. Thanks for that. I don't know the full history of the article, but it seems like theres's plenty of scope for improvement. Is it worth it? Will it start another edit war? Should I just be bold? Would you be prepared to help me? JanesDaddy 15:30, 20 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Well, in my opinion the article is already pretty good. There are definitely, as you pointed out, some muddled bits needing clarification. Frankly, these days I only watchlist it to help in the neverending task of reverting the knee-jerk deletions of religious zealots (likewise with several other such articles). For instance, the recent "diagram" about "dangers of condoms" that some whacko posted. My goal is readability and objectivity first and foremost, and inclusion of all relevant facts thirdly. The reason is that some facts are so wildly opposed by some people that they simply will not "stick" in the article unless they are so widely accepted that vandals can't get away with deleting them. This is what I meant by a democracy of opinion. Sadly, citing sources doesn't do too much good, either, because they can always just claim your sources lie... So mostly I spend my time trying to eliminate moronic garbage, like the person who recently edited the condom article to scream about how condoms aren't 100% effective and so are worthless. Simple reason shows that some protection is better than none. It's this sort of common sense that hot-button topics on wikipedia so often lack.

I'd say, be bold when it comes to specific factual errors and point-of-view removals, but be more cautious about major structural or angle-of-attack changes for the article as a whole. Generally, my rule of thumb is, whenever I plan to make an edit in any article that would affect more than an entire section of it, I post my intentions in the discussion page and wait a few days for discussion before proceeding. It helps to prevent knee-jerk revert wars, which are really counterproductive. Once someone has tagged you mentally as "the enemy", they will rarely open their mind enough to actually listen to what you have to say. This is not to say that you should let one ignorant fanatic prevent you from making needed improvements to an article; posting your intentions and inviting discussion is enough to prove your good intent.

As for me, I have no plans to de-watchlist the page any time soon, so I'll certainly continue to help out in editing and discussing it. :) -Kasreyn

"I guess a man who has a sexual encounter with another man is only gay if he's the giver?"

Totally. Since there are no details given (and I'm pretty sure the event did not occur at all, anyway), we don't know a) whether Lohner was awake, or b) whether he closed his eyes and pretended it was a woman. Therefore, it's totally possible it was as heterosexual as possible from his end.

Manson, on the other hand, being the giver, could've been at most intoxicated at the time (but sober enough to remember it later) and like, I don't care how drunk you are, but going down on another dude is pretty gay.

Note that I'm about 65% serious. -VJ 21:07, 6 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe Manson closed his eyes and pretended it was a really big clit. ;-) -Kasreyn 06:13, 7 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Possibly, but at some point, the mouth-full of semen would be a dead giveaway. -VJ 06:43, 7 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Star Trek Category

Hi Kasreyn, I've only just noticed your question re:Star Trek II but having looked at it I see that somebody has already re-edited it. Pally 11:23, 26 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

re: ICP

Well, some feel the only reason the bit about Eminem mentioning ICP was put into the article was because Eminem dissed ICP. Eminem is not exactly an unbiased source of information about ICP, after all. It seems to cross over the line from simply reporting about a hip-hop rivalry, to actually taking sides in it, which wikipedia shouldn't do. -Kasreyn 06:08, 28 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Oh... that's complicated... anyways, since I'm clueless on this, feel free to revert back.. but I just found nothing wrong with it as all it said was what Eminem mentioned it on his album... but again, I don't really know so do what you will Thanks! Sasquatcht|c 06:11, 28 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Eminem

More vandals here. Do you know if this: "My Name Is from The Slim Shady LP" is vandalism? I'll have to look it up; I know the song, but not the exact name. --DanielCD 20:22, 31 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Nevermind. I just followed the links. Duh. Sorry to waste your time. --DanielCD 20:23, 31 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

William Shatner

You wrote:

Heh, it can catch someone by surprise, definitely... I think that's the funniest thing in the whole bit, how willing Shatner is to lampoon himself. -Kasreyn 05:34, 13 February 2006 (UTC)

And, with that, you've nailed it. William Shatner has become a parody of William Shatner. Intentionally. And, he's having the time of his life! :D Radio Kirk talk to me 05:42, 13 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Image on Circumcision

I left a comment for you here. Cheers, Tom e r ^talk 02:47, 20 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

re: practical joke

Thanks for the laugh. ^_^ Devious. I also have a question about warning templates, you are one of many editors I've seen lately using vandalism warning templates that are very different from the ones on the WP:vandalism page. Where did you find them? Are they admin-only or something? -Kasreyn 04:48, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

Hehe, yeah. That practical joke rocks. :) And about the templates, I used to have self-created warning templates because I was bored with the default ones, but I've since changed back due to some formatting errors on mine. However, I still use {{final warning}} quite often, simply because it looks cooler. And no, I wouldn't know anything about admin-only things because I'm not an admin (although I'd love to be one, to fight vandals more efficiently). --Buchanan-Hermit™..CONTRIBS..SPEAK!. 04:54, 24 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You mean like this?

(warning template removed to avoid confusion)

LOL! That and below were just something I found to perhaps amuse you and your legions of fans!, btw Shatner Rocks on Boston Public! --cathytreks™..CONTRIBS..SPEAK!. 04:54, 31 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Dark Shadows

Barnabas Collins smiled and replied... "that joke was only done in a truly humourously vein!", he pleadingly looked as he smiled at his eternal bride.

The lovely and ever so intelligent vampire... once known in life as Jossette DuPre of Paris!

Jossette had always ben a clever girl, and would only nod a smile a agreement at her former fiance, now eternal spouse, turned into a monster, a creature like she, one with an unquenchable thirst for blood! http://www.amy-jennings.o-f.com

(Cathytreks 23:12, 3 March 2006 (UTC))[reply]

Re:Block Needed

Hey, Kasreyn, I'm not an admin. If you require a block try coming onto [irc.freenode.net/#wikipedia-en-vandalism the Wikipedia vandalism channel] or use WP:VIP or WP:AIV. Also, that warning was issued yesterday - generally admins only block for warnings given on the same day. Compu terjoe 10:32, 26 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Portia de Rossi

My browser must have been caching the picture and the Image's page because it was a picture of Portia de Rossi whenever I looked at the Portia de Rossi page or the Image page for that image. Even now it was not until I did a shift-refresh did the picture and the image page get updated. Judging from the image history someone uploaded a photo overtop of the photo that existed yesterday. Since nobody provided any edit summary when they removed the image I assumed that was the vandalism and I was restoring the page. Qutezuce 06:50, 27 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, there's nothing in the history of that page to suggest that Che uploaded an image on top of another. If another image had been uploaded previously it would show up in the File History section of the page. If an image had been deleted, there would be a record on that in the page history. Guettarda 15:59, 27 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Are you looking at the same thing I'm looking at? Image:Portia.jpg. (NOT Image:Portia1.jpg) Hit refresh on your browser. In the file history I see

(del) (cur) 00:55, February 27, 2006 . . Qutezuce (Talk) . . 300x414 (70553 bytes) (Reverted to earlier revision)
(del) (rev) 00:55, February 27, 2006 . . Qutezuce (Talk) . . 66x96 (1915 bytes) (Reverted to earlier revision)
(del) (rev) 00:55, February 27, 2006 . . Qutezuce (Talk) . . 300x414 (70553 bytes) (Reverted to earlier revision)
(del) (rev) 13:10, February 26, 2006 . . Che090572 (Talk) . . 66x96 (1915 bytes) (I get it from www.pnpjamaica.com)
(del) (rev) 00:56, October 22, 2005 . . Crumbsucker (Talk) . . 300x414 (70553 bytes) (Portia de Rossi on the cover of The Advocate)

If the image wasn't overwritten then how did I restore the old image by only clicking on the "rev" links on that page? Qutezuce 20:43, 27 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm...I see. Portia and Portia1. Now I feel dumb. Guettarda 21:13, 27 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

In my defense, I followed the comments at User_talk:Che090572#Image_question, in which the only image mentioned was Portia1. Guettarda 21:15, 27 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Abu Ghraib

I am replying hear because the discussion page there is getting long and confusing. You did miss my last point. They clearly separated b) "humiliation" from a) "torture". Therefore, my point was that things like humiliating prisoners is clearly abuse it is not legally classified as torture. Anyhow, these count-counterpoints can go on forever and, unfortunately, we only have limited time on this planet, so why not use it toward more important things like fixing up the article together. Deal? I just had my first article here named as a "feature" and I know I could get this one featured too if I put my mind to it. There is a lot of work to do, however. I found a couple reactions re: Iraqis and added them to the article. I also added reactions from Arab Americans and incorporated them under Media reactions. I am working on finding a couple more substantive quotes from Iraqis. I have contacted some friends I have in Turkey for help regarding this issue. If you look at the article you will see I have added citation needed notes throughout. I could use your help filling them in using the proper and latest Wikiformat. If you don't know what that is, just click on edit in the Iraqi response section and you will see how it is done. After we get this thing in the proper format then we can work on cleaning it up, organizing it better, and trimming it down. It is way too long. There is a lot of repetition in the article. To be featured, Wikipedia demands most articles be no bigger than 32k (up to 50 for important subjects). I will be back to work at this tomorrow afternoon my time. Ciao! --Jayzel 00:57, 1 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry for the delayed response. Been busy lately and then forgot.

You wrote: My only concern is that, since we seem to have differing personal standards on what "torture" is, it would be best to decide on an outside, NPOV source for that definition, to avoid locking horns in the future. I'd suggest the Geneva Convention.

Geneva Convention works for me.

As for the article, I'm not sure if I wholly agree with trimming too much. I understand that that is the FA policy, but I personally disagree with the policy in that case. To my mind, an article should be exactly as long as it needs to be to properly treat the subject, no longer or shorter. When it comes down to it, I'm less concerned about getting FA

It probably wouldn't make featured status anyhow so long as it has the current events tag. I mainly just meant, let's bring it up to featured quality. As for length, wikipedia likes to keep articles shorter mainly because most people don't want to read something terribly long. I'm going away for a couple weeks and will not be near a computer so I try to get some work done on the article by the start of April. Ciao, --Jayzel 12:37, 8 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Brandi Sherwood

Added less info then before and the sources. Fix the format if its wrong plz!

99jonathan 06:55, 8 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Bat Out of Hell III: The Last at Bat contradiction

I changed the wording in the Bat Out of Hell III article so it won't sound as confusing anymore [1]. Эйрон Кинни (t) 00:00, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Image Tagging Image:Jerry Goldsmith.jpg

This media may be deleted.

Thanks for uploading Image:Jerry Goldsmith.jpg. I notice the 'image' page currently doesn't specify who created the content, so the copyright status is unclear. If you have not created this media yourself then there needs to be an arguement why we have the right to use the media on Wikipedia (see copyright tagging below). If you have not created the media yourself then it needs to be specified where it was found, i.e., in most cases link to the website where it was taken from, and the terms of use for content from that page.

If the media also doesn't have a copyright tag then one should be added. If you created/took the picture, audio, or video then the {{GFDL-self}} tag can be used to release it under the GFDL. If you believe the media qualifies as fair use, consider reading fair use, and then use a tag such as {{Non-free fair use in|article name}} or one of the other tags listed at Wikipedia:Image copyright tags#Fair_use. See Wikipedia:Image copyright tags for the full list of copyright tags that you can use.

If you have uploaded other media, consider checking that you have specified their source and copyright tagged them, too. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that any unsourced and untagged images will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Shyam ^(T/C) 13:35, 18 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You're welcome

You're welcome. What did I do to earn your gratitude? :) --Yamla 01:39, 27 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Awesome! My first barnstar! That's made my week. Thank you very much. :) --Yamla 04:13, 30 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Vote to Prohibit Anonymous Edits

Hi Kasreyn, thanks for your comments on my user page. I'll drop you a note before sending the results of the poll and will note your recommendations. Cheers, Gavin 13:40, 27 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Luntz

Thanks. If I see something that looks funny (i.e., copy-pasted from another site), I usually paste a sentence or two into Google. That catches a surprising number of copyvios. jdb ❋ (talk) 20:15, 29 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sandy Linter

It's pretty easy -- just add {{copyvio|url}} to the top of the article (where url is whatever the URL of the page is). When you save the page, there will be a message like

If you have just labeled this page as a possible copyright infringement, please add the following to the bottom of Wikipedia:Copyright_problems/2006_March_30 * {{subst:article-cv|Frank Luntz}} from [http://www.luntz.com/FrankLuntz.htm]. ~~~~

just follow the Wikipedia:Copyright_problems link and paste the line below into the page. Save, and you're done. Glad to see someone else fighting copyvios on wikipedia. best, jdb ❋ (talk) 04:59, 30 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding warning templates -- there might be, but I'm not aware of one. You could just ask if they know if the text is public-domain or otherwise OK for inclusion in WP, and that you marked it as a copyvio as a safety measure, or something similar. Personally, I never bother to notify the uploader, but that may not be the best idea... jdb ❋ (talk) 05:12, 30 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you

Thank you for your reasonable comments on Talk:Circumcision. A real breath of fresh air. Jayjg ^(talk) 17:43, 3 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Embarassment

Leaving those rude messages for others to see is just embarrassing. I do not know why you force people to do things and they are certainly threatning messages to others. DO NOT make threatsto the users. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Oth is luv (talk • contribs)

To anyone reading my talk page, the above comment is regarding a discussion on another talk page. As can be seen at Oth is luv's talk page, I've left no messages that could in any way be considered rude or threatening. -Kasreyn 09:06, 4 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

RE: "There is nothing rude about the vandalism warning templates at Wikipedia. They are all politely worded and very circumspect. If you found them embarassing, then I suggest you remember that it's just a website. If you want to stop getting such messages on your talk page, then read the messages and take their advice (ie., stop doing the things they say you shouldn't be doing). Generally, when you're the newcomer in any situation, it's wise to be a little circumspect at the start and see what the standards of behavior are. There's nothing wrong with "being bold", as we say here; your mistake was in taking the warning messages so personally. Lashing out at the other editors is going to do nothing but give you a reputation as a jerk around here, and you don't want that. So how about calming down some?"

I would say that the above that YOU sent the other user IS rude and threatening. Using terms like "jerk", "lashing out" and a generally lecturing tone is not good. Just because someone disagrees with someone else shouldn't give anyone a license to imply the are "vandals". I note also that you advise others, but operate under different rules yourself! Wallie 07:19, 16 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

If you can't understand the difference between calling someone a jerk, and warning them that their actions might cause them to be seen by others as a jerk, then you're in great danger of being seen by others as a complete moron, my dear friend. :) -Kasreyn 03:26, 17 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I really don't care if others think I am a complete moron. I'm sure you do, but I can live with that. Wallie 08:53, 17 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]