User talk:Kesh/Archive-Apr2008

Please suggest me?

You said me no for fourm but what about news site?

Pushkar —Preceding unsigned comment added by 202.174.5.2 (talk) 11:01, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

It depends. Are we talking something like CNN or IGN, or are we talking a small fan-site? The general rule is that there needs to be editorial oversight for a news source to qualify under WP:V. That's why forums and blogs are disallowed, as are fansites. -- Kesh (talk) 11:20, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

References, where?

Thanks for your advice on the article about Andreas Öberg.

Being a new user, where do I add proper references? Perhaps you can refer to a link (maybe one of WP:NPOV, WP:BLP, and WP:BAND, as well as WP:N and WP:V.)? I don't want this article to be deleted. Thanks. 213.100.89.251 (talk) 16:48, 2 April 2008 (UTC) Dafos (talk) 17:42, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

Most of the instructions for references are at WP:CITE. It can get a little tricky, but take a look at some other articles to see how they used the <ref> tags to reference their sources. -- Kesh (talk) 18:57, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

Making an Article

You may have noticed that I posted a question on the help desk about making an article for Charles Trippy. I am sorry for constantly repeating the question, but I am afraid nobody has answered it yet. Perhaps you can help me. Like I said before, I wish to make an article for Charles Trippy, a popular YouTube star. However, the article is protected because many people have not followed the rules for posting a new article. I however, have taken the time to learn about posting new articles. Now for my question. The page is protected and I would like to request unprotection so I can post my new article. Now mind you, I HAVE followed the rules for writing a new article but how can I post it? What would be the best way to get my article out into the open? Could you please help me? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ryansmith392 (talk • contribs) 18:51, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

The best thing to do is to create a sandbox version of the article. Basically, making it a sub-page of your own User space, like User:Ryansmith392/Charles Trippy. Just put the article there, then go to WP:DRV and follow the instructions there to ask people to look at your version of the article and approve it to be moved to main article space. That way, folks can see what you've written and decide if it now fits Wikipedia's policies. -- Kesh (talk) 18:55, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

cleanup tag on King-James-Only Movement

You added a cleanup tag to the King-James-Only Movement article on April 2nd. I started a discussion on Talk:King-James-Only Movement about what needed to be changed and what should be done if it doesn't happen. Please add any thoughts you have on the matter there.   — Chris Capoccia ^T⁄_C 19:58, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

Templete

Also I was curious if there is a templete that you can follow to make writing an article easier? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ryansmith392 (talk • contribs) 21:48, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

Pictures

I am sorry I should have been more specific about the question above. Is there a template I can follow to put up pictures and a box for the biography of the person? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ryansmith392 (talk • contribs) 21:54, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

The best thing for this is an Infobox. Take a look at Stephen King for instance. They've got an "Infobox:Writer" set up there, which gives a nice template for all his info and a place for a picture. There's infoboxes for all sorts of things. Check out WP:Infobox for a list. -- Kesh (talk) 22:01, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

Freezing computer which finally shut down

Thanks for your repsonse on the help desk. I was afraid it might have been caused by the other site. There's all this exciting stuff going on that has nothing to do with what I wanted. Advertisers should not be allowed to force this stuff on us when the computer can't handle it.Vchimpanzee · talk · contributions · 17:41, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, one of the universal truths of the 'net is that, as soon as advertisers see new tech, they try to use it in their ads. JavaScript ads are a pain in the ass, especially those ones that float across the page or hover in the middle of the screen even if you scroll down. Flash ads are really bad on older computers, as they can slow the whole system down. -- Kesh (talk) 23:49, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

Please note...

that Random832 is completely wrong (or lying) at the ANI. RP clearly and unequivocally invoked RtV. --Cheeser1 (talk) 18:07, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

The trouble is, I don't see where he did. If there were some way to prove it, I think people would change their minds about the situation. Right now though, we can't show for sure. Either way, I find it damn hard to AGF with RP, given his edit history and now coming back from an IP just to stir up this hornet's nest again. -- Kesh (talk) 18:11, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

Deletion log clearly states it, as does his conversation with the admin who deleted it. I linked to both at ANI, not that anybody bothers to read it before making up their own "facts" about the situation. --Cheeser1 (talk) 05:07, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

I missed the links in there. Well, it's archived now, so we'll have to see how he behaves in the future. -- Kesh (talk) 16:05, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

Sorry

Sorry, but you cannot claim "its current incarnation reads like a POV WP:COATRACK" and "I didn't say it was biased". The two are mutually exclusive. POV means bias. Coatrack is a rule talking primarily about biased pages. You have failed to prove either, plus NPOV clearly states that sides are presented based on the evidence that exists. I suggest you reread those pages before making the accusations that you have done. Thank you. Ottava Rima (talk) 02:44, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

Please remain civil. No, "coatrack" doesn't mean bias, it means that the article purports to be about one thing, but is really about another. And this is a good example of coatracking. If you feel it necessary, I'll strike out the "POV" from my !vote, but the remainder stands. -- Kesh (talk) 02:48, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

Please read WP:AGF and stop using false ruleslawyering terms that are not applicable. Thanks. Furthermore, your claims about coatrack are not found upon what coatrack says. The term "bias" comes up 9 times. Furthermore, its an essay. You can't use an essay as anything viewed by the larger community as policy. Thus, both sides of your argument fall apart. Ottava Rima (talk) 03:30, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

"Coatrack articles violate the core Wikipedia policies of neutral point of view: in particular the requirement that articles be balanced. " And if you are correct that its not about bias, please point out where it says "some Coatrack articles" etc, instead of blatantly saying that all are violation of NPOV which is a bias guideline. Ottava Rima (talk) 03:31, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

Me, AGF? you're the one making claims of "ruleslawyering," then you turn around and start trying to quote specifics of COATRACK and claim I'm using it falsely, while word counting for "bias." Look: coatracking isn't unique to Wikipedia. I see you're emotionally invested in this, and I have no desire to bang my head against the wall of your opinion, so I don't see any point in continuing this conversation. -- Kesh (talk) 16:07, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

AGF means that intentions are good. Ruleslawyering does not mean your intentions are bad, but you assuming that I am angry or emotional invested is not assuming good faith, plus is preposterous. Why would I even be angry when the case is rather obvious? You are purposely throwing out terms and refused to back them up, or refuse to apologize over doing such in an incorrect manner. That is rather uncivil, and you should really know better. You cannot just accuse people like that. The only one emotionally involved in this matter, if one could say anything about emotions, is you, for your refusal to be corrected. Ottava Rima (talk) 17:38, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

Re: Penis Game DRV

Sorry, I've been a bit swamped with work lately (leading to briefer closing summaries perhaps). The consensus in the DRV seemed to indicate that the source was sufficiently reliable for the subject matter. As for the AfD closure itself, procedurally there was nothing wrong. The !votes were heading towards delete, but then new information was provided. No consensus perhaps would have been a better label for the AfD close, but so it goes. IronGargoyle (talk) 23:20, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

Okay. Thanks for following up on this. I appreciate it, and understand your reasoning. -- Kesh (talk) 23:21, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

Atheism, homosexuality etc

Hi Kesh. Yep, we were getting off topic, but I'm loath to let this go just yet so I'm going to pick your brains here.

So, you're saying the Pope was born an atheist, the Archbishop of Canterbury was born an atheist, all Muslims, Jews, Buddhists, Mormons, Zoroastrians, Calathumpians, etc etc etc - everyone in the world, in fact - were born atheists, simply because they/we all failed to have a belief in god at the moment of their/our birth. Is that your position?

My analogy with homosexuality was this. Nobody could look at a new-born baby and say "He/she is a homosexual". Equally, nobody could look at a new-born baby and say "He/she is a heterosexual". Whatever they are will become apparent in due course, but just not yet. That's because babies don't fall into the framework of sexuality at all. Who knows when the first signs of incipient sexuality (of whatever kind) first raise their heads, but it's certainly way past birth. This wasn't an argument about whether homosexuals are born vs. made (but since we're talking about it, I do believe they are born. Parents of gays often say they were "different", even as children; but those "differences" are certainly not evident as early as the day they were born). Rather, it was about classifications of tiny babies into categories that are utterly inappropriate for them. Such as anywhere at all on the spectrum of beliefs, about anything, not just about god. They're fundamentally indifferent to it. Even that's placing it too high up, because they're not even consciously aware of it to become indifferent to it in the first place - but I can't think of another word. Let me think of some other (probably flawed) analogies. Is a baby "ill-mannered" just because he cries whenever he wants feeding, regardless of whose lives he's interrupting? Is a baby a "terrorist sympathiser" just because he's never denounced terrorism? Is a baby "illiterate" just because he can't read or spell? Is a baby a "non-smoker" just because he's never had a cigarette? Is a baby a "teetotaller" just because he's never had alcohol? Is a baby a "non-Democrat" just because he's never voted Democrat in his life? Is a baby "umemployed" just because he doesn't have a job?

The answer to these questions is like the atheism question - they don't have an answer because we're asking the wrong questions, questions that apply to older children and adults, not to babies. Love to hear back from you with your thoughts. Cheers. -- JackofOz (talk) 01:02, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

I'm afraid I'm feeling rather ill today, so forgive me if this is short.

Yes, all those people were born atheist, because they were born without belief. I think I see where you were going with your second point, but you veered in the wrong direction; children have no concept of sexuality, so it'd be more accurate to say they're asexual (in the psychological sense) at birth, and develop a sexuality later. Perhaps both religion and sexuality are learned, perhaps there's a genetic predisposition, we don't know. But, at birth, we have no concept of these things. -- Kesh (talk) 14:06, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

But that's exactly my point. To be an atheist, or a theist, or a whatever-ist, you need to have a conscious opinion about the matter. Babies don't have opinions, about anything. -- JackofOz (talk) 01:43, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

Again, you're conflating "active" Atheism (the philosophical/religious belief) with little-A atheism: a lack of belief. The infant simply lacks any concept of religion or faith, so has no theistic belief whatsoever. Essentially, it's more a semantic argument than a practical one. -- Kesh (talk) 01:46, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, Kesh. I think we agree on the basic issue. I just think to call a baby an atheist, even stressing the little "a", is somewhat misleading, since most people have a concept of what "atheist" means, and it certainly doesn't fit this situation. I'd prefer to say that babies are non-theistic, rather than a-theistic. And I'd definitely prefer to refer to them as "atheistic" than say "they are atheists", because they're not any kind of -ists. -- JackofOz (talk) 02:34, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

I think we can just agree to disagree then. :) Nice to have a pleasant debate on Wikipedia for once! -- Kesh (talk) 15:19, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

Ref: Running out of patience

Thanks Calvin 1998, Vector Potential and Kesh for getting back, I'm running on "commercial free" Internet Explorer 5; any fixes?!, I probably need to update my browser but for the eternal Mac OS 9.2 there isn't much available, if any body knows what would be best please let me know . Kind regards, Moebiusuibeom-en alias 64.237.165.247 (talk) 17:29, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

Ouch. Yeah, IE 5 probably won't support a lot of the modern things Wikipedia does. Pretty much your only bet is either an old version of Opera or an old version of Netscape. Neither one will handle all the new stuff, but they may be more feature-complete than IE. -- Kesh (talk) 17:52, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

Subprime mortgage crisis

I see you improved on my attempt to archive talk:subprime mortgage crisis. Thanks. Just wanted to ask what would be the appropriate thing to leave on the article page of the archived talk pages. A redirect to the original article perhaps? Zain Ebrahim (talk) 19:53, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

I just replied on the help desk, so hopefully you find a few tips there. :) Generally, you just leave those "article" pages as blank redlinks. Making a redirect could work but, if the article itself is ever moved, that becomes a lot of redirects that need updated. -- Kesh (talk) 20:05, 30 April 2008 (UTC)