User talk:Kesh/Archive-Feb2007

Findings.

I do have the following link that will support the 'research findings' that may be acceptable to your link:

Oxford University accepts corrections to half-truth and lie definitions 1994

Here is the research website. The Jesus Christ Code

And the only acknowledgement right now in a magazine is this.

Lakehead University Class Notes

Do you think any of these would qualify ?

Please advise, thanks.

--Caesar J. B. Squitti  : Son of Maryann Rosso and Arthur Natale Squitti 15:58, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

Not really. You still haven't answered the important question: what does any of this have to do with the article Devil? It's original research to claim this has anything to do with that subject. -- Kesh 16:05, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

By the way, I had posted to the talk page, in hopes of getting others to find related research, anyway, I did not realize that I had posted to that site, because the same information relates to the original sin, garden of eden, Adam and Eve, Jesus Christ they are all related.

The identification of a dark side to truth, ie half-truths #3 type, suggests that the deception in the garden is true, it is still with us, and may suggest that this force, ie the devil actually exists. How else can you explain that the definitions of half-dtruth, lie and truth are wrong, incomplete, missing this side of truth where truth can lie, if you take the logical progressin of a half-truth #3 being a truth that is part of the truth, that forms a deceptive lie ?

Thanks for your time, and keep up the great work with this wikipedia site.

--Caesar J. B. Squitti  : Son of Maryann Rosso and Arthur Natale Squitti 16:22, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but all of this is original research, which is not allowed on Wikipedia. Further, it's totally unverifiable.

As to your question, it simply doesn't make sense. If you wish to discuss philosophy and religion, there are forums out there which may be better suited to your needs. Wikipedia is for collecting known facts and verifiable information. -- Kesh 22:38, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

Here is a letter from Oxford University accepting the revisions:

Fact is the current definition of truth is wrong, incomplete, the definition of lie, makes no mention of a half-truth, a truth that lies, and the current definitions of 'half-truth' are part of the correct definition. As you can see the entry of 'half-truth' has been developed by myself with alot of logical development of some of the statments made by people like Alfred North Whitehead,

Oxford University Accepts Corrections 1994 - Caesar Squitti

These are facts, not opinions.

--Caesar J. B. Squitti  : Son of Maryann Rosso and Arthur Natale Squitti 23:16, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

Incorrect. Those are 1) an opinion expressed by a man and 2) a letter from 1994 indicating that OED was updating their dictionary definitions. Neither of which support the assertion that your statements are fact. Either way, you are treading heavily in the direction of original research, some of which I see you were rebuffed for in your edits to Half-truths.

Suffice to say, until you can cite reputable, notable sources of fact, I would suggest not promoting this concept on Wikipedia. -- Kesh 00:05, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

Your comments on the letter from OED about revisions to the concept of half-truths is in fact a half-truth. But your point has allowed me to better understand the problem with non-original sources. If I have a 'friendly' source who will include my opinion, than it becomes fact, regardless of the integrity of the opinion.

You will note that Mr. Whitehead makes no connection between truth and lie, he does state that all truths are half-truths.

I can honestly tell you that one great problem is that most 'faculties' of philosophy are currently corrupt, and do not want the people to be aware of the concepts of half-truths, in one instance a 'women's department' had my website removed from the University Computer system. They did not want to know The Truth about Truth, for they were using half-truths to attack all men and corrupt philosophy to manipulate it within the system.

It becomes more obvious to me that somehow, and perhaps human error, the original corrupt research that was used to corrupt 'women's studies' and philosophy was used, by using non correct sources. (I guess we can blame it on the original sin and the devil.

Keep up the good work, you cannot allow 'non correct' original research, nor credited research to inter the wikipedia.com. We are all human, so it hoped that the wikipedia, will acknowledge that, in a diplomatic manner. Truth is seldom black and white.

--Caesar J. B. Squitti  : Son of Maryann Rosso and Arthur Natale Squitti 15:25, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

{{lowercase}}

{{Lowercase}} does work on talk pages, contrary to the edit summary you used when removing it. --Coredesat 00:47, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

I've never actually seen it work on a Talk page. It's always still uppercase, even though it works properly on the main article. -- Kesh 00:53, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

Try purging your cache (?purge) or checking your javascript configuration. Cbrown1023 01:48, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

Souf

Thank you for experimenting with Wikipedia. Your test worked, and it has been reverted or removed. Please use the sandbox for any other tests you may want to do. Take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to our encyclopedia. V60 ^{VTalk - VDemolitions} 22:20, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

Afraid you tagged the wrong account. I was reverting old vandalism by another user, who is also trying to get this put into the Devil article. Seriously, a religion called Parcheesenip? -- Kesh 22:22, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

He also hit Evil, which is on my watchlist for just such an occassion. And added some nonsense about "If you do not think anyone should die, read Tuck Everlasting" to the Souf article. He seems to be bouncing back from an IP address and his logged in user, or there's two people tag-teaming this vandalism. -- Kesh 22:28, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

Personal Attacks

I was being attacked. Where is Alistairs warning? You're applying the rules very unevenly. Go ahead have me blocked, then I can bring some attention this. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Darkov (talk • contribs) 00:05, 21 January 2007 (UTC).

I disagree you were being attacked. He was blunt, but that was not an attack. If you want to "bring attention to this," feel free. I'm not the one making passive-aggressive threats to other editors. -- Kesh 00:07, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

AfD Adam Baer

Your comment about deleting entry on Adam Baer is off base and should be removed. Writer has published in this country's most important publications. Consistently.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.235.193.37 (talk • contribs) 01:39, January 21, 2007

If so, then you should cite sources in the article to show his notability. I am not persuaded by you simply telling me to remove my comments. Show me that he's important by giving me references I can verify. -- Kesh 01:45, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

Jrosen

User Kesh: Apologies, didn't know protocol, am learning. One thing I do know, though, is that you're wrong that this article should be deleted. As a well-known editor with no ties to this subject, I can tell you that this author has published and continues to publish important articles in America's most important publications. He does not, for instance, work as a customer support specialist at a cellphone company.—Preceding unsigned comment added by Jrosen68 (talk • contribs) 4:18, January 22, 2007

I've been offline for a few days, so I'm not even sure what discussion you're referring to. Further, I note you decided to take out your frustrations by claiming to be "important" while insulting my own employment. This is not likely to help sway me to your point of view. -- Kesh 02:00, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

Hey, Kesh. I've been watching the discussion on the Adam Baer AFD... I think it's reached a point where all of the valid comments about the content have been made, and it's going to need to go to the closing admin to decide what happens from here. I agree that your points about publishing in notable publications is a good one, but our guidelines seem to be a bit slippery as to whether that confers notability to the author or not. It looks like a number of his defenders are coming into the discussion at this point, unfortunately. Hopefully the closer can sort through the arguments reasonably well. (Oh, and I agree that the comemnt about your job is a cheap shot. Comment on the issue, not the commenter, Jrosen68.) Tony Fox (arf!) 19:54, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

True. I don't think that it confers notability, but we'll have to let the closing admin decide. -- Kesh 21:13, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

I did tag all the SPAs in the discussion, so they should recognize there's a lot of newcomers in there. (I keep getting involved in all the fun AfDs lately...) Tony Fox (arf!) 21:24, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

Your recent reversion of Counter-Strike: Source

When you reverted the vandalism to this article, you reverted the vandal and then reverted yourself, restoring the vandalism. Also, your edit summaries claimed that you were reverting vandalism by Talk, which not only is not the name of the vandal but a user by that name doesn't exist at all. I think there might be something wrong with whatever plug-in or software you're using to revert vandalism.--Dycedarg ж 03:49, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for catching that! I was attempting to use a script found at WP:US, but apparently it's not working properly. I'm going to try changing the way it's running in my monobook.js, but if that doesn't work I'll have to remove it. -- Kesh 03:51, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

If that doesn't work out and you're looking for another revert script, I'd recommend Popups. It reverts easily and does a whole lot of other extremely useful stuff as well.--Dycedarg ж 03:58, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

I've tried the popups, but they tend to run rather slowly on my home laptop, and can be troublesome when they pop up over every darn link. I might give them another try, though. Thanks again! -- Kesh 04:01, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

in the interests of harmonious editing,

since I've already warned the user for 3RR and got flamed, can you issue a {{npa4}} warning at User talk:Cali567 for the attacks on my talk page against Seong? Thanks in advance. If you don't want to, please let me know. — coelacan talk — 04:26, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

and you can reply here. my talk page is consistenly a cess pool. — coelacan talk — 04:28, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

Done. These are blatant attacks, so I have no qualms about issuing the warning. -- Kesh 04:30, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

If you see any more attacks, now that the final warning was given, please let me know on my talk page so that the little orange bar will show up. I'll handle it from there. Thank you for your help. =) And if you're up for it, please stay involved on the article talk page. — coelacan talk — 04:45, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

I'll see what I can do. The article is on my watch list, so I'll keep an eye on what's going on. About to log off for now, so I'll probably pick up in the morning. -- Kesh 04:47, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

Righto. I'll keep a close eye on it for the next five hours at least. I think it's best to open a WP:RFC as well, so I'm going to go do that now. — coelacan talk — 05:00, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

Broader Editorial Review

Kesh,

I was suggesting that the same article appearing in two differnt newpapers offered broader editorial review, since two editorial staffs would to some extent be verifying sources or have faith in the credibility of the writer. This is not the case though between the New Times and the Village Voice since the Voice is now part of the New Times group. I found that by reading the articles at WP this afternoon. Maybe to some extent they have independent editors at the local level, but I would pass on that concept.

Cheers!

Kevin

--Kevin Murray 04:47, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

Ahh, that's a good point. And good research on your part! Worth noting in the article. We need to see if there are better sources for this. -- Kesh 04:48, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

Oxyman

Is Wikipedia a resource for education and carrying FACTS or a tool for American propaganda? I have edited out reticules claims by Americans in the Land speed record for railed vehicles and Empire State Express only to have arrogant Americans delete them and accuse me of pov can we have a neutral observer look at these sections Oxyman 02:20, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

First, calm down. Personal insults are not welcome on Wikipedia. Second, your statements are unsourced. You can claim that they are facts, but without reliable sources cited, they mean nothing. All of your edits I have seen are inherently POV. I'm not sure what you personally have against the United States or its citizens, but I can assure you I am only here to make neutral edits to articles. That includes reverting unsourced edits, such as the ones you made. -- Kesh 02:57, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

Please do not add content without citing reliable sources. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. Thank you. -- Kesh 02:51, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

can you provide a citation or proof for no999 achieving 100mph? yet you are claiming this without citation

Actually, yes]. I will be adding this citation to the article momentarily. -- Kesh 03:30, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

"No. 999 entered service in May of 1893, making the trip from Syracuse, New York to the Chicago World's Fair. The Express was recorded traveling at 121.5 mph (195.5 km/h) during an exhibition run between Batavia and Buffalo on May 10, making No. 999 the fastest-moving manmade invention of its time and the first object on wheels to exceed 100 mph (161 km/h)".where in this statement is it mentioned and visible to the casual observer that this is an unoficial claim? Oxyman 19:08, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

also your flack about spelling seems to sugest that you are more interested in being a dick (as you accuse me of) then reliable facts Oxyman 19:11, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

Tag that statement with a {{fact}} tag, and I'll gladly fix it. As to your spelling you vandalized my userpage. Yes, I'm going to make fun of you when you misspell while vandalizing. -- Kesh 19:26, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

"vandalisation" of Evil

You've written on my discussion page, that i vandalised Evil -- it's not true: i reverted vandalism. I just forgot to mention that in edit summary. Mewp 13:16, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

Ah, my apologies. There was other vandalism you missed, so when someone reverted that, I only saw that they reverted what you had done. Sorry about that! -- Kesh 15:08, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

Please comment on improving articles when commenting on talk pages

The new and improved list of articles is well referenced now. It has undergone a "massive remodeling." It will withstand any attempts at deletion, period.

If you disagree then I accept YOU to nominate this new article for DELETION today. Your good friend. --QuackGuru 00:02, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

I'm glad you're so confident. However, I have a feeling the article is destined for permanant deletion once the articles it contains are properly categorized. You still also seem to have difficulty understanding that you are not the final arbiter of the article. See WP:OWN. -- Kesh 00:39, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

If thats how YOU feel then please go right ahead and nominate it for DELETION. Cheers, your smiling friend, the -- QuackGuru 00:48, 1 February 2007 (UTC).

As I said, that will happen once I'm assured the articles it contains are properly categorized. Please slow down and read comments. Oh, and don't delete them as you did here. -- Kesh 00:51, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

• Comment I'm not suprised you did not nominate this list for deletion. Many editors have done superb contributions. Enough said. Thanks again my friend. --QuackGuru 01:02, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

Funny. You still didn't read what I said. And no, you are not my friend. I think that should be abundant by your actions so far. -- Kesh 01:08, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

I will be your friend regardless of how you feel. In the futrue please constructively contribute to Wikipedia when entering talk pages. Talk pages are for improving the article, not your personal opinions about deletion. Again, if you feel strongly about the list does not meet Wikipedia's guideline for articlespace then please continue the process and nominate for deletion. Cheers and Thanks. --QuackGuru 01:18, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

Some articles are not going to be improved. My comments were constructive, as they indicate the direction that should be taken with the article. Further, you've placed it back in mainspace after it was clearly shown that the list did not belong there, but in project space only. In fact, the list is still there. What justification is there for recreating it in article space?

You've convinced me. Time to open up an AfD. -- Kesh 01:39, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for your help! We should not go around in circles. Lets let the process of Wikipedia continue. Thanks, --QuackGuru 01:52, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

The article has been deleted. -- Kesh 02:14, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

... and another reversed the Speedy, so we'll get a full discussion now instead. -- Kesh 02:40, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

For future reference, the Afd in question led to delete, and is now being reviewed. -- Kesh 21:45, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the comment

Thanks for the advice. I had been meaning to trim that section for a long time. Can't believe I forgot an edit summary, I'm usually so anal about justifying what I take out. Levid37 13:56, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

Personal Attacks

Sorry, I was being blunt, he was attacking. See, it's all a matter of opinion! And given that you should be a little more circumspect about proclaiming who is attacking who. I think you didn't consider the circumstances before you rattled off your block threat, thus the "bring attention" comment. Also your notion of passive-aggressive is flawed. Essentially a passive-aggressive seeks to obstruct or injure through inaction. I'm clearly active in my actions. I have no problem with authority, it's the quality of the local self-appointed authority, and in particular its pettiness and self-rightiousness, I have a problem with. Finally if you reply in my talk page then I'm more likely to notice your replies. Darkov 11:23, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

Wow. You're dragging this up again after two weeks? It would be more productive to just let it go and move on. I still stand by my actions and your pedantic attempts to twist definitions do not change that. As to comments, I prefer to reply directly to them, rather than bouncing back and forth between Talk pages. If you want to notice a reply, Watch the page. -- Kesh 15:34, 7 February 2007 (UTC)