User talk:Ckessler

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Contents 1 The L Word 2 Moni Aizik 3 Wikipedia:Three-revert rule, warning 4 Slow down 5 Mediation Case: Irreducible complexity 6 Articles you might like to edit, from SuggestBot 7 bias 8 Jody 9 Jody Watley 10 Jody Watley page protection 11 Sexuality of Adolf Hitler 12 Cat Cora 13 Thanks 14 Rachel Corrie 15 Magazine cover fair-use 16 AfD 17 Adam Rapp 18 Concetta Tomei 19 Big Hands for Little Hearts 20 Mick Fleetwood POV 21 you said so yourself 22 Midori 23 Beverly Hills Supper Club fire 24 CFD again for "Entertainers by age upon death" 25 Chas Lee 26 WP:AN3 Report 27 New York 28 The Real World: London 29 Beck 30 Sam Monroe 31 Re:Redirection 32 Subst: 33 Carlebach 34 A few notes 35 The Who 36 Cleanup templates 37 Harper Simon

[edit] The L Word

Thank you for adding the spoiler tag on The L Word! matt kane's brain 02:47, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Moni Aizik

I have radically reworked this AfD candidate article, and would like you to consider changing your vote. Thx, the.crazy.russian (T) (C) (E) 21:10, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

As the nominator, you can't just change your vote - you need to withdraw the nomination. Thx. the.crazy.russian (T) (C) (E) 22:17, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

I am glad we were able to salvage this article. Cheers. See you around WP. -the.crazy.russian (T) (C) (E) 05:30, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

You're very welcome, even though I am pretty sure that's not how you spell "todah rabah". :) Welcome to WP - Wishing you many happy edits! - the.crazy.russian (T) (C) (E) 19:50, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

So come showcase your skills at Wikipedia:WikiProject Judaism - the.crazy.russian (T) (C) (E) 20:01, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Wikipedia:Three-revert rule, warning

Hi Ckessler: You are on the borderline of breaking the Wikipedia:Three-revert rule in the Rabbi Shlomo Carlebach article, see [1] I do not wish to revert you a third time today. Twice is enough for me, I have no choice but to wait another 24 hours to do so. You are treating hearsay and gossip as if they were the legal equivalants of allegations in a duly constituted court of law. A number of admins who know something about this subject will be contacted, to advise how we should proceed. Your refusal to discuss to resolve this matter on the article's talk page is disappointing. IZAK 08:43, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Slow down

Dear Ckessler, while I support your new amendations to the Shlomo Carlebach article, may I suggest that you stop editing for a while, both to wait for U.S. users like IZAK to reply, and to avoid coming across as too overwhelming on the edit history page. Yoninah 09:16, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Mediation Case: Irreducible complexity

You have indicated that you are willing to accept an assignment as a mediator. I have assigned this case to you. If you don't want to take the case on, just say so at the bottom of the request, delegate it to someone else and update the case list accordingly. Before you begin the mediation please read the suggestions for mediators. You can also review earlier mediation cases to get an understanding for possible procedures.

--Fasten 14:10, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Articles you might like to edit, from SuggestBot

SuggestBot predicts that you will enjoy editing some of these articles. Have fun!

Stubs Red Dust Test pilot Pushing Tin Nick Lachey Vanessa Minnillo Kathy Griffin Basquiat Ian Ziering Naima Mora Tiger Kung Fu McLean Hospital Keith Haring Fashion Week Wife vs. Secretary Lisa Cant Karyn Parsons Ice Princess Us Weekly Chi Sao

Cleanup Jean-Michel Basquiat Bariatrics Frances Bean Cobain Merge Kapap List of fictitious Jews List of glamour models Add Sources Brandon Walsh Richard Hilton Tom Selleck Wikify Cimarron Strip Michael Grant (boxer) Choi Yong-kun Expand Pygmy The Basketball Diaries (film) Flamingo Laughlin

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 21:59, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] bias

I saw the request for mediation. If you check the talk page you'll notice I was involved in the debate at one point (although I never felt myself well versed enough on the facts to make any edits to the page itself). I agree with your ultimate position but I would like to take issue with one thing you've said: IZAK took offense to this, due to his bias as an Orthodox Jew. Everyone has their own biases - it's a natural part of life. You and I happen to have a similar bias in the Carlebach case, while IZAK has a different bias. Don't try to assume a source of those biases because you'll come off looking bad. One rule of thumb I've always tried to apply is to always address the issue, not the person who presented the issue. It also has a dangerous tendency to side track a debate (you'll notice IZAK noticed this too and responded to it). You want this discussion to be about Carlebach, not the role of Orthodox Jewry, or the opinions of its members.

Anyway, as life goes this clearly isn't the biggest thing that's happened today, so I apologize if I look like I'm making a federal case out of this, I just wanted to make a note of it since I have a certain interest in this case as well. If I can be of any assistance, let me know. --Bachrach44 02:38, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Jody

The information removed contained no source, and it was a serious "fact". Please use citations, if you intend to include such a "fact". -- Zanimum 22:37, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Jody Watley

I don't know why you are arguing about this, it is an established fact in the media that Midori (real name Michelle Watley) is Jodi's sister. Ckessler 22:47, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

The complaint I had was that you had no citation to back it up. Back facts up with "ref"s, or else there's no way to know its true. The sky is blue, but we still need to reference it. -- Zanimum 22:52, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Jody Watley page protection

Moved to talk:Jody Watley#Jody Watley page protection

[edit] Sexuality of Adolf Hitler

FYI...This article is up for vote on AFD. OSU80 01:32, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Cat Cora

I noticed you added Cat Cora to Category:Lesbian, gay, bisexual, or transgender people. I have heard this before, but I have also heard that it is just a rumor. A little while back, this was a debated issue. Do you know where you heard this? Perhaps you could add the source to the page? -- Chris 03:16, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Thanks

Thanks for your concern, but I'm not going to be looking at that page anymore. Wikipedia is not supposed to go into great detail on their subjects, especially on a marginally popular television show, and I still feel that the only necessary info for that page is just the cast and the weight they lost. The other paragraphs are pure fluff and are pretty much all non-NPOV, and can go, plus, it doesn't make any sense to just give this "special treatment" to a few of the seasons and not all. Burgwerworldz 00:32, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Rachel Corrie

The user in question is a vandal who is posting inappropriate material to the talk page. —Viriditas | Talk 07:12, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

I am adhering to WP:RPA. The user is a troll 69.209.215.204 (talk · contribs · logs · block user · block log) who is attacking what he deems "Wikipedia Jews" on user and talk pages. Please help clean up the mess. There should be zero tolerance for this nonsense. —Viriditas | Talk 07:17, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

The user is now using edit summaries to attack, instead of actual edits. We need an admin to block this user for trolling, personal attacks, and disruption. —Viriditas | Talk 07:20, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Magazine cover fair-use

Why do you dispute the image on Amanda Righetti's page? I have valid rational for fair use. I dispute your disputing the image.--Nick Dillinger 06:05, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

Ckessler has disputed the fair-use rights for a number of cover pictures. By Wikipedia's described rational for the fair-use of magazine covers, the magazine issue/cover must be discussed in the text of the article. (see the last line of said rational). This serves to keep articles about people from turning into picture galleries, and ensure that the inclusion of the image is imformative. So you cannot use a cover image of say Danica Patrick unless you also mention the cover in the article text.

On 2005-05-27, Ckessler disputed the fair-use of 50 images. All of the images were of semi-clothed women, from a varety of "men's magazines", this suggests a possible bias behind her actions. —MJBurrage • talk • 21:52, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

No, no bias against partially clothed women, I was a partially clothed woman this morning when I got dressed. I have a bias against images that violate copyright and Wikipedia policy and pose a potential problem for the project as a whole. The tag states that images of magazine covers must be used in an article discussing the publication of said magazine. I interpret that as: [b]Cover photos can be used in articles about the magazine, not about the cover subject.[/b] That's what the tag says, and similar photos have been disputed for the same reason. Ckessler 21:57, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

But if an article about a person discusses an issue of a magazine, especially a note-worthy cover appearance, it may under fair-use include said cover. One clear example would be Demi Moore appearing discreetly nude and pregnant on the cover of Vanity Fair. So for a typical model, we cannot just include any random cover, but if the particular cover is noteworthy enough to discuss in the text, than it may be included, as the article itself is now also about that issue. —MJBurrage • talk • 22:07, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

Looks like we both got fooled by Image:1958march3.jpg. The article, although about the subject on the cover, rather than the publication, actually mentions the cover appearance, so a claim for fair use might still be made. If, sometime in the future, that text (which is not particularly critical for an article on the subject) is removed, then perhaps the fair use claim might be disputed again. Until then, I've removed both our disputed tags. Cheers! TheProject 05:18, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] AfD

Hi, the looks of it Andypandy.UK has merged the contents of Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jeff's Team in to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Anne's Team, leaving Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jeff's Team blank. You may want to change the AfD tag on Jeff's Team {{subst:afd1|Anne's Team }} and place a comment that Jeff's Team is bundled for deltion with Anne's Team, for as it stands at the moment there is a chance that Jeff's Team will not be deleted.--blue520 02:33, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

Forget all that I have reverted Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jeff's Team, it should be fine, sorry about all the above.--blue520 02:37, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Adam Rapp

Oops. Sorry V. Joe 21:11, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Concetta Tomei

No, that's alright. I'm trying to get the orginial authors attentions with templates. Your the first one who noticed.--Rayc 00:02, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Big Hands for Little Hearts

When was this previously deleted by AFD? If it was, it might be speediable under CSD G4. - Mgm|^(talk) 12:18, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Mick Fleetwood POV

I am not against POV tags for articles but I do object to people posting them without any explanation. By the way, if you want to see a real POV fan page check out Stevie Nicks it leaves Mick Fleetwood well in the shade. Dabbler 01:03, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] you said so yourself

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Ckessler#Jody_Watley 12.100.11.146 15:50, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Midori

i find it extremely petty and childish of you to agree to a consensus on the FACT that this woman was and is rumored to be a sibling of a pop star, only to revert it hours later to satisfy your own ego. yes this is not an edit war but you were never appointed ownership of any articles on Wikipedia.

Midori doesn't make any money for you to sweat her issue so much - but then again i don't know your personal life either. so sweat on. Drmagic 04:24, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

an insult for an insult. that's fair...but i don't appreciate being accused of being a sockpuppet. i've got no reason to hide behind an IP. because Midori makes no money for me either. so long. Drmagic 04:33, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

May I ask where you got this quote from? "Removing warnings for vandalism from one's talk page is also considered vandalism. However, after a reasonable time has elapsed, archiving one's talk page, including the vandal warning, is acceptable. Editors may be subject to a minor block for archiving prematurely so as to hide warnings." I need it to try and convince another IP that deleting warnings isn't allowed...  Killfest2  05:56, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

Well, I'm slightly embarassed. It's from here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Removing_warnings, but this is only a proposed policy, rather than an official one. It's kind of a moot point, since the user was blocked for being obnoxious, but I will be sure not to cite this as official policy in the future. Ckessler 06:04, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Beverly Hills Supper Club fire

Thanks a million for taking on this mess of an article. It read like a friggin' suspense novel before you took the knife to it. :) Cheers! —  Stevie is the man!  ^{Talk | Work} 02:49, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] CFD again for "Entertainers by age upon death"

They are trying to delete this group of categories for the 4th time. Closing soon. --Blainster 10:24, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Chas Lee

Thanks for your excellent work on this one. I've cleaned it up a bit more and removed the tags. Uucp 19:58, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] WP:AN3 Report

Could you possibly clarify and add diffs? Thanks. alphaChimp ^laudare 03:51, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] New York

Okay but I know that's her last name. --New York from Flavor of Love 00:22, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

Fine than! -New York from Flavor of Love 01:35, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] The Real World: London

Please do not revert my change. Thanks. David.Monniaux 18:26, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Beck

Unless Beck says "I'm Jewish" flat out without any pretenses there's no reason to put him in Jewish categories, much in the same way that he could say "I was influenced by the teachings of the Dalai Lama" and he still wouldn't qualify as a Buddhist musician. Saying "I'm a Scandinavian Jew" in his interview by a Jewish magazine is not equivalent, especially given the questions he was being asked. There is not "Scandinavian Jew" category, and if Beck actually saw himself as Jewish theres no reason he wouldn't say it. 141.213.212.16 06:41, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

Anon user, if you want to set a standard, Beck's mother was Jewish, and her mother was Jewish, it's stated in the article. A person is Jewish if their mother is Jewish. "According to Halakha (Jewish law), only a convert or a child born to a Jewish mother is counted as Jewish. " See the WP page Who is a Jew?. Ckessler 06:58, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

Beck's mother, according to an article, was of a fourth ethnic Jewish descent, and furthermore according to the link on this page, was only partly raised in the Jewish religion. What religion one of Beck's ancestors practiced is utterly irrelevant unless Beck himself is a devout Jew, which he is not. 141.213.212.16 07:02, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

Also, I'm not sure why we're arguing over Beck's categorizations when his mother doesn't even have Jewish category: Bibbe Hansen. 141.213.212.16 07:10, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

I've responded on TALK:Beck, and I expect answers without having to revert. 141.213.212.16 07:14, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

Responded on TALK:Beck. 141.213.212.16 07:27, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Sam Monroe

Let's see, Sam Monroe is a major character in a movie that many of us enjoyed. What does it take to 'deserve' an entry in an online encyclopedia? Is there any policy you can point to? Middlenamefrank 17:33, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

Well, I'll certainly admit that it's a stub at this point, I was too lazy to put the template on it. I actually created that entry a while ago, intending to flesh it out as I did with George Monroe (movie character). I haven't gotten to it yet, and am not likely to for a little while since 'tis the season. I suppose I wouldn't mind redirecting until I do. Middlenamefrank 21:10, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Re:Redirection

Ay no disrespect but why did you redirect it. I wasnt finished restoring the article. Do you mind if I redirect it back.

--Gamefan06 02:34, 25 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Subst:

I've noticed a bot substituting some warning templates you placed. Maybe you know already and just forgot, but remember to add 'subst:' in warning templates, e.g. {{subst:blatantvandal}}. John Reaves (talk) 18:35, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Carlebach

Hi CK, thanks for your note. I'm not sure anything can be done to stop that material from being added to the article. He's not a living person so BLP doesn't apply, and the publication is reliable enough. Which admin said the allegations shouldn't be added? SlimVirgin ^(talk) 05:48, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

My recollection is that there were websites involved, rather than the Lilith article, and there was a dispute with the other editors about how much of the material should be added. Also, my note to you suggests you were going beyond what the original source had said. None of that applies to the anon, who seems only to want to add a link to the article. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 06:04, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

Hi, I'm not an anon any more. You fought this fight before me. It looks like I stumbled into a way to solve it. Pure novice's luck. I stand on the shoulders of giants. I think you'll like what you see in the main body, in the external links and on the talk page now. David in DC

[edit] A few notes

Hi Ckessler! I just wanted to drop you a note about a few things. First, I know dealing with vandals can be infurating, but there's really no need for comments such as this one. Second, as noted above, please substitute when you are using warning templates. This saves a lot of server resources, and if you do not do it, a bot will have to come sometime after you to do it, meaning your warnings take up 2 edits when they should only take up one. You do that by adding the letters "subst:" before the name of the warning template, like so: {{subst:test4}}. Thirdly, please be sure that you stop at {{test4}}; {{test5}} is a block message, and since you are not an administrator, this can lead to problems; for example, an administrator who comes along to block the user sees that they have a block message, decide not to check to see if they are actually blocked, and then the user goes unblocked. Simply stop at test4 and then report to AIV and someone will take care of it ASAP. Thanks, and keep up the good work; let me know if you have any questions either here or on my talk page. —bbatsell ¿? ✍ 04:24, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

Thanks a ton, I appreciate it. Let me know if you have any questions. —bbatsell ¿? ✍ 01:01, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] The Who

It's a direct quote from Eddie Vedder, a notoriously famous Who fan. This is a POV violation. For every famous band you could just find a quote of someone calling them something like that. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Hoponpop69 (talk • contribs) 19:18, 24 February 2007 (UTC).

[edit] Cleanup templates

Just to let you know that most cleanup templates, like "unreferenced", "fact", "cleanup" etc., are best not "subst"ed. See WP:SUBST for more details. Regards, Rich Farmbrough, 17:47 27 February 2007 (GMT).

what the hell are you talking about with the Jackie Harris--Bucs10 19:45, 3 March 2007 (UTC)Bucs10

[edit] Harper Simon

Sufficient changes have been made to establish his notability. Will you please consider removing your remarks. Thank you. Srm1 08:48, 15 March 2007 (UTC)Srm1

whats the point when there is only one Jackie Harris--Bucs10 21:08, 24 March 2007 (UTC)Bucs10