User talk:Kinst

==Welcome== Hello Kinst and welcome to Wikipedia! I'm glad you've chosen to join us. This is a great project with lots of dedicated people, which might seem intimidating at times, but don't let anything discourage you. Be bold!, explore, and contribute. Try to be civil by following simple guidelines and signing your talk comments with ~~~~ but never forget that one of our central tenets is to ignore all rules.

If you want to learn more, Wikipedia:Tutorial is the place to go, but eventually the following links might also come in handy:
Help
FAQ
Glossary
Manual of Style

Float around until you find something that tickles your fancy. One easy way to do this is to hit the random page button in the navigation bar to the left. Additionally, the Community Portal offers a more structured way to become acquainted with the many great committees and groups that focus on specific tasks. My personal favorite stomping grounds are Wikipedia:Translation into English as well as the cleanup, welcoming, and counter-vandalism committees. Finally, the Wikimedia Foundation has several other wiki projects that you might enjoy. If you have any more questions, always feel free to ask me anything on my talk page. Again, welcome! -- Draeco 04:14, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

Re: Kindergarten

Hi Kinst,

thanks for the message. I've added the exception to my list as requested.

Cheers, Cmdrjameson 17:20, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

Ottoman (furniture)

What do you think is the natural habitat of an ottoman, if not a living room? —vivacissamamente 14:48, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

I think that an ottoman is not alive, and habitat refers to living things. If you can find sourced information that refutes the nonliving status of ottomans it might be worth adding to the article, of course... --Kinst 16:47, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

[1] shows the American Heritage Dictionary seems to allow habitats for things that are nonliving, so I think that under that definition, saying that the picture represents an ottoman in its habitat is correct usage.

Whether habitats can be called "natural" for such an unnatural object as the ottoman is up for debate. I contend that finding an ottoman in a wetland or a tundra would be much more unnatural than in say, a sitting room. The person who originated the caption, as well as the majority of people who spoke up on the talk page (including the one who deleted your comment), would push for "natural," of course.

I think that looking for sources, really, is beside the point, and what really is at issue here is the amusement that some people get, looking at a picture of an ottoman and seeing it is in its "natural habitat" in the caption. I don't understand how a small gesture like that could devalue Wikipedia.

This, under "Silly vandalism", is the closest I can find as a guideline in this situation.

"Users will sometimes...add silly jokes to existing articles...A better place for content that is intentionally of a joking or nonsensical nature is the Uncyclopedia or WP:BJAODN (Bad Jokes and Other Deleted Nonsense)."

I admit I'm unsure if my actions were appropriate, but it does seems awfully unencyclopedic. --Kinst 23:56, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

Well, it wasn't vandalism... it just doesn't seem that far out of line to me. I think it lightened things up a little. BJAODN seems to mostly have actual vandalism an humorous lies. —vivacissamamente 11:54, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

In retrospect, I didn't really assume good faith by calling it vandalism. Sorry. --Kinst 16:02, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

The anus debate

Kinst, I loved your comments on the anus debate. "We don't have another anus anymore, but certainly a better anus would be useful" and "the anus we have now was never intended as a replacement in any case; they were alongside each other until the old anus had to be deleted" just cracked me up. Zuracech lordum 21:48, 9 June 2007 (UTC)