User talk:Mattisse/Archive 1

This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

User talk:Mattisse/Archive_2)

Fidel Castro

First, I want to thank you for your editing of the Fidel Castro article. Nicely done, just keep up! After copyediting you have done I was thinking to remove copyedit exlamation from the start of the article if you agree.
Also, I see that you are new here. I hope you're going to enjoy being a Wikipedian. Bye! --RockyMM 01:19, 9 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, what's all this about serial killer? I have REMOVED that statement from Che's article. It wasn't me who wrote those words. I deleted them! Or you disagree with my deletition??? It is Wikipedia's policy that only proven and verifiable facts should be in articles, and I try to stick to those policies. Maybe you got confused when you were watching history page?--RockyMM 12:28, 10 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Fidel Castro reference method

I like your way of making the notes. The Spanish language references bothered me also; I deleted many because they went to a screwy place or were broken. Also, often they refered to a useless piece of trivia the did not belong in the article, even if it were true, so I removed info and link. KarenAnn 17:47, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

I believe the method I use is still a slightly uncommon on Wikipedia, because you don't see it in all articles (even featured ones). Just have a look at the citation templates and Footnotes, if you want to know more. Oh, and by the way, I think your doing a good job rewriting and editing the Castro article. mensch • t 19:16, 11 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Babe Zaharias Golf Course

It looks as if you created this article and then changed your mind and wanted it deleted. However, the deletion process was never completed. Generally, if someone is the only editor of an article, and wants it removed, it's easy. Just edit the article and, instead of the AfD tag you used, put {{db-author}} at the top of the page. This translates to, basically, "The author would like this deleted." It will usually get picked up and deleted within a few hours. Hope this helps. Fan1967 18:03, 12 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Some admin must have been sitting around with nothing to do. It's already gone. Fan1967 18:12, 12 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Re: Note 42 isn't working in Fidel Castro

"I can't figure out why. The cite web looks right to me, but when you click on the number, there is an error message in the reference section. Would you take a look at it? KarenAnn 22:21, 19 May 2006 (UTC)"

I fixed it. The reason why was because the url part missed an "=", it causes the citation template to break. mensch • t 22:38, 19 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Re: Fidel Castro - link problen in 26 of July Movement section

In the second to last paragraph of the 26 of July Movement section, Frank Pais does not link to the Frank Pais page, even though there is one - I made the page. It shows up in Search. I must be missing something. (I have tried to add the necessary categories.) KarenAnn 15:22, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

I can't find the Frank Pais link. Could you give me a more precise location (e.g. around which sentence). mensch • t 17:13, 22 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I can't find it either. Apparently someone named Teemu Ruskeepää went through Fidel Casto earlier today and removed completely quite a few secions, including 26 of July Movement. (I just looked at the article's history and quite a bit of the article was deleted in a short space of time today.) Now the Fidel Castro article is much shorter and less detailed. I guess I am more interested in the subject than most people are. KarenAnn 17:39, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

Wow... I must say Teemu Ruskeepää was a bit overzealous in his deletion quest. A short article isn't necessarily a good article so I think the best thing to do is restore the content you added (which was lengthy and good) and ask Teemu what is reasons were for deleting all the content. If needed I can help you with restoring the content which was lost in the later editing sessions. mensch • t 18:09, 22 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm new to Wikipedia but to me it looks impossible to restore because it was done in so many steps. It would be very confusing to figure out how to restore it. Further, Teemu Ruskeepää is pretty clear in his editing notes that he made the changes because he did not like what was there. Apparently he felt my writing was biased, redundant, and badly organized. I would just be getting into an editing war with him and incur his hostility if I were to restore anything. KarenAnn 20:44, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

Restoring is indeed a quite hard, but the mass removals crippled the article, events like Bogotazo aren't covered at all in the article anymore. Shall I attempt to recover some of the material, most notably the things from this revision? I think Teemu should've discussed such mass removals on the talk page of the Castro article, although Be bold is a Wikipedia motto. mensch • t 20:52, 22 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Just restored some of the content (hope I did it right) and left a message on the article talk page to explain this. mensch • t 21:14, 22 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Fidel Castro

Please address the issue of your revert on the Fidel Castro talk page.--Zleitzen 01:32, 23 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Please address the major changes you are making to the Fidel Castro article on that talk page as soon as possible, thank you.--Zleitzen 03:48, 23 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Don't worry, KarenAnn. I had a look at the page and it looks like you've done some really good work on the Castro page so far. Don't let Teemu's comments discourage you, although other users are bound to tweak little things etc - I changed a couple of links etc. I didn't understand Teemu's comments about moving stuff around myself. I'm also not sure if he's up to speed with subject matter. Would you mind if we reinstated your work soon so users can carry on improving the page? And you're more than welcome to carry on if you're willing to stick at it, it's good to see an editor who is dedicated to sources and citations.--Zleitzen 05:05, 23 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It'll take me about 10 minutes to reinstate all your work, so it's certainly not lost at all and it's highly valuable. It's all there in the history section. I agree it can be demoralising work though, anything to do with Cuba can be a real struggle being surrounded by ideologues with agendas - you should try writing on the main page - it's a nightmare, I was accused of bias for writing "Cuba is prone to devastating hurricanes"! Maybe give it a short while and come back to Castro when it's settled down because it sounds like you have a solid, neutral and interesting take on the subject matter. By the way, I've just written this article - Ubre Blanca, feel free to take a look and have a tweak - it's about one of the more bizarre episodes of the Castro era.--Zleitzen 06:22, 23 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Nice work on the Castro article. I was pleasantly surprised to see that the article is no longer a terribly disorganized and incoherent mess. 172 | Talk 09:22, 25 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Re: Rather you not restore Fidel Castro

Teemu Ruskeepää wrote this on the Cuba discussion page today: :::By coincidence I just meant to move "foreign relations" and "Castro and Soviet Union" from "Fidel Castro" in here. Teemu Ruskeepää 12:51, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

Foreign relations, as well as some other sections, I researched and wrote myself. I know I am expressing the wrong attitude, but I didn't think Wikipedia was like this. I don't want to be associated with his attitudes nor the future of the Fidel Castro page. I wish you would leave Fidel Castro as Teemu wanted it. I would like to remove the sections I researched and wrote totally on my own and the rest he can have to do as he wants. I will find other articles to work on where the atmosphere is more cooperative. Thank you so much for your help and friendly attitude. It's very much appreciated and a bright light on this very bad day for me. KarenAnn 01:05, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

It's a shame really, the Castro article was rapidly becoming a much better article until then it was like a month ago. Teemu Ruskeepää shouldn't have deleted all the content without any discussion, but I said that already. Good luck with editing other articles! mensch • t 09:22, 23 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

References

KarenAnn, great work on referencing; the only thing is that you need to take a look at Wikipedia:Footnotes and see how the <ref> system is used. The cite templates you're using in the middle of paragraphs are massive and make it difficult to edit entries you've added references to. If you need any help figuring it out (it can be a pain in the butt sometimes), let me know on my Talk page. Thanks!  RasputinAXP  c 15:08, 25 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Never mind, Mensch told me it was him :) Sorry!  RasputinAXP  c 15:47, 25 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Re: Can you tell me where to go for help?

"I have written two articles that have disappeared through some method of redirection. I can no longer even access them. How can I find them? Do you know who I can talk to about this, as I am getting quite discouraged. The article Talkpage people just ignore my wishes and the help desk people say talk to the article Talkpage. KarenAnn 16:43, 25 May 2006 (UTC)"

About which articles are you talking? Maybe I'll be able to find them somewhere. I redirected the page you contributed a lot to, about Frank Pais to a renamed page (Frank País, with an accent on the "i"), but you should be able to find that one. There are some other places, other than the helpdesk, where you can ask for help or procudures you can start, I'll see if I can dig up the URLS. mensch • t 16:50, 25 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Desknotes

I posted instructions on mensch's talk on how to see the contents of the redirect pages, but I also copied the contents of Desknotes to User talk:KarenAnn/Desknotes to make it easier to access. TomTheHand 18:18, 25 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry, KarenAnn. I didn't mean to come off as patronizing. I think I misunderstood what you wanted. You said "Well, I no longer have access to my material anymore since it has been deleted" on Talk:Desktop replacement computer, so I thought you didn't know how to access the page histories and see your material.

I'd like to ask why you're so insistent on creating a page called desknote, which means the same thing as desktop replacement computer. Are you disagreeing that they mean the same thing, do you feel that the desktop replacement computer article is bad, or do you feel that desknote is a better name for the article? TomTheHand 20:14, 25 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm opposed to creating a separate page called desknote because it means the same thing as desktop replacement computer and Wikipedia has a policy against content forking, or the creation of several separate articles on the same subject. TomTheHand 20:24, 25 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The name was changed because desktop replacement computer is the more common term and the term used by IT professionals. Desknote remains on many pages because the article was originally located at desknote and so many pages linked to it. You're really getting off on the wrong foot, here. Please read Wikipedia:Ownership of articles and Wikipedia:Assume good faith rather than attacking me. TomTheHand 21:52, 25 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

At your suggestion, I've updated links to desknote to point to desktop replacement computer instead, avoiding the redirect. TomTheHand 22:02, 25 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Re: Can you tell me where to go for help?

I had a look at both the Desknotes and Desktop replacement computer and I don't know what is wrong precisely. If you follow the link to Desknotes you'll immediately arrive at Desktop replacement computer because somebody added a redirect on the original pages "Desknotes". Under the title of the Desktop replacement computer you'll see the phrase "From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia" and directly underneath that is the sentence (Redirected from Desknotes). By clicking on that link you'll arrive on the Desknotes page with the redirect on hit. If you view the history of that article you'll be able to see your edit. But TomTheHand explained this already. Below are links to various stages of your edits to the Desknotes page, article creation is on top:

• http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Desknotes&oldid=55069164
• http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Desknotes&oldid=55069448
• http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Desknotes&oldid=55070659
• http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Desknotes&oldid=55071552
• http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Desknotes&oldid=55072151

And after that TomTheHand merged the article with Desktop replacement computer.

If your content or articles were deleted than you would be able to track these changes in the deletion logs. Furthermore, an average deletion process takes up to several days (that includes even the speedy deletions) and after nomination the deletion is discussed before it's actually deleted (the discussion is always preserved). The Wikipedia: Deletion policy page has more information on that.

I not exactly sure what content you lost, but if it was deleted by a normal editor or an administrator than there has to be some record of that and it if it were deleted right away than you would surely be notified about it. I know how irritating it is when your hard work gets altered by people who have a different opinion about what the criteria of a good article are, but don't let that stop you from contributing to articles. Because your contributions to Wikipedia, for instance the Cuba and Fidel Castro article, are certainly valuable. mensch • t 22:23, 25 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know for sure if this applies to the current situation, but this Wikipedia policy might be interesting to look at. mensch • t 22:29, 25 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hollywood Reporter

I don't know what to say to you. I gave you directions on how to get to your old Desknotes page and you accuse me of patronizing you. Mensch does the same and you thank him. I noticed that Hollywood Reporter should be renamed The Hollywood Reporter and you and NothingMuch were freaking out about the situation rather than fixing it, so I put the page on Requested Moves. I haven't touched the content and have no intention of doing so. Wikipedia is not "your business," and you need to stop interpreting other peoples' actions as attacks. TomTheHand 11:57, 26 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

RasputinAXP did nothing of the kind. He said "great work on referencing," explained the way references should be done and why, and offered his help if you needed it. He wiped nothing out; your section was removed by me. Here's a comparison of what Mensch said with what I said.

Mensch:

If you follow the link to Desknotes you'll immediately arrive at Desktop replacement computer because somebody added a redirect on the original pages "Desknotes". Under the title of the Desktop replacement computer you'll see the phrase "From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia" and directly underneath that is the sentence (Redirected from Desknotes). By clicking on that link you'll arrive on the Desknotes page with the redirect on hit. If you view the history of that article you'll be able to see your edit. But TomTheHand explained this already.

TomTheHand:

Click on the following link: desknotes. It will redirect you to Desktop replacement computer. At the top you'll see the article title, then "From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia," then directly underneath you'll see "(Redirected from Desknotes)." You can click that link to return to the Desknotes page. All you'll see is the link to Desktop replacement computer, but if you click on "History" at the top of your screen you'll see previous versions of the page. You can access the pages from there.

If you switch off the persecution complex you'll find that we said the exact same thing with very similar language. This is exactly what I'm talking about when I say you interpret everything as an attack. I'm finding it increasingly difficult to be nice, as you've seen when I characterized your attitude on "Hollywood Reporter" as "freaking out" because you saw the word "delete" and didn't bother to read what Retodon8 was talking about. I started out trying to do nothing but help you and clarify what is going on. I'm finished dealing with this mess; maybe in a few months you'll be able to look back and understand all of this. Goodbye. TomTheHand 13:52, 26 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Re: Can you tell me where to go for help?

What mensch • t 22:23, 25 May 2006 (UTC) is the same as what you wrote? He provide the links that enabled me to see what happened. Following your direction did not. Besides, as I said before, your directions weren't clear.[reply]

I apologize if you think I'm being disagreeable. I don't want ugly interactions with anyone and I have't, except with you and RasputinAXP. Maybe I'm being sensitive these last few day as I took the Fidel Castro wipeout badly. The Desktop replacement computer interchanges have been my only experience of unpleasant dialogue (except for The Hollywood Reporter interchanges). So please forgive me KarenAnn 17:24, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

Signature

Try going to "my preferences" in the "user profile" section you will see a checkbox that says "raw signature". If it is checked off that is why the link to your userpage is not showing up when you click for your sig to show up, so uncheck it and press the save button.--Jersey Devil 22:29, 26 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

P.S. I see that you seem to be interested in many Cuban government articles. I have been expanding a bit of the Ricardo Alarcón de Quesada article which you might be interested in helping on. But please don't do the c&p you did on the Frank Pais article, because to alot of editors that type of editting just really looks unencyclopedic. Instead you should add bits from difference resources one step at a time. I'm just saying this because I was seeing your pretty damn good edits on the Castro and other Cuban-related pages and was shocked to see that c&p. Anyway, later and hope to see your around.--Jersey Devil 22:35, 26 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Frank País

What exactly did you have in mind by removing all that info? Do you want it restored? Was it a copyvio or smth? Why did you gut the article? Thx. - CrazyRussian talk/contribs/email 04:28, 28 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Citations - reference notes

"I have been looking around for templates that will perform the same service as the web citation template you gave me for other references like DVD's for example -- where there is a footnote number in the body of the text and reference is in the Referrence section. (I can't find my way around here well enough yet to find this for myself). Would you give me some links? The ones I've found put the reference in the body of the article. KarenAnn 13:19, 30 May 2006 (UTC)"

Follow this link to view the Citation templates category. When you view each of the templates, just click on the "discussion" tab on the top of the article and you'll be able to view the way it's used. Just using those templates will only create inline references, so you'll need to put the template between <ref></ref> tags. Place the <references/> tag where the footnotes need to appear. Have a look at Wikipedia:Footnotes and other articles which use the system, those might prove useful. Hope that helps! mensch • t 14:09, 30 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Civil War in Florida

Thanks so much for all your help! Much appreciated! Stallions2010 00:04, 31 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

How do you restore a page that's been vandalized?

"Well, never mind. I learned how to revert a page. But I still wonder if it's O.K. to edit one's talk page, or is that not P.C.? KarenAnn 02:17, 31 May 2006 (UTC)"

I depends on the whether it's clear vandalism or not. The owner of the talk page has the freedom to blank his talk page, or archive it. If somebody else deliberately blanks a talkpage, or parts of it, than I think it might be better to revert it. mensch • t 12:26, 31 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It's not vandalism. It's someone who quoted a long message on my talk page (about 31 lines long) in his message to me. Therefore, the same long message (31 or so lines) is on my page twice. Means a lot of scrolling, but maybe that's not excuse enough. Maybe I could edit it? Like say "See above message from &&&&& above" and then leave his message there intact. In other words, remove the long quote from a message that can be seen not far above his on my talk page. KarenAnn 13:02, 31 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, if it's your talk page, just edit it any way you want. Just preserve the message in a way that it is still clear to you and the one who messaged you in the first place. But that's not a rule or something, just do as you see fit on your own userpages.mensch • t 13:18, 31 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hydrogen Economy

Thanks for all your hard work there. You've vastly improved the article, which used to be hopelessly confusing. --Ssilvers 20:07, 1 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Re: Portuguese Colonial War

I believe that Afonso Silva (talk · contribs) did the original translation; you might be able to get his help with any Portuguese issues that come up (although I'm not sure how active he is now).

Feel free to work on cleaning up the article without our interference, though. We don't currently have many people within the project that would be interested in the topic, so waiting for us to do it will probably just mean that it'll sit in the cleanup queue indefinitely. (You can always ask on the project page if there are any obscure military points that come up; but I suspect that, at the level of detail the article uses, there shouldn't be any that would come up from copyediting.) Kirill Lokshin 00:35, 4 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It had a content review fairly recently, so I would just take off the tag and leave it be for now. Thanks for taking the time to clean it up! Kirill Lokshin 21:00, 4 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Re first para - I only got there on about my fourth go (have a look at the history)! Overall I found copy editing this article like wading through treacle, so I have been impressed by your ability to plow through the entire article so quickly over the past couple days Nickhk 23:27, 5 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

American Civil War

I don't even know if you are American or what. But (whatever) the American Civil War is very controversial (at least in some quarters) and yet the American Civil War people have come up with a NPOV article. Why is anything Cuban so different? I sense you might be becoming exhausted. My own brother, when I asked him to translate some of those Spanish links, came up with party-line stuff. (I think he is left of Castro, but I don't know and don't want to know.) I hope you keep them all in line. One of the reasons I stopped: I questioned in my own mind whether I was neutral about Castro (I thought I was, but maybe not.) KarenAnn 02:18, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

No, I'm not American. :-) I don't know exactly why any article related to Cuban becomes so easily non-neutral, but I think it's because the rule of Castro is still ongoing and people are confronted with contradicting information/propaganda from both sides of the conflict and the political spectrum.

I'm not sure when an article is perfectly nonneutral, but a lot of the Cuban related articles certainly need some cleaning up.

P.S. How is it that people get to write article on their own? On some people's pages they list articles they have written. I would like to write on on Frank Pais in peace. Then if people want to join in, fine. But let me do my thing first. Maybe the only way is to disguise it as the Portuguese Colonial Revolution or something. Then change the name at the last minute. KarenAnn 02:26, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

I guess the only thing you could do is write your new articles in an external text editor and when your new article has reached a certain state of "completeness" you might want to consider to upload it and "open it up" for other people to contribute to. On Wikipedia it pretty hard to mask the fact that you're writing an article or new content. Masking an article about Frank Pais as "Portuguese Colonial Revolution" will most likely result in a renaming and merger of your article and the original Frank Pais article, I'm afraid. mensch • t 13:13, 5 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You could also write the article in your userspace by linking to it before it exists, like this: User:KarenAnn/Frank Pais. I did that for several articles I needed more time to put together.  RasputinAXP  c 14:12, 5 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

That was a joke - the "Portuguese Colonial Revolution" comment. How would you do the footnoting (the most time-consuming part) in a text editor? Is there a way? I have EditPlus (among others) which could be configured to do that perhaps. KarenAnn 14:09, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

I would just copy the footnote syntax from the relevant pages on Wikipedia. There are code editors with "snippet" functionality and even Wiki markup support. Maybe you could configure some footnote snippets. Also, the avaible external Wikipedia editors might have the functionality to automatically insert footnotes, but I'm not sure about that. Have a look at this page. mensch • t 14:18, 5 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia tools

I went to that link you suggested and installed the Wikipedia extension for Firefox, my browser. But it doesn't have the one thing I would really like -- spell check. KarenAnn 00:22, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

There surely must be some spell checker extensions available on the Mozilla website, as there are extensions for virtually anything. mensch • t 21:43, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Oregon vs. Guzek

So are you saying that you fixed whatever was wrong with it? (It's been a long day.) Just running through your talk page with the limited energy I have left, you seem lawyerly, so I take it the answer is YES. Very interesting case, to me anyway. KarenAnn 00:45, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I just looked at the page and it looks very good now. Don't you think the expert tag can be removed? Do you think it needs further work or can it be released? KarenAnn 00:55, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I am "lawyerly," : ) but I unfortunately haven't had time to really do more than browse through the opinion. I'll try to take another look at it tomorrow and see if the article needs any changes beyond expansion. Postdlf 04:08, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Re: Second Chechen War

It's an ongoing conflict, so the article tends to be given to heavy POV-pushing and other such things; sorting it out would probably be a major project in its own right. I'm not sure who the best people to ask would be; if the talk page doesn't seem to indicate who the major contributors are, you might try asking here. Hope that helps! Kirill Lokshin 23:16, 10 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link repair

Hi there! Re your comment on my Talk page. My edit to Darra, Queensland changed the original [[industrial]] link, which just points to the disambiguation page, to the more correct [[industry|industrial]] - the text of the article still reads "industrial", but the link now goes to the Industry article, as it should. This, in general, is how the disambiguation process works. I hope this answers your question! Tevildo 16:52, 13 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, if your question was just in response to the "You can help!" of the edit summary - Click here if you want to help with the disambig project. Tevildo 17:05, 13 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you

I want to thank you for the work you've done on the Assyrian genocide. Chaldean 03:12, 18 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

class="references-small"

hum... because there is no "references-medium" class in the first place? Having the class is no requirement, though, so you may delete the div tag compeltely if you prefer. I don't personally use small refs when there are only a few, but I assumed that's what you wanted. Circeus 01:15, 19 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wrote a page that is now lost. How can I find it?

I wrote a page called "Out of This World (song)" because Wikipedia said there was no such page. The page refers to a song by Johnny Mercer and is listed on the Johnny Mercer page under songs. I composed a page, saved it and updated it a few times. Now the link goes to a song by Jo Stafford. And I don't know how to find my page.

Is there a way of finding lost pages? On the disambiguation page, it is only listed as the Jo Stafford song.

I don't know how to access my page to change its name, as someone as redirected it. (I saw that on my Watchlist.) KarenAnn 18:59, 18 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, the page you wrote was Out Of Ths World (note the missing "i"). I've moved it to the more appropriate title Out of This World (Johnny Mercer song). Eugène van der Pijll 19:14, 18 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you so much! How did you find it? What is the method in a situation like that? KarenAnn 19:19, 18 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I looked at your contributions (the link to your own contributions is on the top of your screen when you're logged in), and then saw the Out Of Ths World article, which was at that time a redirect. When you're redirected, there is a notice below the title of the article, saying "(Redirected from Out of this world)", for example; if you click that link, you arrive at the redirection page, which you can then edit. Eugène van der Pijll 19:25, 18 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

When you say the redirection page, do you mean the Disambiguation page? And if I edited that page, how would the Wiki know how to find the renamed page (since I wouldn't be able to get to the page to rename it)? And where is it in the meantime -- it must be on a list somewhere to delete or something? It's all very mysterious. KarenAnn 19:59, 18 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

When I say "redirection page", I mean a page such as Out of this world, which redirects to Out of This World. If you click on the first link, you end up on the second, but with a "redirection notice". If you then click on the link in that notice, you arrive at the real Out of this world, which looks like "#REDIRECT Out of This World". You can edit this page to make it a real article, or to change the redirect target. You can find more explanation about redirection pages at Wikipedia:Redirect. Eugène van der Pijll 20:06, 18 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well, none of that seems to work as you say, but thanks for helping me out on this one. One other article a while ago, I really did lose -- it was never found, so I get a little uptight. But thanks! (I have read all that redirect stuff and everything else I can find about the problems, but I guess I'm missing a screw.) KarenAnn 00:24, 19 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

If you click on the "my contributions" link in the top right (when you're logged in) you'll be able to see every change you've made to an article and so see what articles you've edited. --Daduzi ^talk 01:41, 19 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ket people

It appears to be from a book: [1]. BTW, I wanted to give you this:

		The Working (Wo)man's Barnstar
		KarenAnn is awarded this barnstar for her incredible work in the past few days copyediting articles. Good job! —Khoikhoi 02:28, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Cheers! —Khoikhoi 02:28, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

daylighting

You're welcome! It was user GoDot who really did the major expansion, however. I merely created the stub :) --Lukobe 16:55, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

How do I learn about categories?

Frequently I would like to add categories to an article, but the only way I know how is to find other articles with categories and copy them.

Is there a list of categories somewhere? KarenAnn 22:35, 22 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

There is [2] if you want a list of all categories, but the best way to do it is to find a very general category and navigate your way down to more specific subcategories. For example, if you wanted to find Category:Former Wikipedians, you would go from Category:Wikipedians → Category:Wikipedians by Wikipedia status → Category:Users not currently active→ Category:Former Wikipedians --GeorgeMoney ^T·C 22:46, 22 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The only other way I know of to find new categories is to do a google query that includes site:en.wikipedia.org inurl:wiki/category. (site: and inurl: serve to limit the results to just enwiki categories). (or use wikipedia's internal search if you're looking for very new categories)--Interiot 02:36, 23 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wikification of Agios Nikolaos (Sithonia, Greece)

Dear KarenAnn, thank you very much for the wikification of aforementioned article. Greetings, --Christaras A 13:46, 23 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Size of an article.

Maybe your interface is different than mine, but when I edit a page by clicking the 'edit this page' tab, if the page is larger than 32kB, Wikipedia adds a text notice at the top of the page telling the page size in kB. BruceHallman 17:29, 23 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Andy Warhol

I made a slight change to your edit - I removed the link to the dab page, as the list below it negated the need for disambiguation. Plus, someone else would eventually remove it anyway cleaning up links to dab pages. Feel free to harrass me if you feel unfairly done to. LeeG 12:41, 25 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Teemu

Don't worry about not putting your name to the poll wishing to return the talk page to normal, KarenAnn. I don't think there is any support for Teemu's proposals, so if you feel that keeping away from his activity would serve you better, then you have my support. On the Cuba page (which was blocked for a month with little activity) there was a benefit to having sections aligned so users could tweak parts. But on the Castro page, with disputes going on, it's been a disaster.

There is also general pattern to these pages - a relatively harmonious editing pool is disrupted by users more interested in asserting or retaining a political agenda within Wikipedia. These users are less interested or knowledgeable about Cuba or Castro than they are keen to assert broader individual beliefs. Thus efforts are made by others to neutralize this - and a period of chaos ensues. The last thing anyone needs is a dispute with a user over the talk page itself! Hopefully it should be over very shortly! Keep up the good work.--Zleitzen 14:29, 25 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

KarenAnn, I find it upsetting when one editor threatens another editor, and I find it even more upsetting that the Wikipedia community does not function well and tolerates threatening behaviour. Regardless, editors have the option to vote in 'straw polls' anonymously by 'logging out' so that the only identification is their IP address. BruceHallman 23:18, 25 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Reinforcement

The problem with Reinforcement is that people keep butchering the article. I hadn't looked at it for a while until your comment turned up on my watchlist, and I was shocked at how the article has been eviscerated. In at least two versions of the page there were complete descriptions of reinforcement schedules. Unless you can suggest some way in which the article could be protected I ain't touching it any more. John FitzGerald 14:33, 26 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the reply. I hadn't thought the remark was directed at me. It's just that this sort of article history seems to be a serious problem here. But maybe I'll work on my patience and then try to fix it up. John FitzGerald 00:13, 27 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Circeus has reverted to an earlier version, so that's a start.

Kunio Okawara

Hi. You haven't completed the AfD nomination of Kunio Okawara. If you would like to complete it, please follow the other two steps of Template:AfD in 3 steps (Liberatore, 2006). 17:27, 27 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Re: Commend you for hanging in there

On the Fidel Castro page. You must be very resolute. Very good and admirable. KarenAnn 23:04, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

Thanks! :) The enthusiastic changes Teemu Ruskeepää made without consensus mainly cause a lot of chaos, but of course you experienced that in a rather unpleasant manner in the article space. I think the Castro page is certainly an improvement upon the other versions a few months ago, but there's still a lot of work to be done, so that's why I'm sticking around. I hope the article will once be a good article nominee or even a featured one, if that's at all possible when writing an article about a controversial person like Castro. A peer review might be interesting for this article though, maybe it helps settle the ongoing POV disputes. Or just getting it nominated as a "good article" might generate some interesting feedback. mensch • t

That's a good idea -- peer review. I think we need some disinterested parties to breathe new live into us -- give us a new slant. KarenAnn 23:20, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

Exactly. However, the peer review process page explains that this is only intended for good articles that are likely to become featured articles. So I'm not sure if that's the right procedure for Fidel Castro. But we could ask some of the common editors on the Castro page, see what they think about it. mensch • t 23:26, 27 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe things just have to die down some from the current upheaval -- there are some well-motivated (reasonable) people like BruceHallman and Zleitzen who would respond to the challenge and want to make it a good article. KarenAnn 23:35, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

I believe they will yes. Let's wait a while then until things settle down. mensch • t 23:37, 27 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Apart from citing reliable sources there are some other criteria the article fails to meet. Some parts aren't very neutral, some parts have too much irrelevant information in them which could as well in other articles. And I believe some will find the article too long. I had a look at some other somewhat unlikely featured articles. If you look at The nomination and peer review of the article about Star Wars 3 a few users did some of the cutting down and re-editting whilst the nomination was in progress. So it can be done. Shall I propose a request for peer review on the Castro talk page? I think the whole discussion tree debate with Teemu has cooled down now... mensch • t 22:58, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I left a reply on Zleitzen's talk page. ;) mensch • t 12:02, 29 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Neutral zone

Yeah, that's cool, just a redirect in the talk page that needed deleting, the kind of redirect that's just designed to confuse people. Driller thriller 23:51, 29 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

List

Okay I see what you mean and will comply with the entry in question and others. Hunter2005 18:13, 2 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Re: Van Uprising

I know that I overreacted and I apologize. I'm concentrating on getting my deletion entry removed now. --Clevelander 20:18, 4 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Your AfD nomination for Identify software

Hi, I noticed you were placing this article into Articles for Deletion, but you haven't completed the AfD rationale (step 2), by adding your justification to this page. Without doing this critical step, the article and your reasons for nominating it won't appear on the log page. Are you still working on it? In any case, I'd recommend you write your justification before adding the {{subst:afd3}} tag to the log, otherwise it just puts up a redlink and messes up the formatting. ~ Matticus78 16:59, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, you've basically got it right. Let me just quickly sum up the process for you, so you can refer to it again later here if necessary. First you place {{subst:afd1}} on the page you're nominating. This puts the "Nominated for deletion" box on the page. Then you click the red link in that box to go to that article's nomination rationale (it won't exist yet, so you're creating it) and add the tag {{subst:afd2 | pg=Page Name | text=Your explanation}} to it, plus four tildes (~~~~) to sign the page. Then you go that day's AfD log (again, there is a link in the box on the page of the article you're nominating) and add the final {{subst:afd3 | pg=Page Name}} tag, which automatically lists it and any changes made to the justification page (like other people's votes and comments) get updated on the log page automatically. The steps have to be followed in that order, or you get strange things happening. It's a little convoluted, I know - probably one of the most complicated things a normal Wikipedian is likely to do - but there are always people on the lookout for anyone who slips up. I should know - I did my first AfD nomination a couple of weeks ago and made the exact same mistake you did, and someone else spotted it, checked my edit history (as I did yours) and pointed me in the right direction. I'm just paying the good deed forward. Anyway, keep up the sterling work you've been doing so far on Wikipedia! ~ Matticus78 17:42, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Re: Sorry to bother you again -- trying to nominate Pjotro

Looks like the problem was simple typo. You entered "Artiles" instead of "Articles". I've fixed it already. ~ Matticus78 18:49, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, I also noticed the Pjotro nomination page wasn't formatted correctly - without the title thing it won't show up properly on the day's AfD log, and will appear to be stuck onto the bottom of the nomination above it! I'll fix that too momentarily. Remember, using the three AfD tags is much easier than entering the data manually (although both are acceptable ways of doing it, the former is quicker and less prone to typos breaking stuff). Apparently there are some tools for making the AfD nomination process a little smoother, but I haven't looked into it yet. If I find anything useful out, I'll let you know. ~ Matticus78 18:52, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Re: your tags not working, are you certain you're using double curly braces at either end, like this: {{tag-goes-here}} , with a pipe symbol ( | ) separating elements of the tag? You also only need to add your signature (the four tildes) on the second step (creating the justification page). Are you sure you're spelling the page names correctly (and remember, they are case-sensitive)?

Well anyway, I'm going to try out this script that's available on Wikipedia that semi-automates the process by adding an "AfD" button to any page when you go into edit mode, so I'll let you know how it goes (and help you get it working for yourself if necessary).

Also, it's a good idea to familiarise yourself with the three different deletion levels: Speedy for very obviously untenable articles (complete nonsense, ordinary people just writing about themselves, insulting articles, etc.); Prodding (short for Proposed Deletion]] for uncontroversial deletes (like blatant advertising, hoaxes, crystal balling, etc.); and of course AfD where the article is questionable but open to debate, or where a "Prod" is done first but later removed by someone else. What I've learned from watching the newly-created articles list is, when confronted with a suspect article, check if it's a candidate for Speedy Deletion first, then if it fails that, consider Prodding it, and if the Prod gets removed or you think it should be discussed first, only then should it go to AfD. It takes a little time to learn how judge a good level for Speedy, Prod or AfD, but I'm sure you'll soon get a feel for it. ~ Matticus78 19:39, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Cuba-United States relations

Hi KarenAnn. I wrote the above article a while ago (still unfinished pending further input from other contibutors as I haven't the patience to do it all myself). I've lost track of some of the stuff I used as reference, and I'm now trying to reference the thing. But I'm not very good at that side, how to format footnotes etc. Could you have a look at it please. Your help would be much appreciated.--Zleitzen 22:43, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm just asking about footnotes and referencing - technical matters, KarenAnn as I don't know how to do it and I'm usless with computers. I only know how to do external links references. I wrote the whole article as it is now some time ago, based largely on what I knew - combining a few pieces of precise info taken from internet sources - with the exeption of the recent relations area which I've left to others to compile.--Zleitzen 23:44, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Karen Ann, I'll take a look at what you've done and try to replicate it for future sourcing styles on articles.--Zleitzen 23:53, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Cleanup Templates

I noticed that you recently applied an improperly formatted cleanup template. I have fixed the template, but felt I should tell you that it needed to be replaced. You can find a list of properly formatted cleanup templates here. Please note that it is never appropriate to substitute a cleanup tag.

Thank you very much for your contributions to Wikipedia. Feel free to contact me if you have any questions. Alphachimp ^talk 00:07, 8 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

re:Cleanup tag

Please note that it is never appropriate to substitute a cleanup tag.

Could you tell me which particular article you are referring to -- has I have done hundreds of tagging in the wikify backlog in the last few days and I have already been using the source you referred me to? As far as I know, I have never substituted a tag. In fact, I don't know quite what you mean. KarenAnn 00:18, 8 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Nah. The message is somewhat of a generic one. You didn't subst a cleanup tag, but you used a badly formed one. Check it out here. I have a bot that changes {{cleanup}} to the month-specific tags, but tags spelled wrong or subst'ed sort of screw it up. So yeah, thanks for your contributions. You got my generic message, and I hope that I didn't offend you. Hope that answers your question. Regards, Alphachimp ^talk 12:31, 8 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Pjotro

Comment reformatted. I wouldn't worry about being riled up, we all have our pet peeves on here (lazy linking being mine). Anyway, I suspect that Pjotro isn't much longer for this world. --Daduzi ^talk 13:30, 8 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Salento

Thank you for your last edits at Salento, this beautyful part of Italy; the article now doesn't need further wikify-ing, and I'm going to remove the template that I posted some days ago. Cheers. --Doktor Who 06:33, 9 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Cuba

Thank you for your work on the Cuba page, much appreciated. --Zleitzen 00:00, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Freeman-Sheldon syndrome

Thank you for your critical review. One thing, in wikifying the article, as I have now done, obscure information for nonphysicians/med students/residents, etc. will be explained by following internal wiki links. This article is too deep to put everything critical on a lay person's level, within the article itself. Another thing, I didn't like the message that an expert needed to work on the article. I am. Critical review is always a positive thing, however. Thank you.--MI Poling

Doping Panda

What kind of google results are you looking for? "doping panda high pressure" comes up with more than 20,000 results for me. - BalthCat 23:40, 11 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Freeman-Sheldon syndrome

Hey, sorry. Don't take me too seriously. I've sort of this 'under-dog syndrome.' Anyway, I'm just a student. Moreover, don't feel left out; most people don't know anything about FSS. I just have some friends, and we work on it as a little team of sorts--a surgeon, GP, medical geneticist/internist/cardiologist, and a constant flux of others. My main personal interest is actually pineal body cysts and PTSD.--MI Poling 19:26, 12 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Age of Decadence page

In what sense is the information uncited? The only available information on the game is in the external links below. Do you mean that each piece of information in the article has to specifically link to a page? Please reply on my own talk page. -- Solberg 00:33, 13 July 2006 (UTC)Solberg[reply]

Barnstar

For your bold cleanup of the Kerala Model article, I award you, KarenAnn, this diligent editor's barnstar. Awesome job! --thunderboltz14:48, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Schools

Sorry you got bitten by this. Try to be thick-skinned about the criticism. For as long as I've been involved in Wikipedia (late 2003) this has been a contentious issue. Dpbsmith (talk) 15:19, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Schools as well

I don't delete any schools, since I figure there are lots of youngsters that feel their school is notable...and that way, I eliminate that amount of hassle from those begging me to restore it. Personally, I am kind of torn about the issue. I think that schools are not notable, whereby colleges and universities are. But, since this isn't a paper encyclopedia and server space is cheap, I tend towards inclusionist on schools in general. I don't think I have ever voted for one at an Afd. Now with that said, I have to say I disaprove of spamming for votes, but it is more common than not, and in many cases, users will simply email each other to avoid the overt appearance of spamming...so I'm not sure what can be done about it, in terms of eliminating it completely. It is frowned upon, and if it is severe, a block can be applied. As far as the school you nomiinated for deletion...just walk away. I can post a reminder to those that have been spamming if you wish. --MONGO 14:22, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I think that the Afd process is the most hostile environment on Wiki. As far as being overeducated...we have plenty of Phd's about...myself I have but a MS in forensic anthropology, which of course, I can't use in the real world anyway. On one article I started (Retreat of glaciers since 1850), there were three doctors, one also in Philiosophy like yourself, another in climate related issues and the third is a glaciologist...a fourth fellow also had an advanced degree. You're just hanging about in the wrong areas! The best way to enjoy wikipedia is to find an area that is benign....looking at my userpage, you'll see the vast majority of stubs I started are related to protected land areas...I rarely have any confrontations there...so when things seem blue, that's where I head off to. Pick a project to join and work on that.--MONGO 14:54, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The only difference between our training is that all I ever saw was dead people (sounds like a movie line), least you get to discuss things with some that are living...but forensic anthropology beats forensic pathology...skeletons are much less dramatic than flesh. I would have gone on in my field, but money was an issue, and my mentor (Ellis R. Kerley), told me that jobs were extremely rare...a professorship or even a teaching post is extremely hard to get in the anthropology field. Now, crime labs are always looking for people with advnced degrees in my field, but generally with a doctorate level. Just rememeber that the written word is one of the worst forms of communication, so it only takes a few miscues to get in a fight around these parts. Ha!:) Best wishes.--MONGO 15:54, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well then I recommend you put it behind you...it's water under the bridge at this point...stay away from the Afd process if you want happiness at wikipedia...that's what I think.--MONGO 23:10, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Kent-Meridian High School

Hi KarenAnn. I apologize if my comments regarding the AfD for this article have caused you grief. As you've seen the issue of school deletion has become almost a religious war at times, and it all gets rather amplified. Which is pretty silly really. But I can see from your postings that your AfD was well-intentioned, and I am sorry for any rancor this may have created. I hope the Schools project people can provide some useful guidelines in the future regarding school notability, so we can avoid such conflicts of opinion. Thank you. — RJH (talk) 15:10, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the apology. I appreciate it as the attacks have been very upsetting, especially so as it was clear that the voters hadn't even bothered to read the comments, my apologies, my retraction of the deletion nomination, etc. and were just mindlessly voting. People at their worst!

Thank you. I originally got into that whole page deletion mess because I started finding contributed pages (that I thought were interesting topics) started to get deleted. The unfortunate aspect of AfD, I think, is that it tends to attract people who seem to like to delete pages. Naturally this offends some of those (like me) who mainly contribute content, and so the discussions can get a little testy at times. I usually try to avoid the AfDs that are controversial, such as political and religious topics. But schools have turned out to be pretty controversial as well.

Anyway, thank you again for the reply, and good luck with wikipedia. :-) — RJH (talk) 15:59, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your sarcasm.

There was a post even after your so-called apology from a person who admits that he knows nothing about the subject but likes to contribute to trouble. I'm glad that Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kent-Meridian High School gives unsavory people a place to make the Wikipedian myth of a civil community into a farce.

If your attitude is -- as your post to me makes it sound -- if you can't lick them then join them -- then I so hope that you are not a high school teacher yourself. Someone wrote me that he thought those people posting there were not. Please, let that be true.

I hope you stop spamming in the future as no amount of apologizing rehabilitates Wikipedia's reputation when such nastiness occurs.

Frankly I don't know what you're talking about. There was no sarcasm in my reply, and it sounds now like you're trying to stir up another argument. What am I supposedly joining? No I am not a High School teacher; I'm a Systems Analyst. If that matters in the least. — RJH (talk) 17:48, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Archiving

Just create link to a new page (Talk:Fidel Castro/Archive_11) and start the page. I'm afraid we'll have to remove the content manually. But let's wait a bit until there is some consensus on what stays and what's going to be archived. mensch • t 22:35, 21 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Zyman Group 'notable' - listed by Inc 500.

Hello there...

I checked the WP:CORP and found that Zyman Group meets the requirement:

The firm meets the criteria of being recognized as the 'notable':

It was listed as the fastest growing consulting company by Inc.500. Zyman Group had a revenue growth of 654% over 4 years...

The Inc. 500 ranks privately held companies according to averaged year-over-year sales growth over the past four years. With approximately 75 percent of all new job creation in the U.S. coming from small businesses, the Inc. 500 is a prescient indicator of the companies and industries that are driving the economy forward. Over the years, the Inc. 500 has identified the next generation of world-class companies, with Microsoft, Stonyfield Farms, Timberland, Oracle, The Princeton Review, Morningstar, E*Trade, Intuit and Domino’s Pizza all appearing on the list before they became industry powerhouses.

I would suggest that the article be not deleted as this firm may be a significant name in the near future and Wikipedia should be at the forefront in mentioning it.