User talk:*Kat*

• archive
• archive2
• archive3

RFPERM

Don't worry- I gave you the reviewer flag way back on 13 June. Courcelles (talk) 08:03, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

• In the first stages of the rollout we weren't going on requests- we flagged several thousand editors off a database report. That was several days before the feature actually got turned on, so it would have just been one item on your watchlist... and if your watchlist is anything like mine, one item is very easily missed. Courcelles (talk) 08:09, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

Accidental Error

Hi there. I wanted to reply back and say that I accidentally deleted said content, as I believed myself to be in Wikipedia's "Sandbox". I am extremely sorry for my mistake and was working hectically to undo it (I am new here, and am unaware of any quick, generally possible solution for such an error) until I recieved your message. Again, I apologize deeply. Thank you and regards, Angel Chante (talk) 02:02, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

WP:ANI

Non admins are more than welcome at ANI ;-) Especially when they're making helpful, constructive comments, as you were in this thread. TFOWR 15:24, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

thanks.  :-) --*Kat* (talk) 15:48, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

Copyright attribution when splitting

Hi *Kat*. Noting your post at the help desk and following the links to what you've been doing, it appears to me that you have not complied with our attribution requirements when performing the splits, and thus violated copyright. We need to be able to follow a split from both ends of an article's history so that anyone can easily follow the trail through the edit history to see who wrote the content. So when you perform a split, you need to state what you've done with a link to the new article, and when you post the material at the new place, the same—state what you've done and provide a link back where the content came from. This is really important stuff. Please see Wikipedia:Splitting#Procedure. Cheers.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 05:01, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

Reply

Hello and thank you very much for the welcome! It's an interesting thing - I ran a search on Google Books, and for the most part the phrase "Scottish Language" is used to refer to Scots! So I guess I was wrong in my assumption that reference to Scots Gaelic as "Scottish" is commonplace. It's a good thing that user happened to spot it. Gaoidheal (talk) 23:07, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

Selective And Partisan Use Of Wiki Pillars Lack Credibility

The reasons for revising the previous entries were selective interpretation of the Wiki Pillars.

Several sections of this wiki entry blatantly break the Wiki Pillars but have been left intact.

Until the "rules" are applied fairly and evenly through this Wiki.

Any editorial decision based on them is suspect at the very least.

You are of course entitle to do what you like (and are allowed to do editorially)

But I am challenging the current editorial decision.

I consider it to be deeply flawed and lacking in credibility.

And will do so to the highest level.

86.44.85.89 (talk) 10:15, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

EDITORIAL "MUTUAL AGREEMENT" IS A WIDELY ABUSED CATCH ALL CURRENTLY ON WIKIPEDIA AND SO LACKS CREDIBILITY TOO.

How many editors came to the same conclusion about the "impartiality" of the by now infamous Saddam Hussein entry here on WIKIPEDIA..?

Many did miraculously as the same time and all agreeing the same.

Completely separated from external and internal (Wiki Management) influences too apparently..

They apparently agreed the entry was indeed "impartial" and it's sources were suspect to say the least.

(It is basically a love letter to Saddam frankly as anyone who has read it will all too clearly see..)

But for "various reasons" it was left in it's current state.

The editorial "mutual agreement" was and still is used as the main justification for it's continued presence.

Of course there are numerous examples of this almost angelic "mutual agreement" on a host of controversial wikis too.

It might mean something amongst the Editorial Staffers but cuts little ice out in the real word with the reader.

86.44.85.89 (talk) 10:57, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

You're welcome to join us...

...over here to work on cleaning up those lists. ···日本穣^? · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WikiProject Japan! 15:52, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

Sorry to hear of the Kosovo hassle

Sorry you had hassle over edits to the Kosovo article, as you'll probably know by now your work wasn't lost in that you could always retrieve it by using the edit history to go to an earlier version, click on edit and copy your preferred version into a text editor. Discussing extensive edits first is a good idea, and pretty essential where the talk page shows continued arguments. I've accepted that it's often best to patiently take things one step at a time, and where appropriate post the proposal on the talk page first before implementing it, but that's not always feasible. Good luck anyway, glad to advise if you want my (by no means definitive or universally accepted) suggestions, dave souza, talk 20:30, 29 July 2010 (UTC) And thanks for the suggestion on the CRU emails talk page! . . dave souza, talk 20:43, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

Deletion of Article on Rajiv Dixit

Thanks for you concern regarding the article. I had tried and added some sourced content and had also added verified sources the the existing contents so i don't think that we must really hurry to remove this article as it looks well suited to be on wikipedia and so i think that the deletion tag must be removed. I invite you on the talk page http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Rajiv_Dixit of the article if you still find any major issues in the article. Regards --Sandeep (talk) 11:24, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

The List

Wow, you put in a lot of work on List of war films based on books (1775–1898) last night, I'm very impressed! It's looking much better. --BelovedFreak 08:33, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

Thanks!!! There is still more to do though. The vast majority of the references are notes about how such and such author won some sort of prize for their work. I also left in most of the foreign language films on the chance that they really are war movies. But we'll need to get those pages translated. Google has a good service for that so it shouldn't be mission impossible.

On an unrelated note: I'm surprised the article's owner hasn't had anything to say about all the work we have done on it.--*Kat* (talk) 16:03, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

Well, I think this one is going to be the "model". I've fiddled about on some of the others, but not made as much progress as you have, so when you feel it's kind of "ready", maybe we could ask people from the Film and Military History projects to take a look and see if they can see any obvious ones that shouldn't be there. We can/should also ask User:Varlaam to take a look and ask for any suggestions. I still have hopes that he/she will feel able to contribute and work with others on the lists. I'm hoping he/she is not just biding their time and geting ready to do a big revert! it's always harder when people are reluctant to communicate, but changes needed to be made, and you've done a really good job on it.--BelovedFreak 16:13, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

Gimme an hour or so to get the horn tooting refs out and then feel free to bring the Film and History people in.

If Varlaam does do a big revert he'll have some 'splaining to do. And we can always revert back. That's one of the nice things about WP. Nothing is ever really lost.--*Kat* (talk) 16:29, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

Ok. :) --BelovedFreak 16:32, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

done. --*Kat* (talk) 17:49, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

Ok, I've spread the word... hopefully others will come and give their opinion. I've also asked Varlaam again to join in discussion... who knows?!--BelovedFreak 09:56, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

Good deal. --*Kat* (talk) 10:06, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

template:last edited

Hey, I saw you did a bold edit and tried to fix Template:Last edited by. Unfortunately the result was that template stopped working all together and just showed your name wherever it was placed, so I reverted back to the old version. Yoenit (talk) 21:12, 11 August 2010 (UTC)