User talk:Catyliz

Welcome!
Hello, Catyliz, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful: I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your messages on talk pages using four tildes ( ~ ); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask your question on this page and then place  before the question. Again, welcome!
 * The five pillars of Wikipedia
 * Tutorial
 * How to edit a page and How to develop articles
 * How to create your first article (using the Article Wizard if you wish)
 * Simplified Manual of Style

November 2012
Just a few things based on your recent edits: - J Greb (talk) 20:44, 25 November 2012 (UTC)
 * When you add a new section to a talk page, please use the "new section" link in tabs at the top of the page. This will allow you to create a sub-heading for your topic and place it at the bottom of the page. And if for some reason you cannot use the "new section" link, place the new section at the bottom of the page. On Wikipedia all new section go at the bottom of talk pages.
 * Be careful to not attack other editors. The templated warning you placed at User talk:Curly Turkey reads as this. I'll explain why below.
 * When placing the templated warnings, start with the lowest one unless the editor has recently been given that level. Jumping levels makes it look like you are attempting to squelch an editor instead of engaging in a discussion.
 * Please look over WP:BRD. The is used as common courtesy in editing and is designed to promote collaboration. If your bold addition or removal from an article is reversed, discuss what you want to do an why on the article's talk page. Show that there is consensus for the change before making it. What you have done at Françoise Mouly amounts to edit warring.

Françoise Mouly
Sorry if I reverted too much at Françoise Mouly. I had only intended to revert as per WP:ALLCAPS, and didn't notice I was reverting other material. It definitely wasn't vandalism.  C üRly T üRkey  Talk Contribs 21:46, 25 November 2012 (UTC)

Art Spiegelman
Hi. It's obvious that your edits to Art Spiegelman are in good faith and improve the prose of the article, but we need to be a little more careful about how the prose relates to the citations. In this edit, you reworded " Spiegelman resigned from The New Yorker in 2003 after finishing his contract. " to " Spiegelman did not renew his New Yorker contract after 2003. " This implies that the contract non-renewal info was taken from Witek 2003, when in fact all that source says is "Spiegelman resigns from the New Yorker, citing differences in sensibility between himself and the magazine in the contemporary political climate."  C üRly T üRkey  Talk Contribs 21:57, 5 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Well, if it's ever a problem getting the citations sorted out, you could always ask an editor who appears to know what they're doing to sort it out for you. I could have just fixed it myself, but I thought it was more important to keep my fellow editors aware of these things.  C üRly T üRkey  Talk Contribs 02:07, 9 December 2012 (UTC)
 * As for the referencing syle, there's nothing wrong with using tags the way you have been—they still display correctly. If anyone is anal enough (like myself), they can just reformat your refs.  There are a lot of advantages to using templates, though, even if only the cite book, cite journal, etc. series of templates.
 * I personally have a fondness for the sfn templates as part of the method of referencing.  It requires more overhead, and some reading up on how it works, but in the end it saves a lot of work and headaches on large articles, while keeping everything neat and consistent, among other advantages.  There is no requirement (or even strong recommendation) to use such tools, however—they are up to the editors, and no editor can force another editor to use them.  Even on a page (like the ones I edit) in which all the inline citations are done with sfn & friends, you can still use old-fashioned tags without breaking a thing.  C üRly T üRkey  Talk Contribs 07:11, 9 December 2012 (UTC)

MetaMAUS publisher
Hi. Actually, MetaMAUS was simultaneously by Pantheon (in the U.S.) and Viking (in the Commonwealth). The copy listed is the one I have, which I bought in Japan (funny, as Japan is normally considered to be within the American sphere of influence, and I bought it from Amazon). As far as I know, they're identical except for the publishing information, so it should be a non-issue—I'd leave it alone unless you had a truly compelling reason to change it. The same thing goes with Maus, which was published by Pantheon in the States, and Penguin in the Commonwealth.  C üRly T üRkey  Talk Contribs 01:33, 13 December 2012 (UTC)