User talk:KAM

Welcome!

Hello,, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few good links for newcomers: I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~&#126;); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you need help, check out Where to ask a question, ask me on my talk page, or place  on your talk page and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Again, welcome! --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 02:03, 30 May 2005 (UTC)
 * The five pillars of Wikipedia
 * How to edit a page
 * Help pages
 * Tutorial
 * How to write a great article
 * Manual of Style

Turn talk from red to blue

Thanks
Thanks again for your comments on my addition to the John Muir article. I was just reviewing my talk page and noticed your encouraging words; the things I write do not always turn out so well. One thing I do feel good about is that the new school year is about to start and I expect the words I wrote introducing Muir will be appearing in thousands of school reports all over the country. :-) All the best.  -Steve Dufour 04:09, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

sustainability
The problem that we are going to have with the sustainability issues is that forestry has been about sustainability for over a century: it's just the goal of what will be sustained that keeps changing. They thought that sustained yield was good enough, but then they were told that they were not sustaining enough. Each new 'sustainable' concept will run into this problem, so the best they can do is to keep their definitions as vague as possible, so as to avoid getting rejected too quickly. Any 'sustainable' concept will end up approving some forestry action, which on later inspection will be identified as having an ecologically damaging aspect. It is just a matter of time until each new 'sustainable' concept is rejected, in favor of a new and improved sustainability. The best we can do as wiki people is to document each passing fad in sustainability, identify the specific issues of each, and document why it was eventually rejected as not being sustainable. The Gomm 03:15, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

"cut and run logging"
I think that we do need a discussion of "cut and run logging" on the logging page. Could you somehow reinsert it? The Gomm 02:44, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

Exxon Valdez
I certainly understand why the Exxon Valdez might not be considered a shipwreck. I had no opinion when placing the project banner, and still have none, but we may need to have a discusion involving the whole project on exactly how we define "shipwreck" - must it still be down there, should we include noteable accidents, do we have to know for sure it was wrecked, do military ships sunk as targets count etc etc - Blood red sandman 15:17, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

Shipwrecks
Hey Kam No problem with the moving of my edits- Lets get that article cleaned up Markco1

Wise use
Hi Kam, Good work on the Wise use article. I did some copy editing - mostly breaking up sentences and paragraphs. If folks like it, I'll do the rest of the article.

As a member of the neutrality project (actually, I just joined in relation to an article of my own), I noticed that major parts of this article aren't cited. The philosophy section is the real "sticky wicket", because it contains both controversial material (to some), and because it uses quotation marks, I believe, twice. Since your edits come up most on the history, I'm assuming you're familiar with most of sources, and where this material comes from. If you could add more citation marks, particularly for criticism, you'll head a lot of conflict off at the pass. Sincerely, NinaEliza (talk • contribs • [ logs ] ) 01:26, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

Wilderness/criticism
Nice work on the criticism section in the Wilderness article. I think that it nicely problematizes the notion of wilderness. I've added a "Citations needed" tag. When you get a moment, could you add inline notes, please? Or you could give me the cites and I will add them. Sunray 22:47, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

Tet offensive
I'd like to belatedly thank you for the work you did on the Tet offensive article back in November, particularly the excellent additions to the Media impact section. Good research and good balanced writing about a controversial subject. KarlBunker 15:00, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

Forestry Articles
The forestry articles are maddening as you noted on Glom's talk page. These articles are disjointed and the concepts are spread all over multiple pages. Fire suppression history in a sustainable forestry page? I am a new editor, I have no idea how to take this on. Also my experience is limited to California and Nevada, so I have no experience with world forestry issues. Arghhh SierraSkier 05:40, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

Maritime Trades Invite
Thanks for the feedback on Able Seaman (occupation) and United States Merchant Marine! I didn't catch the AB stuff 'til today. We're developing a working group to improve articles in this subject at WikiProject Transport/Maritime transport task force, and you're certainly welcome. Cheers. H aus  Talk  23:46, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

Kleercut
Please accept my apologies. Although I was curious as to the source of the quote, which I couldn't dig up (probably due to wording issues), I still don't think it's relevant. The connection between that information and Kleercut just feels tenuous to me, especially on a page with NPOV issues. Thank you for the citations, though.Elmorell 23:03, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

Michael Wyly
I have added a "" template to the article Michael Wyly, suggesting that it be deleted according to the proposed deletion process. All contributions are appreciated, but I don't believe it satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and I've explained why in the deletion notice (see also "What Wikipedia is not" and Wikipedia's deletion policy). You may contest the proposed deletion by removing the  notice, but please explain why you disagree with the proposed deletion in your edit summary or on its talk page. Also, please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Even though removing the deletion notice will prevent deletion through the proposed deletion process, the article may still be deleted if it matches any of the speedy deletion criteria or it can be sent to Articles for Deletion, where it may be deleted if consensus to delete is reached. —Disavian (talk/contribs) 21:56, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

Troops in Iraq
Hi. I noticed you posted a useful reference on the Iraq War page about the Zinni-organized war games in 1999 predicting the need for 400K or more troops in Iraq. Nice find. I had no idea about that. Anyways, I don't know if this is a big area of interest for you, but the Troop withdrawal from Iraq article needs a lot of work. For example, I think that the article should have a clear  pro and con section, should have more up to date polling data, and a more detailed and up to date explanation of the current proposals. There should also be more information on the views of military personnel. Any interest in helping me work on this article? Thanks! --Mackabean 19:41, 9 May 2007 (UTC)


 * I hear you on staying clear of Iraq. Editing and discussion can get pretty ugly on those pages :)  That said, they are probably some of the most important pages on the site.  A tough call.  Anyways, take care.  --Mackabean 03:15, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

Thomas X. Hammes
I'm sorry, but I'm pretty much a newbie in the template-messages and whatnot, even after the not-so-short time I have been editing. So, what exactly has been done with the article? Sorry for any inconvenience. Thanks for raising this issue, though. Qwerty (talk) 04:21, 10 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Thank you so much, KAM, for fixing up the big mess I created. I'm terribly sorry, but lately, I haven't been able to pull things together.:( Again, I appreciate you and your help, and I effusively thank you for it. Qwerty (talk) 11:45, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

Hubbard Brook
I only took the info from their Web site - and to be honest, I don't see much difference between what was there and what you wrote. Unless I've missed something, I don't think there's any conflict; you slightly expanded the background. - DavidWBrooks 14:46, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

Citing a source
Hi. So, for example, let's say you want to cite xx, yy, zz: you place that source between the ref tags like this:, then at the foot of the page, you have a blank section which you can title as "Notes" or "References" and add to that section and it will list the source for you. Now, let's say you wish to cite the same source more than once: you assign a name to that source, let's say "xyz" and then the first time you cite it, you do so thusly: and then any other time you want to cite that same source again, you add a next to where the footnote will be. Here is how it will look like visually: Citing the source for the first time. Citing the source a second, third , etc., times. See subsection below for result. Hope this helps. El_C 17:00, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

Col Thomas X. Hamme protected?
I see no sign of protection - what exactly seems to be the problem? - Skysmith 16:09, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

Tet Offensive
Tet Offensive, an article that you may be interested in, has been nominated for a community good article reassessment. If you are interested in the discussion, please participate by adding your comments to the reassessment page. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, the good article status will be removed from the article. AIR corn (talk) 07:13, 27 December 2012 (UTC)

ArbCom elections are now open!
MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 13:00, 23 November 2015 (UTC)