User talk:Katanada/Archive1

templates
The date syntax is:, but if you leave the date off it will be added by a WP:BOT.

Barnstar

 * You're welcome. I noticed that you added a lot to the article, and too often a single person makes a major contribution to an article(s) and is never recognized. J.d ela noy gabs adds  01:13, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

gas
Hi Katanada. Elementary articles must be correct to the expert and comprehensible to the beginner at the same time. This makes the writing difficult. The same words have different meanings to experts and to beginners. The article on gas is not easy to understand for the beginner, but I myself am not able to help it. I do appreciate your efford. Bo Jacoby (talk) 09:17, 3 April 2008 (UTC).

Rollback
I have granted rollback rights to your account; the reason for this is that after a review of some of your contributions, I believe I can trust you to use rollback correctly by using it for its intended usage of reverting vandalism, and that you will not abuse it by reverting good-faith edits or to revert-war. For information on rollback, see New admin school/Rollback and Rollback feature. If you do not want rollback, just let me know, and I'll remove it. Good luck and thanks. PeterSymonds (talk)  16:31, 16 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Catchy name, isn't it? :) Not really...Bear in mind that it reverts all the top edits made. It only reverts the most recent edit/s by that person, and will rollback to the version before the editor started. If there is someone else who edited after the vandal started, it will rollback to them, and you'll have to manually undo any edits made beforehand. Enjoy, and ask if you need assistance! :) Best, PeterSymonds (talk)  16:39, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 24 hours for Personal attacks. If you wish to make useful contributions, you may do so when the block expires. Selket Talk 18:16, 16 June 2008 (UTC)


 * You reverted between the edit I was trying to revert and my revert, both the revert and the block caught the wrong person. You have my sincere and humble apology. --Selket Talk 18:37, 16 June 2008 (UTC)
 * hahahah thats cool dont worry about it! I'm still stuck with the auto block though. :-( Katanada (talk) 18:41, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

reverts
I see you're using Huggle. You keep beating me to reverts and I'm using it too! Shapiros10  contact me My work 21:04, 16 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Hahahah yea! I find it somewhat entertaining to revert and send templated messages and stuff. It makes me feel semi-powerful :) Keep up the fight! I'll be there with you. Katanada (talk) 21:07, 16 June 2008 (UTC)


 * I'm always here.  Shapiros10  contact me My work  21:01, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

Re:Speed
Well, I was about to recommend Huggle but it seems you're already using it too :)  jj137  (  talk )  21:56, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

Poor You

 * You've been vandalized a lot lately. If you want, your userpage can be semi-protected.  Jyst ask User:Acalamari and save the hassle of going through WP:RFPP.  Shapiros10  contact me My work  22:44, 17 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Haha thats alright, dont worry about it. Usually, its only there for only seconds! someone catches it before I do! Katanada (talk) 22:46, 17 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Ya, but it's kind of a hassle. Go to him when it gets too much.  Shapiros10  contact me My work  22:47, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

Not a problem
I've reported him. Corvus cornix talk  22:44, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

Bexley Middle School
Thank you for helping my article. (respond to this message on my username xxhopingtearsxx if you want to respond)--71.79.65.150 (talk) 00:58, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

NUIX
Whoever keeps posting the corporate scandal information to the NUIX page is most likely a competitor, as such, they would apper to be in breach of your COI rules - Financial. The page was not created by NUIX, whoever created the page did so soley to post this malicious content. This would also seem to be in breach of your Vandalism edict?

Please stop putting the text back.

Thank you Dontlie15 (talk) 01:23, 18 June 2008 (UTC)


 * I dont know much about the subject and it seems that other people are handling it. I'll leave it alone for now Katanada (talk) 04:10, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

Huggle speedies
Hey -- just a note to ask you to please be careful when speedying articles with Huggle -- some of the articles you tagged aren't really candidates for CSD, such as Life In Technicolor and Autism Society Philippines. (You tagged the first one no context when it stated clearly what it was about; and the second one promotional, when it doesn't seem particularly promotional to me, just somewhat non-NPOV). Yes, both articles have problems, but CSD is for a very limited range of problem articles -- prod or AFD should be used for anything else. Thanks! -- phoebe / (talk to me) 06:45, 18 June 2008 (UTC)


 * The reason I tagged Life In Technicolor was because it looked very similar to other articles that were of similar length and described one particular item with not a whole lot of information. I felt that the information provided in that article would have been easily presented in the article concerning the entire album I agree that I should have been a little more careful and given it a better tag but either way it needs a lot of work before it can become a stand-alone article. There are many "new" articles that I had looked at yesterday and many of them were real "work-in-progress" articles so I left them and added 'expand' tags and to some 'notability' tags and some other 'advert' tags and 'npov' tags because by quickly skimming I was still unsure of why it was there or if it was copied from another site (which was reviled to me quickly by that copy Bot whose name I don't remember). As for Autism Society Philippines I don't recall because it appears to have been deleted for copyright by User:Ultraexactzz so I can't look at it to see what it was to tell you about it. I guess at the time it seemed to me that the article was describing a company in non-NPOV form which kind of constitutes promotional information.... and it didn't seem that the article was well organized compared to other "new" articles I had seen yesterday... Thats why I tagged it as CSD although I'll start using prod or AFD more from now on for articles that are closer to the edge like that. Thanks for the comment. Katanada (talk) 15:42, 18 June 2008 (UTC)
 * no problem, thanks. Didn't mean to make it seem like I was yelling at you or anything like that -- just wanted to leave a note about why I took the tags off :) too bad about the copyvio on the other one. Cheers, -- phoebe / (talk to me) 23:18, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

If you think it's a speedy delete, why start an AfD?
You started Articles for deletion/Center for diabetes care with the reason "possible A7 (inc) ?". Why wouldn't you simply tag it as a speedy instead of opening an AfD? (Incidentally, I tagged it as for WP:CSD and it's now gone.) Delicious carbuncle (talk) 16:53, 18 June 2008 (UTC)
 * I've been doing that cause of the previous talk post... check it out. I don't want to get yelled at again :) Katanada (talk) 17:11, 18 June 2008 (UTC)
 * I think the problem is in applying the CSD categories improperly. Creating an AfD makes more work for admins because someone is going to have to close it now that the article is gone. If you really think it's a speedy, then tag it. If it gets declined, you are still able to start an AfD if you feel strongly about it (taking into account any comments made by the reviewing admin). Just be clear on the allowable reasons for CSD and you (probably) won't get yelled at. Use prod or AfD if you don't think it fits any of the CSD categories, but make sure you write a clear reason for deletion. Good luck. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 17:23, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

Huggle rollbacking
Please explain how this edit is vandalism. &mdash;Dark talk 07:22, 19 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Sorry... Its not vandalism. I undid my edit. The reason I reverted at the time was because if you look strictly at the comparison between the original and revised article it appears to be a mass removal of content and the adding of "allegedly" in a phrase with no reference attached to it. Coming from an unregistered IP I briefly assumed it was vandalism and personal opinion (npov?) and so I hit Q on my keyboard and kept moving. Sorry about that... its difficult to spot good faith IP's among the thousands of vandals that show up every day. I'll keep trying though. :( Katanada (talk) 15:33, 19 June 2008 (UTC)
 * No problems, everyone makes mistakes and it can be easily fixed. &mdash;Dark talk 05:32, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

Please be careful with Undo on the Philippine Air Force
Please be careful with using undo, since when you attempted to undo your own changes on the Philippine Air Force article, you managed to re-insert a hoax inserted by an anonymous IP. --Edward Sandstig (talk) 17:43, 19 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Gah! I was just told by Dark that it wasn't vandalism so I undid my edit! I knew something was weird about it when I saw the "allegedly" in there but I don't like to fight with people above me (admins). Since he has more experience than I do and knows all the policies I just undid what I had reverted assuming that's what he wanted me to do. What do I do now? Katanada (talk) 17:58, 19 June 2008 (UTC)


 * It's no problem, I already reverted back to the version without the hoax. We get a lot of questionable edits on the articles about the Philippine military from the 118.x.x.x IP-block. --Edward Sandstig (talk) 01:15, 20 June 2008 (UTC)
 * The edit, in general, was constructive. Sandstig, when reverting, please do not remove constructive edits as well. The formatting of the table was not vandalism, and the use of the undo button instead of placing an actual edit summary in regarding to why it was reverted, is problematic. &mdash;Dark talk 02:29, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

Benzodiazepine expert banner
Hi. Concerning the { {expert}} template that you recently added to the benzodiazepine article, this is a very long article containing many sections. Furthermore, while this article could clearly be improved, I don't see any glaring deficiencies or inaccuracies. As the template instructions suggest:

''start a section on the article discussion page describing what you wish the expert to address. may be used for this purpose''

Cheers. Boghog2 (talk) 19:47, 19 June 2008 (UTC)


 * I added the banner because there have been quite a few significant additions from many users/IPs to the article in the past few weeks. I am not an expert on the subject but I feel that a quick review by an expert on the topic (possibly from the Pharmacology WProject) could improve this article. I also followed your advice and added to the discussion page for the article. Katanada (talk) 20:06, 19 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Thanks for your quick response and clarification. The challenge is that the benzodiazepine article covers a range of disciplines from chemistry to pharmacology to behavioral psychology so it is difficult for any one expert to review the entire article.  I will see what I can do from the chemistry and pharmacology end of things.  Cheers.  Boghog2 (talk) 20:40, 19 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Ok! Awesome! let me know if you have any luck and if I can help in any way. Katanada (talk) 20:57, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

No incivility
The Butte, Montana edit was fact, not vandalism. You are attacking people and accusing people falsely. Why? If you don't like it, you could have said something like the type of gasoline available in Butte should not be in the Butte article because ...... (give reason). Presumptive (talk) 03:21, 20 June 2008 (UTC)


 * The edit you made was not something that should be included in an 'encyclopedic' type article. There are other wiki sister-projects where that information would be more appropriate. Please have a look there. Thanks Katanada (talk) 03:47, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

Because, first off...You are wrong anyways. The type of gasoline availble in Butte is the same as it is in any other Montana town. It's lower octane than the normal 87 but it's sold throughout Montana. Butte doesn't have "special gas". —Preceding unsigned comment added by Seattlehawk94 (talk • contribs) 06:11, 21 June 2008 (UTC)


 * If you can find something that meets WP:RS then go ahead and put your gasoline information. I suggest you read WP:PILLARS before you continue to make edits. Katanada (talk) 15:28, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

Vandalism? I think not
I fail to see how I'm vandalizing a page with my name as the title by providing information about myself? Aweber1 (talk) 20:43, 19 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Please read WP:COI.  Shapiros10  contact me My work  20:44, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

So it's a conflict of interest when someone else can have information about themselves on page, but I can't? That's quite ludicrous. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Aweber1 (talk • contribs) 20:49, 19 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Actually, I should've linked you here. I quote: "Writing an autobiography on Wikipedia is strongly discouraged, unless your writing has been approved by other editors in the community. Editing a biography about yourself should only be done in clear-cut cases."  Shapiros10  contact me <sub style="color:#3D2B1F;">My work  20:51, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

Ok, that's fair enough. So then why does this page with my name already exist? It's not an accurate autobiography of me, I'd like it deleted.Aweber1 (talk) 20:55, 19 June 2008 (UTC)


 * This page is not about you. It is about the football player for the Golden Gophers.
 * And anyway, I don't think you are notable for inclusion on Wikipedia. You may want to check WP:N.  Shapiros10  <sup style="color:chocolate;">contact me <sub style="color:#3D2B1F;">My work  20:57, 19 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Umm... I have no idea what you guys are talking about... what article?? Katanada (talk) 21:03, 19 June 2008 (UTC)


 * OOHH! the Adam Weber article... check out your talk page. A user already commented about it. Let me know if you need any clarification. Thanks Katanada (talk) 21:08, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

Vandalism? I think yes
Re your query here. db-vandalism seems suitable to me. &mdash; RHaworth (Talk | contribs) 04:08, 20 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Ok! I've seen a handful of those between today and yesterday. Next time I see it I'll G3 it. Thanks for the help! Katanada (talk) 04:10, 20 June 2008 (UTC)


 * No. I hope you will db-vandalism it! When I see people talking about A7s and similar, I begin to wonder whether we have human beings or robots editing here. Do you really find it easier to remember "G11" rather than "db-spam"? &mdash; RHaworth (Talk | contribs) 04:15, 20 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Crap! I thought I could keep my robot identity hidden for longer! Anyways, I've been using Huggle to find these pages in the first place and its much easier to just hit 'S' and then click vandalism than to go in and, by hand, type in db-vandalism. :) Sorry if this poses a huge problem. Maybe in the script I could make it put the other one instead of the db-g3 one...hmm... Katanada (talk) 04:19, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

David McKenzie
Hi there. You've just tagged this article with three tags: citations, internal links, and lead too short. I believe that all of them are not applicable. There are internal citations; it's not a lead, it's a stub; and one citation is quite sufficient for a stub. I've removed the internal citations and the lead one, but await your response on the other. Frickeg (talk) 04:40, 20 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Hey Frickeg, when articles are stubs or newly created articles I like to throw a few tags on it (like expand and things like that) because it shows up on lists of "articles that need to be expanded" or whatever its called. That way your article doesn't go completely unnoticed. If you don't tag it at all it may be months before someone that knows something about the subject finds it. So... if you want to remove the tags that's fine with me I don't have anything to add to the article I just want people to find it. Hope this helps clarify my intentions. Katanada (talk) 00:36, 21 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Admirably, thank you! Frickeg (talk) 00:44, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

unconstructive edits
hello. you have said my edits (my first ones here) are "unconstructive," but i don't understand. Can you explain what was wrong about them? 18.96.7.137 (talk) 06:51, 20 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Th4 correct format for words in an article would be building, not buildin'. That's why it was unconstructive.  Shapiros10  <sup style="color:chocolate;">contact me <sub style="color:#3D2B1F;">My work  11:03, 20 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Shapirooo! on the ball! Thanks for the help buddy. Katanada (talk) 00:39, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

Speedy Delete of Gar
My apologies, I didn't intend for my edit to be vandalism. I simply saw a reference under 'Gar' that was not used. The meme 'Gar' is linked to, but doesn't actually have a page. My intention was to start one, and with the help of other editors try to explain it better. My first edit was a placeholder for it, a summary if you would. Is it possible to put it back up? Is there something I can do to rectify this mistake? Again, my edit was not intended to be vandalism at all. If you would like, I can link to the meme's definition from other wiki-esque encyclopedias that have entries on it. Let me know, and thanks for keeping an eye on things. I appreciate it. --Tarage (talk) 11:45, 20 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Yea not a problem, I understand your intentions now. The article has not been protected for creation so its not blocked although if you do create it again as a 'placeholder' it will not survive very long (it'll probably be a candidate for WP:SPEEDY) again because it contains nothing. However, if you really want to make this article I can suggest a few different routes for you... You can attempt at creating the same article and adding hangon at the top so that the speedy delete doesn't go through so fast (not recommended). The other option is to add underconstruction at the top and hope that it doesn't get tagged for a little while (not recommended either but better than the first one). OR you can have something prepared for the article (basic explanation) or something that somehow show that the contents of the article are actually legitimate and encyclopedic. If you need help as to how to format your article so that it stays on Wiki and doesn't risk being either WP:SPEEDY'd or nominated for WP:AFD let me know and I'll be glad to point you in the right direction! Katanada (talk) 00:53, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

Wikify
Over the past day I have removed tags for wikification that you have placed on several articles. Wikification is adding internal links to the articles. The articles I took the tags off of had an appropriate amount of wikilinks. Please be sure to only tag articles that clearly need extra links. This is an example of one. If you have any questions about this or feel that I should not have taken those tags off those articles, feel free to ask. Metros (talk) 12:44, 20 June 2008 (UTC)


 * I understand. I realize my mistake. Thank you for the clarification. I like to keep the expand tag on "newer" pages just because they could all use it and they show up on here instead of just floating out there on their own in wiki-space without being noticed. I hope this clarifies my intent. Katanada (talk) 01:01, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

Sorry
Sorry for accidentally warning you! ... disco spinster   talk  02:56, 21 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Thats cool, dont worry about it. I did that yesterday to someone else! Oops!! Katanada (talk) 02:57, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of The Blake School (Plantation, FL)
A proposed deletion template has been added to the article The Blake School (Plantation, FL), suggesting that it be deleted according to the proposed deletion process. All contributions are appreciated, but this article may not satisfy Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and the deletion notice should explain why (see also "What Wikipedia is not" and Wikipedia's deletion policy). You may prevent 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.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised because 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. Do you want to opt out of receiving this notice? Madcoverboy (talk) 14:37, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

WikiProject Physics participation
You received this message because your were on the old list of WikiProject Physics participants.

On 2008-06-25, the WikiProject Physics participant list was rewritten from scratch as a way to remove all inactive participants, and to facilitate the coordination of WikiProject Physics efforts. The list now contains more information, is easier to browse, is visually more appealing, and will be maintained up to date.

If you still are an active participant of WikiProject Physics, please add yourself to the current list of WikiProject Physics participants. Headbomb {ταλκ – WP Physics: PotW} 15:53, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

Article Deletion
Why did you tag the Global Charity Project article for deletion? Tooler002 (talk) 13:39, 4 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Because after a quick Google search it did not seem to meet WP:CORP. It seems an administrator has agreed with me on the position. If you feel strongly about the article being on Wikipedia, I suggest you find 3-rd party sources and other things that would help your article meet WP:CORP. I wish you the best of luck! Katanada (talk) 21:05, 4 July 2008 (UTC)