User talk:KathrynHKlos2

Thomas Parker Sanborn
I may have done the wrong thing in fixing your references there. I saw different numbers and assumed there were different URLs for the Clark book. But every URL is the same, and the one difference is that you added a Kindle location in one case. Were the Kindle locations all the same? If so, the Sanborn article can just use the normal multiple references. Also, for this article and Secret Six, it would be nice if we could have more publication information for the Clark book. And for the Sanborn article in the Boston Journal, if you can see the article you must have its headline as well. We should have that.

Looks good.— Vchimpanzee  ·  talk  ·  contributions  · 18:41, 16 October 2013 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for October 17
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Thomas Parker Sanborn, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Puck (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ* Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:25, 17 October 2013 (UTC)


 * I don't know if this is how to reply and thank you for showing me that trick, but thanks. I fixed another disambig. the same way. KathrynHKlos2 (talk) 14:52, 17 October 2013 (UTC)


 * That's a bot, though there is a human behind it. No need to reply unless it messes up. I benefit a lot from those bots.— Vchimpanzee  ·  talk  ·  contributions  · 21:39, 17 October 2013 (UTC)

easy fix
Hello Kathryn, 74 here, I noticed your question over at the teahouse, and belatedly commented on when primary sources *are* okay to use. Especially given that you are talking about very-difficult-to-verify materials, I urge you to consider writing up some of the primary-source selections, and sticking them into the article-talkpage. More in that vein, over in your teahouse-question.

However, what I came here to mention, is an easy fix for your other difficulty.


 * "few people in the US care about American History unless vampires are involved or it will become a video game"

Isn't the answer obvious? Don't you own a pencil? While you're researching the primary documents, sneak out your pencil, and in the margins, add a brief notation, in the subject's handwriting.


 * Dear readers of the future, I have always secretly been a vampire.

Then, once you become wealthy and famous for your book 'Blood-sucking Vampires Of American History' you can spin-off some of the royalties into 'I Was An American Vampire: The Videogame'

Hope this helps. :-)     ... and actually, although it is kind of a gimmick, you might seriously consider calling it 'True Secrets Of American History: Beyond Vampires & Videogames' ... just a thought.  Thanks for improving wikipedia.  &mdash; 74.192.84.101 (talk) 13:01, 4 November 2013 (UTC)

ArbCom elections are now open!
Hi, You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 17:04, 24 November 2015 (UTC)