User talk:Kareeser
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
|
|
|||
| Welcome to my discussion page! I appreciate any and all comments, and would love to hear from you, especially if I can improve myself in some way or another. I appreciate feedback, so be bold on this page just like any other page! | |||
 Archive 1 (October 10 to February 6) |
Archive 2 (February 3 to September 15) |
 Archive 3 (Empty) |
|
[edit] You have discovered the truth about M&Ms!
Hi there...saw your name on the editor list of an article I wanted to propose for deletion for the second time (Razor Gator), and wanted to ask you about what happened the first time around just to make sure I wasn't missing anything - found your name on that previous AfD which seems to have been a delete. (Your prod tag was removed this time around too.) But that big green box on your User Page caught my eye. As I read, my first thought was that this could only have been written by a fellow Canadian...and sure enough! Thank you for including that, it made my day...night...wee hours of the morning...whatever. Risker 06:43, 11 November 2006 (UTC)
- Ah yes...I see you got to it long before me...Still pretty new around here, so hadn't quite worked up the courage (or found the un-interrupted time) to go forward on this. I see how it was done now, and appreciate your taking the time to help me learn the ropes a bit. Risker 06:01, 15 November 2006 (UTC)
-
- That is absolutely the most funniest thing I have seen about M & M's. :D -Edbrown05 07:53, 25 January 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Jellotology
Sorry, after dozens of no name bands and spams, I got over zealous. Czolgolz 04:12, 15 November 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Age of Empires III Military Units
Hi. I also agree on the fact that Wikipedia isnt a game manual; but then, why is there an article of Age of Empires 3 Buildings. If there is an article on buildings then there also should be one of units... Either both or none.
--TomasBat 01:10, 22 November 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Hi Kareeser. Re: User vs IP Address.
I too am a newbie to Wikipedia. I just noticed that in some instances my IP address appears instead of my user name. I suppose that means I need to be sure that I am logged in, but is there a way to link the IP address to my User Name? Is there a way to streamline this. See gelotology & laughter. I've been making additions for a class and want to make sure my actions are easily noted by my instructor.
Thank you in advance for your efforts. I welcome your reply. --TESCHD
[edit] Age of Empires III: Image
Hi. Thanks for all the help... but I have got a bit of a problem... I didn´t take that screenshot! Instead I took it from a web-site...
--TomasBat (Talk) 01:42, 27 January 2007 (UTC)
Oh! I relly did not know all that stuff... Well... I will see if I can take some home-made screenshots to upload...
Thanks for all the help... --TomasBat (Talk) 01:48, 27 January 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Eye movement in music reading
In what way do you believe the text is too dense/scientific? What is a "thesis paper", and what are its stylistic characteristics? Can you provide examples? Tony 10:09, 27 January 2007 (UTC)
Re your comments on my talk page:
The lead stoops over to explain to the layperson what the process of reading music is; so does the first section on the difference between music and language reading. This approach wouldn't be found in a specialist scientific paper. Nor would "at sampling intervals around 25 ms (i.e., 40 samples a second)". The extent to which WP articles should be directed at people with no prior knowledge of a subject has been a matter of unresolved debate, in my experience. Some FACs have been promoted that pay little respect to non-specialists, such as a recent nomination in the field of maths.
The lead provides links to the key technical terms (sight reading, fixations and saccades). Cognitive psychology should probably be linked, too; it's hard to find an article that oculomotor can be linked to, and "coded meanings", well, I hope that's clear enough—it's pretty basic, and piping a link to "semiotics" would take us to an area that would distract the reader, not help her. I can't see anything else that could be linked productively in the lead. I'm a minimalist when it comes to links; I see far too many words linked on WP that are Wiktionary material, and the chronological terms debate rages on, with me on the anti-linker side. At some stage (not soon, I'm really busy in real life), I'll go through and judiciously add more links.
It is a highly technical topic, so the article can be expected to occupy the technical end of what is encyclopedic. The structure allows the non-specialist to navigate through easily enough. I agree that lead statements might help in some of the sections.
The article is seriously incomplete, in any case, in that whole sections need to be fleshed out. As far as referencing, I'm more concerned that I may have missed recent work, since I haven't consulted the major journals for quite a while.
Concerning your comment that it "criticizes or reinforces arguments presented in other primary papers ... it would be easier on the reader to understand and contribute if it were written in a more encyclopaedic style". I'm unsure that this is the case. A lot of those articles are very difficult to interpret in isolation, and, frankly, I don't think any specialist would disagree that their methodology was pretty crude until more recent studies. WP owes it to its readers to point out the obvious, and by doing this in a technically sophisticated way, it's providing what will ultimately be an up-to-date, broad, cohesive overview of the area. (There are overviews in all of the dissertations in the reference list, by the way, although delimited by their date of authorship and, IMV, narrow technical angles.)
"we could probably bring this article to FA status! Now wouldn't that be a big boost to your field of interest?" I hadn't intended FA status. My authorship would be the kiss of death, given the number of FAs that I've killed off as a reviewer in the FA room.
Pleased if you want to contribute, and very willing to keep talking about this. I can do little bits now, but my next big swathe of discretionary time is not until May–August. Tony 10:17, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Orphaned fair use image (Image:Aoe3 gameplay.jpg)
Thanks for uploading Image:Aoe3 gameplay.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable under fair use (see our fair use policy).
If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that any fair use images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. This is an automated message from BJBot 01:12, 4 February 2007 (UTC)
[edit] hi Kareeser.
I'm jamal and like to know about process of amoxicilline synthesis (in chemical and biochemical methods). can you help me? this is my adress in yahoo sedan_sas@yahoo.com thank you —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 84.241.8.62 (talk) 19:13, 4 February 2007 (UTC).
[edit] HTML on non-wikimedia wiki
You might be interested in this: [1]. --Splarka (rant) 00:43, 11 February 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Parametric statistics
Hi, Kareeser!
Say, I just noticed that you recently undid an edit that my friend Chris53516 had performed. I'm writing to you in hopes of correcting what appears to be a misunderstanding.
The article Parametric statistics had already been identified as a stub article. Another article, Non-parametric statistics, was also a stub. Since these two classifications cover all of applied inferential statistics, it seemed to both Chris and me that they really ought to appear as categories on Wikipedia. So Chris set up the new category pages, incorporated the verbiage from the old stubby articles into them, and marked all the appropriate pages with the new [[Category:]] tags. Then he redirected the two old pages to the two new ones, so that somebody searching for, say, "parametric statistics" would not only find the old article, but would also be directed to all the sub-pages.
So far so good. But then you stumbled across the change Chris had made and, apparently not understanding why he had done what he did, put the old article back in place.
Anyway, I'd like to straighten the whole thing out so that it works the way Chris intended it to. I think it's an elegant solution. But I don't want any misunderstandings with other editors, so I've come over here to explain the idea. Does it make sense to you? Is it OK for me to go ahead and reinstate the #REDIRECT command? Thanks! DavidCBryant 20:58, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Your Wiki
Hello there Kareeser! I heard you have a wiki of your own, and I thought I might want to help out. Can you give me a link to it? Ryan Got something to say? 15:44, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Re: Image Image:0811church01 b.jpg
Heya... I noticed you deleted the picture listed above due to an incompatible license.
Can I take a look at the license, and have you undelete the image if I can find a suitable license? Kareeser|Talk! 05:05, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
- First, where did you get the image? --Fang Aili talk 13:16, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
- Well... thing is, it's not my image... I was just wondering if there were any way to restore it, in case it was deleted too quickly for somebody to find a suitable license. Kareeser|Talk! 00:03, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
- It's pretty hard to determine the license of an image if the source is unknown. That's why I asked about the source first, and also why images that have neither are auto-speedy-tagged. I looked again at the image history; it was uploaded by User:Professor32 with a summary that included "©All rights reserved 2006". That's a pretty clear I3 deletion. Hope that clears everythign up. Cheers, Fang Aili talk 13:49, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
- Well... thing is, it's not my image... I was just wondering if there were any way to restore it, in case it was deleted too quickly for somebody to find a suitable license. Kareeser|Talk! 00:03, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
