User talk:KarlFrei

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Contents

[edit] Welcome to Wikipedia!!!

Hello KarlFrei! Welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. If you decide that you need help, check out Wikipedia:Where to ask a question, ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Please remember to sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. You may also push the signature button Image:Wikisigbutton.png located above the edit window. Finally, please do your best to always fill in the edit summary field. This is considered an important guideline in Wikipedia. Even a short summary is better than no summary. Below are some recommended guidelines to facilitate your involvement. Happy Editing! -- Kukini 09:02, 7 September 2006 (UTC)
Getting Started
Getting your info out there
Getting more Wikipedia rules
Getting Help
Getting along
Getting technical

[edit] Senate election tables

Nice idea with the coding to reduce tricky vandalism with the numbers. Hopefully this is only the beginning of your work on Wikipedia; current politics articles always need good editors. Thanks. Harro5 09:00, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Discovery Institute

(RE "Why did you revert my edit? It is only a minor clarification, after all. Also I think it is good to make clear right from the beginning that this is basically a US phenomenon. --KarlFrei 09:24, 8 March 2007 (UTC)" on my talk page)

Hi Karl: While it is true that the Discovery Institute is American, it's also true that virtually the entire "intelligent design" issue is American, specifically a response to the US Supreme Court decision Edwards v. Aguilard. As to the placement of the word "American" in the first paragraph, if you look through the talk page of that article, you'll see that it's been quite a task going over very little word in the article, especially in the lead section. If you want, I'll go ask on the talk page if the participating editors want it there or not.. ... Kenosis 11:43, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Auto-unblock

Y

Your request to be unblocked has been granted for the following reason(s):

Autoblock of 132.74.99.86 lifted or expired.

Request handled by:  Netsnipe  ►  19:01, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

`

[edit] Re: "Issues in brief", Dismissal of U.S. attorneys controversy.

I invite you to support your well-stated addition to the Dismissal of U.S. attorneys controversy with citations to the usual reliable sources. It's probably an effort of at least an hour to get five or more properly formatted citations onto the section in question. I'm sure that you understand that the added text is subject to severe criticism without the support of good citations. -- Best regards, Yellowdesk 01:27, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Recess appointment

To be fair, I didn't put back your deletions but your copyedit changes for the incorrect use of tense and a comma. I will add to the discussion page the reasons I feel some of the text should be kept but first I'm working on the issue of the use of the bible belt blogger which will require some rewrite. However, I believe, once we broach the excess detail issue, we will come up with a more succinct and improved version. Thanks! ∴ Therefore | talk 17:40, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

OK -- I've started a discussion about this at Talk:James W. Holsinger#Deletion of detail in confirmation process. Thanks. ∴ Therefore | talk 18:10, 19 November 2007 (UTC)
FWIW, I deleted most of the information you wanted except for the mention that Holsinger retained the support of the White House and some Republicans. Thanks for the suggestions -- the paragraph is much improved! ∴ Therefore | talk 02:24, 20 November 2007 (UTC)
Thanks, happy to help :-) --KarlFrei (talk) 13:17, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Reagan edits

That was really, really good editing in the Reagan article. I am extremely impressed. You can ask anyone; usually, most say I am not easily-impressed. - Arcayne (cast a spell) 16:06, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

Yeah right. Not everyone seemed to be that impressed! I'll talk to Happyme... --KarlFrei (talk) 08:39, 20 December 2007 (UTC)
On second thought, you appear to have been serious, so thanks :-) Seeing what happened to my edit made me think that it wasn't all that great. Moreover, the text that I put in was not mine, I simply pulled it from the presidency article... --KarlFrei (talk) 08:51, 20 December 2007 (UTC)
Hey. I just wanted to thank you for your edits to Ronald Reagan but I would also like to express my views on them. You are correct in saying that the presidency article is complied of largely similar material to that of the Reagan article, however the Reagan article is a featured article. It got that way mainly because of its coverage of the Reagan presidency. As I've expressed before, I do not feel that the Ronald Reagan article needs to be drastically changed; it is the presidency article that should be re-written or expanded (which I have already started to do). Once most of it is rewritten and expanded, the two will no longer be extremely similar, with the one in the Reagan article shorter than the one in the presidency article. I feel your pain when it comes to the largely duplicate material. I was the one that copied the material from the Ronald Reagan article into the presidency article when I was a less experienced Wikipedia editor and I did not forsee this problem.
I'm not saying your edit was bad; as User:Arcayne said, it was very balanced and fair. But by getting rid of all the details in the presidency section, technically the article violated featured article criteria 1a and 1b and could be delisted. According to User:SandyGeorgia, it also does not violate the summary style guidelines in its present form.
Again, I am going to work on the presidency article. I have already expanded about the assassination attempt and because it is more detailed, the one on the Reagan page is now summarizing what happened. Thanks a lot for contributing. --Happyme22 (talk) 23:24, 20 December 2007 (UTC)


[edit] Reagan's role in the Cold War

I could use any of your comments here. Thanks, Happyme22 (talk) 01:43, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

Thank you very much ofr your comments Karl. I too found it interesting that Reagan believed it could be defeated, but let's see if anything can be accomplished with the material. Thanks again, Happyme22 (talk) 00:58, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
Yes, it does seem like a better idea. I will remove it now. Happyme22 (talk) 22:56, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

I've fixed up the proposal for the Cold War text which can be found here. I'm trying to revive the discussion after numerous others on the talk page. Please feel free to take a look and comment. Thanks, Happyme22 (talk) 01:13, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] reagan

i undid your undo on reagan. i don't understand your objection to updating a succession box to a template and sorting the footers...either way you should have asked first. --emerson7 04:34, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Barricade gel‎ speedy tag

Hi Karl,

I Removed the {{db-spam}} tag and added {{ad}} and {{wikify}}, and a reference I found on Google. I agree the article has problems, but a quick glance shows it might very well be notable. I'm not saying it is, I'm saying it isn't enough of a slam-dunk to speedy it. If you really think it isn't notable, I'd recommend WP:AfD --barneca (talk) 13:11, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] speedies on people

asserting someone made a discovery or received an award, or holds a notable position is a claim to importance. Use Prod or afd if you doubt the degree of notability. DGG (talk) 19:40, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

btw, try to avoid the use of the word "vanity" especially in edit summaries. people tend to regard it as insulting. Try "promotional" DGG (talk) 19:58, 7 May 2008 (UTC)
I see, thanks for the hint :-) --KarlFrei (talk) 20:00, 7 May 2008 (UTC)
To add to what DGG said, please do a Google scholar search such as this one before nominating articles for prod or speedy. An author with multiple papers cited over 100 times each is highly likely to pass WP:PROF and survive a full AfD nomination. In addition, in the case of Tichy, although you did not do the redirect yourself, your nomination led to someone else inappropriately redirecting his article to the one on RCS; the Google scholar search makes it obvious that he is known for more than just that. —David Eppstein (talk) 22:05, 7 May 2008 (UTC)
Sorry about this. I will be more careful in the future. --KarlFrei (talk) 07:02, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Congratulations!

The Working Man's Barnstar
For updating all those references in the table at National Popular Vote Interstate Compact. Bravo!

Szu (talk) 16:49, 29 May 2008 (UTC)