User talk:Kenmayer

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Contents

[edit] Sun Yat Sen's speech on Pan-Asianism

Hello and welcome to Wikipedia. Was this article your translation? For translated quotes and speeches, there is wikiquotes:Sun_Yat_Sen. Would you like to move it there and link to it from Sun Yat Sen? Shawnc 19:59, 8 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Image copyright problem with Image:EthiopiaRAND1908.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:EthiopiaRAND1908.jpg. However, the image may soon be deleted unless we can determine the copyright holder and copyright status. The Wikimedia Foundation is very careful about the images included in Wikipedia because of copyright law (see Wikipedia's Copyright policy).

The copyright holder is usually the creator, the creator's employer, or the last person who was transferred ownership rights. Copyright information on images is signified using copyright templates. The three basic license types on Wikipedia are open content, public domain, and fair use. Find the appropriate template in Wikipedia:Image copyright tags and place it on the image page like this: {{TemplateName}}.

Please signify the copyright information on any other images you have uploaded or will upload. Remember that images without this important information can be deleted by an administrator. If you have any questions, feel free to contact me. Thank you. Shyam (T/C) 20:16, 11 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Trans fat

Hi Ken,

Yes, the fats pages aside from trans fat are not in good shape right now. My plan was to take on Trans and then move on to the rest, but I confess I'm a bit tired on that score. To answer your question, fully hydrogenated oils contain no double bonds, and are therefore a saturated fat (fully saturated with hydrogen). Trans fats have double bonds like all other unsaturated fats. It is only the conformation of the double bonds that makes them trans. Fully hydrogenated oils are not trans fat. The problem comes in interpreting labels which do not state 'partially' or 'fully', simply saying 'hydrogenated oil'. On these your guess is as good as mine, and likely depends on labelling laws in particular jurisdictions. There is a bit of information about criscio that alludes to some of this on the trans fat page, but I'll try and work in a little more. -- cmhTC 18:56, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] merging

You just merged two articles. This should generally be proposed first with the {{mergeto}} and {{mergefrom}} templates. If a merge is necessary, an administrator should generally merge such merges to ensure that the edit histories are saved. If you need help orpoisng a merge, please let me know. Thanks -- Chrislk02 (Chris Kreider) 15:30, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

I will go revert jamestown now. Actually, every edit ever made is saved in wikipedia and anybody can "revert" or go back to a previous version. You can click on ths history tab and then any revisions to see what has happened with an article in the past. That is why it is important to make sure merges are done properly. The work done here is under the GNU license or something. It is important to know who added what to the article, and when a merge is done improperly, it appears as though the person merging the article created all the content, when in fact they did not. -- Chrislk02 (Chris Kreider) 16:51, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
I have to agree with -- Chrislk02 (Chris Kreider). Many of us in WikiProject Virginia have been working on Jamestown-related articles literally for several years now. Go to the Talk page if you truly wnat to contribute and want to collaborate with us. Thanks.
Mark in Historic Triangle of Virginia. Vaoverland 17:03, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
Thanks for your comments on my Talk page. While I do not agree about separating history before 1699 and placing in Jamestown Settlement, my reason differs. My major concern is that "Jamestown Settlement" has been reused as the name for one of the major modern attractions there. (The attraction sponsored by our state is very nicely done; I am just concerned about naming confusion). Perhaps a new sub-article named "History of Jamestown" would be a better way to break out part of the article from the main Jamestown, Virginia article. That approach is consistent with WP hierarchy on other geographical articles. (ie see Virginia, West Virginia, Virginia Beach, Virginia, Richmond, Virginia etc. where we have done it that way.) And, lastly, I do agree with your thoughts that the lead is too long. Believe it or not, it has already undergone considerable condensation. Whatever is done, let's coordinate on the article's Talk page so no one is left out of the process. BTW, I am a WP administrator, so I can do the merge and/or move functions more smoothly if and when we do as -- Chrislk02 (Chris Kreider) has suggested. Mark. Vaoverland 21:43, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Jamestown proposal to improve

There have been many comments the Jamestown, Virginia article being just too big. After giving it a lot of thought, I think we could break out a major part of it into a sub-article, perhaps entitled "History of Jamestown Settlement", essentially covering the 17th century period, ending when the capital moved to Williamsburg. As a WP admininsitrator, I have the tools to do this and preserve the talk page and history, etc., but I surely do not want to move on it unilaterally. This is an important piece of WikiProject Virginia. Can we have some comments about this approach, please?

I would appreciate replies to be posted on this page: Talk:Jamestown, Virginia Thanks, Mark in Historic Triangle of Virginia Vaoverland 16:20, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Comic strip see also

I'm not sure if "See also" is deprecated. If so, this page needs updating: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WP:GTL#See_also A different section of the same page has info on a deprecated use of see also.

The reason the categories were put in "See also" is because they were illuminating to the topic and a reader seeking basic info would be unlikely to check the categories. Perhaps the links can be worked into the text of the article.

  • Well, I'm looking at WP:GTL#See_also and Wikipedia:Annotated_article#See_also, and both state that we use see also for links to articles, which to me means not for categories. You're right that see also isn't being deprecated though. Now, a suggested compromise might be to look at the example of Cocktail and List of cocktails. What would you say to putting similar links at the top of List of comic strips? Would that square the circle? That seems a common usage of category links in articles. It doesn't appear to me that there's a consensus for category links in see also sections. I've been bold and made the edits at List of comic strips. See what you think. For what it is worth, I think most readers would know where the links to categories are. Off the top of my head I think in one of the skins they are at the top of the screen. Steve block Talk 19:54, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
    • Ken, I switched the television programme text for the optheruses4 temp[late and placed that at the top. There's no real guidance on what goes in what order, but to me it feels better to redirect readers arriving at the wrong page first before launching into stuff related to the actual article. Hope that's okay. Steve block Talk 20:28, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Southern Unionist

Hi Kenmayer. You are off to such a great start on the article Southern Unionist that it may qualify to appear on Wikipedia's Main Page under the Did you know... section. The Main Page gets about 4,000,000 hits per day and appearing on the Main Page may help bring publicity and assistance to the article. However, there is a five day from article creation window for Did you know... nominations. Before five days pass from the date the article was created and if you haven't already done so, please consider nominating the article to appear on the Main Page by posting a nomination at Did you know suggestions. If you do nominate the article for DYK, please cross out the article name on the "Good" articles proposed by bot list. Also, don't forget to keep checking back at Did you know suggestions for comments regarding your nomination. Again, great job on the article. -- Jreferee (Talk) 17:10, 27 July 2007 (UTC)