User talk:KitLouise

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Contents

[edit] Welcome to Wikipedia!!!

Hello KitLouise! 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 ask your question there. 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! -- MECU≈talk 15:15, 12 January 2007 (UTC)
Getting Started
Getting your info out there
Getting more Wikipedia rules
Getting Help
Getting along
Getting technical

[edit] Welcome/Had To Remove A Double Message

Greetings, I am Acalamari, and I'd like to welcome you to Wikipedia. I'd also like to tell you that I had to remove a double message of yours from the New User Log. Don't worry, I can see that you weren't intending to cause any trouble; the double message has been removed and no harm has been done. I have kept the original message of yours, as that was the only one that was needed. Thank you. Acalamari 23:13, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

You're very welcome. It was a simple thing to do. Acalamari 04:27, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Adoption Request

Hi. I see you have requested adoption and I am seeking to adopt. Please take a look at my userpage and see if I am a good fit to be your mentor. If you agree to be adopted by me, then let me know on my talk page by clicking the "+" symbol at the top of the page and letting me know. If not, I would still be glad to answer any questions you have at any time. Welcome to Wikipedia! --MECU≈talk 15:49, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

Great! And I don't know how you figured out that I like football. You must be a detective. But anyways, to get started, tell me:
  1. What you want to get out of adoption?
  2. What you want to accomplish here at Wikipedia?
  3. What you like to do here on Wikipedia?
  4. What are your problems at Wikipedia?
  5. If you have any specific problems or questions I can answer now.
Also, please contact me at anytime for any reason. You can't possible bug me enough. Even if you think it's minor and the 1000th time you've asked me the same question already on the same day, please ask if you are confused or need help.
Also, when you created the section on my talk page, you wikilinked the title (Adoption Offer), which is to a non existent article. You shouldn't do this unless the article will likely be created or you are trying to show an example in a discussion. It's okay to link in a title (except in articles), but it should be a valid link. Anyways, I hope to be of help in whatever needs and questions and problems you have. --MECU≈talk 16:50, 13 January 2007 (UTC)
Yes. You can link to subsections in article. Where a normal link would be User talk:Mecu, you link to a subsection in mostly the same way: User talk:Mecu#Response to adoption questions by just adding the # and section title name. The way I like to do it is copy the relevant portion of the URL in the browser and paste it in. You then just have to replace the _ that are found in the browser URL with the link here.
As for working on Wikipedia: be bold! Don't worry about making mistakes or just starting with the "small things." Any edit you do here that you think is an improvement is then an improvement. However, some small edits like changing "colour" to "color" are discouraged, especially if the article is about an England-related topic, for example. There are many things you can do if you just want to start with "cleanup". There's even a project: Wikipedia:WikiProject Wikify, or you could just look at the Category:Articles that need to be wikified. You should read Wikipedia:Guide to layout to help with that. For all the other cleanup things you can do see Category:Wikipedia maintenance. There is tons of work to do. But don't feel like you have to do it all or work really fast or lots. Just do what you can and Wikipedia will be the better for it. I'll suggest that you should join a topic that you are interested in. Working on articles that you are interested in will produce a better article, though you may be a little biased. You can find a Project to join by starting at Wikipedia:WikiProject. And lastly, don't create "preview" or "temp" versions of article in your userspace, unless you're starting/creating a large article from scratch. Just edit the page where it is and preview your changes first and that will be perfectly fine. Working on them in your userspace and then copying to the real article will cause edit conflicts and make your life miserable. Again, please feel free to stop by at anytime and ask me anything about anything. If I don't know the answer, I know people to ask (usually on IRC in the evenings, you could contact me there too if you wanted) to get you the help you need. You of course are free to ask at the Wikipedia:Help desk if you wanted as well. Good luck! --MECU≈talk 16:03, 17 January 2007 (UTC)
Actually, I hadn't seen it, but I'm glad I caught you ahead of time, not that that article is heavily edited anyways. I'm not really clear on what you meant by linking to wikitionary? Setting up accounts on other projects is fine, but not mandatory unless you plan to do work there. I have an account on commons, but setting up accounts on the german wikipedia would be useless for me. Just make an account when you plan to do work at the one, no need to go off and create dozens of accounts that you may never need anyways. But, no harm either if you do. --MECU≈talk 00:25, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Vegard's Law

No problem! SERSeanCrane 23:09, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Anderson's rule

I just looked at your edits to Anderson's rule. Two main things stick out to me: First, you need to write articles so that anyone can understand them. I understand atomic physics and I still had a hard time following the article. The intro should especially be clear and concise and explain in layman terms (almost) what the article is about. Second, you've linked some items in ways that aren't needed. Specifically: [[Heterojunction|heterojunction]] isn't needed. The first character capitalization isn't important, only the chars after the first. So [[heterojunction]] and [[Heterojunction]] are the same. Also, [[Poisson_equation|Poisson’s equation]] a link should never use _ in it. You likely copied it from the browser url, and the link will work, but it's just not needed and "wrong". It's not a major deal, I do it all the time too. Just covert the _ to spaces and it will work fine. Last, [[Band offset|band offsets]] isn't needed. The wiki software is smart enough to know that [[Band offset]]s should display "band offsets" but link to [[Band offset]]. Lastly, it's common and generally accepted to only link to an item once per article or section. Since this is a fairly short article, once would be appropriate. So all the links to [[heterojunction]] are redundant. Just unlink all the duplicates after the first. WP:LINK will help you with linking. Also, the citations are fine, but it's preferred to use the reference tags and "cite book" or "cite web" templates. You can look at WP:CITE for help with those. Lastly, you made 6 edits to the article, where 1 or two should have been enough. Be sure to use the "Show preview" button to see how it will look. I know that sometimes you'll click "Save" and then instantly see something to fix. That's not a big deal. Just try to be conscious of making sure all the edits you think you'll make you make in as few edits as possible. But it's not a big deal really (unless you do it to get your edit count higher). All in all, you're doing fine, and your edits to the article are a definite improvement and valuable, and you put in edit summaries too! Good work there. --MECU≈talk 18:17, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

Anderson's rule is fine now (sans expansion which is every article's problem). I looked at Point of difference and you definitely helped the article, but I think you could have done a little more. You removed the uncategorized label, but didn't really categorize it. Adding a stub template isn't a category. To add a category to an article (or anything else really, even your userpage can have a category, but some pages shouldn't go in certain categories, like your userpage shouldn't go in any "article space" category. Like, 1980 births category should only be for articles) you just put [[Category:Category Name]]. It's not always obvious what the category name is, so you can search first, but I'm gonna guess this article should go in Category:Marketing. You could put that in, preview the page, and click on the category at the bottom (categories always appear at the bottom of the page, even below the edit box, which can be confusing) and then look through the subcategories there to see if it belongs in a more appropriate subcategory (like Advertising Words?). Categories are like images, in that putting [[Category:Name]] (or [[Image:Blah.jpg]]) will incorporate the category for that article or display the image, but putting a : in front will just link TO the category or image, like I've done above.
Also, the very first sentence should include the name of the article, which should be bolded using the wiki code of '''three apostrophes'''. This is per the WP:MOS as well. Also, you shouldn't use 'single quotes' in an article, either use "quotes" or italicize the word for emphasis. I'm not sure if that's in the MOS, but I've never seen it (or remember seeing it). You could also add an ==External links== (note the case sense) or ==External link== (if just one) or even a ==See also== or ==Related items== section where you link to other articles on Wikipedia (or outside, in the External link section), like marketing perhaps? (Basically, include any article someone reading may want to learn that's related to that article).
Lastly, you may want to give an example that is global (like Coke?) that has a reference to show and explain how this works to the reader. Always keep in mind the audience is the world, (okay, English speaking world) who may not know of Jiffy Lube if they live in England. Other than that, you're doing just fine. Keep up the good work. I hope I'm not throwing too much at you. --MECU≈talk 14:54, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Point of differences

Sorry!! My mistake, turns out it does meet the notability guideline, I have removed the template, sorry for any problems caused and I hope you and others can make it a good article! Thanks and happy editing.Tellyaddict 16:29, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] List of medicinal herbs

Thanks for the ref cleanup. Also, I'm glad you added the link to properties. I'll conform to that list.--LtlKtytalk | contribs 05:17, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

My pleasure. Thank you for your contribution to the list. Waitak 05:34, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] National Black Chamber of Commerce

I'm fine. Trying to do more stuff in life away from WP but always seem to end up back here. Yes, I would say you can remove the wikify tag. I only have a few comments: Portal links usually go near the bottom of an article, not at the top. You've bolded links, which isn't typically done. You used a reference, which is great, but just put it at the bottom and didn't use it inline, which is preferred. Also, external links should have the brackets around them without link text or they'll showup as numbers which is bad for article (but fine on talk pages and such). To add text to describe what a link is you just put a space and the text after the URL: [http://www.blah.com This is a link to blah] will showup as: This is a link to blah but without that text will look like: [1] which isn't useful. It's a little listy, especially the sponsorship section which seems fairly random on who is selected there (just big name companies). So references there may be useful, and conversion from a list. I'd just like to point out that all these are very minor points and in general, you did a good job expanding the article. If you want, you can seek a peer review on the article for more help with it. --MECU≈talk 16:44, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Category:African American Economic Organizations

The category you wrote, Category:African American Economic Organizations, is uncategorized. Please help improve it by adding it to one or more categories, so it may be associated with related categories. Eli Falk 14:11, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

When you want to link to a category, such as you did on my talk page, you do it like this: [[:Category:African American Economic Organizations]], note the : in front of Category:. This makes it a link, whereas putting [[Category:African American Economic Organizations]] will put the page into that category. My talk page shouldn't be a part of that category. It's the same method for images, but not templates. I've fixed my talk page. It's a very common learning mistake, so it's not a big deal. Also, you should try and populate the category with more pages than just one. If you can't find more, then the category may be too specific. --MECU≈talk 13:46, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Re: The Peace Fund

Looks pretty good. (I apologize in advance if any of this sounds snippy or otherwise bad, I'm in a bad mood lately) Again, these are all minor things: First, your comment on the talk page should be signed, but also it really isn't needed. Article talk pages are about the article and improvement or discussions about them. How you found out about the group isn't needed, nor is "new article". You should request speedy deletion of the talk page by editing it and putting {{db-author}} on it. Next, some of your wikilinking isn't helpful. Specifically, you linked "health" "conditions" where linking "health condition" may be more useful. Also, you linked "City", "State" where linking "City, State" would be more useful. You could even "City, State|City", "State", especially since the city you linked to (Sherman Oaks) is redirected to that article anyways. It's helpful to look at what you're linking to, and if it's a redirect, to use the directed article, unless there's a good reason not to, such as the article doesn't currently exist, but will. You should do think to your edits when you create them (use Preview), but if it already exists, then editing just to change the link to the redirect isn't helpful and a waste of time and energy and to Wikipedia. Also, you should look at WP:DATE#Dates containing a month and a day on how to link to dates. It's great that you used many citations, but all of them you used only title/url/accessdate, there are other fields that you probably could use (date, publisher). And the "list" of celebrities is fairly, um, fan-like I guess. In other words, I'd remove it, except for the sourced ones, and it doesn't seem really critical too the article. Also, refs should not have spaces in between them or be next to the next word, see ref 1 and 2 in the text. And the acronym information should be immediately after the name in the first sentence: "The Peace Fund, also know by the acronym P.E.A.C.E which stands for Protect Educate Aid Children Everywhere, is a charitable organization dedicated to the worldwide improvement of the living, educational and health conditions of children."

A few major concerns: This organization doesn't seem "notable" to me. Why do we need an article on it? The article just seems to exist without a reason. That's not to say I think it should or will get deleted. Articles that are sourced and well-written are likely to be kept, even if they aren't "notable." Also, there doesn't seem to be any bad things about this company. Perhaps there aren't (it's hard to show a negative), but in order to remain NPOV, you have to show the good and the bad equally, but give them the space they deserve. For example, in an article about a 1 year old company that missed taxes, a single sentence would be good. But a 1 year old company that caused the stock market to fall would be mostly about that. I hope I'm explaining that well enough for you because I don't think I am.

With all that aside, it is a good article. To help check for link destinations, you can look at WP:POPUPS. Be sure to put the article on your watchlist and check your watchlist. I have my watchlist as my bookmarked page, so it's the first thing I do when I get here. You can see yours at: Special:Watchlist. I hope I wasn't too harsh on you. You should look at your peer review: Wikipedia:Peer review/National Black Chamber of Commerce/archive1 and at least thank AnonEMouse, but probably dealing with their comments would make the article much better too. If you had put the peer review on your watchlist, you could have seen someone made the peer review. And thanking the bot is funny. At least, I think it's a bot. --MECU≈talk 14:14, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

I think you're ready for adoption graduation. You're starting to teach me things and you know how to find information and things on Wikipedia, are citing policy pages, and you have a tone, in your last reply on my talk page, that you include yourself in the community. This doesn't mean you can't talk to me for help ever again, but I think I've covered a majority of the important topics and think you're ready. If you look at the replies to the questions I asked you what you wanted to get out of Adoption [2], I think we've covered that, sans finding the difficult articles, but I think you're capable. We're a little shy of 2 months, but I think you're ready nonetheless. Thanks for putting up with my acerbic tone. If you agree you're ready, let me know and we'll switch over the templates and it will be official. --MECU≈talk 18:35, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Category:Economic Organizations of the United States

Category:Economic Organizations of the United States and Category:African American Economic Organizations, which you created, have been nominated for merging and/or renaming. You are invited to participate in the discussion located here. – Black Falcon (Talk) 18:16, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

No problem. :) Incidentally (in case you want to update your watchlist or something similar), the 'African American' category was renamed to Category:African American organizations and the 'Economic organizations' category was merged into Category:Organizations based in the United States. Cheers, Black Falcon (Talk) 05:24, 21 October 2007 (UTC)