User talk:Punanimal

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Contents

[edit] Welcome!

Howdy, Punanimal, Welcome to Wikipedia!

Thank you for your contributions, you seem to be off to a good start. Hopefully you will soon join the vast army of Wikipediholics! If you need help on how to title new articles see the naming conventions, and for help on formatting the pages visit the manual of style. For general questions goto Wikipedia:Help or the FAQ, if you can't find your answer there check the Village Pump (for Wikipedia related questions) or the Reference Desk (for general questions)! There's still more help at the Tutorial and Policy Library. Plus, don't forget to visit the Community Portal. If you have any more questions after that, feel free to ask me directly on my user talk page.


[edit] Additional tips

Here's some extra tips to help you get around in the 'pedia!

[edit] Be Bold!!

You can find me at my user page or talk page for any questions. Happy editing, and we'll see ya 'round.

Joe I 02:48, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] References for The Holocaust

Thank you for supplying the references so quickly. I have edited them to work with the system for populating the Notes section in use on that page. If you have any questions about what I have done, please contact me on my talk page. -- Donald Albury 22:05, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Occitan

Occitan is not the source for English OK. Please don't spread nonsense, doing so may be considered vandalism. CRCulver 22:30, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

I apologise. It's just that, having studied Occitan for many years, I had never heard of it being a source for English "okay". But now I've seen the WP article here (and fleshed it out a bit), so I understand now that this view exists. CRCulver 16:38, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Kateda

Hi, thanks for the note. There are a couple of worrying things about the article for me. The first being that the article is largely unsourced, and that it even says that it is based at least in part on the personal experiences of one or more editors. Reporting that sort of experience is proscribed by WP:No original research. If it weren't, I guarantee the Chinese martial arts articles would be a lot more interesting! The second thing (and what led to my thought that is seemd a bit adverty) is prose like: "Kateda's intense focus on breathing and..." where a descriptor like intense is a bit much for an encyclopaedia article, which language tends to be drier. There is a lot of that in the article, and it stands out to my eye as out of place. I'm glad there is a controversies section, but a problem is that it seems also to be largely unsourced, and even has some speculation which we also should avoid. I haven't done any research on the subject myself (which is why I haven't done any copy editing) but these were my impressions on being asked to look at the article. I hope this helps, drop me a line any time. --Fire Star 火星 16:41, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

Regarding your note on my talk page... I don't know what edits you're talking about. My edits on the Kateda article have all involved fixing typos and removing non-notable references. I haven't added any material. —Erik Harris 13:31, 5 March 2007 (UTC)