User talk:KitchM

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

Welcome[edit]

Hello, KitchM! Welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. You may benefit from following some of the links below, which will help you get the most out of Wikipedia. If you have any questions you can 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 by clicking Button sig.png or by typing four tildes "~~~~"; this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you are already loving Wikipedia you might want to consider being "adopted" by a more experienced editor or joining a WikiProject to collaborate with others in creating and improving articles of your interest. Click here for a directory of all the WikiProjects. Finally, please do your best to always fill in the edit summary field. Happy editing! Rosiestep (talk) 06:33, 6 April 2008 (UTC)
Getting Started
Getting Help
Policies and Guidelines

The Community
Things to do
Miscellaneous

Welcome too[edit]

I appreciate your contributing to the "Sabbath" article! As a new editor you may not be aware of several Wikipedia methods (there's a learning curve for everyone), but it looks like Rosiestep has provided a good list. I have tried to incorporate your text in more appropriate places. Please take a moment to read some of the standards linked above and/or below and it will greatly assist you in learning where best to place content like this and how to keep it neutrally stated. Rest assured that I likely share your strong feelings about Sabbath, but we do well not to let those feelings spill out into content which may require balancing by others.
  • Most important, learn about neutral point of view and how statements that could be challenged by other editors should be balanced by stating all significant points of view without undue weight.
  • Guidelines about lead sections indicate that the lead of this article should stay about a paragraph long.
  • Summary style guidelines indicate that most content about this topic should appear in subarticles instead of the summary article: e.g., Shabbat and Sabbath in Christianity would be good ones to start.
  • The distinction between which usages are "God-ordained" and which are "ritual or ceremonial", like the capital and lowercase distinction, is not easily described nor easily agreed. There are many points of view among reliable sources and Wikipedia is not regarded as a source for promotion of any one view at the expense of others.
  • Phrases like "the most ancient finds of archeological writings" are vague and unqualified and need to be verified by reliable sources with specifics. Phrases like "one can easily understand that" should be avoided because they editorialize on the topic's understandability rather than make it understandable.
  • Which command is it originally? Moses didn't say, actually. Counting imperative statements like Maimonides did might make Sabbath the fifth. While it may (or may not) be true that "fourth" is the most accurate, it is not suitable for a neutral encyclopedia unless it is also verifiable. See Ten Commandments#Division of the Commandments.
  • "The most precise definition has been determined to be": by whom? And has everyone agreed suddenly? If you have a source, then go to one of the subarticles, cite and attribute your source, and place it among the other folks who happen to disagree that this is what "the most precise definition has been determined to be".
  • Remember that, as the article hints, Biblical Sabbath and Saturday are not identical; the latter begins at midnight. Precision is essential!
  • Similarly, if Sabbath had actually been originally referred to in Bible times as the phrase "Lord's Day" in some language, it would be easier to get away with saying that! But since "Sabbath of the Lord" is (slightly) different from "Lord's Day", we are not permitted to equate the two on our own. On Wikipedia that is called original research.

I know this may seem like a lot suddenly, so just take it slowly. When one wants to edit in historically controverted areas, it just means taking a little more time to ensure sensitivity to the concerns of all. Look at the article history of "Sabbath" for some ways in which I incorporated your thoughts into the existing structure of the article. I'm looking forward to your continuing to make positive contributions to the project! JJB 10:14, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

Editor[edit]

Since you boldly disagreed with the past work of several different editors, and changed Editor to redirect back to the disambiguation page, I hope you will be equally bold in reviewing the 800 or so other articles that contain links to "Editor" and fixing them to point to the most relevant article. Without this step, your change will be distinctly unhelpful to readers of those other articles. Thank you. --R'n'B (call me Russ) 10:50, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

Sorry, but if there is a fundamental flaw in Wikipedia to not automatically correct all links, that's what should be fixed. All references to "Editor" should first go to the disambiguation page.
It is totally unacceptable in this digital age to try to find information about an editor, but then be sent to an article about editing. The searcher does not want a different word; they want the word they typed into the search box. Worse yet, I want to find information about the editor that is a software program. This includes information about all types of editors, including word processor software.
Always do the disambiguation up front, and not after the fact. In this case the disambiguation actually wasn't even linked properly at all. - KitchM (talk) 21:10, 12 March 2010 (UTC)
Editor redirects to Editing as Russ indicates because it appears that most links to the term are intended for that topic. What you are suggesting is that there is no primary topic. If that is the case, you should be proposing that Editor (disambiguation) be moved to Editor. Instructions on moving a page can be found at WP:RM. olderwiser 22:01, 12 March 2010 (UTC)


File copyright problem with File:Screenshot of Wikipedica Format Problem 02-01-10.png[edit]

Copyright-problem.svg

Thank you for uploading File:Screenshot of Wikipedica Format Problem 02-01-10.png. However, it currently is missing information on its copyright status. Wikipedia takes copyright very seriously. It may be deleted soon, unless we can determine the license and the source of the file. If you know this information, then you can add a copyright tag to the image description page.

If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have specified their license and tagged them, too. You can find a list of files you have uploaded by following this link.

If you have any questions, please feel free to ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thanks again for your cooperation. FASTILYsock(TALK) 00:30, 17 April 2010 (UTC)


File copyright problem with File:Screenshot of Wikipedica Format Problem-2 02-01-10.png[edit]

Copyright-problem.svg

Thank you for uploading File:Screenshot of Wikipedica Format Problem-2 02-01-10.png. However, it currently is missing information on its copyright status. Wikipedia takes copyright very seriously. It may be deleted soon, unless we can determine the license and the source of the file. If you know this information, then you can add a copyright tag to the image description page.

If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have specified their license and tagged them, too. You can find a list of files you have uploaded by following this link.

If you have any questions, please feel free to ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thanks again for your cooperation. FASTILYsock(TALK) 00:30, 17 April 2010 (UTC)

Replaceable fair use File:WordPerfect_X5_Output_1.jpg[edit]

Ambox warning pn.svg

Thanks for uploading File:WordPerfect_X5_Output_1.jpg. I noticed the description page specifies that the media is being used under a claim of fair use, but its use in Wikipedia articles fails our first non-free content criterion in that it illustrates a subject for which a freely licensed media could reasonably be found or created that provides substantially the same information or which could be adequately covered with text alone. If you believe this media is not replaceable, please:

  1. Go to the media description page and edit it to add {{di-replaceable fair use disputed}}, without deleting the original replaceable fair use template.
  2. On the image discussion page, write the reason why this image is not replaceable at all.

Alternatively, you can also choose to replace this non-free media by finding freely licensed media of the same subject, requesting that the copyright holder release this (or similar) media under a free license, or by taking a picture of it yourself.

If you have uploaded other non-free media, consider checking that you have specified how these images fully satisfy our non-free content criteria. You can find a list of description pages you have edited by clicking on this link. Note that even if you follow steps 1 and 2 above, non-free media which could be replaced by freely licensed alternatives will be deleted 2 days after this notification (7 days if uploaded before 13 July 2006), per our non-free content policy. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Melesse (talk) 05:36, 27 June 2010 (UTC)

Image Copyright Silliness[edit]

To all people who wish to question "fair use", please be advised that you really don't get it at all. If I state that it is fair use and you don't accept that, then simply state how to fix it so that it is accepted.

The key word here is "simply". Making a person jump thru hoops is totally unacceptable. We go to a lot of trouble to find acceptable images, but with a quick and thoughtless tap on a key, you erase all of that hard work.

At the end of the day, (1) you need to notify us in a timely fashion, and (2) you need to make the acceptance as easy as your unacceptance. Anything less is not serving the public good. - KitchM (talk) 21:13, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

Nomination of Comparison of CECB units for deletion[edit]

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Comparison of CECB units is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Comparison of CECB units until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on good quality evidence, and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion template from the top of the article. --Gh87 (talk) 05:20, 7 August 2011 (UTC)

I can honestly say that it is shameful when other people decide to eliminate another's work. What thoughtlessness. It is only exceeded by their shortsightedness and ignorance. I am sure that such people are glad that the library of Alexandria burnt down, since it was so full of outdated and useless information. - KitchM (talk) 21:59, 22 September 2011 (UTC)

Hi there[edit]

Nice work on the Display resolution article. Keep it up! :) --Waldir talk 00:05, 8 September 2011 (UTC)