User talk:Kitsunegami

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


Hi Kitsunegami – welcome to Wikipedia and we hope you enjoy your use and your editing of the encyclopaedia.

You asked how to create an article about the Spy ship movie. That is easy – just click on Spy ship (1942 movie) and start editing away. Please do not forget to put in some references (IMDB would be enough at first to keep it from being deleted) and some categories (check other movie articles to get an idea). Ask me or anybody else if you need any more help. Ingolfson (talk) 22:22, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

Another Hacker[edit]

Revision history of User talk:Kitsunegami From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia View logs for this page Browse history From year (and earlier): From month (and earlier): Tag filter: Deleted only For any version listed below, click on its date to view it. For more help, see Help:Page history and Help:Edit summary. External tools: Revision history statistics · Contributors · Revision history search · Number of watchers · Page view statistics (cur) = difference from current version, (prev) = difference from preceding version, m = minor edit, → = section edit, ← = automatic edit summary

(cur | prev) 22:22, 6 December 2008 Ingolfson (talk | contribs) (579 bytes) (undo) (cur | prev) 22:22, 6 December 2008 Ingolfson (talk | contribs) (578 bytes) (←Created page with '== Welcome == Hi Kitsunegami - welcome to Wikipedia and we hope you enjoy your use and your editing of the encyclopaedia. You asked how to create an article abou...')

look at the dates 2008 and yet it is 2011 ingolfson was trying to be nice to Kitsunegami but he/she allready tricked golf project stargate sepossbily working on the stargate or whatever project is false also, I think more people could use something like vandals needed to be blocked again iam exposing all of these hackers they did it to me or they tried because i am still on the internet but hey there are somany of these hackers are around also my youtube account got hacked i check my videos and some of them were gone. this is enough proof you can leave it or i think you should catch these hackers in the act well you really cant but someone or something look out for the haxs. --Strangeowl1948 (talk) 11:19, 23 May 2011 (UTC)

I've tried to read this a dozen times and still can't make sense of it. You seem to be ranting about something that was posted here three years ago but it's really hard to tell since you refuse to use capital letters, proper spelling or punctuation, or even spaces between words.--Kitsunegami (talk) 14:26, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

A barnstar for you![edit]

Copyeditor Barnstar Hires.png The Copyeditor's Barnstar
For fixing all that punctuation and making other style improvements, I award you the Copyeditor's barnstar! ctzmsc3|talk 17:01, 14 August 2011 (UTC)
I've always obsessed over my own grammar and punctuation so I'm glad to have a place like Wikipedia where I can refine my skills. It means a lot to me to have my efforts noticed. Thank you. --Kitsunegami (talk) 06:00, 1 September 2011 (UTC)

Please check this diff[edit]

Hi Kitsunegami, a mostly-vandalism anonymous account did this edit. Can you please check and revert if needed? Thanks! --Slashme (talk) 08:48, 29 December 2011 (UTC)

Somebody already fixed it. But thanks for the heads-up. --Kitsunegami (talk) 21:59, 29 December 2011 (UTC)

Comment on recent edit[edit]

As a caution, you should not automatically switch from inline citation style of the list-based (with inline cite) style as you did in this edit [1] without achieving consensus first. While the net result should be the same, such changes are discouraged to avoid edit wars on style ownership. --MASEM (t) 06:54, 18 September 2012 (UTC)

With all due respect, anyone who would get upset over someone making code easier to read and edit isn't worth listening too anyway. (For one thing, you no longer have to search for where the reference is defined if it needs updating or correcting.)
And can you point out to me the guideline that says I am supposed to leave page code in a form that makes it inaccessible to people with vision impairments like mine? I am unable to read walls of text because my eyes constantly get lost, despite the fact that otherwise I have 20/40 vision (in my worst eye) so I rarely even need to wear my glasses. Forcing myself to read it anyway gives me a headache. Over the years I have met at least a dozen other people with the same issue; my case is actually relatively minor compared to many of them.
Whenever I have moved link definitions it was because I couldn't read that section otherwise, and I was only able to move them by searching for "ref name=" since I can't find them manually. Not surprisingly, it takes me a long time to make those edits, and is sometimes quite painful, but it's worth it since so many people are helped by it. --Kitsunegami (talk) 08:49, 18 September 2012 (UTC)
See WP:CITEVAR. Even if they are considered helpful, I've seen editwars break out when users, who think they are doing useful fixes, get slammed for changing an established form on a long-standing article without checking first. Given the recentness of the article you did this on, it is far from a problem, but if you tried to do that to long-standing articles, you might get a lot more pushback. --MASEM (t) 17:38, 18 September 2012 (UTC)

Please be careful about "copyediting" quotations from sources you have not seen.[edit]

Hi, Kitsunegami,

Your edit diff a while ago to the text and references of IQ classification introduced a number of errors in the quotations of published reliable sources that other editors use to check the article. Looking at your contribution history and the editing history of the article, it appears that you may have surfed by the article one day, without discussing your intentions with other editors on the article talk page, and decided to apply (bot-assisted?) edits to the article to conform it to fussy details of the Wikipedia Manual of Style. I will keep those Manual of Style details in mind in the future. (I have different habits, sometimes, because my previous professional proofreading and manuscript editing experience wasn't constrained by the limitations of Wikimedia mark-up.) Unfortunately, correcting quotations from published books without having the books actually at hand is sure to introduce errors into article text and into the reference citations. It has taken me till now to fix some of the problems in the article text and especially in the article references that your edit introduced. It's a good idea to save the fussy proofreading for articles that show many fewer signs of editorial attention and access to reliable, secondary sources.

I have some suggestions of articles to copyedit, if you like reading articles that need a lot of work on related subjects. The articles Intelligence quotient, Race and intelligence, Heritability of IQ, and various articles linked from those all need massive amounts of work to be properly sourced, and in the meanwhile one might as well fix the details of Wikipedia Manual of Style adherence for those articles at the same time. Have at it, if you like. But please take extra care in the future to not "copyedit" direct quotations from reliable sources, especially sources that you have not personally seen. Best wishes for much intellectual enjoyment in your further editing of Wikipedia. -- WeijiBaikeBianji (talk, how I edit) 22:41, 11 May 2014 (UTC)

July 2014[edit]

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Ten percent of brain myth may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 "[]"s. If you have, don't worry: just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.

List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:
  • brain "Do we use only 10 percent of our brain?"] ''Psychology Today''<!-- Bot generated title -->]</ref>

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 00:25, 19 July 2014 (UTC)