User talk:Katydidit

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


Hello, Katydidit, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Again, welcome!  Rklawton 01:22, 2 January 2007 (UTC)


Hello, Katydidit. I reverted you here and here because, per WP:OVERLINKING, a Wikilink should generally only appear once in an article; however, there are exceptions. Read WP:OVERLINKING to see what qualifies as overlinking on Wikipedia and what the exceptions are. I reverted myself on this because you were right to link that. Flyer22 (talk) 18:38, 12 November 2013 (UTC)

I'm back at your talk page to state that the external female anatomy links you added are already provided or covered by the summary beginning at the Female anatomy and reproductive system section. Also, per MOS:QUOTE (scroll down to the Linking section as well), links generally shouldn't be placed within quotes. Flyer22 (talk) 18:48, 12 November 2013 (UTC)
I replied on my talk page. Flyer22 (talk) 20:24, 12 November 2013 (UTC)
Update here. If you reply there on my talk page, that is where any future replies about this matter will take place from me. Flyer22 (talk) 20:37, 12 November 2013 (UTC)
Heh heh, but not from me. I reply in disjointed fashion all the time. Hello Katy, nice to meet you. I sometimes stalk the Flyer's talkpage, and left a snippet over there, but I had something further to say over here. So here I am.  :-) (talk) 22:46, 13 November 2013 (UTC)

────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────First of all, totally agree with you about the five-bazillion-guidelines is in fact five-bazillion-too-many. That said....

the sad story, where I learned that links-within-quotations is Very Very Naughty

In some unrelated editing, I ran into some very subtle naughtiness. There was a direct-quotation-of-some-source, used in mainspace prose, like this:

In 2012 the BLP said "blah blah psychic blah blah" about their research

This is paraphrasing, of course, they did not really say blah blah, and the sentence in mainspace used punctuation, and so on, but I hope the point is clear. Linking from the *specific* word that the BLP used, which in this example was "...psychic..." as seen in between the quotemarks above, to wikipedia's *generic* article on the topic of the psychic is potentially misleading. And in fact, for the naughtiness that I'm talking about, was misleading. The BLP did not mean the term which was spoken in the linked portion of their quote, in the way wikipedia explains the overall meaning of the phenomenon in our generic article on the topic, but instead meant something much more specific. Editors adding the link were being helpful to the reader... by linking to the generic idea... but they were also putting words into the BLP's mouth! Bad.

In 2012 the BLP said "blah blah psychic blah blah" about their research, which is a subset of psychic stuff in general

That is a revision which is fair to the BLP, putting no connotations into their direct quotation, yet still gives the reader a link to the broader context. Anyways, if you care, you can read up on the guideline at the WP:LINKSTYLE subsection, specifically the fourth sub-sub-section ... oh crapola, here, let me just paste it.

Use common sense in applying [this guideline]; it will have occasional exceptions. ...Items within quotations should not generally be linked; instead, consider placing the relevant links in the surrounding text or in the "See also" section of the article.

Of course, the mealy-mouthed guideline is very wishy-washy. It should really say "NEVER put wikilinks into direct quotations unless you are POSITIVELY CERTAIN you are not putting words into the BLP's mouth". But since the linked-to-articles can change over time, but the intended meaning of the quotation cannot, how could one *ever* be sure?

Anyhoo, TLDR, the moral of the story is, after one of the BLP-specialists (User:David_in_DC) explained the dangers of links-inside-quotations stuff to me, I now religiously avoid it. There are *times* when you can 'safely' do it, but there are other times when you accidentally will misquote the source *and* simultaneously mislead the reader. Not Good -- better avoided. Hope this helps.

  p.s. And while I'm here, I glanced over your contribs, hey, thanks for improving wikipedia. I might argue that 'chest' and even 'stomach' are prolly not worth linking,[1] but I suppose it doesn't mess up the meaning of the text even if the coloration is a bit more difficult to read... as for aorta, definitely *that* one should be linked, thanks. (Who knew I had one of those? ;-)   Asked somebody to change the 'round' jargon into simply 'bullet' while I was in the area. — (talk) 22:46, 13 November 2013 (UTC)

Pat on the back[edit]

Howdy Katydidit. Just a brief thanks for catching that Steve Webb resignation and making the change to the Mo. House Wiki. Any additional work you'd like to do in Mo. politics, i.e. creating Wiki's for House members that don't yet have them, would be awesome. I've done several but my Wiki work seems at times to be ADHD-driven. I find myself distracted to other areas / articles easily..oh look! PUPPIES!! I love cuddly, see what I mean? LOL It's then weeks before I get back around to creating more. Anyhoo...THANKS again! Sector001 (talk) 14:05, 3 December 2013 (UTC)

Civility violation[edit]

On Talk:Franklin D. Roosevelt you have been in repeated violation of WP:CIVIL and will get banned unless you stop. Rjensen (talk) 13:49, 15 December 2013 (UTC)

I'll stop. Stop talking to you about it, because you won't discuss fairly in your stubbornness in refusing to acknowledge the other sources I cited. --Katydidit (talk) 15:00, 15 December 2013 (UTC)

Information icon There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you.

I replied to your assertion, with an explanation on how you refused to acknowledge my cites and links. --15:00, 15 December 2013 (UTC)

Confusing edit summary[edit]

Hi Katydidit, what does "Box, eps" mean? Cyphoidbomb (talk) 18:37, 19 January 2014 (UTC)

Talk:Sam & Cat#A special hour-long episode counts as a single episode[edit]

To both Katydidit and Geraldo Perez, please check out the Sam & Cat talk page.  Thanks.  Cheers, allixpeeke (talk) 20:28, 19 January 2014 (UTC)

Animal House[edit]

Please refrain from edit warring. You may feel Animal House is his career highlight, but per the rule of three we've selected other films that highlighted his career more. Rusted AutoParts 00:54, 27 February 2014 (UTC)

Why is not his first one at least as important as the others? I'm not saying A.H. is his career highlight, but it was his first success in film, and there is no problem in listing it along with the others. Where is this explicit rule of three films only listed (link, please), so I can see it for myself? Who is this "we've" who get to decide what gets listed and what doesn't? Just curious, and want to know if there is a small cabal of editors who get to decide everything. Why aren't the other editors also not considered edit warring when another film is listed, but removed? Why is four prohibited, if there is a rule for that arbitrary number when a famous person has a number of significant achievements? Thanks for your answering all these questions in advance. --Katydidit (talk) 01:08, 27 February 2014 (UTC)
We pick three examples so that we don't go overboard listing his highlights, just ones that reflect his career the most. Groundhog Day reflects his writing better than Animal House. Vacation is his highest rated directed film, so that's why that's listed. As for acting. There's no question about Ghostbusters. It's not at all suggesting Animal House isn't important to Ramis, but since we've found the three that reflect on him more, it's excessive to add it. That's all. Rusted AutoParts 01:19, 27 February 2014 (UTC)

Brian Bonsall[edit]

The death report appears to be a hoax. is not the URL of US Magazine; the domain was registered by a hoaxer just this morning. == (talk) 16:32, 16 March 2014 (UTC)

Thanks, I didn't realize that it was a fake domain, and only added this morning. What slimeballs they are to do that! --Katydidit (talk) 16:44, 16 March 2014 (UTC)

Reference Errors on 6 April[edit]

Hello, I'm ReferenceBot. I have automatically detected that some edits performed by you may have introduced errors in referencing. They are as follows:

Please check these pages and fix the errors highlighted. If you think this is a false positive, you can report it to my operator. Thanks, ReferenceBot (talk) 00:42, 7 April 2014 (UTC)

Runs scored[edit]

Well I didn't remove Jeter's runs because I rarely edit active players infoboxes other than adding MLB debut's. The whole runs not being in the infobox is based on an agreement long ago at WP:Baseball that only triple crown stats should be in the infobox unless they are records. For example Rickey Henderson is the all time leader in runs scored so including that stat in the infobox would be fine.--Yankees10 20:09, 28 May 2014 (UTC)

Any player's non-record numbers should also not be there, and obviously, 3,000+ hits is not a record--as you admitted on your reply ("because it is 3,000 hits") unless it is for Pete Rose, but editors routinely allow it regardless. So, the whole thing is completely arbitrary and whose category gets removed (or not) depends solely on a person's biases. --Katydidit (talk) 20:29, 28 May 2014 (UTC)
You do know that 3,000 hits is a major milestone right?--Yankees10 23:06, 28 May 2014 (UTC)
I've only known that for the past 50+ years. I hope that made your day. --Katydidit (talk) 01:34, 29 May 2014 (UTC)


WormTT(talk) 11:00, 13 June 2014 (UTC)

Sockpuppet investigation[edit]

Hi. An editor has opened an investigation into sockpuppetry by you. Sockpuppetry is the use of more than one Wikipedia account in a manner that contravenes community policy. The investigation is being held at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Katydidit, where the editor who opened the investigation has presented their evidence. Please make sure you make yourself familiar with the guide to responding to investigations, and then feel free to offer your own evidence or to submit comments that you wish to be considered by the Wikipedia administrator who decides the result of the investigation. If you have been using multiple accounts (in a manner contrary to Wikipedia policy), please go to the investigation page and verify that now. Leniency is usually shown to those who promise not to do so again, or who did so unwittingly, but the abuse of multiple accounts is taken very seriously by the Wikipedia community.

Canuck89 (converse with me) 08:35, July 7, 2014 (UTC) 08:35, 7 July 2014 (UTC)