Hello!

I welcome constructive comments, suggestions, etc. that you may have :-)

thanks for the minor copyediting you did to the Ted Bundy article. the mistakes were all mine, and i'm glad someone corrected them. it's easy to overlook your own typos. welcome to Wikipedia, and i hope to see you around! blankfaze | •­• 01:50, 10 Jun 2004 (UTC)

No problem — I appreciate your contributions, blankfaze, and I've been known to make a typo or two as well! <laugh> Take care. —Catdude 04:19, 10 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Thanks for correcting my user page. I appreciate it. Hope to see you around more. -- Psy guy ^Talk 21:42, 8 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, Psy guy, for the great award! You've got me "psyched" even more for work on Wikipedia! <smile> Take care, and keep up the great articles/contributions! —Catdude 23:45, 13 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

And I was not so happy, and I request that you don't do that again. You really shouldn't edit people's user pages unless you correct spelling/grammar (even in that case, it's better to leave a note on the talk page). Conscious 08:29, 19 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I apologize, Conscious, if you were offended by my minor edit of your Talk page. I have rarely edited anyone's Talk page, and did it to you only as a courtesy for geographic understandability, in the "collaborative editing" spirit of Wikipedia. And, my edit was almost as minor, I think that most would agree, as a simple spelling/grammar fix. However, I do sincerely apologize if you felt what I did was an act of serious rudeness or property violation committed against you by me. Please forgive me. Keep up the excellent contributions. —Catdude 18:29, 19 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I wasn't really offended, but I just want my userpage to be like it's now. I agree geographical labels are a minor point. Conscious 08:16, 20 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the follow-up comment, Conscious...and just so I'm clear, I didn't have any beef with you, either; I really appreciate the substantial quality effort you've made here at Wikipedia. And, I'm doubly impressed, as your native language (as far as I know) is not English, but you have a superb command of the language :-) Take care! —Catdude 23:22, 20 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I don't mind the edit to my talk page, thank you. - File:Ottawa flag.png nathanrdotcom ^{(T • C • W)} 12:12, 19 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, nathanrdotcom, for the affirmative comment. Happy to help; keep up the excellent work on Wikipedia :-) —Catdude 18:29, 19 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

-- Psy guy ^Talk 06:01, 16 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, Psy guy, for the kind holiday message :-) —Catdude 08:18, 16 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I've replied to your question at the village pump. If you have any further questions about Wikipedia, don't hesitate to ask them at my Talk page or the help desk. Alternately, you can place ((helpme)) on this page along with your question and someone will answer it shortly. Happy editing! --Slowking Man 08:47, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Thank you very much, Slowking Man, for the reply! —Catdude 09:13, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

As a New York State contributor who has contributed to the subject article in the past, you may have knowledge or know of sources that might help resolve the current content issue with that article. If so, please visit its Talk page. --orlady 15:10, 6 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Thanks, orlady, for bringing this issue to my attention. Never thought that such an "academic" topic as USNY would lead to a "full protection" [smile], but on Wikipedia, the possibilities are endless [grin].... Btw, that is NOT saying that your edits weren't worthy — thanks so much, in fact, for ramping up this article with your quality additions/edits! And, I think that we have a "good balance" of attention to Regents/Excelsior College on the USNY article as it now stands (in congruence with your own philosophies/questions on that issue). What would also really help out the USNY article, IMHO, is a chart of some sort, which is easy to follow for the average, intelligent human, which really delineates who all the USNY members are. (For reasons of practicality, this would entail using some "group labels" for certain related members as opposed to listing out each USNY member.) I have actually contacted USNY/NYSED repeatedly to try to find out the answers to this membership question via electronic means, but haven't gotten satisfactory answers yet. However, the current full-protection status of the article is, I feel, a great chance to be "cordially aggressive" with some USNY/NYSED officials to try to really find out who those members are; I'll start that initiative ASAP!! :-) Hope all this helps!! —Catdude 01:30, 7 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sure, no problem. I think the issue lies in that the scope of this category isn't evident from its title, but requires a rather lengthy explanation at the cat page itself. Editors tend not to read such pages, leading to misuse of such cats. As both the kitsch article and said explanation point out, it is not clearly defined what is and is not kitsch (see "unclear inclusion criterion" in guideline WP:OCAT). So I don't think this cat would work out very well. Perhaps a better approach would be to create a list article of "art commonly considered kitsch", as, unlike the category, this list can explain who calls it kistch, and why. HTH! >Radiant< 11:55, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry to butt in. I just want to mention that there are many articles that document the opinions of others. Take a look at Films considered the greatest ever. -- Samuel Wantman 06:19, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you very much, both Radiant and Sam, for the highly valuable feedback. I have kindly responded to both of you on your Talk pages. Thanks again. —Catdude 23:26, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• You're most welcome, and happy editing! >Radiant< 09:50, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thanks again! —Catdude 09:55, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Catdude, the vandalism wasn't in the article, but in this template. Good catch! :) – Riana ^ऋ 08:28, 22 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Thanks much, Riana, for the courtesy reply and your further sleuthing and reverting of the vandalism in question! Thanks! —Catdude 19:38, 22 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Catdude, it's a minor point, but it's not clear that they are the ends of sentences, so three periods might be correct. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 05:01, 25 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks much, Slim Virgin, for taking the time to write. I appreciate your perspective regarding punctuation issues. I will try to do what is wanted and needed while touching up articles a bit to the best of my ability...but always in fraternal good faith, of course :) Thanks again!! —Catdude 07:42, 25 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the spelling and grammer edits you did to the Concordia University, Nebraska page. Grammer and spelling fixes are always welcome. THX!

Tlancaster s 20:31, 29 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the kind words, Tlancaster s — glad to help! —Catdude 01:59, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

My question is whether you are sure in each case that these are the ends of sentences. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 22:11, 2 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, Slim Virgin, that's a fair question. Based upon close examination, using the observation of capital letters occurring after ellipses as the best clue (except where such capital letters are part of pronouns), I felt that, beyond a reasonable doubt, that I was using correct instances of "four-dot ellipses." But again, you have a fair question — it may well be valuable to have mediation or something akin to this on this issue just to get "multiple heads" gathered — and ensure that what is being posted is grammatically correct. How would you kindly feel about having a second or third opinion on this issue? Thanks again for responding. —Best regards, Catdude 22:56, 2 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The use of capital letters indicates the start of a sentence, and nothing about the words before it. You'll need to check the sources to find out whether these are whole sentences; without knowing that, you're changing quotes by adding an extra period. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 23:04, 2 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the follow-up reply. I should add that I was also using syntax and general meaning to act as a guide, but just to be on the safe side, I'll consult the original sources as you recommend. Also, perhaps some of the folks at WP:EAR can help here, too. Thanks again. —Regards, Catdude 01:13, 3 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

A template you created, Template:Football v2, has been marked for deletion as a deprecated and orphaned template. If, after 14 days, there has been no objection, the template will be deleted. If you wish to object to its deletion, please list your objection here and feel free to remove the ((deprecated)) tag from the template. If you feel the deletion is appropriate, no further action is necessary. Thanks for your attention. --MZMcBride 02:33, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• No problem; delete away — it was just a "temp template" used to illustrate suggested improvements to the current Football template. Ideas from it were ultimately adopted in the current template version. Thanks, MZMcBride, for letting me know about this :) —Regards, Catdude 07:58, 26 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Catdude, Please read my comment on talk:Hard and soft g.  Andreas  ^(T) 18:41, 27 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, I noticed this edit today which shows you're taking some time and effort to edit the article, though I'm sure you've noticed the serious cleanup I've been doing to it lately. I'm not saying you shouldn't edit the article, but considering that whole sections may be deleted or drastically stripped down, you might want to hold off a bit. — Ƶ§œš¹ _{[aɪm ˈfɻɛ̃ⁿdˡi]} 05:01, 12 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your comments; I have kindly and helpfully responded on your Talk page. Thanks again. —Catdude (talk) 01:36, 13 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

As you commented at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Alcides Moreno (which ended in no consensus) I thought you might like to know that it has been nominated again. The new discussion is at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Alcides Moreno (2nd nomination). Thryduulf (talk) 11:20, 31 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia. Please don't forget to provide an edit summary, as you forgot on your recent edit to Summer of Love. Thank you. Law Lord (talk) 13:49, 17 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, Law Lord, for the comment/education. As the edits were fairly minor, I just "minimalistically" indicated them as minor edits, but I'll try to be mindful regarding making things a bit more clear in many judicious/borderline instances :) Thanks again. —Catdude (talk) 08:56, 22 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! I know they were minor but when I look at my watchlist I tend not to check a diff if the edit summary explains what the diff is for. Cheers. Law Lord (talk) 14:50, 22 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Got it; makes sense :) —Thanx again, Catdude (talk) 08:15, 24 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Me mungon ..e dashur.. si gjithmone! Por sot eshte me e veshtire se dite te tjera, sepse deti ka kenduar per mua, e kenga ishte ajo e jetes sone sebashku. Me duket se te kam kenduar , nderkohe qe shkruaj kete leter, e ndjej profumin e luleve nder fusha, qe gjithmone me kane kujtuar Ty. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.29.132.126 (talk) 19:34, 5 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. Your account has been granted the "reviewer" userright, allowing you to review other users' edits on certain flagged pages. Pending changes, also known as flagged protection, is currently undergoing a two-month trial scheduled to end 15 August 2010.

Reviewers can review edits made by users who are not autoconfirmed to articles placed under pending changes. Pending changes is applied to only a small number of articles, similarly to how semi-protection is applied but in a more controlled way for the trial. The list of articles with pending changes awaiting review is located at Special:OldReviewedPages.

When reviewing, edits should be accepted if they are not obvious vandalism or BLP violations, and not clearly problematic in light of the reason given for protection (see Wikipedia:Reviewing process). More detailed documentation and guidelines can be found here.

If you do not want this userright, you may ask any administrator to remove it for you at any time. Calmer Waters 14:28, 22 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I noticed you recently moved University of Colorado at Boulder to University of Colorado--Boulder and I was wondering if you might point me towards where in the style guide it says that the new formatting is preferable. The University's name is never stylized like that in official documentation and a recent re-branding effort certainly does not use dashes, see: [1]. Thank you, Kyle_(talk) 22:01, 7 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, Kyle; thanks for the relevant question. The rationale that I used in making the page move was largely based upon what I read in the Wikipedia Style Guide regarding the use of en dashes, especially point #3 in the en dashes subsection (with overtones of points #2 and #4 in the same section). You are indeed correct that the University's new branding does not use an en dash, and before I made the page move, I indeed saw no instance of the University using an en dash for the University name anywhere in its website. Thus, the further rationale I made in making the page move was that 1) there is no clear consensus from the University on what its formal name is, including in regards to punctuation (I see its full name in its website as either "University of Colorado Boulder" or "University of Colorado at Boulder"); 2) the new branding seems more tilted to "University of Colorado Boulder" as opposed to "University of Colorado at Boulder", but again, no super-clear consensus on a definite format; and 3) what I kindly just stated about what Wikipedia recommends regarding the use of en dashes. This "en dash format" mimics what I see with most other American university titles in Wikipedia which have various branch campuses and in where there is not a clear-cut consensus on spelling/punctuation for a particular branch campus. However, if my change might generate an "angry herd of Buffaloes" charging at me (just kidding), I have no "beef" with you or someone else taking a consensus of some sort to gauge what the Wikipedia community would prefer most in regards to the University's Wikipedia title name. Hope that helps; any further questions/comments, if any exist, are welcome. —Regards, Catdude (talk) 20:47, 11 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your detailed response, I appreciate your thoroughness in researching this before taking action and responding to me. However, per [2], I will be moving the page to University of Colorado Boulder, without the dashes and without a comma as that is their preferred style. Thanks for your time. Kyle_(talk) 02:36, 13 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, Kyle, for pointing out the UC-Boulder blog regarding the University's branding and preferred name. My Googling apparently never caught that. I do indeed see that the University newly likes "University of Colorado Boulder" as its preferred full name. It admittedly seems atypical compared to most everything else I've seen with American university names, but if others in the Wikipedia community prefer it that way and feel it's right, it's not a "Buffalo-raging" issue with me :) Thanks again for the research and reply. —Regards, Catdude (talk) 08:52, 13 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 22:14, 30 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You are invited to participate in the 50,000 Challenge, aiming for 50,000 article improvements and creations for articles relating to the United States. This effort began on November 1, 2016 and to reach our goal, we will need editors like you to participate, expand, and create. See more here!

--MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 02:37, 8 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. We're into the last five days of the Women in Red World Contest. There's a new bonus prize of $200 worth of books of your choice to win for creating the most new women biographies between 0:00 on the 26th and 23:59 on 30th November. If you've been contributing to the contest, thank you for your support, we've produced over 2000 articles. If you haven't contributed yet, we would appreciate you taking the time to add entries to our articles achievements list by the end of the month. Thank you, and if participating, good luck with the finale!

	US Banknote Contest
	November-December 2019
There are an estimated 30,000 different varieties of United States banknotes, yet only a fraction of these are represented on Wikimedia Commons in the form of 2D scans. Additionally, Colonial America, the Confederate States, the Republic of Texas, multiple states and territories, communities, and private companies have issued banknotes that are in the public domain today but are absent from Commons. In the months of November and December, WikiProject Numismatics will be running a cross-wiki upload-a-thon, the 2019 US Banknote Contest. The goal of the contest is to increase the number of US banknote images available to content creators on all Wikimedia projects. Participants will claim points for uploading and importing 2D scans of US banknotes, and at the end of the contest all will receive awards. Whether you want to claim the Gold Wiki or you just want to have fun, all are invited to participate. If you do not want to receive invitations to future US Banknote Contests, follow the instructions here

Sent by ZLEA at 23:30, 19 October 2019 (UTC) via MediaWiki message delivery (talk)[reply]