User talk:KateH

Feel free to talk to me here about my contributions or interests.

You requested help?

Hello. Did you need help with something? Pepsidrinka 04:29, 8 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, thanks! I'm wondering about a recent edit to a page I added an external link to. Let me show you:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Log_home

I added the last external link on that page, and someone has slapped a "SPAM" label on it. I didn't intend it as spam, and I'm not sure of the protocol here or how to proceed, if at all.

Hmm. The user who did so is a new user who just started editing March 3, only five days ago. Incidently, this is the only real article he has edited. Perhaps s/he is still learning and is still adjusting to the wiki way (i.e. you can edit anyone elses edits). Usually, if someone finds something contentious with one of your edits that you felt should not really be challenged, talk it out on the talk page, and try to remain civil at all times, even if you think you are right.

Just a couple of tips to yourself. When speaking on a talk page, always sign your edits with ~~~~ following your text. Secondly, when making an edit to an article, always try to remember and use edit summaries, whether the edit is major or just a typo correction. Edit summaries are like the subject field of an e-mail, giving the gist of what you changed. Anything extra can be discussed on the articles talk page. I hope I answered your question and was able to help. Pepsidrinka 04:38, 8 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, thanks for the tips and insights. As you might have seen, I did start a discussion page for that article. So would it be kosher to go in and remove the SPAM label? I'm still learning the ropes here (obviously). I don't want to get into a revert war with this user. How should I proceed? What advice would you give in this case? KateH 04:43, 8 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

As you may or may not know, there is a Wikipedia policy entitled WP:3RR. The policy states that one cannot revert back to the same version of an article more than 3 times in a 24 hour period. Doing so is a blockable offence. However, many users confine themselves to 1RR. You may go ahead and remove the spam label since you have initiated the discussion. You may want to mention in your edit summary "remove "SPAM" - see talk" or something of that nature so that in the case the user didn't see the talk page, s/he will surely have seen your edit summary. Pepsidrinka 04:49, 8 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Obesity

Many thanks for the gammer / spelling on the obesity page. Mine are both horrible.

--Doc James (talk) 16:53, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sure thing, Doc! I'm a bit of a grammar nitpicker. Plenty of room for me to indulge that streak on these pages. --KateH (talk) 13:33, 14 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Joseph Reed

Benedict Arnold: patriot and traitor By Willard Sterne Randall This book makes the point that Reed assumed anyone who disagreed or crossed him was a Loyalist and traitor. And his unrelenting attacks on Arnold, his new wife's family, and others of his circle were instrumental in Arnold's decision to turn traitor. But more important for the Reed article it should be pointed out how he fought with those on the American side who where not as radical he. Most histories of the revolution play down the discord between: individual politicians, political theories, and states. Not to mention the often destructive battles of army v. congress and state militia v. the continentals.
On a separate note Randall's A Little Revenge: Benjamin Franklin and His Son is a superior read. If you haven't had a chance you should give it a look. And finally the Pennsylvania Archives edited by George Edward Reed 1900 is available in Google Books and the 4th series includes the period of Reed's presidency. Nitpyck (talk) 19:17, 29 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the reading recommendations. Which one of these covers Washington's expulsion of Reed from the military for cowardice?--KateH (talk) 10:47, 30 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It's in the Arnold book- and only a few lines - if memory serves in the chapters near the Wilson's Fort Riot. After Arnold is in Pa and before his court martial. If I get a chance I'll check the book out of the local library and see it I can't narrow that down.
I noticed that you're a relative/descendant of J Reed. You should, if you have time, check out the Pa Archives in Google Books. It is amazing to me to be able to follow the day to day actions of the Pa Government in the 1770s- Seemingly so little time in the minutes for big things and so much space for expense accounts. (This is the same feeling I got reading the Modern American Library collection of Lincoln's letters- a letter with deeply thought out expression of his views on slavery followed by one picking the postmaster in some a small town in Illinois. It's hard to remember that the small details took up so much of the famous historical figure's time and that often the big picture had to take care of itself.)Nitpyck (talk) 06:01, 2 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Esther DeBerdt Reed page 436 Joseph Reed pages 404, 409, 412, 419, 428, 430, 435, 437, 440-444, 467, 469-470, 481-483, 485, 489-491, 516, and 476-577. Page 491 has Arnold's attack from his court martial: "...I did not propose to my associates basely to quit the General and sacrifice the cause of my country to my personal safety by going over to the enemy and making peace. I can say I never basked in the sunshine of my General's favor and courted him to his face, when I was at the same time treating him with the greatest disrespect and vilifying his character...This is more than a ruling member of the council of the state of Pennsylvania can say." Gen'l John Cadwalader had told Arnold that Reed had quit as Washington's aide-de-camp out of cowardice.
As I wrote originally I'm not expert enough to know if Cadwalader's charge has merit but it is fairly clear from this book's account that Reed's actions were instrumental in pushing Arnold to treason. But this is only one book, so I still think someone who is better read in the subject should handle any additions to the article showing how radical Reed was in his opinions. Nitpyck (talk) 21:24, 2 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom elections are now open!

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) 13:07, 23 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom elections are now open!

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) 13:33, 23 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]