User talk:Karen Johnson

Howdy!

Hey Karen - It was a a real joy to see you on my watchlist again! The encyclopedia and the server situation have improved but we are in transitional period for the community (much more self-governance and less dependence on Jimbo). So there is a bit more drama than there should be at the moment. It seems to be dying down as we continue to improve our new dispute resolution process. I hope to see more of your edits soon! :) --mav 10:00, 16 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Karen you asked if we needed a Landsat 7 article. Here's my take - when chasing most wanted pages (sort of my hobby) I try to look at the links and decide if a redirect or simply editing the source pages make more sense. in this case, the alternate page is Landsat program. the problem is, as people post more and more landsat images, it seems to me that we'll end up with a Lot of links to Landsat 7.

Wikibooks

Wikibooks is for textbooks and other non-fiction books that have an orientation toward teaching people how to do things (like how to cook). The name is derived from WikiWiki and textbook. Hope this helps. :) --mav 08:56, 18 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Karen. Cooking recipee have an encyclopedic value. If not for you, there is encyclopedic value for some cultures. The fact there is another wikiproject where you would like recipees to be visible, is not a valid argument to entirely strip this encyclopedia from all its recipee. I might understand that we do not become a whole repository of all the recipee in the world, but at least could not we preserve part of the information ?

Each time you move information there, we lose information

we lose access to the information, since there is not even a link preserved to wikibook. That means, here, the information is just plain lost. Note that since the page is deleted, that means it is very likely a new author will come one day to create a new article on the topic, hence duplicating the work load. Note as well, that deleting the article is likely to be offending the author of the article, who will not find *any* reference to it
you also break all the international references, since other wikipedias consider recipees valid information. We do not have link to refer to
we lose links to typical recipees that are examples of a cooking style or cooking techniques. This is another loss
we lose very interesting google hits which would attract women, and mothers.
we deceive travellers, who very likely would like to read about famous dishes.

All to say, I would like to discuss with you the fact recipees are deleted from this place. I am absolutely unfavorable to such a scheme. I would be please to hear counter arguments.

Proposition :

keep here famous recipees, or those relevant to a technic, or style of cooking
let's not delete pages, but rather do a redirect over there, or better put a link in the page, to preserve information and international links

Anthère0 12:17, 23 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Karen, keep on doing what you're doing. Some, maybe all dishes, have encyclopedic value, but their recipes do not. The wikipedia article on Apple pie should tell what an apple pie is, where it was developed, why it's culturally significant, and then link to the recipe at wikibooks. Keep on transwikiing stuff to wikibooks, and thank you. Gentgeen 15:57, 23 Feb 2004 (UTC)

And above all Gentgeen, DO NOT PAY attention to the fact their is no clear consensus to move all of them and to delete the initial articles. Be careful to remember it is more important to do what you feel is best, rather than to guess other people may have different opinions. Very important, eh :-) Anthère0

Recipe moving

As you can see, moving recipes to wikibooks tends to get touchie. People can get very emotionally attached to particular recipes. It is important that they know that the recipe is not being deleted, just that the content has been moved to another wikimedia project. Additionally, it is very important that when a recipe section is moved from an article that remains, such as creme brulee or pumpkin pie, that a link to the recipe at wikibooks be included in the article. If you have any questions or comments, feel free to make them here (I'm watching this page for now) or at my talk page, or possibly at m:Talk:Transwiki, though I don't go to meta as often as I'm here or at wikibooks.

Thanks, Gentgeen 02:00, 24 Feb 2004 (UTC)

My response to all this.

Moving recipes, or ANY article is a two-step process. Nothing whatsoever has been deleted. But it was decided NOT BY ME that recipes should be placed in a recipe book at the Wikibooks site. Since I was working on the recipe book here, now I am working on the recipe book there. And to get the recipe book there requires a long and tedious moving process. So I started moving a few things. The move process is not complete. Once it is, then there will be links... for now, I can assure you that I have deleted nothing whatever, and the only recipes I listed for deletion here were recipes with no 'extra' commentary' on them whatsoever, and also no links to anything else in the wikipedia other than the 'recipes index' page. I'm not 'breaking' anything, and only following what I understand to be official policy - the note on the recipes index page SAYS they're supposed to be moved across.

If you don't want me to do it then FINE. It took me an hour just to transfer four recipes last night and now you're jumping down my throat about it. I don't have time for this crap. The recipes are not 'disappearing' from anywhere - you can go and read them at the cookbook any time you like, once I've given them a page (which I was about to do). KJ 04:05, 24 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Sorry Karen, I didn't mean to sound like I was jumping down your throat. I'd just like to suggest that you link to the page in the transwiki namespace when you move the recipes out of articles. The link will follow the redirect left at wikibooks to the page's eventual perminant location, and the users of those pages will know where the information has gone. I'm sure I'm like you when I say I'd rather just get the pages where they need to go rather than fight with those who's first exposure to the move of recipes is the sudden "deletion" of their grandmother's favorite pie recipe. I also appriciate that these moves take a long time (which is why I haven't done any in a couple of weeks), so I appriciate all the help you can provide. I think I'll get some moved over tonight. Thanks, Gentgeen

It wasn't you doing the jumping Gentgeen! You have no need to apologise. I really did think that I was doing the right thing because it says right there on the page that the recipes are supposed to be moved... and then Anthere tells me off. Argh. For the time being I think I'm going to stick to fruits and vegetables, where nobody has told me that I'm 'not allowed' to use info (I'm copying some from here and using it as a base for a more culinary article...) KJ 04:48, 24 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Sounds good. I did one or two for the spices earlier. Gentgeen

I apology for making you feel like I was jumping on you. You are doing an important job in moving the recipee, and should not just stop just because I ask you to do so. But the fact is, I believe some recipees are culturally and technically important. Some people will look for them because they are some classics, because tourists just come back from a trip in a specific country will really want to do themselves this very special and famous treat. Or recipee can be used as a support to explain some cooking technics (such as pâte feuilletée).

The fact you move recipees is fundamentally ok with me. What is not ok is that in some cases, no links have been provided whatsoever to the cooking book. So in effect the information is just lost. Worse, when some articles like ratatouille are just proposed for deletion, the whole information of what that dish is, and its relevance to a certain cooking culture disappears as well. Not only is there no more link to a recipee, but the very notion that dish exists just disappear from Wikipedia. People will type the word in the search box, and see that there is nothing (if the article is deleted). This is very bad.

For any important dish, an article must be kept (a stub if you wish) AND a link to the recipee preserved.

Now, I have the feeling this has been done for many dishes, though not for several french dishes. I do not say it was done on purpose against french food; however, I would not be surprised that if those moving the recipee are able to recognise which british or american dish is famous and relevant to the description of a certain way of life, this may not be the case for french cooking. If so, I would hope that you will accept my own expertise on the matter, when I tell you that not preserving recipee links for Coq au Vin or crêpe, or plain deleting ratatouille is bad; and that these articles are important to our folklore. I hope my position is clearer. Thanks Karen.

Gniezno

Why did you move the Gniezno article to Gniezno, Poland? Are there any other cities named Gniezno or is it just you idea on place names? Anyway, could you possibly move it back to where it belongs? Halibutt 10:59, 30 Apr 2004 (UTC)

WikiProject Melbourne

Hi, Karen. Seeing as you've listed yourself at Wikipedia:Wikipedians/Australia as being from Melbourne, why don't you drop by the WikiProject Melbourne and help add something to the Wikipedia about our city?

Be sure to visit the Project talk page, and if you are interested, you can become a member.

Here are some WikiProject Melbourne articles which attract a high number of "page hits" but are only rated as Stub Class, or otherwise need additional citations or attention:
Suburbs:	Derrimut, South Wharf, Menzies Creek, Save Our State (Australia)
Landmarks:	101 Collins Street, 120 Collins Street, Bourke Place, Hamer Hall, Melbourne Mint
Events:	Melbourne International Festival of Brass, Melbourne Underground Film Festival, Great Bookie Robbery, Extreme weather events in Melbourne
Transport:	All of the stations on the Puffing Billy Railway need expanding or merging to the main article, especially the request stops which are just tin sheds
Sporting Clubs:	Caroline Springs George Cross FC
Streets:	Little Bourke Street, Hardware Lane, Hosier Lane
People:	Alannah Hill, Meek (street artist), Vexta
Institutions:	Eltham High School, Glen Eira Town Hall, Boxing Day Test
Venues:
Miscellaneous:	Collins St., 5 pm, Yarra Valley, Coops Shot Tower, Melbourne Talk Radio, Melbourne University Publishing, The Herald and Weekly Times,
Edit or discuss this list.

TPK 13:54, 12 Jun 2004 (UTC) (My talk page is at User talk:Hypernovean).

Thanks for joining up! Drop by the talk page sometime. You may also be interested in the Australian wikipedians' notice board. T.P.K. 13:07, 2 Oct 2004 (UTC)

License

Hi, I'd like to know the license of your pictures. We use Image:Echidna.jpg on french wikipedia so can you confirm it is GFDL ? Thanks in advance. Tipiac 22:05, 12 Jul 2004 (UTC)

And also Image:Palehydrangea.jpg Tipiac 20:56, 14 Aug 2004 (UTC)

And then Image:Figtree.jpg. Please drop me a line when done, thanks in advance. Tipiac 12:52, 2 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Also, Image:Peahenandchicks.jpg. RedWolf 19:28, Sep 11, 2004 (UTC)

My photos and copyright status

You've changed this place so much that I don't know how or where to put this any more! (but it looks great...) I just popped in from a link on the Distributed Proofreaders (my latest public works project), and I notice that a bunch of my photos are listed as 'questionable copyright status'. I don't know what boilerplate is needed but I took the photos myself (or my brother did) and of course they were freely donated to the wikipedia! KJ 07:39, 2 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Karen, if you licensed them under the GFDL, just put a {{GFDL}} tag on them. Gentgeen 07:54, 2 Oct 2004 (UTC)

I found the image tag list page... it looks like the most appropriate (well, the most appealing to me as the photographer) tag is {{cc-by-nc}} so that's what I'm putting on them. It says that they can be freely used for non-commercial purposes as long as I get credit as the original photographer. Is that okay? KJ 08:03, 2 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Then they will be deleted. Read for more information: http://mail.wikipedia.org/pipermail/wikien-l/2005-May/023760.html

They're your images, you can release them under any license you like. By the way, welcome back!! Gentgeen 08:06, 2 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Thanks Gentgeen! It's probably just a flying visit but I'll hang around long enough to try and find all my images and fix them. I'd hate to think of them being deleted after I went to the work of putting them there! KJ 08:10, Oct 2, 2004 (UTC)

Thanks for those photos! I've added them into the article. Ambi 01:39, 9 Oct 2004 (UTC)

The Rocks images

Just noticed them. Great work, and good pictures! - Ta bu shi da yu 09:21, 10 Oct 2004 (UTC)

octopus image

Do you know what species is shown in Image:Reef2063.jpg this image you uploaded? - UtherSRG 12:57, 26 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Article Licensing

Hi, I've started a drive to get users to multi-license all of their contributions that they've made to either (1) all U.S. state, county, and city articles or (2) all articles, using the Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike (CC-by-sa) v1.0 and v2.0 Licenses or into the public domain if they prefer. The CC-by-sa license is a true free documentation license that is similar to Wikipedia's license, the GFDL, but it allows other projects, such as WikiTravel, to use our articles. Since you are among the top 1000 Wikipedians by edits, I was wondering if you would be willing to multi-license all of your contributions or at minimum those on the geographic articles. Over 90% of people asked have agreed. For More Information:

Multi-Licensing FAQ - Lots of questions answered
Multi-Licensing Guide
Free the Rambot Articles Project

To allow us to track those users who muli-license their contributions, many users copy and paste the "{{DualLicenseWithCC-BySA-Dual}}" template into their user page, but there are other options at Template messages/User namespace. The following examples could also copied and pasted into your user page:

Option 1

I agree to [[Wikipedia:Multi-licensing|multi-license]] all my contributions, with the exception of my user pages, as described below:

OR

Option 2

I agree to [[Wikipedia:Multi-licensing|multi-license]] all my contributions to any [[U.S. state]], county, or city article as described below:

Or if you wanted to place your work into the public domain, you could replace "{{DualLicenseWithCC-BySA-Dual}}" with "{{MultiLicensePD}}". If you only prefer using the GFDL, I would like to know that too. Please let me know what you think at my talk page. It's important to know either way so no one keeps asking. – Ram-Man ^{(comment) (talk)}[[]] 13:55, Dec 9, 2004 (UTC)

Manx (cat)

Your help is needed. Check the talk page for more information on what's going on with that article.

EliasAlucard|Talk 12:15, Apr 2, 2005 (UTC)

Show cats and genetic health problems

I noticed that you have edited a section of the article show cat regarding the frequency of serious health problems in purebred cats. There is currently a discussion on the talk page about this section as to weather the article should state that this is a problem (the position I have taken) or weather the article should state that this is a misconception which is not true. Your input would we appreciated. Dalf | Talk 23:31, 3 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Thalia Kaji 4 ammend compressed.jpg has been listed for deletion

An image or media file that you uploaded, Image:Thalia Kaji 4 ammend compressed.jpg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Images and media for deletion. Please look there to see why this is (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry), if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you.

Sywell

I have now started this article off as it clearly needed it! Brookie: A collector of little round things 16:47, 7 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]