User talk:Kaldari/Archive 10

Friendship Barnstar
I realize I just gave you a Koekje (which I hope you enjoyed) but I thought I would also share this barnstar with you for your WikiLove program. This barnstar was presented to me by Editor/Administrator:Ched Davis about a year ago. As you can see it was the first one that he presented so, needless to say, I was amazingly honored. I pass it on to you for your continuing work at making WP a better, friendlier place. Don't listen to those that say it shouldn't happen. I think it is innovative and inevitable. TRA! Buster Seven   Talk  02:59, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

WikiLove Gadget
Hey, I was wondering when you might be adding other skins for the gadget. I was told about a couple ago and was disappointed to learn it is only for Vector, I use Monobook. -  Neutralhomer •  Talk  •  Coor. Online Amb'dor  • 19:49, 17 March 2011 (UTC)
 * I'll try to add support for monobook soon. The only trick is figuring out how to do the menu in monobook, everything should work as is. Kaldari (talk) 20:39, 17 March 2011 (UTC)
 * I am in no way a coder, you could just do a version with just two tabs: "Love" (for WikiLove; which would encompass Kittens, Hearts, food, beer, etc.) and "Star" (for Barnstars). But that is just me throwing out ideas. -  Neutralhomer  •  Talk  •  Coor. Online Amb'dor  • 20:47, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

PC RFC questions
I'm sorry but I've felt it necessary to revert your change to question one. The option to temporarily de-activate PC and re-submit it after it has been improved has been specifically rejected by the Foundation, and it seemed yur change implied this was still a possibility. It is the one and only option that is not on the table in this process. Also, the primary goal of these proceedings from day one has been to get an up or down answer to this question, we shouldn't suggest to users that "maybe later" is still a viable option. I know a lot of users are getting kind of pissed off at me because I have felt it necessary to kind of push this thing forward over their objections. I fully admit that is what I am doing because the wider community and the Foundation have made it clear that they want a "yes or no" answer to at least this one issue, and they want it sooner rather than later. If we leave the door open to this in phase three we increase the risk of having an unactionable result. That is something we really can't let happen if it can possibly be avoided. Beeblebrox (talk) 22:30, 18 March 2011 (UTC)
 * My addition has nothing to do with improving Pending Changes. The current wording implies that we must reject Pending Changes forever, while I think many people just want to express the opinion that the trial is over, and we can't have a proper discussion on actually using Pending Changes so long as this violation of the original consensus is a hanging issue. Many people support Pending Changes but believe it should be turned off for now, including myself. We need to evaluate Pending Changes starting from a clean slate. Your RfC question leaves myself and others with no voice in this discussion. Kaldari (talk) 22:52, 18 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Hey guys. Just to clarify what I'm being asked to communicate by Rob and Alolita (the program managers for PC on our end): the community can definitely stop using it entirely right now and for however long you want until a final decision is made about dismantling it or using it. I think it's perfectly fine to include that in the RFC, though I think there was enough support so that if Kaldari or anyone else (acting as a volunteer) wanted to remove it from all articles right now, you could go ahead and do that while the RFC continues. What I was trying to say Rob/Alolita don't want to do is technically dismantle the entire infrastructure for Pending Changes while we wait for a conclusion to come out of the RFC. That's all. Steven Walling at work 23:15, 18 March 2011 (UTC)
 * This isn't so much an objection to this proceeding as it is an objection to what has gone before it. I realize that a lot of users are upset that PC was not turned off when the trial was over. That is a perfectly valid position and I understand your frustration at how flawed that process was. However the primary purpose of this RFC has been from the beginning to arrive at a yes or no answer to the over-arching question of whether to keep pending changes turned on or not. The discussion of what should have been done in the past and who is to blame for it is a different topic. Beeblebrox (talk) 23:30, 18 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Well, I guess I just can't participate in this RfC then since I oppose both options and no other choices are offered. Kaldari (talk) 23:47, 18 March 2011 (UTC)
 * And it seems that this statement is false: "These ten questions were distilled down from the most-endorsed issues on the list of 35 general positions". The 6th most endorsed position is that pending changes should be turned off for now: "PC should not be used until consensus is gained". And there is no position in the first RfC at all about "turning off PC entirely". What was the purpose of the first RfC, if it isn't actually being used to inform the second? If you don't want people to feel like they are getting railroaded (again), you should at least make the pretense of listening to their opinions. Kaldari (talk) 00:04, 19 March 2011 (UTC)
 * You can make this suggestion, or any other suggestion you like, in your replies. Everything will be considered in the evaluation. The idea that it had to be turned off before we could have this discussion was in fact brought up before, but only a few users supported that idea so we moved ahead anyway. If you think there is a large group of users who will refuse to participate if PC is still in use while the final phase of this process (which has already moved ahead for a month with over a hundred participants while PC was still on) then go ahead and remove it from every article it is on so you all can see your way clear to participate. Personally I believe it to be only a few users who, forgive me for saying so, are being overly stubborn. Beeblebrox (talk) 00:30, 19 March 2011 (UTC)
 * "Only a few users"? It's 47 vs. 56 at the current RfC (and more than the number of users who endorsed "A final Decision needs to be made soon"). The option that has only a few users is "PC should be removed, improved by the developers, and then resubmitted to the community" (only 7 endorsements). That's the option that should be ignored for the final RfC, not "PC should not be used until consensus is gained". Otherwise, you are ignoring nearly half the editors who expressed an opinion on the matter (many of which are respected veterans) and replacing it with a sham option that no one has endorsed. Kaldari (talk) 00:44, 19 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Alright then, go ahead and remove it from all articles. I've already said twice that if that's what it takes to move forward let's be done with it and move on. I don't see how doing that or not doing it is somehow my sole responsibility, I'm just trying to keep the RFC on track. Beeblebrox (talk) 01:24, 19 March 2011 (UTC)
 * I don't believe that I have the authority to do that. All I'm asking is that the new RfC actually reflect the opinions expressed in the current RfC. Namely, that one of the 2 options should be "turn off Pending Changes for now". Steven indicated above that that option is not "off the table", so I don't see why it can't be worded as such. Otherwise, the wording of the question seems biased and not a reflection of the 2 most common positions on the issue. Kaldari (talk) 01:33, 19 March 2011 (UTC)


 * I just don't know anymore to be honest. The goal of the RFC has always been to get a yes or no answer. I guess I'm asking you for some clarity, as "turn it off for now" is not in an answer to the main question, as far as I can tell it will just delay that important decision. I'm really trying to understand this position but I have to admit I don't get it. Do you want it turned off while we continue the discussion of whether to continue using it, or do you want it turned off and the matter set aside for a whole new discussion, or am I totally missing the point? To be clear I'm open to adding this option to the questionnaire but I think that just adding "for now" is a bit vague as to what that is intended to accomplish. Beeblebrox (talk) 21:14, 19 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Personally, I think Pending Changes should be turned off for at least a few months. Whether it is ultimately used or not is of little consequence in my opinion. What is much more important is that the community and the Foundation feel like they are working together in good faith. If the damage that has been caused to that relationship is not healed, it will sabotage every project the Foundation initiates from now on — and there are lots more projects coming down the pipe (including ones that I'm working on, thus why I care). But regardless of whether you think that is a valid opinion or not, the fact remains that no one has endorsed the idea of turning Pending Changes off entirely. In the current RfC, two camps are clearly visible: those who think PC should be turned off unless consensus can be shown for using it beyond the trial, and those who think it should be kept on. Clearly the trial issue is inextricable mixed into this debate whether you want it to be or not. If you only care about getting a permanent yes or no answer, why did you bother setting up the open RfC in the first place? Just because people didn't fall into conveniently simple positions doesn't mean they should be ignored. Kaldari (talk) 23:34, 19 March 2011 (UTC)
 * If you still feel gung ho about ending the trial until the next stage of discussion, then you should prbly comment at Wikipedia talk:Pending changes/Request for Comment February 2011, where Chzz has proposed we just put up a poll to show stronger support for removing it from the current batch of articles temporarily. Steven Walling at work 01:10, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

Becky Edelsohn
The New York Times describes Edelsohn as the first woman hunger striker. I can't find confirmation of that, but...

Goldman, who was no fan of hers, referred to her as the first political prisoner to conduct a hunger strike in the U.S. Berkman wrote the same thing. As does this interesting college paper. So maybe Edelsohn wasn't the first woman, as the Times wrote, but the first to use a hunger strike for political purposes? Or maybe both? — Malik Shabazz Talk/Stalk 02:26, 21 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Interesting finds! I would suggest posting those to the article talk page and maybe some other sources will surface as well. Kaldari (talk) 02:51, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

Article Feedback pilot project
Hi there. I saw your bot add an article to the Article Feedback pilot project, and after having to follow a few links, I'm still not clear on what the purpose of it is. Could you explain it to me? -- Natural  R X 23:54, 23 March 2011 (UTC)
 * I must admit to being curious too. Is there a central page where this is project is detailed?  I expect that feedback will be requested, and since it seems you randomly got half my watchlist, I also expect I will be offering same.  ;) Resolute 00:20, 24 March 2011 (UTC)
 * I've requested some of the people more directly involved in the project to respond here. Kaldari (talk) 00:28, 24 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Excellent, thanks. As an aside, you have no idea how amused I am that 41st Canadian federal election got picked, literally a day before our government is about to collapse, forcing this very election.  An active vote on an article about an active vote! Resolute 00:32, 24 March 2011 (UTC)
 * In the meantime, here are some useful links: Kaldari (talk) 01:29, 24 March 2011 (UTC)
 * I also register my astonishment at Hell's Kitchen (U.S. season 8) being picked for this honor as it's not a Public Policy page and I cannot find any particular reason why it should be included. Furthermore, it should be noted that because the season is over it's not going to recieve anywhere in the same range level of edits as it did have while the season was active. Hasteur (talk) 19:50, 24 March 2011 (UTC)
 * I think that confusion is the result of a poor name format on the wikimedia pages. This pilot is intended to be done on article pages, not policy pages.  I think the results are intended to help form Wikimedia's public policy. Resolute 20:11, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

These should be added to article talk pages if at all, not in the main namespace. Savidan 20:03, 24 March 2011 (UTC)
 * They have to be on the article pages in order for the tool to actually work. They have no affect on article talk pages. Kaldari (talk) 20:09, 24 March 2011 (UTC)


 * The Article Feedback tool was originally created as part of the Public Policy Initiative. The initiative aims to increase involvement with Wikipedia on campuses across the United States by having professors include writing Wikipedia articles as part of the curriculum.  Quality improvement of the articles is one ways the success of the initiative is being measured, and feedback from readers is one way that quality is being assessed.  The Article Feedback Tool was created to enable easy assessment by readers and was put on all articles that were being worked on in the Public Policy Project.
 * Since then, we've expanded the use of the tool. As you may know, improving quality is one of the Movement Priorities. The Strategic Plan calls for the Foundation to "Support our volunteer community through technology improvements to article assessment by community members, readers, and experts."  So in November 2010, we decided to experiment with putting the Article Feedback tool on a limited number of articles outside the Public Policy Initiative and analyze the results.  We started with around 50 articles and analyzed the results.  The results looked promising, but we wanted to see how the tool worked on a wider number of pages.  Hence the bot, which puts the tool on approximately 3000 pages.  The 3000 pages were selected to help guide the research.  Specifically, we have evidence from our initial analysis that ratings behavior differs across different bands of article length, so Dario (our Senior Research Analyst) compiled a list of random articles within specific length bands.  Because of this randomization, some articles that appear to be less likely candidates for the tool (such as the Hell's Kitchen article) will have the tool on them.  From a research standpoint, that's actually good since we want to see how the ratings vary across many different article types, not just ones we think are going to garner a high volume of ratings.
 * Also, the tool on the main page since the primary audience is readers.
 * In addition to goal of measuring the quality of articles, the Article Feedback tool can also be a way to encourage participation. We know from previous usability studies that the bar for participation is very high for new users (e.g., editing interface is intimidating,  users don't understand wiki syntax, etc.).  The article feedback tool can potentially lower the bar for participation and make it easier for readers to go from "doing nothing" to "doing something."  The theory here is that once a user "does something" (e.g., rate an article), then they may be more likely to do other things that get them more involved (e.g., create an account, edit an article).  So we're testing various messages (e.g., did you know that you can edit this article?) after a user rates an article to see if rating can actually be an effective on-ramp for other forms of participation.  This is especially important given the recent data we've collected on participation trends (Sue's March 2011 update). Howief (talk) 20:28, 24 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Good explanation, I thank you. Bill Wvbailey (talk) 22:10, 11 April 2011 (UTC)

DYK for Becky Edelsohn
The DYK project (nominate) 16:04, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

Women and Human Rights class
Hi Kaldari, I notice you've found the "Women and Human Rights" class at Georgetown University, which is one of the courses participating in the Public Policy Initiative this semester. I tried looking for you on IRC but couldn't find you, so just thought I'd leave this message on your talk page. Do you think WikiProject Feminism would be interested in providing some content feedback for the students in this class over the next weeks? Maybe they could provide reference suggestions, feedback on what students have written, etc. Let me know what you think about this idea, and I can connect you with the Campus Ambassadors for that class (User:Pjthepiano and User:Hec7). Annie Lin (Campus Team Coordinator, Wikimedia Foundation) (talk) 22:05, 31 March 2011 (UTC)

WikiCup 2011 March newsletter
We are half way through round two of the WikiCup, which will end on 28 April. Of the 64 current contestants, 32 will make it through to the next round; the two highest in each pool, and the 16 next highest scorers. At the time of writing, our current overall leader is with 231 points, who leads Pool H.  (Pool G) also has over 200 points, while 9 others (three of whom are in Pool D) have over 100 points. Remember that certain content (specifically, articles/portals included in at least 20 Wikipedias as of 31 December 2010 or articles which are considered "vital") is worth double points if promoted to good or featured status, or if it appears on the main page in the Did You Know column. There were some articles last round which were eligible for double points, but which were not claimed for. For more details, see WikiCup/Scoring.

A running total of claims can be seen here. However, numerous competitors are yet to score at all- please remember to submit content soon after it is promoted, so that the judges are able to review entries. The number of points that will be needed to reach round three is not clear- everyone needs to get their entries in now to guarantee their places! If you are concerned that your nomination will not receive the necessary reviews, and you hope to get it promoted before the end of the round, please list it on WikiCup/Reviews. However, please remember to continue to offer reviews at GAC, FAC and all the other pages that require them to prevent any backlogs which could otherwise be caused by the Cup. As ever, questions are welcome on Wikipedia talk:WikiCup and the judges are reachable on their talk pages, or by email. Good luck! If you wish to start receiving or stop receiving this newsletter, please feel free to add or remove yourself from WikiCup/Newsletter/Send. J Milburn and The ed17 00:59, 1 April 2011 (UTC)

Hot articles bot
I like your bot, could you contact me when it is out of trial? I would like it cover WP:Food and WP:Drink once its fully up and running. --Jeremy (blah blah • I did it!) 19:03, 1 April 2011 (UTC)

Autoconfirmed RfC
A formal Request for Comment has now been started on this topic. Feel free to contribute; best, Ironholds (talk) 20:50, 3 April 2011 (UTC)

POTD notification
Hi Ryan,

Just to let you know that the Featured Picture File:Battus philenor 02.jpg is due to make an appearance as Picture of the Day on April 6, 2011. If you get a chance, you can check and improve the caption at Template:POTD/2011-04-06.  howcheng  {chat} 17:03, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

thank you!
Hi Kaldari! thank you so much for your advice/suggestions/edits to my article. I am very much a newbie to Wikipedia and I appreciate the input/advice you have to give. I am currently editing my article some more, so if you could take a look at in a day or two, and give me some feedback, I would really appreciate it! Thanks again! 20bi — Preceding unsigned comment added by 20bi (talk • contribs) 02:17, 6 April 2011 (UTC)

A kitten for you!
 Jorm (WMF) has given you a kitten! Kittens promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. Kittens must be fed three times a day and will be your faithful companion forever! Spread the WikiLove by giving someone else a kitten, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend.

Spread the goodness of kittens by adding {{subst:Kitten}} to someone's talk page with a friendly message, or kittynap their kitten with {{subst:Kittynap}}

Invitation to take part in a pilot study
I am a Wikipedian, who is studying the phenomenon on Wikipedia. I need your help to conduct my research on about understanding "Motivation of Wikipedia contributors." I would like to invite you to a short survey. Please give me your valuable time, which estimates only '''5 minutes’’’. cooldenny (talk) 18:24, 14 April 2011 (UTC)

Discussion on Kaldari Patriarchy edit
Moved to Talk:Patriarchy

Wikipedia Takes Jeong-dong
Hello, I'm planning a photo scavenger hunt event at Jeong-dong, Seoul. Therefore, I think it would be great if we can use the toolserver page that you've made. So please tell me how can I get an admin username and password. You can find our planning page here. Thanks. --Gapo (talk) 11:11, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

Picture size
Hi, 550px to 500px ... can you provide info on what issues should be taken into account in choosing maximum sizes: I've usually made the top pic at F and A bigger still. Do you have a small screen? What browser and other settings? Picture placement and sizing is egregiously neglected on WP, and I think we need better protocols for editors, so I'm interested in gathering advice and opinion from editors with a range of equipment and settings. Tony  (talk)  08:44, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

Wikipedia Takes JeongDong
Hello, I would like to know whether it would be possible to translate the photo scavenger hunt interface on the toolserver into Korean through translatewiki.net. We have a group of editors willing to translate it. Thanks. --Gapo (talk) 13:15, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

Article feedback on Pedro II of Brazil
Hi, Kaldari, good to see you again. I was wondering if you could add one of those "article feedback" (pilot project) templates to Pedro II of Brazil. I believe it would be interesting to see the casual readers' thoughts on that article. Regards, --Lecen (talk) 21:13, 20 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Perfect! Thank you very much! --Lecen (talk) 23:04, 20 April 2011 (UTC)

BAGBot: Your bot request HotArticlesBot
Someone has marked Bots/Requests for approval/HotArticlesBot as needing your input. Please visit that page to reply to the requests. Thanks! AnomieBOT ⚡ 10:13, 21 April 2011 (UTC) To opt out of these notifications, place  anywhere on this page.

WikiCup 2011 April newsletter
Round 2 of the 2011 WikiCup is over, and the new round will begin on 1 May. Note that any points scored in the interim (that is, for content promoted or reviews completed on 29-30 April) can be claimed in the next round, but please do not start updating your submissions' pages until the next round has begun. Fewer than a quarter of our original contestants remain; 32 enter round 3, and, in two months' time, only 16 will progress to our penultimate round. , who led Pool F, was our round champion, with 411 points, while 7 contestants scored between 200 and 300 points. At the other end of the scale, a score of 41 was high enough to reach round 3; more than five times the score required to reach round 2, and competition will no doubt become tighter now we're approaching the later rounds. Those progressing to round 3 were spread fairly evenly across the pools; 4 progressed from each of pools A, B, E and H, while 3 progressed from both pools C and F. Pools D and G were the most successful; each had 5 contestants advancing.

This round saw our first good topic points this year; congratulations to and  who also led pool H and pool B respectively. However, there remain content types for which no points have yet been scored; featured sounds, featured portals and featured topics. In addition to prizes for leaderboard positions, the WikiCup awards other prizes; for instance, last year, a prize was awarded to (who has been eliminated) for his work on In The News. For this reason, working on more unusual content could be even more rewarding than usual!

Sorry this newsletter is going out a little earlier than expected- there is a busy weekend coming up! A running total of claims can be seen here. If you are concerned that your nomination will not receive the necessary reviews, and you hope to get it promoted before the end of the round, please list it on WikiCup/Reviews. However, please remember to continue to offer reviews at GAC, FAC and all the other pages that require them to prevent any backlogs which could otherwise be caused by the Cup. As ever, questions are welcome on Wikipedia talk:WikiCup and the judges are reachable on their talk pages, or by email. Good luck! If you wish to start receiving or stop receiving this newsletter, please feel free to add or remove yourself from WikiCup/Newsletter/Send. J Milburn and The ed17 19:23, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

your opinion
Hi, Kaldari. There's an article that to my mind is an example of the kind of gender bias, unconscious or not, that creates problems of coverage on WP. It's survived an AfD resoundingly, but continues to be targeted. My perception that gender plays a role could be unfounded. I know you are well-versed in these issues and would value your opinion (I actually have no involvement with the article other than giving an opinion on whether it should be deleted), but editors are often accused of canvassing when they seek out individual editors on such matters. Would it be inappropriate if I pointed you to the article? If you choose to reply, I'll watch your page for your response. Cynwolfe (talk) 23:33, 6 May 2011 (UTC)
 * It looks like Pippa Middleton is safe for the time-being. I wouldn't worry about it too much. This sort of debate is pretty common for relatives of celebrities, regardless of gender. Of course the gender issue probably exacerbates the problem, but there's only so much you can do in these borderline cases. Speaking of gender bias, I can't believe Wikipedia doesn't have an article on Ladies' aid societies. Kaldari (talk) 23:51, 6 May 2011 (UTC)
 * That's surprising. And much more important than a celebrity article, which I usually don't get into (feeling a little sheepish about it). I think it seemed like a gender issue to me because it involved fashion, which some like to disparage. I'd love to have time to write an article on ladies' aid societies; sources appear to be abundant. Cynwolfe (talk) 03:49, 7 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Yes, it does appear that fashion gets short shrift on Wikipedia, especially modern fashion. Did you see this one: Articles for deletion/Wedding dress of Kate Middleton? You may be interested in the ongoing discussion here. Kaldari (talk) 05:33, 7 May 2011 (UTC)

Problem regarding your page: wikilove.js
Hello there Kaldari. I have been having a problem with your script lately. It has been working great for a while; however, I noticed recently that it would let my open the window and choose what I wanted it to do, but when I go to click on the button to submit the barnstar, ect, it would not do anything other than change the shade of the button color. It would not edit the user talk page. Please help me figure out what the problem is. Thanks. Please leave a talkback notice on my talk page if you respond here. Crazymonkey1123 (Jacob) T or M/Sign mine 00:07, 7 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Do you know what the problem is? Crazymonkey1123 (Jacob) T or M/Sign mine 23:22, 12 May 2011 (UTC)
 * I use FireFox 4 and do not have Firebug. Crazymonkey1123 (Jacob) T or M/Sign mine 01:48, 13 May 2011 (UTC)

Track of your Wikimania submission about Public Domain
Hello, your submission wm2011:Submissions/Wikimedia and the Public Domain could be included in the track Wikis, free knowledge and copyright law, and this would probably give more chances to be selected (but I don't belong to the jury, so) since there is a few submissions in this track. I let you add this track and the associated category if you wish. ~ Seb35 [^_^]  [fr] 12:14, 7 May 2011 (UTC)
 * I don't see this track you're talking about. The link you provided doesn't go to a track. Kaldari (talk) 18:49, 7 May 2011 (UTC)

A kitten for you!
 Kaldari has given you a kitten! Kittens promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. Kittens must be fed three times a day and will be your faithful companion forever! Spread the WikiLove by giving someone else a kitten, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend.

Spread the goodness of kittens by adding {{subst:Kitten}} to someone's talk page with a friendly message, or kittynap their kitten with {{subst:Kittynap}}

Hello!
Just wanted to stop by and say hello here after meeting you at AMNH today. It was really great to talk to you; so few people can relate to the idea of doing your own privately-funded research. I will continue to be on the lookout for jumping spiders, especially the extremely tiny ones. I forgot to ask you: what do the 3 mm ones catch and eat? Do they eat thrips? I can't imagine what else they would catch (tiny ants? mites?) but thrips seems like an obvious choice. But I suppose they also catch and eat things that are bigger than they are, right? If I can, I will go ahead and dig out a (not very good) image of what struck me as a somewhat unusual-seeming male jumping spider (that I saw inside a house in New Jersey a few years ago) and send it to you. Best wishes, Invertzoo (talk) 21:37, 19 May 2011 (UTC)

Wikilove
I forgot to tell you how much I enjoy the Wikilove script! Invertzoo (talk) 19:40, 22 May 2011 (UTC)

Bitcoin
Last week we were talking about forms of payment supported by do "Donate to Wikipedia" page. I have never used Bitcoin system, but I seem to hear much about it. It might be worth it to support it, especially if it continues to grow. Greetings --Jarekt (talk) 14:50, 25 May 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for the barnstar
Thanks for that, Kaldari. Since I'm mostly into the media aspect of Wikimedia now, things like that image immediately stand out. I've shown copyvio status for all but two of that uploader's images, and while I'm sure those others are copyvios as well, I can't prove it. Ah well :) — Huntster (t @ c) 05:36, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

Tribe (zoology)
Hi, Kaldari. Can you please stop KaldariBot until you let it keep Tribe (zoology). I have a good source, - for publisher, see Bibliography of the Eriophyidae. Jumping spiders have about 5,000 species in about 500 genera, and organising these uses many levels. --Philcha (talk) 23:05, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

WikiCup 2011 May newsletter
We're half way through round 3 of the 2011 WikiCup. There are currently 32 remaining in the competition, but only 16 will progress to our penultimate round. , of pool D, is our overall leader with nearly 200 points, while pools A, B and C are led by, and  respectively. The score required to reach the next round is 35, though this will no doubt go up significantly as the round progresses. We have a good number of high scorers, but also a considerable number who are yet to score. Please remember to submit content soon after it is promoted, so that the judges are able to review entries. Also, an important note concerning nominations at featured article candidates: if you are nominating content for which you intend to claim WikiCup points, please make this clear in the nomination statement so that the FAC director and his delegates are aware of the fact.

A running total of claims can be seen here. If you are concerned that your nomination will not receive the necessary reviews, and you hope to get it promoted before the end of the round, please list it on WikiCup/Reviews. However, please remember to continue to offer reviews at GAC, FAC and all the other pages that require them to prevent any backlogs which could otherwise be caused by the Cup. As ever, questions are welcome on Wikipedia talk:WikiCup and the judges are reachable on their talk pages, or by email. Good luck! If you wish to start receiving or stop receiving this newsletter, please feel free to add or remove yourself from WikiCup/Newsletter/Send. J Milburn and The ed17 23:31, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

mw:Extension:WikiLove

Consensus on dashes
Hi, this is to let everyone who has expressed an interest in the topic that the discussion to arrive at a consensus has been opened at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/dash drafting, with discussion taking place at Wikipedia_talk:Manual_of_Style/dash_drafting/discussion. Apologies if you have already commented there, or have seen the discussion and chosen not to comment. Casliber (talk · contribs) 22:56, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

Adams FP
Hi, just writing the blurb now for The Signpost. What restoration did you do, in a sentence? They seemed to like it. Tony  (talk)  10:08, 13 June 2011 (UTC)
 * OK, finally found the restoration note at Commons; would have been good, but the SP has been published and HaeB doesn't like more than typo changes after publication. Tony   (talk)  06:57, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

please change a family tree (related to Mary Wollstonecraft)
I'm a text-only type of person, and have no idea how to amend File:Family tree of Mary Wollstonecraft Shelley.gif to change Claire Clairmont's father from "unknown" to "Sir John Lethbridge" of the Lethbridge Baronets. This is because of knowledge that came to light in 2010, according to this. BrainyBabe (talk) 22:00, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

Renaming "Women in the Victorian era"
Hi, I have just suggested renaming "Women in the Victorian era." I think a more appropriate name would be "Gender discrimination in the Victorian era" because that is all the article talks about (even with my recent edits).

If you're interested in this, check out the talk page: Talk:Women_in_the_Victorian_era — Preceding unsigned comment added by Roger6r (talk • contribs) 00:43, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

Welcome!

Hello, Kaldari, 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 messages on discussion pages using four tildes ( ~ ); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask your question on this page and then place  before the question. Again, welcome! Kaldari (talk) 00:59, 22 June 2011 (UTC)
 * The five pillars of Wikipedia
 * Tutorial
 * How to edit a page and How to develop articles
 * How to create your first article (using the Article Wizard if you wish)
 * Manual of Style

Hot Articles Bot
Kaldari, This bot is so cool! User:HotArticlesBot I'd like to use it to track WikiProject Women's History. I looked at the source code, but I have no idea what to do with it. Do you have any suggestions? Thanks. USchick (talk) 20:25, 27 June 2011 (UTC)
 * I can set it up for you. But I can't do it this week. Have to get things ready for the WikiLove launch on Thursday. Remind me next week and I'll see what I can do. Kaldari (talk) 23:47, 27 June 2011 (UTC)
 * I don't want to create additional work for you. I can ask someone at Women's History to do it if it's something that can be done from the bot page. Is the source code the right place to start? USchick (talk) 23:55, 27 June 2011 (UTC)
 * If you can find someone with some Bot writing experience, I'm sure they could adapt the source code for the Women's History project. Otherwise I can get to it in a week or two if you remind me. Kaldari (talk) 07:02, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

WikiCup 2011 June newsletter
We are half way through 2011, and entering the penultimate round of this year's WikiCup; the semi-finals are upon us! Points scored in the interim (29/30 June) may be counted towards next round, but please do not update your submissions' pages until the next round has begun. 16 contestants remain, and all have shown dedication to the project to reach this far. Our round leader was who, among other things, successfully passed three articles through featured article candidates and claimed an impressive 29 articles at Did You Know, scoring 555 points. Casliber led pool D. Pool A was led by, claiming points for a featured article, a featured list and seven good article reviews, while pool C was led by , who claimed for two good articles, ten articles at Did You Know and four good article reviews. They scored 154 and 118 respectively. Pool B was by far our most competitive pool; six of the eight competitors made it through to round 4, with all of them scoring over 100 points. The pool was led by, who claimed for, among other things, three featured articles and five good articles. In addition to the four pool leaders, 12 others (the four second places, and the 8 next highest overall) make up our final 16. The lowest scorer who reached round 4 scored 76 points; a significant increase on the 41 needed to reach round 3. Eight of our semi-finalists scored at least twice as much as this.

No points were awarded this round for featured pictures, good topics or In the News, and no points have been awarded in the whole competition for featured topics, featured portals or featured sounds. Instead, the highest percentage of points has come from good articles. Featured articles, despite their high point cost, are low in number, and so, overall, share a comparable number of points with Did You Know, which are high in number but low in cost. A comparatively small but still considerable number of points come from featured lists and good article reviews, rounding out this round's overall scores.

We would again like to thank and  for invaluable background work, as well as all of those helping to provide reviews for the articles listed on WikiCup/Reviews. Please do keep using it, and please do help by providing reviews for the articles listed there. However, please remember to continue to offer reviews generally at GAC, FAC and all the other pages that require them to prevent any backlogs which could otherwise be caused by the Cup.

Two final notes: Firstly, please remember to state your participation in the WikiCup when nominating articles at FAC. Finally, some WikiCup-related statistics can be seen here and here, for those interested, though it appears that neither are completely accurate at this time. As ever, questions are welcome on Wikipedia talk:WikiCup and the judges are reachable on their talk pages, or by email. Good luck! If you wish to start receiving or stop receiving this newsletter, please feel free to add or remove yourself from WikiCup/Newsletter/Send. J Milburn and The ed17 23:34, 30 June 2011 (UTC)

Wikilove "make your own"
It works fine up until I post the name of a picture file. When I click on "review" it produces this vague error that "something went wrong" when trying to retrieve the file. I'm on IE 8 and using what I assume is the "classic" layout. Nothing special other than that. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 03:24, 2 July 2011 (UTC)

test1
Letting it take the default worked. For the URL you gave me, I got an error something like "unable to display this page". ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 22:47, 2 July 2011 (UTC)

The error is:
 * The website declined to show this webpage
 * HTTP 403
 * Most likely causes:
 * This website requires you to log in.
 * What you can try:
 * Go back to the previous page.

←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 22:52, 2 July 2011 (UTC)

test2
So that's my "workaround" until the problem can be fixed. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 22:49, 2 July 2011 (UTC)

Agent string
Do you mean this?

Mozilla/4.0 (compatible; MSIE 8.0; Windows NT 6.1; WOW64; Trident/4.0; GTB7.1; SLCC2; .NET CLR 2.0.50727; .NET CLR 3.5.30729; .NET CLR 3.0.30729; Media Center PC 6.0; InfoPath.2; .NET4.0C)

←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 08:36, 3 July 2011 (UTC)

Completely new abortion proposal and mediation
In light of the seemingly endless disputes over their respective titles, a neutral mediator has crafted a proposal to rename the two major abortion (pro-life/anti-abortion movement, and pro-choice/abortion rights movement) to completely new names. The idea, which is located here, is currently open for opinions. As you have been a contributor in the past to at least one of the articles, your thoughts on the matter would be appreciated.

The hope is that, if a consensus can be reached on the article titles, the energy that has been spent debating the titles of the articles here and here can be better spent giving both articles some much needed improvement to their content. Please take some time to read the proposal and weigh in on the matter. Even if your opinion is simple indifference, that opinion would be valuable to have posted.

To avoid concerns that this notice might violate WP:CANVASS, this posting is being made to every non-anon editor who has edited either page (or either page's respective talk page) since 1 July 2010, irrespective of possible previous participation at the mediation page. HuskyHuskie (talk) 22:22, 4 July 2011 (UTC)

Wikilove "make your own"
It works now. Thank you! ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 08:34, 5 July 2011 (UTC)

Multilingual WikiLove
Hi, is it possible to make a multilingual version of WikiLove for the Commons? I'm not very good with codes so I'm not sure how should I do it or how difficult it might be. I believe it could be really useful for the community and it will improve the Commons' atmosphere.  ■ MMXX  talk  10:53, 7 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Right now, WikiLove is still considered an "experiment". If it proves to be useful and effective on the English Wikipedia, it will be updated to support language localization and then deployed to the other wikis as well. The analytics team is planning on doing some in-depth number crunching on how WikiLove effects new editor retention within the next few months, so stay tuned. Kaldari (talk) 00:21, 8 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Thanks for your reply, I can't wait to see this gadget in Commons and I'm sure it will help to improve the atmosphere among users.  ■ MMXX  talk  08:37, 8 July 2011 (UTC)

Phyllis Chesler
Thanks for cleaning this up, I removed the legal threat taking a deep breath at the thought of trying to wade through the wreckage to make some sense of this article. FrankFlanagan (talk) 18:29, 8 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Thanks, please feel free to help clean it up further. It's unfortunate that every article dealing with Jews and Muslims on Wikipedia has to be the victim of unproductive edit warring and POV pushing. Kaldari (talk) 18:35, 8 July 2011 (UTC)

Rape Culture article
Thanks for explaining the further reading removal. I hadn't looked closely enough to realize it wasn't entirely needed for the article. (Of course, it could have a section on rape culture and we wouldn't know...) Pi.1415926535 (talk) 03:03, 10 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Eh, doesn't seem to have much on it; here's the GB link Pi.1415926535 (talk) 03:07, 10 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Indeed, it doesn't even mention the phrase "rape culture" in the book. I imagine someone added it as a bit of POV-pushing against the concept of rape culture. As such, it could be used as a citation for criticism, but it doesn't make sense in the Further Reading section. Kaldari (talk) 03:27, 10 July 2011 (UTC)

Re: barnstar
Awww, thanks! Roscelese (talk &sdot; contribs) 21:01, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

FP nomination of Les Demoiselles d'Avignon
Hi Kaldari. I just wanted to inform you that Les Demoiselles d'Avignon is up for Featured picture again. The nomination can be found here. I am informing you as you have previously participated in a Featured Picture review of this image, here. Crisco 1492 (talk) 00:16, 13 July 2011 (UTC)

Good Article promotion

 * How do I get one of these ;-) SarahStierch (talk) 15:21, 17 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Well, you just bring an article up to Good Article standard, of course! Looks like Corwin Clairmont might not be too far... Unless you meant the actual Senoufo mask. Those are probably a little harder to come by. [[Image:Face-smile-big.svg|32px]] – Quadell (talk) 15:32, 17 July 2011 (UTC)

Drama Desk templates
I was trying to make the colors of different awards be different but the same within the award. When you look at the templates at A Chorus Line or Judi Dench, we want all the colors to be helpful. I'll take a closer look at the color shading and see what I can do.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 04:29, 18 July 2011 (UTC)
 * What do you think of the following colors? Let me know if you have a preference. #40E0D0; #8FBC8F; #778899; --TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 20:43, 18 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Do you want something like #F5F5F5;?--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 21:25, 18 July 2011 (UTC)
 * #d7f1d7; is a good suggestion. I will swap them all in tonight.

User talk:Nmatavka/Images under surveillance
Should User talk:Nmatavka/Images under surveillance also be deleted per Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Nmatavka/Images under surveillance? Cunard (talk) 17:01, 19 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Thanks, forgot about that. Kaldari (talk) 17:53, 19 July 2011 (UTC)

The WikiProject National Archives Newsletter
The first ever WikiProject National Archives newsletter has been published. Please read on to find out what we're up to and how to help out! There are many opportunities for getting more involved. Dominic·t 21:30, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

POTD notification
Hi Ryan,

Just to let you know that the Featured Picture File:Mitchell Map-06full2.jpg is due to make an appearance as Picture of the Day on July 24, 2011. If you get a chance, you can check and improve the caption at Template:POTD/2011-07-24.  howcheng  {chat} 17:15, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

Canvassing question
I've recently spoken with an author of one of the books used as a source for the femininity article, and she seems interested in possibly posting some comments or doing a QA with us on the talk page. Would this be considered canvassing? --Aronoel (talk) 03:15, 26 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Inviting an expert to comment on the article wouldn't be considered canvassing unless you are specifically trying to sway a debate in your favor. Kaldari (talk) 17:51, 26 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Thanks, I don't know what her position would be on our debates. But I think she's probably too busy anyway. Also, could you comment on the self-abasement issue again? I think it's a big problem start removing some behaviors from that article that are listed in sources. --Aronoel (talk) 15:59, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

A cup of coffee for you!
that was a test sir :)

Per Carolmooredc
I received your message. I am sorry that you did not read the talk pages of the Death of Caylee Anthony to see all of her insults. She has been blocked for three months by one editor (please see her talk page) and recently warned by another (also on her talk page) on two different articles. Now on this article, Death of Caylee Anthony, she insults, reverts and disrupts articles and does not obey consensus. She reprimands others as if she were an administrator. She puts the 3RR banner up with a basic misunderstanding of what it means. She has done this with two other articles that I know of. ''I have never been blocked or threatened to be blocked. I have never been before warned''. I have spent several hours trying to "help" CarolMooreDC as the talk page and archives reflect if you would but look. Today, I have lost patience and now will not address her futher. Recently I had to delete a paragraph of hers which mistated testimony given in the Casey Anthony trial. This paragraph as she wrote it basically accused a living person of covering up a murder. The edits she made were factually incorrect and giant BLP issues. I discussed them with her and (as a former paralegal for a Bronx DA) rehabitated the pargraph for her but she took offense. See Krystal Holloway section on Article talk page. I also tried to help her with the legal terminology she was misusing. I hope that you will read the talk pages which show many editors problems with this very bizarre editor before passing judgment. Thank you. Mugginsx (talk) 00:03, 28 July 2011 (UTC)


 * That is very good advice and I intend to take it. Thank you for listening to my side as well. Mugginsx (talk) 10:04, 28 July 2011 (UTC)


 * FYI to you concerning My Response to Administrator User talk:Malik Shabazz (also on his page) in order to inform you of User talk:Carolmooredc's most recent accusations to yet another Administrator: 
 * Since User talk:Kaldari's suggestion I have not responded to the above-named editor at any time. Since User talk:Carolmooredc latest accusations (at least the ones I can understand) are blatently false I am also putting this response here to you as well as another Administrator who is familiar with the this editor.  As I previously stated, I made only one (distant and individual) revert to three distinct and various sections on various days, that have anything at all to do with User talk:Carolmooredc.  They are all and only on Death of Casey Anthony article.  I repeat they were different areas of the article at different times over various days.


 * One was the Krystal Holloway paragraph. User talk:Carolmooredc attempted to put into Death of Casey Anthony article. It was incomplete and incorrect and a clear BLP violation as written, it accused George Anthony, a living person, of covering up the murder of his granddaughter.  The testimony in trial tapes and the talk page comments  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Death_of_Caylee_Anthony/Archive_6 entitled:  Krystal Hollyway, clearly show the testimony went the other way and Ms. Holloway on cross, when shown her sworn statement to police finally told the truth.  That could not be ignored.  User talk:Carolmooredc argued against revert.  I explained to her in detail, using the benefit of my criminal law experience, that this was a clear BLP violation and factually inaccurate. I tried to rehabititate the paragraph to make it factually correct but since she continued to argue about it, I had to finally take it out completely in accordance with wikipedia BLP policy. User talk:Carolmooredc still to this day maintains that if the source is found in a reference, (I am pharaphrasing) it must be true. The newest reference below is still not accurate because the judge found Ms. Holloway's statements to be prior inconsistent statements and to ignore both of them as untrue.  That is the trial law in every criminal case.  Also BLP states any contentious materials must be removed immediately.  Newspaper references do not always tell the truth or the full story as I tried to explain to User talk:Carolmooredc, newspapers have legal protections and guidelines that common citizens, and we at Wiki do not.  I referred her to Wiki/legal and to BLP again and again.


 * The second revert was many days later when User talk:Carolmooredc put several dates and delineated them according to which side gave a closing argument, the different kinds of closing arguments and what date they occured on, etc. etc. I maintained that all except beginning and end dates were unnecessary. Upon research and just common sense, that no editor has and put such detailed information in any other article about closing arguments in a trial. I researched many Wikipedia murder and infanticide trial articles and most do not even mention closing arguments); including, but not limited to: [[David Westerfield|

David Westerfield]] murder trial, [[O. J. Simpson murder trial|OJ Simpson murder trial]], Susan Smith murder trial and Andrea Yates murder trial. Her edit was overly-detailed and unnecessary and other editors agreed.


 * I also re-inserted my references in the Verdict Sentence section of the Death of Caylee Anthony article to make it once again factually correct. To my knowledge, and without looking up every edit I do not believe that I have not touched any other of User talk:Carolmooredc's work. In fact, if you look here on the article Talkpage you will see where I praised her for an edit (see on Talkpage under section titled: Chronological timeline/Source for every day of the trial - second paragraph.


 * As to User talk:Carolmooredc's claim I and other broke the 3RR rule on this article my work speaks for itself. If other editors reverted her edits, they can speak for themselves but I maintain there was NO 3RR violation here by any other editor. Further User talk:Carolmooredchas made that accusation on other articles she worked on and in fact, someone finally supplied a template  http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Carolmooredc/Archive_VI&diff=441900074&oldid=439781585 to try to help her understand the meaning of 3RR and delineate the specific accused reverts, though she has apparently since taken it off talk page. She does not consider advice by anyone, editor or editor/administrator, as helpful, but rather, it would seem, a challenge or an insult.  As of this moment User talk:Carolmooredc has taken even that editor's kindly suggestion off of her Talkpage. It seems there is unpleasantness and discourse on many, if not all, of the articles User talk:Carolmooredc has involved herself in.  I am sorry to trouble you with this.  I know administrators are very busy, but it is all too bizarre for me since I have complied to the letter and the spirit of your instructions and I will not have it said or made to seem otherwise.  I have a good reputation on Wikipedia and would like to keep it that way.  In closing, since your notice, I have not and will not respond to this editor anytime in the future unless directed to by you or another administrator.  Thankyou.

I have repeated her response below. Mugginsx (talk) 08:39, 1 August 2011 (UTC)


 * Hey, we still have to discuss the article. For example I finally found a source that makes clear what happened with the Krystal Holloway testimony: After Holloway left the courtroom, Perry instructed the jury that it should only use the witness' testimony regarding George's statements to her to discern whether or not they believe George's previous testimony, and not as a basis for their verdict for Casey. I'll verify with multiple other sources, but I hardly think mentioning whatever happened in such important testimony that backs up the "accident that snowballed out of control" contention of the winning defense team is irrelevant to the article; nor is it a BLP violation if it merely repeats what many other WP:RS have said. Enough said here. We can discuss at whatever point it becomes relevant on the talk page. CarolMooreDC (talk) 15:18, 31 July 2011 (UTC)