User talk:Kaldari/Archive 15

Moderation of Jerusalem RfC
Hello. You are receiving this message because you have recently participated at Talk:Jerusalem or because you were listed at one of the two recent requests for mediation of the Jerusalem article (1, 2). The Arbitration Committee recently mandated a binding request for comments about the wording of the lead of the Jerusalem article, and this message is to let you know that there is currently a moderated discussion underway to decide how that request for comments should be structured. If you are interested in participating in the discussion, you are invited to read the thread at Talk:Jerusalem, add yourself to the list of participants, and leave a statement. Please note that this discussion will not affect the contents of the article directly; the contents of the article will be decided in the request for comments itself, which will begin after we have finalised its structure. If you do not wish to participate in the present discussion, you may safely ignore this message; there is no need to respond. If you have any questions or comments about this, please leave them at my talk page. Best regards — Mr. Stradivarius  ♪ talk ♪ 12:10, 13 January 2013 (UTC)

Wikissentials Proposal on Meta
Hi there. This is just a quick note to say that you may be interested in having a look at http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikissentials Your name was listed as one of the users that was interested in another proposal similar to this. Regards  ·Add§hore·  T alk T o M e ! 20:21, 15 January 2013 (UTC)

Collaboration template
I am going to be reverting some of your changes slowly back to what the purpose of this template was intended, as an overview and quicklink to the project collaborations and speecific collabortion pages developed by editors. A collaboration is not just on a single article. The template was originally designed for use in conjunction with Collaborations for editors to learn how to creat their own collaboration efforts. The edit you made reduced the template's scope more then in probably needed.--Amadscientist (talk) 01:54, 20 January 2013 (UTC)
 * What is your definition of a 'collaboration'? A lot of the links that were on that template were nothing more than links to WikiProjects, WikiProject to-do lists, WikiProject task forces, or article collaborations that hadn't been active in years. I would consider most of those to be dead-ends to someone actually hoping to collaborate with other editors in a short time span. If the template goes back to being a random list of semi-active projects with no coherent definition, I think it will lose it's usefulness. Kaldari (talk) 02:13, 20 January 2013 (UTC)
 * I am not taking any immediate action and I agree that some of the ways it was previously do not need to be brought back into the template, but it's intent is as promotion for projects and editor collaborations that are created. Some of them are still active and some that appear semi-active took a great deal of time and work to get there. This was supposed to help the projects and the individual editor collaborations recieve attention. Yes, it was near inactive, and I actually appreciate your input and help, but i just wanted to give you a heads up that i was going to be revisting the template and the artilce it relates to as part of efforts with several projects, incuding WP:WER, WP:TAFI, and others.--Amadscientist (talk) 02:23, 20 January 2013 (UTC)
 * That sounds good to me. I think the 2 main things that would improve that template's usefulness are keeping it fresh and making sure that users understand what they are going to when they click one of the links. Let me know if there's anything I can do to help. Cheers. Kaldari (talk) 02:35, 20 January 2013 (UTC)

articles we shouldn't write
I started an essay I think will have thought value. Feel free to add from your experience or that of others or from hypotheticals. Nick Levinson (talk) 19:42, 20 January 2013 (UTC)

The King and I is at FAC
Hi, Kaldare. The King and I has been nominated for FAC. I see that you have reviewed FACs in the performing arts area before. It would be great if you could take a look at the article and give comments at the FAC. Thanks for any time you could spare! -- Ssilvers (talk) 00:28, 27 January 2013 (UTC)

Need Input on Parts Per Billion
Hi Kaldari, I returned from my honeymoon a few days ago so you're going to start seeing a lot of me around the community more. I need your advise on a task. I'm a fan of Josh Hartnett. While reviewing his page, I noticed that two of the latest entries appear to have similar sources, even though they're identified as different movies. The article Parts Per Billion (film) in particular seems to be completely made up of references for another film Singularity (film). The way I see it, they’re either the same film with two different titles, which will require a merge, or they're two different movies and the second has been added with no credible reference. Could you please take a look at both and give me some advice on how to proceed. On a quick search, there does seem to be some news activity regarding Parts Per Billion, but I'm hesitant to add these as references for obvious reasons. Carlang (talk) 00:27, 16 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Good catch. It looks like someone started the Parts Per Billion (film) article by copying the article Singularity (film). Unfortunately, it seems they didn't finish the job and left a lot of the material from Singularity in the new article. I've removed all the duplicated material (which unfortunately included all the references). Feel free to build off of that. Cheers! Kaldari (talk) 01:13, 16 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Thanks Kaldari. I'll get to work adding the references. While I'm doing that, is it okay if I add additional information that I find sourced online? If it is I'd still want you to look it over to make sure that it doesn't read as promotional.
 * Given my last run in with the Admins (thunderclap), I don't want to take on too much at once and I particularly want my contributions to be meaningful. So I was thinking that maybe I'd only focus on the Parts Per Billion (film) page for this week, with the aim of trying to develop it with the material available.
 * Do you think that's a good idea? Carlang (talk) 08:32, 16 January 2013 (UTC)
 * It sounds fine to me. Just be careful about the external links. Kaldari (talk) 01:57, 20 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Thanks. Will do. I'm also currently working on the page for The Americans (2013 TV series). I added a reception area and I'm fleshing out the development section.Carlang (talk) 07:54, 31 January 2013 (UTC)

Thank you
Thanks for that, Kaldari, it's much appreciated. SlimVirgin (talk) 19:53, 31 January 2013 (UTC)

WikiCup 2013 January newsletter
Signups are now closed; we have our final 127 contestants for this year's competition. 64 contestants will make it to the next round at the end of February, but we're already seeing strong scoring compared to previous years. currently leads, with 358 points. At this stage in 2012, the leader had 342 points, while in 2011, the leader had 228 points. We also have a large number of scorers when compared with this stage in previous years. was the first competitor to score this year, as he was last year, with a detailed good article review. Some other firsts:
 * was also the first to score for an article, with the good article Hurricane Gordon (2000). Again, this is a repeat of last year!
 * was the first to score for a did you know, with Marquis Flowers.
 * was the first to score for an in the news, with 2013 Houphouët-Boigny stampede.
 * was the first to score for a featured list, with list of Billboard Social 50 number-one artists.
 * was the first to score for a featured picture, with File:Thure de Thulstrup - L. Prang and Co. - Battle of Gettysburg - Restoration by Adam Cuerden.jpg.

Featured articles, portals and topics, as well as good topics, are yet to feature in the competition.

This year, the bonus points system has been reworked, with bonus points on offer for old articles prepared for did you know, and "multiplier" points reworked to become more linear. For details, please see WikiCup/Scoring. There have been some teething problems as the bot has worked its way around the new system, but issues should mostly be ironed out- please report any problems to the WikiCup talk page. Here are some participants worthy of note with regards to the bonus points:


 * was the first to score bonus points, with Portland-class cruiser, a good article.
 * has the highest overall bonus points, as well as the highest scoring article, thanks to his work on Enrico Fermi, now a good article. The biography of such a significant figure to the history of science warrants nearly five times the normal score.
 * claimed bonus points for René Vautier and Nicolas de Fer, articles that did not exist on the English Wikipedia at the start of the year; a first for the WikiCup. The articles were eligible for bonus points because of fact they were both covered on a number of other Wikipedias.

Also, a quick mention of, who may well have already written the oddest article of the WikiCup this year: did you know that the Fucking mayor objected to Fucking Hell on the grounds that there was no Fucking brewery? The gauntlet has been thrown down; can anyone beat it?

If you are concerned that your nomination—whether it is at good article candidates, a featured process, or anywhere else—will not receive the necessary reviews, please list it on WikiCup/Reviews. 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 or stop receiving this newsletter, please feel free to add or remove yourself from WikiCup/Newsletter/Send. J Milburn (talk • email) and The ed17 (talk • email) 01:08, 1 February 2013 (UTC)

The Tea Leaf - Issue Seven
Hello again! We have some neat updates about the Teahouse:
 * We’ve added badges! Teahouse awards is a pilot project to learn how acknowledgement impacts engagement and retention in Teahouse and Wikipedia.


 * We’ve got a new WikiLove Badge script that makes giving badges quick and easy. You can add it here.  You can give out badges to thank helpful hosts, welcome guests, acknowledge great questions and more.


 * Come join the experiment and let us know what you think!


 * You are receiving The Tea Leaf after expressing interest or participating in the Teahouse! To remove yourself from receiving future newsletters, please remove your username here

Thanks again! Ocaasi 02:27, 9 February 2013 (UTC)

Multiple projects at once
Hey Kaldari, I've been a big fan of the Monmouth/Gibraltarpedia projects because they create good content. I don't really care about anything else, but I do understand the concerns people have when Gibraltar was getting so many DYKs. Is there something that can be done so in the future, rather than having one town at once, we could have something like St. Petersburgpedia, Pretoriapedia, and Duluthpedia at the same time so things are mixed up a bit? Ryan Vesey 17:57, 15 February 2013 (UTC)
 * That would be awesome. Unfortunately, I'm afraid that all the controversy surrounding Gibraltarpedia (some of it warranted, some of it not) is going to make future projects in this vein untenable. I hope I'm wrong, however, as I would love to see more of these type of projects (hopefully with smarter management and more focus on the content rather than DYK promotion). Kaldari (talk) 18:24, 15 February 2013 (UTC)
 * How about more cities/regions/parks/countries than one at once? I think it would be best for Wikipedia's reputation if twenty or more Gibraltar-type initiatives were rolled out together, without competition for main page space and thus without there being the taint of gain-at-the-expense etc. Should we encourage broad coverage of geographic topics on Wikipedia? Absolutely. So what is the carrot, if we don't offer main page real estate? With a larger raft of cities starting Gibraltar-like initiatives all at once, other places will realize that they will be left behind if they do not jump on the bandwagon. Binksternet (talk) 18:27, 15 February 2013 (UTC)
 * I don't think things would get covered as well if there were more than a few, 5 I'd say is the maximum that could be done at once to get significant coverage. Otherwise it is no different from WikiProjects.  I think it would make a lot of sense not offering points for DYK. Points could be offered for 5x expansions and for new articles, and the creators/expanders could nominate them if they wanted to. Ryan Vesey 19:08, 15 February 2013 (UTC)
 * That sounds like a good idea. After all it's the content that counts, not what gets on the Main Page. Kaldari (talk) 19:26, 15 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Who has been running these things? Is it a GLAM thing?  If so, someone who is in contact with them should let them know about this so next time they plan on something they can take this into consideration. Ryan Vesey 19:31, 15 February 2013 (UTC)
 * These projects were pretty ad hoc. See Wikipedia Signpost/2012-09-24/News and notes. User:Victuallers was heavily involved with Gibraltar. --Orlady (talk) 23:06, 18 February 2013 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free media (File:Rodney Powell Nashville sit-ins 1960.jpg)
Thanks for uploading File:Rodney Powell Nashville sit-ins 1960.jpg. The media description page currently specifies that it is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, it is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the media was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that media for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'file' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "File" from the dropdown box. Note that all non-free media not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Hazard-Bot (talk) 04:18, 19 February 2013 (UTC)

BLP concern
Hi Ryan, there'a a BLP situation at Talk:Candace Dempsey and Articles for deletion/Candace Dempsey. I can't take admin action because I created the article.

Dempsey is a journalist who wrote a book in 2010 about the trial of Amanda Knox; Knox and her boyfriend were acquitted in 2011 of the murder of Meredith Kercher. The case aroused strong feelings, and several websites sprang up devoted to discussing it and attacking anyone who disagreed with their views. Dempsey came under serious and sustained attack. In September last year an account arrived on WP,, to claim that Dempsey isn't really a journalist, just an amateur blogger, blanked her BLP and prodded it. He returned a few days ago to remove biographical material, and repeated the same claims about her not really being a journalist. He posted for help at the Teahouse asking how to have the article deleted, and someone there (Crisco 1492) nominated it for him. This has given the account yet another platform to make his claims.

The claims are professionally damaging to Dempsey, and she has complained about them. I've asked on RfPP that either Malibu be blocked as an SPA causing BLP problems, or that the article (and preferably also the talk page) have pending changes 2 added so he can't edit them. The request is here, but there has been no response so far.

Would you consider adding PC2 to the article and talk page, and blanking and protecting the AfD once it's over? SlimVirgin (talk) 01:54, 18 February 2013 (UTC)
 * I put a warning on the article talk page. Let's see how it goes over the next day or two. Kaldari (talk) 02:14, 18 February 2013 (UTC)


 * Thanks. I think when this is over, we need to start a discussion somewhere about how we can act quickly and decisively when BLP harassment is suspected, rather than the target having to sit it out. It happens a lot, especially to women, yet every time we respond in different ways. SlimVirgin (talk) 02:46, 18 February 2013 (UTC)


 * Just to let you know that the same person is continuing to post insults about the subject on the AfD page, this time logged out as . SlimVirgin (talk) 22:32, 18 February 2013 (UTC)


 * I saw this at RfPP, looked into the history, and ended up following up by posting at the AfD (rather than doing anything else). Malibu seems to have stopped edit warring (at least for now), and I predict that the AfD will end with a clear consensus against Malibu's position. It's hard to justify taking strong action right now -- against either Malibu or the IP that Malibu is using. (But I did post a SPA template at that AfD.) --Orlady (talk) 22:59, 18 February 2013 (UTC)


 * Thanks, Orlady. Dempsey has been harassed in real life, and that person is using some of the same phrases. It's upsetting for BLP subjects when Wikipedia is used in this way because it makes them feel very vulnerable. The upset stems partly from what is being said, and partly that the person in pursuit has found yet another platform. SlimVirgin (talk) 23:17, 18 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Yes, this seems to be all too common on Wikipedia. People who don't have a platform for criticizing someone in real life just resort to Wikipedia instead. That said, I imagine that since Ms. Dempsey has positioned herself as a public figure on a very controversial topic, she's probably not unfamiliar with trolls. Hopefully she can wait out the AfD and then we can clean-up afterwards. It seems likely to be kept, as Orlady points out, so maybe that will provide a respite from the notability attacks. Escalating things at this point would probably just make it worse, but I'm still going to keep an eye on it. Kaldari (talk) 03:31, 19 February 2013 (UTC)


 * Crisco has withdrawn his nomination as it seemed clear the article would be kept, so I'm hoping someone will close the page soon so that Malibu has no further reason to post about her. Thank you to both of you for keeping an eye on things. SlimVirgin (talk) 03:38, 19 February 2013 (UTC)

Hi again, would you consider semi-protecting Talk:Candace Dempsey? One of the same crowd is back with the same kind of comments. SlimVirgin (talk) 00:13, 25 February 2013 (UTC)


 * Many thanks, SlimVirgin (talk) 00:31, 25 February 2013 (UTC)

The Tea Leaf - Issue Seven (special Birthday recap)


It's been a full year since the Teahouse opened, and as we're reflecting on what's been accomplished, we wanted to celebrate with you.

Teahouse guests and hosts are sharing their stories in a new blog post about the project.

1 year statistics for Teahouse visitors compared to invited non-visitors from the pilot:

Over the past year almost 2000 questions have been asked and answered, 669 editors have introduced themselves, 1670 guests have been served, 867 experienced Wikipedians have participated in the project, and 137 have served as hosts. Read more project analysis in our CSCW 2013 paper

Last month January was our most active month so far! 78 profiles were created, 46 active hosts answered 263 questions, and 11 new hosts joined the project.

Come by the Teahouse to share a cup of tea and enjoy a Birthday Cupcake! Happy Birthday to the Teahouse and thank you for a year's worth of interest and support :-)
 * -- Ocaasi and the rest of the Teahouse Team 20:53, 27 February 2013 (UTC)

You are receiving The Tea Leaf after expressing interest or participating in the Teahouse! To add or remove yourself for receiving future newsletters, please update the list here

WikiCup 2013 February newsletter
Round 1 is now over. The top 64 scorers have progressed to round 2, where they have been randomly split into eight pools of eight. At the end of April, the top two from each pool, as well as the 16 highest scorers from those remaining, will progress to round 3. Commiserations to those eliminated; if you're interested in still being involved in the WikiCup, able and willing reviewers will always be needed, and if you're interested in getting involved with other collaborative projects, take a look at the WikiWomen's Month discussed below.

Round 1 saw 21 competitors with over 100 points, which is fantastic; that suggests that this year's competition is going to be highly competative. Our lower scores indicate this, too: A score of 19 was required to reach round 2, which was significantly higher than the 11 points required in 2012 and 8 points required in 2011. The score needed to reach round 3 will be higher, and may depend on pool groupings. In 2011, 41 points secured a round 3 place, while in 2012, 65 was needed. Our top three scorers in round 1 were:
 * , primarily for an array of warship GAs.
 * , primarily for an array of did you knows and good articles, some of which were awarded bonus points.
 * , due in no small part to Canis Minor, a featured article awarded a total of 340 points. A joint submission with, this is the highest scoring single article yet submitted in this year's competition.

Other contributors of note include:
 * , whose Portal:Massachusetts is the first featured portal this year. The featured portal process is one of the less well-known featured processes, and featured portals have traditionally had little impact on WikiCup scores.
 * , whose Mycena aurantiomarginata was the first featured article this year.
 * and, who both claimed points for articles in the Major League Baseball tie-breakers topic, the first topic points in the competition.
 * , who claimed for the first full good topic with the Casting Crowns studio albums topic.

Featured topics have still played no part in this year's competition, but once again, a curious contribution has been offered by : did you know that there is a Shit Brook in Shropshire? With April Fools' Day during the next round, there will probably be a good chance of more unusual articles...

March sees the WikiWomen's History Month, a series of collaborative efforts to aid the women's history WikiProject to coincide with Women's History Month and International Women's Day. A number of WikiCup participants have already started to take part. The project has a to-do list of articles needing work on the topic of women's history. Those interested in helping out with the project can find articles in need of attention there, or, alternatively, add articles to the list. Those interested in collaborating on articles on women's history are also welcome to use the WikiCup talk page to find others willing to lend a helping hand. Another collaboration currently running is an an effort from WikiCup participants to coordinate a number of Easter-themed did you know articles. Contributions are welcome!

A few final administrative issues. From now on, submission pages will need only a link to the article and a link to the nomination page, or, in the case of good article reviews, a link to the review only. See your submissions' page for details. This will hopefully make updating submission pages a little less tedious. If you are concerned that your nomination—whether it is at good article candidates, a featured process, or anywhere else—will not receive the necessary reviews, please list it on WikiCup/Reviews. 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 or stop receiving this newsletter, please feel free to add or remove yourself from WikiCup/Newsletter/Send. J Milburn (talk • email) and The ed17 (talk • email) J Milburn (talk) 12:00, 1 March 2013 (UTC)

woe is me
Propganda (magazine) :D SarahStierch (talk) 20:46, 2 March 2013 (UTC)

Your opinion is requested
In a dispute regarding an alleged case of closed paraphrasing here. Please not the most recent version of the article, which is in the table at the very bottom of that discussion. Thank you. Nightscream (talk) 03:43, 5 March 2013 (UTC)


 * Thanks for your participation. I asked you a follow-up question in the discussion. Thanks again. Nightscream (talk) 17:01, 5 March 2013 (UTC)

sysop flag at zhwikip
Hi Kaldari,

I am a sysop from zh.wikipeida, I think this account belongs to you, is that right? I know that you are a staff of WMF and run some tests at zhwikip. Excuse me but if your test's been done and need not the sysop access any more, would you please remove your sysop flag at zh.wikipedia? The others may get confused about a "newbie admin" :P

regards,

Kegns (talk) 03:51, 5 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Sorry about that. I was troubleshooting bug 45092 and forgot to turn admin status back off when I was done. It's back to normal now. Kaldari (talk) 06:51, 5 March 2013 (UTC)

I just noticed
your tasteful edit at Men's rights movement, which suggested to me that you have access to some of the sources mentioned. My impression to the recent laundry list of issues added to the article lede, and which seem to fall undeer a couple of references, are in reality not mentioned in the references, rather are the brain child of recent editors. It would be great if you could manage to check out a few of them, I have already been (corredtly) censored for uncivil behavoir, so am moving very slowly. Thanks, Einar aka Carptrash (talk) 20:15, 7 March 2013 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!
Agreed! A flash of insight. Binksternet (talk) 17:04, 16 March 2013 (UTC)

Mather Brown
Are you sure? He's a bit early for a 1892 image, unless the image was based on a previous one of his, which is a rather odd choice for something meant to show a specific theatrical performance, unless said performance incorporated him into the design. Adam Cuerden (talk) 21:53, 15 March 2013 (UTC)
 * I'm afraid the subject is actually the première of Haddon Hall (opera) a week before, which is based loosely on the Dorothy Vernon legend, but takes a lot of liberties, in particular moving it to the Interregnum, over a century after the historical events. Adam Cuerden (talk) 22:10, 15 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Maybe, but Browne isn't so uncommon of a name that it overrules other plausibility issues, if we don't have evidence of Mather Brown illustrating anything with Dorothy Vernon. Plus, do remember that these things ran in families, so it could easily be a descendent. Adam Cuerden (talk) 00:14, 16 March 2013 (UTC)

Aye. It's just that, for example, there were three or four Dalziels in engraving, and two other Brownes, including Phiz ad Gordon Browne. You may well be right, but for Commons copyright status, we probably need better. Adam Cuerden (talk) 01:38, 16 March 2013 (UTC)

WikiProject Statistics/Hot articles
WikiProject Statistics/Hot articles hasn't been updated for a while. Any ideas why? Thanks, Illia Connell (talk) 16:58, 29 March 2013 (UTC)

Wikilove templates broken?
Hello! I noticed that the WikiLove template used the REVISIONUSER magic word to display the username of the person who gave the wikilove. However, I noticed that REVISIONUSER displays the name of whoever edited the page last. If someone else edits that page where you put a wikilove template on, the name in the box is changed to theirs.

Also, the custom messages don't display. I've been looking for a way to fix it, but I'm stuck. :C Mr. Gerbear (talk) 12:09, 31 March 2013 (UTC)

WikiCup 2013 March newsletter
We are halfway through round two. Pool A sees the strongest competition, with five out of eight of its competitors scoring over 100, and Pool H is lagging, with half of its competitors yet to score. WikiCup veterans lead overall; Pool A's (2010's winner) leads overall, with poolmate  (a finalist in 2011 and 2012) not far behind. Pool F's (a finalist in 2010, 2011 and 2012) is in third. The top two scorers in each pool, as well as the next highest 16 scorers overall, will progress to round three at the end of April.

Today has seen a number of Easter-themed did you knows from WikiCup participants, and March has seen collaboration from contestants with WikiWomen's History Month. It's great to see the WikiCup being used as a locus of collaboration; if you know of any collaborative efforts going on, or want to start anything up, please feel free to use the WikiCup talk page to help find interested editors. As well as fostering collaboration, we're also seeing the Cup encouraging the improvement of high-importance articles through the bonus point system. Highlights from the last month include GAs on physicist Niels Bohr, on the European hare , on the constellation Circinus ( and ) and on the Third Epistle of John. All of these subjects were covered on at least 50 Wikipedias at the beginning of the year and, subsequently, each contribution was awarded at least three times as many points as normal.

Wikipedians who enjoy friendly competition may be interested in participating in April's wikification drive. While wikifying an article is typically not considered "significant work" such that it can be claimed for WikiCup points, such gnomish work is often invaluable in keeping articles in shape, and is typically very helpful for new writers who may not be familiar with formatting norms.

A quick reminder: now, submission pages will need only a link to the article and a link to the nomination page, or, in the case of good article reviews, a link to the review only. See your submissions' page for details. This will hopefully make updating submission pages a little less tedious. If you are concerned that your nomination—whether it is at good article candidates, a featured process, or anywhere else—will not receive the necessary reviews, please list it on WikiCup/Reviews. 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 or stop receiving this newsletter, please feel free to add or remove yourself from WikiCup/Newsletter/Send. J Milburn (talk • email) and The ed17 (talk • email) J Milburn (talk) 23:03, 31 March 2013 (UTC)

Removal of DYK item
Hi, Your removal of that item was an excellent decision - I agree with your rationale completely. Regards, Nick-D (talk) 06:50, 1 April 2013 (UTC)


 * Based on your comment at WT:DYK, you may need to check the UTC clock (it's been April Fools for almost seven hours). — Crisco 1492 (talk) 06:55, 1 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Love the edit summary. Don't worry though, I forget all the time. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 06:59, 1 April 2013 (UTC)

Talk:Massive_open_online_course
Do you have any interest in or knowledge of this topic? If not, please forward to somebody who might have some of these. Smallbones( smalltalk ) 20:07, 5 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Hmm, not really something I know much about. Looks like an interesting topic though. Kaldari (talk) 20:59, 5 April 2013 (UTC)

Lifting the Gibraltar DYK restrictions
A couple of months ago, you opposed a proposal to lift the restrictions on Gibraltar-related DYKs, which were imposed in September 2012. Could you possibly clarify (1) under what conditions you would support a lifting of the restrictions, and (2) when you think it would be appropriate to lift the restrictions? Prioryman (talk) 20:12, 7 April 2013 (UTC)
 * When there is no possibility for a media circus that will harm the public's perception of Wikipedia as a neutral and trustworthy source.
 * No sooner than a year from now, preferably 2 or 3 years.
 * Also, under no circumstances should anyone associated with Gilbritarpedia be proposing lifting the restrictions, unless they're specifically trying to create a juicy story for The Register. Kaldari (talk) 21:32, 7 April 2013 (UTC)


 * This raises an interesting (to me) question - would you consider Prioryman to be "associated with Gibraltarpedia", and if so, why? --Demiurge1000 (talk) 03:16, 8 April 2013 (UTC)


 * Gee, how about Prioryman's repeated drives to allow or enable Gibraltarpedia-style DYKs? Binksternet (talk) 04:07, 8 April 2013 (UTC)


 * So Prioryman shouldn't be allowed to propose that articles about Gibraltar be allowed on the front page, because Prioryman has previously proposed that articles about Gibraltar should be allowed on the front page? Does this then mean that anyone who proposes that articles about Gibraltar should be allowed on the front page, will ultimately be banned from making such proposals? This seems somewhat Orwellian to say the least. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 04:35, 8 April 2013 (UTC)
 * I have no idea if Prioryman is associated with Gibraltarpedia or not. Would probably be best to ask him yourself. Kaldari (talk) 04:41, 8 April 2013 (UTC)


 * Thanks for clarifying that. He's discussed that in detail elsewhere, and doesn't appear to be part of that initiative. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 04:59, 8 April 2013 (UTC)


 * And yet he is a forceful advocate of Gibraltarpedia-style promotion of places. His association is at one remove; he strongly asserts that such promotion should be allowed on Wikipedia. Binksternet (talk) 05:04, 8 April 2013 (UTC)


 * For your info, I established WikiProject Gibraltar back in 2007 - it has no connection with Gibraltarpedia, is entirely separate from it and has never been the the subject of any controversy whatsoever, yet it has still become collateral damage. Prioryman (talk) 06:46, 8 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Ah, now this all makes more sense. My condolences on having to deal with this mess. Kaldari (talk) 07:15, 8 April 2013 (UTC)
 * i, for one would like to see a more general rule, for dyk on main page, to prevent channel stuffing. the current ban harms editors geographically regardless of their conduct. but then i've stayed away from dyk, way too hidebound for me. Slowking4Farmbrough's revenge ⇔ †@1₭ 11:57, 8 April 2013 (UTC)
 * There's no way to do that that (1) isn't insanely bureaucratic and (2) wouldn't arouse massive opposition from everyone else. What you call "channel stuffing" doesn't seem to be generally regarded as a problem. I don't recall anyone objecting to the huge number of Olympic/Paralympic-related DYKs, mushrooms, Indonesian films and other topics that have appeared in large numbers in DYK (in much larger numbers than Gibraltar-related articles, in fact). Prioryman (talk) 22:38, 8 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Yes, to be honest I think Prioryman highlights some topic areas much more likely to have promotional concerns than Gibraltar, especially as the competition is over and films/TV programmes/books/companies will benefit from main page exposure much more than, say the Province of Gibraltar after the appearance of a hook about a battle hundreds of years in the past.-- Gilderien Chat&#124;List of good deeds 22:59, 8 April 2013 (UTC)
 * You're right that DYK is channel stuffed from lots of different areas. The main problem is when such promotion can be tied to commercial interests. The basic fact is that DYK's barrier to entry is much too low. The fact that I can spend one day writing a half-assed article and get a few hundred thousand people to read it just because I'm one of the few people on the planet who know how DYK works is silly. As I've proposed in the past, DYK should switch to good articles rather than new articles, but I'm afraid the old guard will never agree to that. In the meantime we have to implement whatever crappy bureaucratic roadblocks we can to prevent DYK from being blatantly abused. Kaldari (talk) 02:46, 9 April 2013 (UTC)
 * You're definitely overstating how much DYKs are actually viewed. I've been keeping a record of how many page views my 100 or so DYKs have had, and it averages out at only 7,764, with a peak of 51,700 and a low of 1,000. "Hundreds of thousands" may see the hook but only a tiny percentage actually click through. The same is true of virtually all Main Page content, actually, including featured articles. But if we're looking at practical solutions, "crappy bureaucratic roadblocks" are a non-starter. Nobody is going to agree to them, particularly if there is no controversy over any other topic areas, and it isn't practical anyway given the volume of DYKs being published (upwards of 600 a month) - it would be a massive burden that nobody would want to take on. So I think we have to discount that as a solution. Prioryman (talk) 07:33, 9 April 2013 (UTC)

Looks like you're right about the numbers. Thanks for the correction. So do you have any suggestions for addressing the problems with DYK? So far you've only been shooting them down. Kaldari (talk) 07:42, 9 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Well, that comes back to the question of whether there is a problem with DYK being "stuffed". There are periodic surges in particular topics, caused by editing competitions (as in the case of Gibraltar) or external events (like the Olympics/Paralympics), but until the Gibraltarpedia controversy nobody seems to have objected - and in the case of Gibraltarpedia it was mostly for reasons other than frequency of appearances. I don't really see much point in proposing solutions if only a handful of people perceive a problem in the first place. If there isn't a general acceptance that there is a problem, nobody is going to be interested in changing things. But that's a much bigger issue than Gibraltar-related DYKs, obviously. Prioryman (talk) 07:53, 9 April 2013 (UTC)
 * I believe there were objections to some of the Olympics/Paralympics DYKs because of accuracy issues. —Tom Morris (talk) 11:03, 9 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Indeed, and quite rightly so - accuracy is a big concern. But I don't think anybody objected to running nearly 200 Olympics/Paralympics-related DYKs in July-August 2012 alone (there were more than twice as many DYKs on that topic in only 2 months than the entire total of Gibraltar-related DYKs than have ever run). I don't think I've ever seen people complaining about the frequency of DYKs on topics other than Gibraltar (compare the 85 DYKs run on Gibraltar in the last year to the 115 on Indonesia, 112 on mushrooms, 277 on the Olympics or 128 on the Paralympics). See the table at User:Prioryman/DYK data for more detailed data. Now, the question that Kaldari indirectly raises is that given that nobody seems to think it's been a problem to run 115 DYKs on Indonesia or 112 on mushrooms in a year, why would anyone agree to drastic new restrictions? Prioryman (talk) 07:56, 10 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Personally, I think the 277 DYKs on the Olympics were excessive. The Olympics are a commercial enterprise after all. They don't need massive free promotion from us. I imagine I'm in the minority on this, however, as most people have a strange obsession with the Olympics and think it has some significance besides being a vehicle for advertizing. Kaldari (talk) 17:45, 10 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Oh, I assure you it has some additional significance! I went - it was literally just down the road from me - and the atmosphere was incredible; I don't think anyone who went was focused on the advertising (of which I admit there was a great deal). There's a huge number of human interest stories relating to it, which DYK covered in a big way. Too much? I'd have to ask, compared to what? The media were full of Olympics stories as well. Perhaps it's too much to wish for Wikipedia to be an Olympics-free zone given the saturation coverage everywhere else. Prioryman (talk) 18:41, 11 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Yes, that's a good point. I don't think Wikipedia can be free from pop culture influences (nor should it be), although I do think 277 was excessive. Kaldari (talk) 19:37, 11 April 2013 (UTC)

Re:Edits to 1998 Nashville tornado outbreak
I placed the information back in with the sources. The reason I didn't add them at first was that it was late and I was tired. However, your statement "contradicted the sources that were already provided in the article" was false because all of those sources were dead. I took them out and placed a tag at the top of the page. United States Man (talk) 02:07, 11 April 2013 (UTC)

the spirit of 43
hi;

NOT APPROPRIATE to remove sourced material from an article in wikipedia, to back up your arguements in a deletion debate @ commons.

as an admin, you should know that.

if you want to challenge the stated information, do your research, get references, & then write it up.

respectfully,

Lx 121 (talk) 19:32, 14 April 2013 (UTC)
 * The material was not cited to a reliable source. Please see article talk page. Thanks. Kaldari (talk) 20:01, 14 April 2013 (UTC)


 * disagree; your turn to please see the article talk page. Lx 121 (talk) 22:06, 14 April 2013 (UTC)

Photo bridge
I think it's a temporary platform make out of scaffolding or something over the road where photographers stand (to take pictures of the runners). Hard to put it concisely. I got 3 ecs trying to reply on the talk page so I figured I'd mention it here. Mark Arsten (talk) 21:23, 15 April 2013 (UTC)

WikiLove disappeared from my options
What gives :( No more heart! SarahStierch (talk) 00:00, 27 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Village pump (technical) :( Kaldari (talk) 00:08, 27 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Ah, thank you :) I'll just postpone my wikilovin' SarahStierch (talk) 00:30, 27 April 2013 (UTC)

Nice Job
Thanks for developing this cool feature Bsitu (talk) 20:00, 30 April 2013 (UTC) Bsitu, you are right! Dowjohn (talk) 20:05, 30 April 2013 (UTC)


 * +1! Steven Walling (WMF) &bull; talk   21:23, 30 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Thanks! I hope Russavia likes it too :) Kaldari (talk) 21:27, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

Wiknic 2013
"Wiknic 2013 Sunday, June 23rd · 12:34pm · Lake Merritt, Oakland Theme: Hyperlocal list-making" This year's 2013 SF Wiknik will be held at Lake Merritt, next to Children's Fairyland in Oakland. This event will be co-attended by people from the hyperlocal Oakland Wiki. May crosspollination of ideas and merriment abound!

Location and Directions

 * Location: The grassy area due south of Children's Fairyland (here) (Oakland Wiki)
 * Nearest BART: 19th Street
 * Nearest bus lines: NL/12/72
 * Street parking abounds

EdwardsBot (talk) 04:51, 3 May 2013 (UTC)

WikiCup 2013 April newsletter
We are a week into Round 3, but it is off to a flying start, with claiming for the high-importance Portal:Sports and Portal:Geography (which are the first portals ever awarded bonus points in the WikiCup) and  claiming for a did you know of sea, the highest scoring individual did you know article ever submitted for the WikiCup. Round 2 saw very impressive scores at close; first place and second place  both scored over 1000 points; a feat not seen in Round 2 since 2010. This, in part, has been made possible by the change in the bonus points rules, but is also testament to the quality of the competition this year. Pool C and Pool G were most competitive, with three quarters of participants making it to Round 3, while Pool D was the least, with only the top two scorers making it through. The lowest qualifying score was 123, significantly higher than last year's 65, 2011's 41 or even 2010's 100.

The next issue of The Signpost is due to include a brief update on the current WikiCup, comparing it to previous years' competitions. This may be of interest to current WikiCup followers, and may help bring some more new faces into the community. We would also like to note that this round includes an extra competitor to the 32 advertised, who has been added to a random pool. This extra inclusion seems to have been the fairest way to deal with a small mistake made before the beginning of this round, but should not affect the competition in a large way. If you have any questions or concerns about this, please feel free to contact one of the judges.

A rules clarification: content promoted between rounds can be claimed in the round after the break, but not the round before. The case in point is content promoted on 29/30 April, which may be claimed in this round. If you are concerned that your nomination—whether it is at good article candidates, a featured process, or anywhere else—will not receive the necessary reviews, please list it on WikiCup/Reviews. 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 or stop receiving this newsletter, please feel free to add or remove yourself from WikiCup/Newsletter/Send. J Milburn (talk • email) and The ed17 (talk • email) 16:26, 7 May 2013 (UTC)

wgUserNewMsgRevisionId?
Is this new? Where has it been all my life? Writ Keeper &#9863;&#9812; 19:04, 7 May 2013 (UTC)
 * LOL, I thought you might appreciate it. Tried to find you on IRC to tell you about it yesterday, but then forgot to follow up on it. Kaldari (talk) 19:41, 7 May 2013 (UTC)

Thank you
for starting my day with a smile. . David in DC (talk) 11:01, 8 May 2013 (UTC)

Discussion notice
You participated in the discussion at Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (people) so I thought you might want to comment at Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (people).--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 15:04, 11 May 2013 (UTC)

Your OBoD test variants
Hey there Kaldari. I'm madly in love with one of the variants you produced for the OBoD (namely, topalert.js), but I'm worried that now that Fabrice and friends have settled on a different implementation as The Implementation, I'll lose my precious. Well, mostly I'm madly in love with it following me down the page, more than I am in love with "orange" or "rounded" or anything about it. It could be a purple triangle that said "Blurp!" and if it followed me down the page I'd still love it. Do you know if your variant notification bars will continue to work indefinitely, or if we're going to have to all collapse back into the single Fabrice-approved implementation? A fluffernutter is a sandwich! (talk) 18:20, 11 May 2013 (UTC)
 * The other variants should continue to work indefinitely. You can turn off the current implementation from the gadgets prefs and keep your user script instead. At some point the current implementation will move from being a gadget to being part of Echo, but Fabrice has agree to make it disableable from prefs. Kaldari (talk) 21:23, 12 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Awesome, thanks! *happily hugs her floating bar* A fluffernutter is a sandwich! (talk) 22:19, 12 May 2013 (UTC)

You're invited...
to two upcoming Bay Area events:
 * Maker Faire 2013, Sat/Sun May 18-19, San Mateo -- there will have a booth about Wikimedia, and we need volunteers to talk to the public and ideas for the booth -- see the wiki page to sign up!
 * Edit-a-Thon 5, Sat May 25, 10-2pm, WMF offices in San Francisco -- this will be a casual edit-a-thon open to both experienced and new editors alike! Please sign up if on the wiki page if you can make it so we know how much food to get.

I hope you can join us at one or both! -- phoebe / (talk to me) 01:03, 13 May 2013 (UTC)

Goldenrod Award

 * Concur. What a beautiful new award! Binksternet (talk) 21:54, 14 May 2013 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free media (File:Hulk hogans celebrity championship wrestling.jpg)
Thanks for uploading File:Hulk hogans celebrity championship wrestling.jpg. The media description page currently specifies that it is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, it is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the media was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that will be useful. However, please note that media for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'file' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "File" from the dropdown box. Note that all non-free media not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Hazard-Bot (talk) 04:10, 18 May 2013 (UTC)

Orange Bar
Does it honor nominornewtalk?— cyberpower ChatLimited Access 13:39, 13 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Yes, it behaves exactly the same as the old orange bar as far as what triggers it. Kaldari (talk) 17:38, 13 May 2013 (UTC)
 * I am Cyberpower678 :p— cyberpower ChatOffline 19:59, 13 May 2013 (UTC)
 * You should fix your signature then :) It still says that you are C678. Kaldari (talk) 20:03, 13 May 2013 (UTC)
 * It's a shortcut.— cyberpower ChatOnline 22:07, 13 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Per WP:SIGLINK, "Signatures must include at least one internal link to your user page, user talk page, or contributions page". As it stands now, I have no way to find out what your actual username is from your signature (other than following the link). Kaldari (talk) 22:19, 13 May 2013 (UTC)
 * My signature obviously says Cyberpower and nothing in that link says anything about redirects.— cyberpower ChatOnline 22:22, 13 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Exactly. There is no exception for redirects. The fact that your sig says "Cyberpower" only makes things more confusing. Kaldari (talk) 22:27, 13 May 2013 (UTC)
 * There is nothing in WP:SIGNATURES that says he can't use a redirect. Many editors use a redirect to their userpage to shorten the wikicode and the requirement of WP:SIGLINK is fulfilled because following the signature leads you to their user/user talk page.  It is somewhat frustrating when using popups, but you'd have to start a discussion to get it changed. Ryan Vesey 22:45, 13 May 2013 (UTC)
 * I suppose if people want to make themselves difficult to communicate with, that's their prerogative. It seems like a bad idea to me though :P Kaldari (talk) 22:54, 13 May 2013 (UTC)
 * The purpose of the redirect is to shorten the sig because using my long name will violate the length limit. My sig was carefully designed, as in I put lots of hours and thought into it, so it complies with WP:SIG fully.  This is also a reason why I am reluctant to ever change it.— cyberpower ChatOnline 00:40, 14 May 2013 (UTC)
 * I wouldn't say it's "fully" complient as it is SIG at best. Not to mention that you have two HTML tags you fail to close. Technical 13 (talk) 02:04, 22 May 2013 (UTC)

MediaWiki:Gadget-teahouse/content.js
Hello Kaldari! I'm here for the next chapter of this story that you are about to become more of a part of! Don't you feel thrilled and excited!? For the previous chapter see User talk:Equazcion and the chapter before that... I've found a bug in the script titled in this section and had some other questions about the script as well. First, the bug... After A discussion with Revent I can confirm that using this script produces some undesired edit summaries when the user has "Auto-number headings" also enabled from Special:Preferences. Now, my other questions... Why was this script designed to prevent users from right clicking? I ask because I'm a horrible speller normally, and this disables access to my spell checker to fix my spelling. Would there be any way to add a "live preview" style panel above the textarea to allow people to confirm that they typed out the links correctly or that they selected the right template (usually something small like ✅,, , ✅ or one of the Tl demonstrations)? There was some discussion about it in those previous two discussions and I'm hoping you might have some input or suggestions for how to fix the script (it is a gadget after-all so if it can't be quickly fixed, there should be a disclaimer that says not to use the "Auto-number headings" feature with this script or undesired results may occur). Thanks for your time! Technical 13 (talk) 21:01, 16 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Hey Technical. I wasn't really involved in building this gadget. I just fixed a few bugs with it. If I get some time next week, I'll try to take a look at it though. Kaldari (talk) 22:45, 16 May 2013 (UTC)
 * That would be great. If you do get a moment, you may also want to look into Wikipedia talk:Teahouse.  Thanks. Technical 13 (talk) 16:20, 21 May 2013 (UTC)

ITN
Hi, Kaldari. "Righting wrongs" means correcting injustices. Nominations need to stand on their own, and they can't (WP:NOTADVOCATE) be justified because they further some cause we'd like to support. μηδείς (talk) 20:39, 18 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Who's advocating for gay marriage at ITN? Did I miss some discussion? Kaldari (talk) 21:43, 18 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Arguing that this should be posted now, in order to fix the past injustice of it not being posted before, is the problem. I don't really want to argue this, I was just trying to explain what was meant by the phrase "righting wrongs". μηδείς (talk) 02:22, 19 May 2013 (UTC)
 * PS Those are some extremely beautiful pictures you've posted. μηδείς (talk) 02:23, 19 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Thanks :) Kaldari (talk) 05:58, 19 May 2013 (UTC)

Gaming
I don't really understand the logic here, doesn't leaving it fuzzy enable gaming? Rather than using a logical and open process to determine when a paper is mainstream or when a publisher is respected, wouldn't that just lead to "X is respected!" vs "no, Y is respected!" I don't like the intentional vagueness here, it leaves people wanting to contribute feeling paralyzed because it's not clear how to ascertain what is good enough to fit the criteria.

By leaving respected and mainstream open-ended, it allows basically any reference to be thrown out by the whims of whoever happens upon a contested reference. Ranze (talk) 00:21, 22 May 2013 (UTC)
 * What constitutes 'mainstream' and 'respected' shouldn't be determined by the whims of whoever, but by the consensus of the editors on a case by case basis. If a specific definition is given, a tendentious POV-pusher can devote themselves to finding whatever source technically meets the letter of the definition even if it is far from what most people would consider 'mainstream' or 'respected'. (In some cases, it also depends on the context of the statement or the subject matter of the article.) You'll find that many of the guidelines and policies on Wikipedia are specifically vague for this very reason. Overly specific policies encourage Wikilawyering and discourage consensus seeking. Kaldari (talk) 00:36, 22 May 2013 (UTC)

Isn't there a difference between the consensus of case by case editor groupings and 'most people'? While concern is expressed about PoV pushing in one direction (the introduction of references) there is a mirror concern: PoV-pushing through rejection of references. If we have a technical letter I don't really see it as gaming so much as equanimity. Isn't that why any policies are written down, to guide us with letters so we're not overly reliant on feelings? Ranze (talk) 01:20, 22 May 2013 (UTC)

Need help with template
Hi Kaldari,

All templates on Hakka Wikipedia (for example This template (Province-level divisions of the People's Republic of China) does not show the blue color background as its English equivalent. This problem is now a big issue for us and we would to consult experts such as you to help us solve the lack of color being displayed on the templates (Eg. Blue)

The templates were copied from English Wikipedia 6 years ago, hence it is very outdated. I think it may have something to do with the Template:Navbar and other related templates but our current attempts to "upgrade" those templates have been unsuccessful. Could you help us fix this problem? please?

I have asked two other English Wikipedians already and they replied that they couldn't read chinese. However I think it is not necessary to understand chinese because the template names are all the same and, besides, virtually all of the templates on chinese wikipedia were originally copied from English Wikipedia anyway. If you can help us fix this problem, then it would mean a lot to us.

You have our permission to make trial & error edits on hakka wikipedia. We will not object to any of your edit tests.

Thank you. --Hak-kâ-ngìn (talk) 09:08, 23 May 2013 (UTC)


 * Thankyou so much for your help Kaldari! We are very grateful. The templates now work fine. --Hak-kâ-ngìn (talk) 06:22, 24 May 2013 (UTC)

Interface font size
Hi Kaldari,

A second (smaller) problem noted to me by one of the Hakka contributors is that the font size (when displaying chinese character articles) on Hakka Wikipedia is smaller when compared to the font size used on Cantonese Wikipedia.

In the past few years, this was not an issue because Hakka Wikipedia had been using the romanized alphabet. However, now there are contributors who wish to write Hakka using Chinese characters and when they view Hakka wikipedia on their Windows 7 or Windows 8 PCs, they regards the font size as not large enough and hence it is more difficult for them to read the chinese character articles. (In comparison, the Hakka articles displaying romanised text don't have this problem because the latin alphabet is relatively easy to read)

Hence it would be great if the default font size for displaying chinese characters on Hakka Wikipedia could to be enlarged to the size used on Cantonese Wikipedia. Could you also help us out on this as well? Thanks. --Hak-kâ-ngìn (talk) 06:43, 24 May 2013 (UTC)
 * It would probably be best to ask the language engineers about that since font issues can be tricky. I would suggest contacting Runab, specifically. Kaldari (talk) 07:11, 24 May 2013 (UTC)