User talk:Kaldari/Archive 17

ANI
Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion at Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you.

Rater
importScript('User:Kephir/gadgets/rater.js');

KITTENS
 Seanbobe's cat has given you some kittens! 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 companions forever! Spread the WikiLove by giving someone else some kittens, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend.

Spread the goodness of kittens by adding {{subst:Kittens}} to someone's talk page with a friendly message.

Ada Lovelace, une
Guess what my three contributions to the have either been either removed or balderized. Eg. Third paragraph started with Ada's mindset was not only different for the 19th century...

Is Wikipedia what it says, that anyone can edit? Especially someone who has written over 20 articles, 4 books, from Scientific American to Oxford Dicitonary of National biography. It seems that the editors on this page need to be removed and before that Mr Woolley needs to carefully cite original sources, not just me, but Elwin, Moore, Marchand etc.

Please add the citations and go back to my previous edit and please add my contributions.

B.A. Toole (talk) 19:16, 10 November 2013‎ (UTC) ""

Infobox template
Hey, I reverted your edit to Infobox because it threatened to break everything. I'm guessing it was a mistake? {&#123; Nihiltres &#124;talk&#124;edits}&#125; 23:03, 10 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Oops, definitely a mistake. Thanks for reverting! Kaldari (talk) 23:04, 10 January 2014 (UTC)
 * No problem; I'm glad it only lasted a minute or two. I've been updating the parameters used in some infoboxes (specifically, clearing out this category) and had a real rush of adrenaline when I saved four pages and got " " garbage all through the newly updated infoboxes. :P {&#123; Nihiltres &#124;talk&#124;edits}&#125; 23:14, 10 January 2014 (UTC)
 * I had the exact opposite experience. I was setting up a bogus Infobox template in my local MediaWiki instance (to play around with mobile styling) and I decided to just copy one of the first versions of the en.wiki template. A co-worker started talking to me about SVGs in the middle of it and distracted me. When I finally saved the template and tried to use it in an article, it wouldn't appear. It took me about 5 seconds to realize what happened, and I'm sure you can imagine the rush of adrenaline I had myself once I realized that I had broken infobox! Luckily you had already reverted it at that point :) Kaldari (talk) 23:23, 10 January 2014 (UTC)
 * I think we have a new candidate for the village stocks. :) — Mr. Stradivarius  ♪ talk ♪ 06:15, 11 January 2014 (UTC)
 * LOL, I knew something like this would happen one day. I'm just glad I didn't replace the Infobox with something totally random like a picture of Michael Jackson. I can only imagine the worldwide hilarity that would have ensued Kaldari (talk) 06:58, 11 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Ok, you are now enshrined at Village stocks. Feel free to copy edit, prune, or remove it - there's no obligation for you to be on the list if you don't want to be. :) — Mr. Stradivarius  ♪ talk ♪ 14:22, 12 January 2014 (UTC)
 * And since nobody has done this yet...

Feel free to remove at your leisure. 176.254.130.133 (talk) 17:46, 2 February 2014 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for February 10
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that you've added some links pointing to disambiguation pages. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ* Join us at the DPL WikiProject.


 * List of Salticidae species (D–F) (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)
 * added links pointing to Erica (genus) and Fuentes


 * List of Salticidae species (N–P) (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)
 * added links pointing to Napoca and Peckhamia


 * List of Salticidae species (A–C) (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)
 * added a link pointing to Balmaceda

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:02, 10 February 2014 (UTC)

Your edit to Clovis culture
With this edit which you called 'correcting' you changed "Clovis people are considered to be the ancestors of all the indigenous cultures of North and South America." to Clovis people are considered to be the ancestors of all the indigenous cultures of Central and South America. I'm reverting you as this is simply wrong. I only realised this because someone mentioned it at my talk page. I can't help but wonder why you did this. I am questioning the sentence itself, but not the North American statement. Dougweller (talk) 06:33, 15 February 2014 (UTC)
 * I'm confused, what are you saying is wrong about it? Kaldari (talk) 08:23, 15 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Replied at Talk:Clovis culture. Kaldari (talk) 08:29, 15 February 2014 (UTC)

Eric Corbett
You have made a serious allegation and insult. Could I please have a diff for User: Eric Corbett "belittling a suicide victim" (publicly or privately). It's likely you have been reading many of the recent ridiculous posts without checking your facts, but if you can't a diff to support your allegation, please apologise; it would be a pity for this case to escalate further.  Giano  19:03, 25 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Yes, I can and will provide a diff. I stand by my statement 100%. Kaldari (talk) 19:29, 25 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Good! I look forward to seeing it.  Giano   19:30, 25 February 2014 (UTC)
 * What do you mean by "escalate further"? Could you clarify your rather vague threat? Kaldari (talk) 19:37, 25 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Also, I didn't say that Eric belittled a suicide victim (although you put that in quotes as if I said it directly). I said that Eric belittled the suicide of a Wikipedian. You have distorted my words and misquoted me. Please apologize. Kaldari (talk) 19:41, 25 February 2014 (UTC)
 * You really are a repugnent little Admin.  Giano   19:45, 25 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Please don't personally attack me any more. Kaldari (talk) 19:50, 25 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Tough get used to it. You claimed Corbett was "belittling" - you lied. Stop posturing too because your precious admin status won't protect you from this either.   Giano   19:53, 25 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Uh, Kaldari, I'd hate to be the voice of reason here, but this is your statement in its entirety: Admonishing Kevin for a single statement that he has has repeatedly acknowledged as a mistake while taking no action whatsoever against Eric Corbett's deeply offensive behavior (both in publicly belittling the suicide of a Wikipedian and in personally attacking Kevin) is deeply troubling. (emphasis mine). How could the bolded section be interpreted in any way other than "belittling a suicide victim"? Writ Keeper &#9863;&#9812; 20:03, 25 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Eric didn't say anything about the suicide victim. He was belittling the tragedy of the suicide and criticizing the ensuing outpouring of sympathy. I doubt Eric even knew who the victim was. Kaldari (talk) 20:37, 25 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Really? Where does he do that? It looks to me like he was belittling the act of putting a template on one's userpage, or perhaps the notion--that the OP expressed--that putting a template on one's user page constitutes a cry for help that Wikipedians must cater to. Was that insensitive, tactless, callous of him? Sure, but that's not the same as "belittling the tragedy of the suicide" by a long shot. People do commit suicide every day; that doesn't make it any less of a tragedy, but as Eric said in that very comment, their reasons aren't always what you might think, and as none of us are psychiatrists who know about him, we are not qualified to speculate on why it happened, nor were we ever in a position to render preemptive aid. It's easy to look at our partial evidence and draw conclusions based on that, but that's not something we can or should do, because our information will always be incomplete and we do not have the training to handle it well even if it wasn't. Because, again as Eric said, we are not in fact a psychiatric hospice. Putting things in perspective is not the same as "belittling". Writ Keeper &#9863;&#9812; 21:07, 25 February 2014 (UTC)
 * I'm afraid I agree with Writkeeper here, Kaldari. You should post a diff that shows what you claim, or strike through your comment if you decide on second thought that it is inaccurate, as I believe. --John (talk) 21:15, 25 February 2014 (UTC)
 * I agree as well and have removed what I consider a personal attack from the request page; please, do not reinstate. Salvio Let's talk about it! 21:16, 25 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Yes, if you look at partial evidence, you will probably come to the wrong conclusion. If you look at Eric's statements in the context of the discussion, it is clear that he is belittling the suicide. For example, in response to people's comments about how saddened they are by the editor's death, Eric replies that "People commit suicide every day." Yes, that is a factual statement, but in context it is belittling (as it downplays the importance of this particular suicide). Saying that something "happens every day" makes it sound less important. Making something sound less important is the definition of "belittling". Kaldari (talk) 21:20, 25 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Yes, if you look at partial evidence, you will probably come to the wrong conclusion. If you look at Eric's statements in the context of the discussion, it is clear that he is belittling the suicide. For example, in response to people's comments about how saddened they are by the editor's death, Eric replies that "People commit suicide every day." Yes, that is a factual statement, but in context it is belittling (as it downplays the importance of this particular suicide). Saying that something "happens every day" makes it sound less important. Making something sound less important is the definition of "belittling". Kaldari (talk) 21:20, 25 February 2014 (UTC)


 * Please note that if you revert me again I'll block you. Don't revert arbs or clerks on arbitration pages. Salvio Let's talk about it! 21:27, 25 February 2014 (UTC)
 * In that case, you may also be interested in, as it is an actual personal attack on the RfAr page. Kaldari (talk) 21:30, 25 February 2014 (UTC)
 * To be completely honest, while I consider that a personal attack as well, I find it less serious than the accusation that another person was belittling a suicide. I'm of two minds whether it should be removed and have asked for opinions on the mailing list. Salvio Let's talk about it! 21:52, 25 February 2014 (UTC)
 * What Eric actually did was say that this suicide is no more (or less) important than any of the multitude of suicides that we don't get a thread on Jimbo's talk page about. Is that so bad? Is he that wrong? I don't really think so. I mean, technically yes, I suppose he did say something to make the suicide sound less important. But that's because the OP was assigning it greater importance than was due as a result of making assumptions about the cause of the suicide they were in no way qualified to make (namely, that we as a community caused it). I would not describe that as "belittling" (which the very definition you link to equates with "disparage"), I would describe that as "providing perspective". Writ Keeper &#9863;&#9812; 21:35, 25 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Actually, what Eric did was to state outright that a cry for help or a need for others to assist an editor at Wikipedia when said editor is having personal issues, is simply not what we are here for. And he is right, so the next time I get an e-mail from one of Eric's friends asking me to cut him a break because of the personal issues he is going through...I'll remember his own opinion on such sensitivity.--Mark Miller (talk) 21:58, 25 February 2014 (UTC)
 * I'm going to have to back Ryan here, mostly. Ryan's comment "...Eric Corbett's deeply offensive behavior (both in publicly belittling the suicide of a Wikipedian..." seems to hit the nail on my head, and I've read the page history of Mr. Wales talk page, most of the ArbCom discussion, and the TfD for the template.  Now, I do think that the rhetorical question asking if ArbCom is becoming something of a lynch-mob like the admin noticeboard (or something to that effect) was out of line.  I also agree that with a different tone, Eric's comment may have been more appropriate (for me the tone was partly set as "what a bunch of retarded morons, get over it already and move on you pansies" by Eric's edit summary of "when did WP become a hospice?"  I must partly apologize to Eric for my ABF of him in most cases, but my view of the actions I've seen him make and the responses I've seen in behavioral discussions has left be with that as a default assumption.)  — &#123;&#123;U&#124;Technical 13&#125;&#125; (t • e • c) 01:16, 26 February 2014 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for February 26
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that you've added some links pointing to disambiguation pages. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ* Join us at the DPL WikiProject.


 * Euromaidan (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)
 * added a link pointing to Ukrainian Front


 * Night Wolves (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)
 * added a link pointing to Russian

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:06, 26 February 2014 (UTC)

Discussion about "Template:Wpcm"
There is a discussion at Redirects_for_discussion/Log/2014_February_25 about the nomination of Template:Wpcm in which you may be interested. --Jax 0677 (talk) 07:45, 28 February 2014 (UTC)

WikiCup 2014 February newsletter
And so ends the most competitive first round we have ever seen, with 38 points required to qualify for round 2. Last year, 19 points secured a place; before that, 11 (2012) or 8 (2011) were enough. This is both a blessing and a curse. While it shows the vigourous good health of the competition, it also means that we have already lost many worthy competitors. Our top three scorers were:


 * , a WikiCup newcomer whose high-quality scans of rare banknotes represent an unusual, interesting and valuable contribution to Wikipedia. Most of Godot's points this round have come from a large set of pictures used in Treasury Note (1890–91).
 * , a WikiCup veteran and a finalist last year, Adam is also a featured picture specialist, focusing on the restoration of historical images. This month's promotions have included a carefully restored set of artist William Russell Flint's work.
 * , another WikiCup newcomer. WikiRedactor has claimed points for good article reviews and good articles relating to pop music, many of which were awarded bonus points. Articles include Sky Ferreira, Hannah Montana 2: Meet Miley Cyrus and "Wrecking Ball" (Miley Cyrus song).

Other competitors of note include:


 * , who helped take Thirty Flights of Loving through good article candidates and featured article candidates, claiming the first first featured article of the competition.
 * , who claimed the first featured list of the competition with Natalia Kills discography.
 * , who takes the title of the contributor awarded the highest bonus point multiplier (resulting in the highest scoring article) of the competition so far. Her high-importance salamander, now a good article, scored 108 points.

After such a competitive first round, expect the second round to also be fiercely fought. Remember that any content promoted after the end of round 1 but before the start of round 2 can be claimed in round 2, but please do not update your submission page until March (UTC). Invitations for collaborative writing efforts or any other discussion of potentially interesting work is always welcome on the WikiCup talk page. Remember, if two or more WikiCup competitors have done significant work on an article, all can claim points equally.

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. If you want to help out with the WikiCup, please do your bit to help keep down the review backlogs! 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), The ed17 (talk • email) and Miyagawa (talk • email) 00:01, 1 March 2014 (UTC)

Spirit
How many other admins would have done that? I applaud your principle. Binksternet (talk) 06:06, 7 March 2014 (UTC)

I feel sad that it came to this, though I admire your willingness to stand by your principles. Hopefully this just means you'll have more time for happier activities. In the past, I once took a long adminship break and it can be good to get away from that mop. Dragons flight (talk) 07:10, 7 March 2014 (UTC)

ANI Notice
There is currently a discussion at Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you.. Jonathunder (talk) 03:13, 8 March 2014 (UTC)

Talkpage protection
Hi Kaldari, editinterface is not meant to be used to protect one's own talkpage (above all on a non-global sysop project). Is there something I'm missing? --Vituzzu (talk) 14:55, 8 March 2014 (UTC)
 * I concur. It would have been better to ask a local administrator to protect instead of misusing a global permission.  → Call me  Hahc  21  16:56, 8 March 2014 (UTC)
 * My mistake, I've unprotected it. Could someone please re-protect it for me. Thanks. Kaldari (talk) 18:30, 8 March 2014 (UTC)


 * I disagree... There was obviously vandalism going on, and it's not like any administrator would have denied a request to semi-protect a user's own talk page. So, even if there is some policy someplace that says this is not something that should be done, it would be a clear case of IAR in my opinion. — &#123;&#123;U&#124;Technical 13&#125;&#125; (t • e • c) 18:41, 8 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Yep it's not a big deal but simply something needing an explanation...in fact I didn't use words like "abuse" ;)
 * --Vituzzu (talk) 18:46, 8 March 2014 (UTC)
 * There was no vandalism Technical 13 - I was making what I thought (and think) were legitimate observations (while inadvertently logged out). If you don't want me to comment here Kaldari, I'm happy not to - just say so. Thrub (talk) 18:51, 8 March 2014 (UTC)
 * (In fact, no need to even say so - as you clearly find my observations uncomfortable, I won't comment here again - there really is no need to protect your page on my account) Thrub (talk) 18:53, 8 March 2014 (UTC))

An RfC that you may be interested in...
As one of the previous contributors to Infobox film or as one of the commenters on it's talk page, I would like to inform you that there has been a RfC started on the talk page as to implementation of previously deprecated parameters. Your comments and thoughts on the matter would be welcomed. Happy editing!
 * This message was sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) on behalf of &#123;&#123;U&#124;Technical 13&#125;&#125; (t • e • c) 18:27, 8 March 2014 (UTC)

Your usage of global rights as a volunteer editor
Please do not use any global rights to perform administrator actions on the English Wikipedia until further notice per the relevant thread at Bureaucrats' Noticeboard. Pakaran 19:25, 8 March 2014 (UTC)
 * To be clear, I'm making this request immediately, but took the step of opening discussion on the noticeboard in case any objection is raised. Pakaran 19:42, 8 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Sure. BTW, would you mind semi-protecting my talk page? Kaldari (talk) 19:45, 8 March 2014 (UTC)
 * I was about to get a sysop to semi protect, but I see that Pakaran already did so. Thanks, Kaldari, for reverting the protection and avoiding a mess :)  → Call me  Hahc  21  20:31, 8 March 2014 (UTC)
 * I recognize the humor in the comment, but there was no reason not to protect. Kaldari, thanks from me as well for dealing with this reasonably and nobly, and continuing participation in the project.  That should happen more often.  Pakaran 20:49, 8 March 2014 (UTC)

I put the protection settings to 3 days (as opposed to "infinite"). I suspect that will be long enough ;-). -- SB_Johnny &#124; talk✌ 23:24, 8 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Thank you. If needed, WP:RFPP is that way :).  Pakaran 23:31, 8 March 2014 (UTC)

urgent email
Beeblebrox (talk) 22:30, 8 March 2014 (UTC)

new eyes
Hi Kaldari -- Another editor and I are having difficulty reaching consensus on content on the Marjorie Heins article. I'd really appreciate some third-party eyes on the content, and some other editors to weigh in on editor conduct issues (see Talk:Marjorie Heins). Thanks. --Lquilter (talk) 01:16, 9 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Please note, I see your sockpuppet disruption and the removal of your multiple advanced wikipedia rights as a devaluation of your ability to apply third party neutral eyes on anything. Mosfetfaser (talk) 15:14, 9 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Absolutely irrelevant to the topic at hand. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 15:24, 9 March 2014 (UTC)
 * I have no idea what Mosfetfaser means. Kaldari has been a long-time very good, careful, scholarly editor, with good focus on works of scholars and academics. So Kaldari is a good editor to assess the value & relevance of different kinds of scholarly materials in an article, which is what Mosfetfaser and I are primarily disagreeing about. --Lquilter (talk) 15:39, 9 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Agree. Kaldari is... just in a spot of trouble right now. Anyways, if I remember in the morning I'll try and have a look. Third and fourth opinions, eh? — Crisco 1492 (talk) 15:42, 9 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Your eyes would be most appreciated. Looks like Kaldari isn't going to be focused on this sort of thing. --Lquilter (talk) 21:23, 9 March 2014 (UTC)
 * I also object to any stalker supporter of Kaldari such as this user Crisco offering any claim to neutrality - Mosfetfaser (talk) 15:45, 9 March 2014 (UTC)

Right to privacy and aliases
I profoundly regret how Wikipedia restricts people's free access to assume alias usernames, and hinders the anonymous posting of evidence or opinions, as this is just another issue showing how we are in the "Dark Ages of Wikipedia" when the software was primitive (like wp:edit-conflicts at adjacent lines in the 21st century, can u believe?), no ability for templates to offer warnings in edit-mode because templates do not know when a user is edit-previewing a page (hello?), or no global template variables to pass data into other templates on a page, and no support for anonymous users to state evidence without retribution. I am sorry you were not here 20 years from now, when a "Users Bill of Rights" would protect them from witchhunts about a few comments made, versus a real public threat from a user posting dozens of troublesome remarks leading to "probable cause" for search and seizure of their computer identity. I often remind people it took a long time to get King John's signature on the Magna Carta in 1215. I wish human progress were not so slow in "re-inventing the wheel" but unfortunately, anthropologists have noted the wheel was rarely "re-invented" but rather copied from other cultures, because it took decades for people to merely copy good inventions across town, much less try to re-invent something. Swedish culture invented the "ombudsman" who can gather anonymous reports and is protected from retribution inside the ranks, and the Swedish Wikipedia in 2006 set all admins to one-year terms, with annual re-elections, to allow anyone to become a more "anonymous" user without an ordeal. Eventually, the "sum of all human knowledge" will educate enough of some of the people to allow for progress, in weave merge of edit-conflicts, passing data between templates, and protecting anonymous opinions. The Age of Enlightenment is coming, and the wiki-Flat Earth will be seen as an antiquated notion. -Wikid77 (talk) 07:26, 9 March 2014 (UTC)

Hello
Hi, is this Ryan perchance? AlaskaDave25 (talk) 16:51, 19 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Yep, that's me :) Kaldari (talk) 16:56, 19 March 2014 (UTC)
 * I've just been updating and expanding some spider stubs on this account and came across your username and figured it was you! :-) AlaskaDave25 (talk) 17:13, 19 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Cool, glad to see you on Wikipedia :) Kaldari (talk) 17:24, 19 March 2014 (UTC)

Redirects for discussion
There are several redirects for discussion at Redirects_for_discussion/Log/2014_March_27 in which you may be interested. --Jax 0677 (talk) 15:52, 29 March 2014 (UTC)

WikiCup 2014 March newsletter
A quick update as we are half way through round two of this year's competition. WikiCup newcomer (Pool E) leads, having produced a massive set of featured pictures for Silver certificate (United States), an article also brought to featured list status. Former finalist (Pool G) is in second, which he owes mostly to his work with historical images, including a number of images from Urania's Mirror, an article also brought to good status. 2010 champion (Pool C) is third overall, thanks to contributions relating to naval history, including the newly featured Japanese battleship Nagato. , who currently leads Pool A and is sixth overall, takes the title for the highest scoring individual article of the competition so far, with the top importance featured article Ian Smith.

With 26 people having already scored over 100 points, it is likely that well over 100 points will be needed to secure a place in round 3. Recent years have required 123 (2013), 65 (2012), 41 (2011) and 100 (2010). Remember that only 64 will progress to round 3 at the end of April. Invitations for collaborative writing efforts or any other discussion of potentially interesting work is always welcome on the WikiCup talk page; if two or more WikiCup competitors have done significant work on an article, all can claim points equally. 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. If you want to help out with the WikiCup, please do your bit to help keep down the review backlogs! 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), The ed17 (talk • email) and Miyagawa (talk • email) 22:55, 31 March 2014 (UTC)

http://toolserver.org/~contests/
Hi Kaldari!

I was wondering if you are planning to export your tool Wikimedia Photo Scavenger Hunts to WMF Labs? We are planning to organize a Wiki Takes in Umeå, Sweden within the coming months, and it would be great to be able to use the tool!

Best, John Andersson (WMSE) (talk) 08:59, 1 April 2014 (UTC)
 * I might try to migrate it sometime in the next month or so, but I can't make any promises. Cheers. Kaldari (talk) 17:39, 3 April 2014 (UTC)

Redirects for discussion
There are several redirects for discussion at Redirects_for_discussion/Log/2014_April_14 in which you may be interested. --Jax 0677 (talk) 03:19, 14 April 2014 (UTC)

Nomination for merging of Template:Palestine (historic region) topics
Template:Palestine (historic region) topics has been nominated for merging with Template:Palestine topics. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. Thank you.GreyShark (dibra) 15:23, 18 April 2014 (UTC)

Hey
Hi there. First time doing this so I'm not a 100% sure if this is the correct place to discuss this. I see that you have changed the color palette on the ["Cannabis in the United States"](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Map-of-US-state-cannabis-laws.svg) page. While the old colors might of been "obnoxious" they were easier to spot. Right now, the light blue and the next shade of blue blends together along with the white background making it harder to distinguish the statuses of the smaller states in the Northeast. — Preceding unsigned comment added by GrandDandy (talk • contribs) 21:16, 19 April 2014 (UTC)

WikiCup 2014 April newsletter
Round 3 of the 2014 WikiCup has just begun; 32 competitors remain. Pool G's was Round 2's highest scorer, with a large number of featured picture credits. In March/April, he restored star charts from Urania's Mirror, lithographs of various warships (such as SMS Gefion) and assorted other historical media. Second overall was Pool E's, whose featured list Silver certificate (United States) contains dozens of scans of banknotes recently promoted to featured picture status. Third was Pool G's who has produced a large number of good articles, many, including Falkner Island, on Connecticut-related topics. Other successful participants included, who saw three articles (including the top-importance Ian Smith) through featured article candidacies, and , who saw three lists (including the beautifully-illustrated list of plantations in West Virginia) through featured list candidacies. High-importance good articles promoted this round include narwhal from, tiger from and The Lion King from. We also saw our first featured topic points of the competition, awarded to and  for their work on the Sega Genesis topic. No points have been claimed so far for good topics or featured portals.

192 was our lowest qualifying score, again showing that this WikiCup is the most competitive ever. In previous years, 123 (2013), 65 (2012), 41 (2011) or 100 (2010) secured a place in Round 3. Pool H was the strongest performer, with all but one of its members advancing, while only the two highest scorers in Pools G and F advanced. At the end of June, 16 users will advance into the semi-finals. 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. If you want to help out with the WikiCup, please do your bit to help keep down the review backlogs! 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), The ed17 (talk • email) and Miyagawa (talk • email) 17:57, 4 May 2014 (UTC)

Talkback
NorthAmerica1000 09:16, 9 May 2014 (UTC)

Rollback
Hi Kaldari. I've gone ahead and enabled rollback on your account. As you were an admin I'm sure you're aware of how it works, when not to use it etc. so I figured I'd just drop you this note instead of some gaudy template. Let me know if you want it removed/have any questions. Best, Mifter (talk) 04:34, 11 May 2014 (UTC)

Page Curation on French WP
Hello, this extension has been mentioned on the French WP Village Pump and I said a consensus should be shown before we ask for it, so a poll page was started and so far almost everybody seems to want it. Next day on the talk page someone noticed that 48552 to make the extension "agnostic" and suitable for our WP has the lowest priority, and on 42322 in a similar case you were asking for details, so I think you may have had a part in developing the extension. Could you tell us more there on the poll talk page, is it hopeless, or could it be adapted to our deletion process, or just ignore the deletion part and keep the rest? If you do not know French, there are enough people on the French WP who know English and will be willing to translate. Thank you in advance: Oliv0 (talk) 18:58, 22 May 2014 (UTC)

Draft:Diversity of Tactics
Hello, I'm looking for folks to review an article that I've just submitted. I saw your name on the Emma Goldman page history and thought you might be interested. Best,GPRamirez5 (talk) 17:56, 24 May 2014 (UTC)

You've got mail!
Nikkimaria (talk) 20:05, 21 June 2014 (UTC)

Proposed change to Consensus for a unified approach to bias categories at Category:Antisemitism
Due to your involvement in the 2011 CFD that decided on a unified approach to bias categories, you may be interested in a current proposal to change that approach with regard to the Category:Antisemitism. Dlv999 (talk) 15:29, 23 June 2014 (UTC)

Question
You suggested that the inclusion criteria for massacres of men should be things called gender-based violence. As I note, Jones has built up a database of these gendercides and he and other scholars Call this sort of thing gender-based violence - he claims the hallmark of such events is the separation of men and boys prior to their murder, which happened in all of the events in the category. The bulk of massacres we have articles for, this doesn't happen. Sometimes, a given event is both VAM and VAW, if the surviving females are raped en-masse for example. Are you saying you'd be ok to keep the category provided we update the inclusion criteria and come to agreement on some of the contents? If so it would be great if you consider changing your !vote, I think this is a very useful category for the reader (similar to the massacres of women one) that helps navigate between incidences which share a similar characteristic - eg sex-specific selection for death of non-combatants. FWIW, I've been tweaking the inclusion criteria, take a look at and let me know your thoughts, and if this addresses some of your concerns.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 13:09, 27 June 2014 (UTC)

WikiCup 2014 June newsletter
After an extremely close race, Round 3 is over. 244 points secured a place in Round 4, which is comparable to previous years- 321 was required in 2013, while 243 points were needed in 2012. Pool C's was the round's highest scorer, mostly due to a 32 featured pictures, including both scans and photographs. Also from Pool C, finished second overall, claiming three featured articles, including the high-importance Grus (constellation). Third place was Pool B's, whose contributions included featured articles Russian battleship Poltava (1894) and Russian battleship Peresvet. Pool C saw the highest number of participants advance, with six out of eight making it to the next round.

The round saw this year's first featured portal, with taking Portal:Literature to featured status. The round also saw the first good topic points, thanks to and the 2013 Atlantic hurricane season. This means that all content types have been claimed this year. Other contributions of note this round include a featured topic on Maya Angelou's autobiographies from, a good article on the noted Czech footballer Tomáš Rosický from and a now-featured video game screenshot, freely released due to the efforts of.

The judges would like to remind participants to update submission pages promptly. This means that content can be checked, and allows those following the competition (including those participating) to keep track of scores effectively. This round has seen discussion about various aspects of the WikiCup's rules and procedures. Those interested in the competition can be assured that formal discussions about how next year's competition will work will be opened shortly, and all are welcome to voice their views then. 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 Wikipedia:WikiCup/Reviews. If you want to help out with the WikiCup, please do your bit to help keep down the review backlogs! 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. and 18:48, 30 June 2014 (UTC)

Religion in Belize
While searching your list of religions for Belize and adding the percentages for the Christian religions I found that the total of all religion percentages totalled well over 100%. Perhaps one of the larger percentages has a typo? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Angkim (talk • contribs) 14:10, 12 July 2014 (UTC)
 * The various Protestant religions are broken out into separate percentages. Notice the parentheses around them. Hope that clears things up. Cheers. Kaldari (talk) 07:24, 13 July 2014 (UTC)

Your comment about me
Per your suggestion at the Feminism Project Talk page that I am a men's rights activist, that is incorrect. FWIW, I am an content expert in psychology, with a specialty in the psychology of sex differences. I would appreciate it if in the future you would not refer to me as an MRA. Thanks. Memills (talk) 19:36, 13 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Thanks for clearing that up. I'm glad to hear that you're not an MRA. My apologies for suggesting that you might be. Kaldari (talk) 20:15, 13 July 2014 (UTC)

Disputed non-free use rationale for File:Young seigenthaler.jpg
Thank you for uploading File:Young seigenthaler.jpg. However, there is a concern that the rationale provided for using this file on Wikipedia may not meet the criteria required by Non-free content. This can be corrected by going to the file description page and adding or clarifying the reason why the file qualifies under this policy. Adding and completing one of the templates available from Non-free use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your file is in compliance with Wikipedia policy. Please be aware that a non-free use rationale is not the same as an image copyright tag; descriptions for files used under the non-free content policy require both a copyright tag and a non-free use rationale.

If it is determined that the file does not qualify under the non-free content policy, it might be deleted by an administrator within a few days in accordance with our criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions, please ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thank you. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 03:23, 14 July 2014 (UTC)

Two questions
Aloha.


 * 1) User:HotArticlesBot says it is pulling data from Tim1357's Hot Articles tool on the toolserver. Is this still true?  If not, should it be corrected?
 * 2) Subscription requests appear to be backlogged all the way back to 2012. Is this correct or should the page be updated?  Is there a status report?  I'm asking because a member of Wiki Project Anti-war has expressed interest in making a request.

Thanks. Viriditas (talk) 03:33, 19 July 2014 (UTC)
 * The bot no longer relies on Tim1357's Hot Articles tool. It is now completely self-contained and hosted on Tool Labs. Your correct that I haven't updated the subscription requests in ages (or acted on them). I'll try to get things updated this week. Feel free to add a new subscription request for WikiProject Anti-war and I'll look into it. Kaldari (talk) 19:08, 21 July 2014 (UTC)

Categories for discussion
Hi, I closed Categories_for_discussion/Log/2014_July_2 with no action, as you had not tagged the category pages. The latter is necessary so that interested editors can find out that the discussion is taking place.

If you find that the instructions at WP:CFD are not clear, please let me know which parts have a problem.

As for Category:Plant disambiguation pages, I took your remarks as permission to merge/delete this and Template:Plant disambiguation per WP:C2E. If you want the template back, just say so. – Fayenatic  L ondon 16:44, 8 August 2014 (UTC)

Autopatrolled
Hello, this is just to let you know that I have granted you the "autopatrolled" permission. This won't affect your editing, it just automatically marks any page you create as patrolled, benefiting new page patrollers. Please remember:
 * This permission does not give you any special status or authority
 * Submission of inappropriate material may lead to its removal
 * You may wish to display the Autopatrolled top icon and/or the User wikipedia/autopatrolled userbox on your user page
 * If, for any reason, you decide you do not want the permission, let me know and I can remove it
 * If you have any questions about the permission, don't hesitate to ask. Otherwise, happy editing!  Wifione  Message 10:38, 17 August 2014 (UTC)

You are now a Reviewer
Hello. Your account has been granted the "reviewer" userright, allowing you to review other users' edits on pages protected by pending changes. The list of articles awaiting review is located at Special:PendingChanges, while the list of articles that have pending changes protection turned on is located at Special:StablePages.

Being granted reviewer rights neither grants you status nor changes how you can edit articles. If you do not want this user right, you may ask any administrator to remove it for you at any time.

See also:
 * Reviewing, the guideline on reviewing
 * Pending changes, the summary of the use of pending changes
 * Protection policy, the policy determining which pages can be given pending changes protection by administrators.  Wifione  Message 10:38, 17 August 2014 (UTC)   Wifione  Message 10:38, 17 August 2014 (UTC)

WikiCup 2014 August newsletter
The final of the 2014 WikiCup begins in a few short minutes! Our eight finalists are listed below, along with their placement in Round 4:


 * , a WikiCup newcomer, finished top of Pool A and was the round's highest scorer. Godot is a featured picture specialist, claiming large numbers of points due to high-quality scans of historical documents, especially banknotes.
 * 1) is a WikiCup veteran, having been a finalist every year since 2010. In the semi-final, he was Pool B's highest scorer. Cas's points primarily come from articles on the natural sciences.
 * 2) was Pool A's runner-up. Czar's points come mostly from content related to independent video games, including both articles and topics.
 * 3) was Pool B's runner-up. Another featured picture specialist, many of Adam's points come from the restoration of historical media. He has been a WikiCup finalist twice before.
 * 4) won the WikiCup in 2012 and 2013, and enters this final as the first wildcard. She focuses on biology-related articles, and has worked on several high-importance articles.
 * 5) is the second wildcard. George's points come primarily from meteorology-related articles. This year and last year, George was the first person in the competition to score.
 * , the third wildcard, was the 2010 champion and a finalist last year. His writes mostly on military history, especially naval history.
 * , the fourth and final wildcard, has participated in previous WikiCups, but not reached any finals. Bloom's points are mostly thanks to did you knows, featured lists and good articles related to sport and national symbols.

We say goodbye to this year's semi-finalists. ,, , , , and  have all performed well to reach this stage of the competition, and we hope they will all be joining us again next year.

There are two upcoming competitions unrelated to the WikiCup which may be of interest to those who receive this newsletter. The Stub Contest will run through September, and revolves around expanding stub articles, especially high-importance or old stubs. In addition, a proposal has been made for a new competition, the GA Cup, which the organisers plan to run next year. This competition is based on the WikiCup and aims to reduce the good article review backlog.

There is now a thread for brainstorming on how next year's WikiCup competition should work. Please come along and share your thoughts- What works? What doesn't work? What needs changing? Signups for next year's competition will be open soon; we will be in touch. If, at this stage of the competition, you are keen to help the with the WikiCup, please do what you can to participate in review processes. Our finalists will find things much easier if the backlogs at good article candidates, featured article candidates, featured picture candidates and the rest are kept at a minimum. 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 or stop receiving this newsletter, please feel free to add or remove yourself from WikiCup/Newsletter/Send. and 22:09, 31 August 2014 (UTC)

The color black
With all respect, I ask you to reconsider your deletion of the gallery from the beginning of the article on black. The objects are not random at all, but illustrate the wide variety of different aspects of black found in nature, and mentioned in the lead and in the body of the article. Similar galleries on aspects and varieties of a color accompany the leads of the all the major color articles. An article about a color that doesn't illustrate the common appearances of the color at the top would be very dry and wouldn't use to best advantage the visual capabilities which  Wikipedia has. In this case, the pictures are essential and more valuable than the text. Please think again about your deletion and let me know what you think. Respectfully, SiefkinDR (talk) 17:39, 11 August 2014 (UTC)SiefkinDR
 * So what is the criteria for including images in that gallery? If there is some specific purpose to the gallery besides simply being a gallery of black objects, it should explain that in the text. Personally, I think Commons is a much more appropriate place to host such a gallery (which can then be linked to from the External links section). Regarding other color articles, the galleries seem to be used for describing various shades of the color, but black doesn't really have shades. Kaldari (talk) 17:54, 11 August 2014 (UTC)
 * As a "disinterested" third party who happened upon this discussion by chance and without having ever visited the article about the color black, I just wanted to contribute a neutral opinion here. As an amateur historian of pigments, a reader of Edward Tufte (who discusses the use of black in his work on visualizing information), a cartographer, a watercolor and digital artist: I can assure you there are many, many different shades of black and reasons to use or not use any of them. One of the first things you learn when studying painting, for example, is to avoid using "pure black" and to instead always use a shade of it which will better resonate with the other colors of a composition. Tufte advises against it as well because it is has the effect of blowing out an infographic when compared with a darker gray. By providing some real world examples of how black is used, I hope I might have provided some food for thought as you discuss what seems to me a perfectly reasonable concept for an article about a color which is to show examples of that color. ChristineBushMV (talk) 18:54, 10 September 2014 (UTC)

Have I missed any?
To avoid WP:BEANSation, drop me an email if I have. And, umm, do you like kale? Pete AU aka --Shirt58 (talk) 03:18, 20 September 2014 (UTC)

IP vandalism
Hello Kaldari, I didn't arrive in time for this discussion. Assuming that the diffs didn't WP:OUT anyone, I think that it's better to document the IP attacks rather than hide and revdel them. --Sonicyouth86 (talk) 18:01, 20 September 2014 (UTC)
 * They follow a Tumblr post from a GamerGate supporter to the WikiProject, so you were correct that they were probably the culprits --94.175.85.144 (talk) 22:32, 20 September 2014 (UTC)

Talkback
Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 07:37, 21 September 2014 (UTC)

September 2014
You are suspected of sock puppetry, which means that someone suspects you of using multiple Wikipedia accounts for prohibited purposes. Please make yourself familiar with the notes for the suspect, then respond to the evidence at Sockpuppet investigations/Kaldari. Thank you. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 07:37, 21 September 2014 (UTC)

Thank you
Thanks very much for the Quality upgrade on the talk page of Hitachi Magic Wand !!!

I was waiting to do that until after I had expanded the lede to fully summarize the article's contents, but this is an unexpected pleasant surprise!

Thanks again,

&mdash; Cirt (talk) 02:35, 22 September 2014 (UTC)

POTD notification
Hi Kaldari,

Just to let you know, the Featured Picture File:Kaldari Zygoballus rufipes female 02.jpg is due to make an appearance as Picture of the Day on October 20, 2014. If you get a chance, you can check and improve the caption at Template:POTD/2014-10-20. Thank you for all of your contributions! — Crisco 1492 (talk) 03:23, 29 September 2014 (UTC)

Belle Knox AFD #2
The second AFD for Belle Knox has been overturned and relisted. As you commented on the original AFD, you may wish to comment on this one as well. As there have been developments and sources created since the time of the original AFD, please review to see if your comments/!vote are the same or may have changed. Gaijin42 (talk)

The Wikipedia Library needs you!
We hope The Wikipedia Library has been a useful resource for your work. TWL is expanding rapidly and we need your help!

With only a couple hours per week, you can make a big difference for sharing knowledge. Please sign up and help us in one of these ways: Sign up now Send on behalf of The Wikipedia Library using MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 04:31, 7 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Account coordinators: help distribute free research access
 * Partner coordinators: seek new donations from partners
 * Communications coordinators: share updates in blogs, social media, newsletters and notices
 * Technical coordinators: advise on building tools to support the library's work
 * Outreach coordinators: connect to university libraries, archives, and other GLAMs
 * Research coordinators: run reference services

Introducing the new WikiProject Evolutionary biology!
Greetings!

I am happy to introduce you to the new WikiProject Evolutionary biology! The newly designed WikiProject features automatically updated work lists, article quality class predictions, and a feed that tracks discussions on the 663 talk pages tagged by the WikiProject. Our hope is that these new tools will help you as a Wikipedia editor interested in evolutionary biology.
 * Browse the new WikiProject page
 * Become a member today! – members have access to an opt-in notification system

Hope to see you join! Harej (talk) 21:06, 10 July 2015 (UTC)

botclasses.php
Hi. I recently noticed that on May 5 you copied the botclasses.php source code to User:Kaldari/botclasses.php and linked to it from. Do you run any bots that use this library? It appears that you copied it from https://github.com/legoktm/harej-bots/ ? Note that recently updated that to specify   per the recent change to the MediaWiki API. I also have been maintaining an on wiki copy at User:RMCD bot/botclasses.php, as I run two bots that use this library. I'm not keen on keeping a lot of forks of this. If you don't mind I could make the version in my user space the "official" on wiki copy, and endeavor to coordinate updates with Legoktm. I still need to update mine for the latest  changes and would like to get my updates for JSON and HTTPS into 's copy if he wouldn't mind code-reviewing them. Thanks, Wbm1058 (talk) 17:09, 11 July 2015 (UTC)
 * I just stuck it in my user space since the previous link was broken and I had a copy of it on my local machine. I just wanted to make sure people could still find it. I have no interest in maintaining it. It would be great if you could point the link to a more up-to-date copy, and even better if you want to maintain the code! Let me know if there's anything I can do to help. Cheers. Kaldari (talk) 02:25, 12 July 2015 (UTC)

Art Jewelry Forum
Hello, I am working on a pet project to help digitize information about the field of metalsmithing+jewelry. I started with making a page for Art jewelry forum (AJF), and have a list of artists that I would like to make pages for as well. The AJF page has been nominated for deletion because it is questioned if the organization is "notable". I am reaching out to you because I saw that you edited some pages that relate to studio craft, and thought you may have an informed opinion (unlike the mathematician who nominated the page for deletion) about whether or not it is a "notable organization". If you have an opinion, one way or another, please way in on the articles for deletion discussion https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Art_jewelry_forumClarefinin (talk) 20:57, 11 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Hi User:Clarefinin! You'll want to take a look at WP:GNG. Basically, all you have to do is find at least one reliable independent published source that significantly discusses Art Jewelry Forum. If you can do that, the article will probably be kept. Kaldari (talk) 02:34, 12 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Kaldari, I have a handful of articles from reliable sources, most notably the American Craft Council, but it seems the problem I'm running into is that people who are reviewing the page aren't familiar with those particular sources. The craft world in general, and art jewelry specifically, are so insular and esoteric that I am trying to find anyone who may be familiar with them to give advice. I think I have laid out a solid argument for AJF, and do have a fair number of "keep" votes, but this whole process has been stressful and frustrating to say the least..... Anyway, I'm not sure how involved in the craft or metal fields you are, but based on some of your previous edit history, I thought you might have an opinion one way or another, or some advice. Thanks!Clarefinin (talk) 12:27, 12 July 2015 (UTC)
 * The reviewers don't need to know anything about jewelry or crafts, so don't get distracted by that. My advice is to focus only on proving that the article meets WP:GNG. It looks like there is a paragraph about AJF in the cited "Assume Nothing" article in American Craft Magazine. While I'm not sure if that counts as "significant discussion", it's a start towards meeting the notability guidelines. If you can find a few more sources like that, you should be fine. Just make sure they are published, independent sources. Good luck! Kaldari (talk) 04:38, 13 July 2015 (UTC)