User talk:Kaldari/Archive 8

Scavenger hunts
Dear Kaldari,

I would like to create an account in order to organise Scavenger hunts throughout Morocco, Bali and Thailand. I have around a thousand photos that I took a while ago which I am willing to share on Commons (which I only ever use to illustrate articles on Wikinews, I've never ventured into the domain of uploading), but it would be great to organise an event throughout the country to complete my collection (as well as better identify some of the buildings). I can be physically present for photo sessions in Rabat, and will coordinate with locals for Bali and Thailand. Thanks for this great initiative! Regards -- Александр Дмитрий (Alexandr Dmitri) (talk) 08:49, 27 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Hello Alexander. This sounds very exciting. I have a few questions for you though.
 * Which location would you want to do first?
 * Are you thinking of doing country-wide scavenger hunts or just hunts in individual cities (for example, Rabat)?
 * Would we need to translate the interface to any particular languages for these events? Or would you be handling all the uploading yourself?
 * If we do need to translate the interface, would you be interested in assisting with the translations?
 * What are your plans for your existing photo collection? I can go ahead and help you get those photos mass-uploaded if you're interested.
 * Kaldari (talk) 02:06, 28 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Just got back from Khémisset where I was participating at the Aïd (but forgot to burn a CD with all the photos so they will have to wait a week). My initial plan is to upload all of the photos I have for Morocco, Bali and Thailand. Most of them are well named so I will be able to organise them by town or region. The next stage is to contact people to see what is missing, and organise photo sessions to complete my collection. I'm still working out how to approach people and will start with Morocco. I have some of the principal cities (Rabat, Meknès, Fès, Marrakech, Essaouria) plus sites such as Volubilis, can hop on a bus to Salé, but am missing places like Ouarzazate, Tanger, Agadir, the Sahara and many others. I'll use my experience with contacting people in Morocco before attacking Bali and Thailand, which again I have a lot of photos for, but am missing some important regions. The interface could remain in English as I could coordinate uploading, although French would be a plus. I can manage the translation if required. Can't help with Indonesian or Thai I'm afraid.
 * If you have any questions, I'm back and active on Wikipedia again. Regards -- Александр Дмитрий (Alexandr Dmitri) (talk) 12:25, 30 November 2009 (UTC)
 * I'll get back to you some time this week to help coordinate further. Ping me if you don't hear anything from me by this weekend. Kaldari (talk) 17:03, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

Dist map
Hi Kaldari, thanks again for posting those easy-to-follow instructions for making distribution maps. I tried making one for the fungus Chorioactis geaster, which has a weird disjunct distribution—it is found only in Texas and southern Japan. The problem is that Japan is so small that the coloring isn't visible on the thumbnail. I'm thinking maybe a modified version with an inset picture of Japan that is expanded, but this is pushing my limited Photoshop ability. Two separate maps side by side? I haven't seen any examples of how others deal with something like this. Any suggestions? Sasata (talk) 03:06, 2 December 2009 (UTC)
 * That's a tough one. Not sure what the best solution would be, but I imagine a split map would work best. Kaldari (talk) 17:01, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for posting the instructions. But...Photoshop is rather expensive, proprietary software. Do you think you could add step-by-step instructions for GIMP or some other open source programme? Guettarda (talk) 14:17, 3 December 2009 (UTC)
 * I don't actually have GIMP, but I've added a section for GIMP instructions to the page if anyone wants to fill it in. Kaldari (talk) 16:58, 3 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Cool. Thanks.  Guettarda (talk) 17:44, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

2010 WikiCup Signups Reconfirmation!
To ensure that everyone who signed up is still committed to participating in the 2010 WikiCup, it is required that you remove your name from this list! By removing your name, you are not removing yourself from the WikiCup. This is simply a way for the judges to take note of who has not yet reconfirmed their participation. If you have not removed your name from that list by December 30th, 2009 (by 23:59 (UTC)) then your name will be removed from the WikiCup.

It's worth noting the rules have changed, likely after you signed up. The changes made thus far are:
 * Mainspace and/or portal edits will not be awarded points at all.
 * Did you know? articles (which were worth 5 points last year) will now be worth 10 points.
 * Good articles (which were worth 30 points last year) will now be worth 40 points.
 * Valued pictures will be now awarded points, however the amount (5 or 10 points) is still being discussed.
 * Featured lists (which were worth 30 points last year) will now be worth 40 points.
 * Featured portals (which were worth 25 points last year) will now be worth 35 points.
 * Featured articles (which were worth 50 points last year) will now be worth 100 points.
 * Featured topics (which were worth 10 points per article last year) will now be worth 15 points per any article in the topic that you were a major contributor to.
 * Good topics (which were worth 5 points per article last year) will now be worth 10 points per any article in the topic that you were a major contributor to.
 * In the news will still be awarded points, however the amount (5 or 10 points) is still being discussed.

If you have any final concerns about the WikiCup's rules and regulations, please ask them now, before the Cup begins to avoid last minute problems. You may come to the WikiCup's talk page, or any of the judge's user talk pages. We're looking forwards to a great 2010 WikiCup! On behalf of the WikiCup judges,  iMatthew  talk  at 03:44, 5 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Hello, the flag you signed up with at the 2010 WikiCup Signups page was removed as it did not meet our flag requirements. Your flag must "be under a free license that is of a (current or historical) continent, country, state, county or city and has NOT already been chosen by another contestant. You may not use the flag of Mexico." Please return to the signups page and choose a new flag that meets these requirements. Thank you!  iMatthew  talk  at 22:38, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

On a New List of Categories
Would you have any problems if I removed the semi-protection at On a New List of Categories? -- Ricky81682 (talk) 07:12, 5 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Done. Just watch out for trolls. Kaldari (talk) 17:32, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

Peace
Dear Kaldari,

I think you are taking the wrong approach. A simple search shows your only posts to my talk page are references to you having already "gone behind my back" to draw other people into issues that you have not attempted to discuss one-to-one. Conflict resolution policy requires this first step, as I'm sure you know well enough and just seem to have forgotten in this case.

If you have some difference of opinion with me, you have always been welcome to use my talk page, yet you have never attempted this. Well, let me take the first step. I'm quite happy to forget actions you've taken in the past and work things out via reliable sources one-to-one, drawing other helpful people into the discussion as necessary.

Are you willing to change, and to start working with me collaboratively or not? Or must you insist on attempting to "enforce" your way of thinking. Inviting others to take your side in a content dispute is putting temptation in their way. Not nice to them, let alone me.

There are times I've seen you desist sensibly. Our agreements are far more numerous than our disagreements. How about we spare others a lot of difficult work and let reliable sources speak for themselves?

Regards, Alastair Haines (talk) 05:14, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

Request for Arbitration Enforcement against Alastair Haines
Ciao, Kaldari. This is just a note to inform you that I've declined the request concerning Alastair Haines at Arbitration Enforcement, as the sanction you invoked has been rescinded by Sandstein the admin who placed it. Feel free to file another request citing a different sanction if appropriate. Cheers,  Skomorokh  07:08, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

Please see Arbitration/Requests/Clarification. Thank you. Ncmvocalist (talk) 09:59, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

GAR notification
Letting you know that I've opened a GAR for an article you have significantly edited, John Seigenthaler. You can find my concerns at Talk:John Seigenthaler/GA1. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ( talk ) 21:21, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

Eurasian Land Bridge
You removed the text in question right after someone added a comment supporting its inclusion. The RfC has only been open a little over one day. Please self-revert and wait at least a few days for editors have a chance to participate. Cla68 (talk) 04:27, 7 December 2009 (UTC)
 * When I went to remove the LaRouche material, 100% of the uninvolved editors in the RfC supported removing it, 3 of the involved editors supported removing it, one involved editor supported keeping it, and one involved editor was ambivalent. If the consensus has changed significantly since then, I'm sure someone will update the article appropriately. Kaldari (talk) 04:32, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

G'day Kaldari
I hope you don't mind, but following a note from John Vandenberg on the talk page of the arb pages, I moved your comments from the 'arbs' section back up to 'your' section - I think it's probably better to keep comments in 'named' sections just to generally keep everything manageable :-) Privatemusings (talk) 20:22, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

Should We Call You the Admin of Destruction?
Wow - a destructive Admin... Thanks for removing the effective and useful diagram on the Menstruation article and replacing it with a less informative and essentially useless one... Ordinarily, one would think you are part of the watering-down of the media... Stevenmitchell (talk) 12:39, 16 December 2009 (UTC)
 * In my opinion, the new diagram is an improvement for 5 reasons:
 * The old diagram failed to mention the uterine phases
 * The new diagram shows where the two phases take place with respect to the reproductive organs
 * The new diagram is much easier to read at small sizes
 * The new diagram uses the standard Wikipedia color palette
 * The new diagram is SVG and thus can be scaled to any size
 * Sorry it doesn't meet your approval. Kaldari (talk) 16:09, 16 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Follow this very simply... I actually derived the title from what I had observed on the article in question along with what was posted by numerous other Wikipedia editors who are replete with comments on your own User:Talk Page of how you have deleted constructive work (usually the editors themselves were the ones who were deleted and commenting on your page), was that you removed constructive contributions. I am very happy for you that you "by yourself" have decided to be the sole contributor to Wikipedia, but as it is a collaborative effort, I am suggesting that you deleted someone's else work that was worthwhile. Under the circumstances, I am rephrasing my point - If you felt so compelled about your own contribution, I believe (and I think this is the Wikipedia protocol) that you should have posted this new diagram on the Article Discussion page first or put it in the article along with the existing diagram. Now, because I don't agree with your position or contribution in this instance (and probably never will), you are apparently trying to call for my censorship. Hopefully, the powers that be, are not as narrow in scope or as bullying as you appear to be... (I will post this on your page as well)... Stevenmitchell (talk) 20:37, 17 December 2009 (UTC)
 * I have no interest in "censoring" you, nor am I concerned with the content issue (as I neither created the new diagram nor deleted the old one, and anyone that wants to is free to switch the diagrams back in the article). Your assertion that I "removed constructive contributions" is totally unfounded. If you have any evidence of this, please show me. The comments you mention on my talk page are all from problematic editors with long histories of Arbitration requests, topic bans, etc. You are free to investigate these for yourself if you feel inclined. Your disregard for Wikipedia's policy on civility (as well as Assume good faith) is unhelpful. Your tone and style of discussion is, in my opinion, inappropriate for Wikipedia. Kaldari (talk) 21:08, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

Arbeit macht frei
As you sad "The replica (sign) wasn't stolen, the original was." I actually fixed this before seeing your talkpage note. People are editing a bit blindly, not reading the whole article. An editor added a new section about the theft, I thought giving it too much weight, so I removed it and notified them. Seems NPOV now. Though, I suppose that some editors will be extremely upset by this theft. It is also an extremely historic artifact. I wonder if there have been any previous theft attempts? --220.101.28.25 (talk) 02:06, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

Bog Turtle
Hello, I am a student working as a part of this project. I am working on the bog turtle article and reciently brought it to GA, with the help of some partners. Our goal is to achieve FA by 1/15/09. How would I go about making a distribution map if I don't have photoshop?--NYMFan69-86 (talk) 23:15, 19 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Hmm, probably want to ask User:Sarefo about that one. Kaldari (talk) 23:44, 19 December 2009 (UTC)
 * OK, thanks.--NYMFan69-86 (talk) 03:07, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

Copied from Casliber's page. Re source for 'punctatus'

 * Cas is in the land of Oz-Nod at this hour. I'm his self-appointed drudge for 'roots', which might offend an Aussie ear, so I'll sub or locum-tenens for him. Cassell's Lat Dictionary is not a good source, particularly because 'punctatus' is not stricto sensu a Latin word, in the sense of classical Latin, but a denotative term in biological nomenclature. It came into use from Late medieval Latin punctare, from Latin punctum (point) which had an Italian reflex puntare, which, reassimilated back to the Latinate terminology of modern science, then gave us punctatio/ punctatus. These details may be sourced reliably to The Oxford English Dictionary, Clarendon Press, Oxford, 2nd ed.1989 vol.X11, pp.838-839 sub. punctate/punctation, whose first definition then follows:-
 * "'1.Nat.Hist, and Path.Marked or studded with points or dots; having minute rounded spots, or (esp.) depressions resembling punctures, scattered over the surface; of the nature of or characterized by such markings' (p.838)"
 * In classical Latin it would be maculatus. Dante himself, when speaking of 'spotted' animals, used the word 'gaetto' as in quella fiera a la gaetta pelle (Canto 1, Inferno). Regards Nishidani (talk) 18:20, 21 December 2009 (UTC)


 * No sooner said than done ((In puncto acto)), guvner. Sex. 'Six.' P.G.W.Glare, Oxford Latin Dictionary, Clarendon Press, Oxford, 1982 p.1750 sub.sex.Nishidani (talk) 18:41, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

Re:Monkey photo
Yes it's mine. Thanks for the heads-up and sorry for the late reply. --Muhammad (talk) 08:46, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

FPC nom
Just thought you may want to come back and see my post regarding the USS Annapolis in the Arctic featured picture candidate. Thanks. ❄  upstate NYer  ❄ 18:17, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

Philip the Arab and Christianity
Thank you for your comments at Philip the Arab and Christianity. I've reworked the lede text following your suggestions. Geuiwogbil (Talk) 05:40, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

Zygoballus sexpunctatus
hi kaldari,

beautiful article :) are you planning on doing more spider work in the future?

cheers! --Sarefo (talk) 13:13, 28 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the compliment. I hope to do more spider articles in the future. They're pretty challenging though since most of the information is rather obscure (if it exists at all). Kaldari (talk) 22:33, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

The 2010 WikiCup begins tomorrow!
Welcome to the biggest WikiCup Wikipedia has yet seen! Round one will take place over two months, and finish on February 26. There is only one pool, and the top 64 will progress. The competition will be tough, as more than half of the current competitors will not make it to round 2. Details about scoring have been finalized and are explained at WikiCup/Scoring. Please make sure you're familiar with the scoring rules, because any submissions made that violate these rules will be removed. Like always, the judges can be reached through the WikiCup talk pages, on their talk page, or over IRC with any issues concerning anything tied to the Cup. We will keep in contact with you via weekly newsletters; if you do not want to receive them, please remove yourself from the list here. Conversely, if a non-WikiCup participant wishes to receive the newsletters, they may add themselves to that list. Well, enough talk- get writing! Your submission's page is located here. Details on how to submit your content is located here, so be sure to check that out! Once content has been recognized, it can be added to your submissions page, from which our bot will update the main score table. Remember that only articles worked on and nominated during the competition are eligible for points. Have fun, and good luck! Garden, iMatthew, J Milburn, and The ed17 19:20, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

Vandalism?
Be careful dishing out the vandalism warnings. On a very active page like Burj Khalifa it is possible that edit conflicts cause errors in judgement to be made. My edit was to correct a link and avoide a redirect in the link. Astronaut (talk) 18:08, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

Autoconfirmed poll
Perhaps you've not seen this Wikipedia_talk:Autoconfirmed_Poll, but if somebody doesn't explain why it's a good idea, and quickly, it's probably doomed. Rd232 talk 17:47, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

GA review for Nashville sit-ins
I've reviewed the article and left notes on the talk page. I've put the nomination on hold for seven days to allow the issues to be addressed. Feel free to contact me on my talk page, here, or on the article talk page with any concerns, and let me know one of those places when the issues have been addressed. If I may suggest that you strike out, check mark, or otherwise mark the items I've detailed, that will make it possible for me to see what's been addressed, and you can keep track of what's been done and what still needs to be worked on. Ealdgyth - Talk 14:42, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

You're kidding, right?
Invoking COI over featured pictures is like trying to exclude the primary editor of a featured article from editorial discussions after it passes FAC. When you're joking it's best to include the smiley or people may miss the irony.  Durova 397 23:49, 11 January 2010 (UTC)
 * No, it's nothing like excluding a primary editor of an article from editorial discussions, because in this case we're talking about how the item is used, not discussing how the item itself can be improved. And in this case, you have a conflict of interest. Your interest is not solely in improving the quality of the article, it is also in protecting the status of the image you worked on. This is yet another example of how the Featured Picture process is becoming an end unto itself, rather than a way to encourage editors to offer high-quality images. Other examples includes:
 * Adding extra images to a stub article in order to qualify for FAC.
 * Adding several versions of the same image to an article so that they are all eligible for FAC.
 * Replacing high-EV images with low-EV images (which may be higher resolution) in order to qualify for FAC.
 * The idea to add "Featured Picture Stars" to image captions in articles.
 * Kaldari (talk) 00:16, 12 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Have you read the edit history? The stated reason for replacing the featured picture was esthetics, not encyclopedic value.  You seem to be arguing that featured picture contributors may not discuss esthetics at article talk.  I hate to think what would happen with Wikipedians such as Jerry Avenaim if that reasoning gained traction.  Is it the limits of text communication or is there an angry edge to your side of this discussion?  Durova  397 01:01, 12 January 2010 (UTC)
 * An angry edge? I thought I was just stating the obvious :P Unlike everyone else involved in the discussion, you have something to gain from the image remaining in the article. That is the definition of conflict of interest. Therefore you should abstain from the discussion, right? The regular editors of the article should be free to discuss the images (and change them as they like) without image "owners" interjecting to "sell" the use of their images. If it were up to me, FPC nominators would be barred from adding nominated images to articles at all. Kaldari (talk) 01:28, 12 January 2010 (UTC)
 * The image's featured status is in no danger. It's also in use at chiaroscuro and Bartolommeo Coriolano.  This conversation is a real eye opener, though.  It's bizarre how far off kilter online interactions can drift, but it's really looking like you think the reason I do this is the selfish pursuit of status symbols?  No wonder the hostile tone is so palpable, or the innovative attempt to apply COI.  Let's clear the air.  Durova  397 02:23, 12 January 2010 (UTC)
 * I don't have to make this stuff up you know. The only reason you've cited for replacing your image in the Virgin Mary article (both in the edit summaries and on the talk page) is that it is a featured picture, as if there were some guideline against removing featured pictures from articles. I have yet to see you say anything about the encyclopedic merits of either picture. Nor does it appear that you have any other interest in the Virgin Mary article other than adding your image, judging by your lack of any other edits to the article. Kaldari (talk) 02:33, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

This is the second time in less than a week that you have attempted to tell other Wikipedians what I am thinking. Your surmises are badly off target, but you deliver them with a tone of assurance as if you were my confidant--which you aren't and never have been. I've tried several different ways politely to resolve this. Subtlety hasn't worked so here's the bottom line: that behavior ends now.  Durova 397 18:28, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

Talkback
 Intelligent  sium  23:00, 15 January 2010 (UTC) == Help? == This is not your problem but I already wrote to the problem and his site says it will be a while before he gets back to anyone. It's a bot run by Slakr--it's signing comments on the talk page after they have already been signed. And now my comments don't show up on the talk page either--the are just on the edit page. I'm trying to improve 'Virgin Birth (mythology)' because the patriarchy article is linked to Virgin Birth. No one has been working on it lately, so I don't think anyone else objects. Sorry--I don't know anyone else I can ask.--Hammy64000 (talk) 02:52, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

Nashville sit-ins
I look forward to seeing the new and improved version of this article at FAC soon - it was quite good. Let me know if you need any help acquiring sources, etc. Awadewit (talk) 16:32, 30 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Hi, too bad the article didn't pass FAC. I thought it was really good. P. S. Burton  (talk)  15:37, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

WikiCup 2010 January newsletter
We are half way through round one of the WikiCup. We've had some shakeups regarding late entries, flag changes and early dropouts, but the competition is now established- there will be no more flag changes or new competitors. Congratulations to, our current leader, who, at the time of writing, has more listed points than and   (second and third place respectively) combined. A special well done also goes to - his artcle Jewel Box (St. Louis, Missouri) was the first content to score points in the competition.

Around half of competitors are yet to score. Please remember to submit content soon after it is promoted, so that the judges are able to review entries. 64 of the 149 current competitors will advance to round 2- if you currently have no points, do not worry, as over half of the current top 64 have under 50 points. Everyone needs to get their entries in now to guarantee their places in round 2! If you are concerned that your nomination will not receive the necessary reviews, and you hope to get it promoted before the end of the round, please list it on WikiCup/Reviews. However, please remember to continue to offer reviews at GAC, FAC and all the other pages that require them to prevent any backlogs which could otherwise be caused by the Cup. As ever, questions are welcome on Wikipedia talk:WikiCup and the judges are reachable on their talk pages, by email or on IRC. Good luck! J Milburn, Garden, iMatthew and The ed17 Delivered by JCbot (talk) at 00:16, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

Joseph Widney
Aeons ago you assessed it for Smjwalsh. He has moved on to another long article  at Astor House (Shanghai) (pushing 250K). Meanwhile, I pruned Widney down a bit, and would really appreciate a quick glance if you have the time. I had one review at but I think you may know better where it started from. It is still long, but I think you will find it substantially shorter than before. Many thanks! Collect (talk) 12:17, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

Final discussion for Requests for comment/Biographies of living people
Hello, I note that you have commented on the first phase of Requests for comment/Biographies of living people

As this RFC closes, there are two proposals being considered:
 * 1) Proposal to Close This RfC
 * 2) Alternate proposal to close this RFC: we don't need a whole new layer of bureaucracy

Your opinion on this is welcome. Okip  02:20, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

Spiders
-- Boing!   said Zebedee  09:11, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

WikiCup 2010 February newsletter
Round one is over, and round two has begun! Congratulations to the 64 contestants who have made it through, but well done and thank you to all contestants who took part in our first round. A special well done goes to, our round one winner (1010 points), and to and , who were second and third respectively (640 points/605 points). Sasata was awarded the most points for both good articles (300 points) and featured articles (600 points), and TonyTheTiger was awarded the most for featured topics (225 points), while Hunter Kahn claimed the most for good topics (70). claimed the most featured lists (240 points) and featured pictures (35 points), claimed the most for Did you know? entries (490 points),  claimed the most for featured sounds (70 points) and  claimed the most for In the news entries (40 points). No one claimed a featured portal or valued picture.

Credits awarded after the end of round one but before round two may be claimed in round two, but remember the rule that content must have been worked on in some significant way during 2010 by you for you to claim points. The groups for round two will be placed up shortly, and the submissions' pages will be blanked. This round will continue until 28 April, when the top two users from each group, as well as 16 wildcards, will progress to round three. Please remember to continue to offer reviews at GAC, FAC and all the other pages that require them to prevent any backlogs which could otherwise be caused by the Cup; thank you to all doing this last round, and particularly to those helping at WikiCup/Reviews. As ever, questions are welcome on Wikipedia talk:WikiCup and the judges are reachable on their talk pages, by email or on IRC. Good luck! If you wish to start receiving or stop receiving this newsletter, please feel free to add or remove yourself from WikiCup/Newsletter/Send. J Milburn, Fox, iMatthew and The ed17 Delivered by JCbot (talk) at 00:49, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

Hi, I just noticed your comment on the Virgin birth (mythology) article history, about needing a section before the first heading. How do you do that? The first paragraph could be put there without its heading. I just wanted to finish the article because it is linked to patriarchy but there is no way for anyone to object to anything--the discussion page isn't working. --Hammy64000 (talk) 05:21, 10 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks--I'll check out those pages here pretty soon. I just deleted the controversial stuff--it didn't fit in that article.  I feel stupid that I didnt realize it--it was partly that I was following the argument in that book, and partly because it takes so much time and concentration to get something done that perspective disappears.  Any idea how to fix that discussion page?  Not that I need it now, but its probably better if someone is yelling at you while you are writing--it makes you think. Thanks again for your help.--Hammy64000 (talk) 03:11, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:Top 20 countdown-320x240.jpg
 Thanks for uploading File:Top 20 countdown-320x240.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image 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 images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

PLEASE NOTE:


 * I am a bot, and will therefore will not be able to answer your questions.


 * I will remove the request for deletion if the file is used in an article once again.


 * If you receive this notice after the image is deleted, and you want to restore the image, click here to file an un-delete request.


 * To opt out of these bot messages, add  to your talk page.


 * If you believe the bot has made an error, please turn it off here and leave a message on my owner's talk page.

Thank you. DASHBot (talk) 20:32, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

WikiCup 2010 March newsletter
We're half way through round two, and everything is running smoothly. leads overall with 650 points this round, and heads pool B. currently leads pool C, dubbed the "Group of Death", which has a only a single contestant yet to score this round (the fewest of any group), as well five contestants over 100 points (the most). With a month still to go, as well as 16 wildcard places, everything is still to play for. Anything you worry may not receive the necessary attention before the end of the round (such as outstanding GA or FA nominations) is welcome at WikiCup/Reviews, and please remember to continue offering reviews yourself where possible. As always, the judges are available to contact via email, IRC or their talk pages, and general discussion about the Cup is welcome on the WikiCup talk page.

Although unrelated to the WikiCup, April sees a Good Article Nominations backlog elimination drive, formulated as a friendly competition with small awards, as the Cup is. Several WikiCup contestants and judges have already signed up, but regular reviewers and those who hope to do more reviewing are more than welcome to join at the drive page. If you wish to start receiving or stop receiving this newsletter, please feel free to add or remove yourself from WikiCup/Newsletter/Send. J Milburn, Fox, iMatthew and The ed17 Delivered by JCbot (talk) 22:17, 31 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Hi. Someone is disputing the Virgin birth article and I didn't even know it because my discussion page isn't working.  The only place I can see it is on the discussion edit page.  I only know to look there because someone tagged the article questioning the factual information!  This is impossible!  Can you suggest a fix for the discussion page?--Hammy64000 (talk) 15:21, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

re Alastair Haines RfAr 2
Excuse me, but how exactly am I an "involved party" in this? I would appreciate it if you would please remove me as an "involved party". Thanks. -- Cirt (talk) 19:46, 13 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Thank you. -- Cirt (talk) 19:57, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the links to the other articles. I'll review them. I've already popped in to the Jehovah's Witness controversy and it appears that Alastair is just supporting neutral editing procedure. But I'll take a look at the other articles to make sure I understand the issue you've raised there.EGMichaels (talk) 16:12, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

Hi Kildari. Just letting you know what is happening right now. The administrator who looked at the Miraculous birth article had it all wrong. You can read his conclusion and my answers on that discussion page. It's probably not his fault. I'm thinking Ari had this all planned from the beginning and covered his tracks. The admin. couldn't find whether the article was moved or tell what the original was like. He blamed me for not contributing any progress since I arrived! I wrote the article. Anyway, this all fits Haines' profile. He said he would get even and this was a pretty smooth job of it. I'm either going to cancel my account or put the original article on my own page. Thanks for your help with him but I can't deal with this. I need to let go of it.--Hammy64000 (talk) 02:34, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

"On the other hand, it's not just about me. If this was Haines and he is willing and able to take an article for revenge and pretend it is his and think it is good fun--and also able to cover it up so no one can tell what happened, Wikipedia is in a world of hurt.  It is possible he has a lot of accounts, or he has allies--or maybe he is doing it alone.  Since I was his focus I would be silly to write another article here. I suspect I should have quit a long time ago. --Hammy64000 (talk) 03:27, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

The administrator cleared this up. I feel much better. --Hammy64000 (talk) 14:12, 16 April 2010 (UTC)
 * I thought something meaningful would happen after Ent found where Ari merged my article. He said that Ari didn't leave any clues about where it came from, as he should have.  But now he is contributing to "Ari's" article.  (It is not Ari, but Ari89.)  I have looked a little bit but can't see how to suggest a new project and also articles for that project.  Or how to set up a new article title.  Sorry to bother you, but could you just tell me where to look?  I've started to think that regular editors aren't supposed to do that.   --Hammy64000 (talk) 01:13, 17 April 2010 (UTC)

I really need some feedback. Is the request for arbitration still going? Alistair is not working under his own name and not in the same article, but I'm pretty sure his is Ari. I was going to file a new request of arbitration, but I'm losing interest. I just wanted to finish the article. Just put the information out there. I don't enjoy fighting and frustration and he has more angles than I do. Will this arbitration help me with Ari? Can we find out if it is him? Basically they took my work and didn't give me credit. If it won't help with Ari, then how will it help? He won't ever quit.

I guess I only requested a comment from Ent and that is what he gave me--nothing else. First I don't know at this point what will make it better, and second, I don't know if I care. When I fought him over the Patriarchy article, it was because he was pushing some awful world view and telling women where they belong. On the Miraculous birth article, he is just rude and taking my work, and he changed the focus and organization, and used my ideas, tone and direction to create his own work--but what do I want to happen? I want to quit. This has never been a game with me. Basically, it is too hard to figure out. I can't fight the Alistairs. They are voracious. I can't even find the proper template to put a consensus flag on the article. This is the way the world is, right? I can't change it. And lately this is all I'm doing. Here is my position without the high-sounding rationale. I don't deserve this. He is wolfish and crude and mean. He doesn't know me but he hates me. He doesn't answer my comments on content or organization--just blusters. I fight him because he wants terrible things. He fights me because he wants terrible things. Why do I do this? There is really no good reason any more. For them it is all about the game and they are tireless. Let the Alistairs take over and plaster their darkness all over everything. I can't stop it. I have better things to do.--Hammy64000 (talk) 04:22, 17 April 2010 (UTC)

Arbitration/Requests/Case/Alastair Haines 2
An Arbitration case involving you has been opened, and is located here. Please add any evidence you may wish the Arbitrators to consider to the evidence sub-page, Arbitration/Requests/Case/Alastair Haines 2/Evidence. Please submit your evidence within one week, if possible. You may also contribute to the case on the workshop sub-page, Arbitration/Requests/Case/Alastair Haines 2/Workshop.

On behalf of the Arbitration Committee, ~ Amory ( u •  t  •  c ) 01:39, 18 April 2010 (UTC)


 * The evidence you have presented is a few hundred words over the limit. Could you trim it down?  We usually give a little leeway past the 1000 word mark so it would be appreciated if you could get it down around there.  Thanks, ~ Amory ( u  •  t  •  c ) 18:02, 20 April 2010 (UTC)
 * How does it look now? Kaldari (talk) 18:29, 20 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Fabulous. You're well under the limit - thanks for the prompt response! ~ Amory ( u  •  t  •  c ) 18:32, 20 April 2010 (UTC)


 * If you have other evidence, please consider putting it on a subpage in your userspace rather than letting a word length completely limit the scope of conduct being examined. Someone else can bring it across if it's still relevant to his conduct today and requires examination. Ncmvocalist (talk) 06:03, 2 May 2010 (UTC)

User talk:71.232.194.109
Ah I see you blocked him just as I was about to warn him about the stuff he posted at sandbox. ;) --Tyw7 (☎ Contact me! • Contributions)   Changing the world one edit at a time! 00:23, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

Morotai Mutiny
Sorry about that, I didn't see earlier in the history that the refs were ok. Seems like only a few refs for a Featured Article, but I didn't participate in that discussion, so it's not my call. Doc Quintana (talk) 00:26, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

womb veil
Thanks for your comments about the article womb veil. I feel somewhat less perplexed. I wonder whether you could put it on your watchlist? The other editor seems bent on bringing in stuff not directly relevant to this narrowly defined topic. I want to be open to perspectives and criticisms, but I feel that we're just not speaking the same language. Cynwolfe (talk) 12:02, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

WikiCup 2010 April newsletter
Round two is over, and we are down to our final 32. For anyone interested in the final standings (though not arranged by group) this page has been compiled. Congratulations to, our clear overall round winner, and to and , who were solidly second and third respectively. There were a good number of high scorers this round- competition was certainly tough! Round three begins tomorrow, but anything promoted after the end of round two is eligible for points. 16 contestants (eight pool leaders and eight wildcards) will progress to round four in two months- things are really starting to get competitive. Anything you worry may not receive the necessary attention before the end of the round (such as outstanding GA or FA nominations) is welcome at WikiCup/Reviews, and please remember to continue offering reviews yourself where possible. As always, the judges are available to contact via email, IRC or their talk pages, and general discussion about the Cup is welcome on the WikiCup talk page.

Judge iMatthew has retired from Wikipedia, and we wish him the best. The competition has been ticking over well with minimal need for judge intervention, so thank you to everyone making that possible. A special thank you goes to participants and  for their help in preparing for round three. Good luck everyone! If you wish to start receiving or stop receiving this newsletter, please feel free to add or remove yourself from WikiCup/Newsletter/Send. J Milburn, Fox and The ed17 17:35, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

Patriarchy
When do you let an article go? It probably could use some changes and I'm not dealing with this discussion very well. I'm too defensive and I'm really tired of it. --Hammy64000 (talk) 01:58, 1 May 2010 (UTC)

Note on Alastair Haines case:
If any parties have any relevant information to add, now is the time. Several arbitrators have spoken up in ArbCom's discussions that the facts of this case are clear, and that providing this additional time would be not useful. I strongly urge all parties to provide any further evidence and workshop proposals they have, and quickly. I will post this to all parties talk page and will update when any proposed final decision is available. (this is a note I've provided to all parties to attempt to give as much notices as possible of a proposed decision being moved up). SirFozzie (talk) 19:24, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

Courtesy notice..
Hi. This is a message to let you know that the proposed decision in the Alastair Haines 2 case has been posted. Please see this link for the proposed decision and to view the arbitrator's votes on this case. SirFozzie (talk) 05:09, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

Arbitration/Requests/Case/Alastair Haines 2
This arbitration case has been closed. The following remedies have been enacted:

For the Arbitration Committee, ---- Александр Дмитрий (Alexandr Dmitri) (talk) 11:58, 8 May 2010 (UTC)
 * User:Alastair Haines is banned from editing Wikipedia for a period of one year, and thereafter pending further direction of the Arbitration Committee under remedy 2.
 * Should Alastair Haines wish to return to editing Wikipedia after one year, he shall first communicate with the Arbitration Committee and provide a satisfactory assurance that he will refrain from making any further legal threats against other editors or against the Wikimedia Foundation. Should Alastair Haines, after being permitted to return, again make a legal threat or a statement that may reasonably be construed as a legal threat, he may be blocked for an appropriate period of time by any uninvolved administrator.
 * To assist Alastair Haines in disengaging from Wikipedia, the case pages relating to this arbitration and all related pages have been courtesy blanked. As appropriate, other pages reflecting controversies to which Alastair Haines was a party may also be courtesy-blanked, particularly where the discussion is no longer relevant to ongoing editing issues. In addition, if Alastair Haines so requests, his username (and hence the username associated with his edits in page histories) may be changed to another appropriate username other than his real name. Editors who have been in conflict with Alastair Haines are strongly urged to make no further reference to him on-wiki following his departure.

Possible trouble
Hi, I see a potential problem looming in the patriarchy article--the conversation hasn't been making much sense to me. Just wanted to be sure you are aware of it. Thanks. Hammy64000 (talk) 23:59, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/File:Poster papaver 5a.jpg
Hi! You voted in support of this, but now we're having trouble deciding which set to promote. Would you mind giving your preference? Thanks. Nautica Shad es  11:57, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

Patriarchy
Your views are definitely needed and welcomed here. Feel free to add comment to the preceeding three sections of talk, too, if you care. Thanks, Slrubenstein  |  Talk 19:28, 21 May 2010 (UTC)