User talk:Kotra/Archive 3

added reference in Kabir
please check and suggest.KabirAjjay (talk) 09:52, 16 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Thanks for the reference. Note that it that usually is considered a copyright violation to copy text from outside websites unless it's a quote. I've changed the wording so it's different. But thanks again for adding that reference, it's helpful. -kotra (talk) 18:34, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

Image:Quafe bottle.jpg‎
Greetings, I have changed the replaceability on Image:Quafe bottle.jpg‎ back to no as the product is not, and has not been available for purchase for a number of years. You can search in the Eve-Online store if you like to double check. Fosnez (talk) 04:32, 19 January 2008 (UTC)


 * I see, thanks for correcting my edit. -kotra (talk) 21:46, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

About the Democratic candidate template
Sorry about the miss-edit, I did not do my math right, I had checked Mike Gravel's site (gravel2008.us) and it said that he is on the ballot in 20 states which means he is on the ballot in 30 states I said 15, that is my own fault, he is a write in candidate in the states where he is not on the ballot.

Sskchh (talk) 22:37, 13 March 2008 (UTC)


 * No problem. I don't entirely trust Gravel's site to be up-to-date (he may actually be on more ballots than the 20), but if the Gravel campaign won't update their website, we have no way of knowing. I think your edit is good now. Thanks! -kotra (talk) 23:47, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

Actually, all of the candidates including third party candidates like Ralph Nader need to raise money in order to be on the ballot in that state, in New Mexico Nader needed to raise at least 10,000 dollars to get on the ballot, as well as 7,000 signatures, the third party candidates have more time to do this but for the 2 major parties have to do this before primary elections start, Mike Gravel failed to do this before the Iowa cacuses. Sskchh (talk) 20:39, 14 March 2008 (UTC)


 * That's interesting to know, but I was more referring to this quote from gravel2008.us: "The Gravel Campaign is right on schedule getting Mike in all the primaries and caucuses. We have confirmation from the 20 states where the deadline has passed..." Either one of both of these two statements appear to be incorrect now that the deadline has passed for more than 20 states. Though Iowa is listed there as one of the states Gravel is on the ballot, so I don't know what you mean about him failing to get on the ballot before the Iowa caucuses. In any case, I think it's fine how Template:2008 Democratic presidential candidates is now. -kotra (talk) 22:55, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

One thing leads to another
I saw your edit in Prison loaf today, looked at your userpage and saw the really neat userbox (AWW DMBJ et cetera). I didn't know they had a userbox until I saw your copy. So I transcluded it. Cool. Trilobitealive (talk) 22:05, 24 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Hooray, a fellow AWWDMBJAWGCAWAIFDSPBATDMTDian! May you continue to dislike making broad judgments about the worthiness of a general category of article, and may you continue to be in favor of the deletion of some particularly bad articles, while not meaning you are a Deletionist! -kotra (talk) 22:24, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

Image:Sirimavo Bandaranaike1.jpg
Hi, thanks for uploading Image:Sirimavo Bandaranaike1.jpg, it's a great photo. Did you take the photo yourself? -kotra (talk) 23:16, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

Hi Kotra,  I  have  full  permission  to  use  &  publish  the  photo. Thank you

Fitz Mackins


 * Ok, in that case, since your permission is from someone else, what the name of the person who took the picture? This is necessary because the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 3.0 license requires attribution. -kotra (talk) 19:06, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

Credits in photo captions
Because you have voiced your opinion on such matters in the past, I thought you would like to know that consensus is trying to be reached on this issue at Village_pump_%28proposals%29. (Mind meal (talk) 22:21, 21 April 2008 (UTC))


 * Thanks. To avoid WP:Canvassing concerns, I've also put a notice on Wikipedia talk:Captions. -kotra (talk) 00:03, 22 April 2008 (UTC)


 * With the amount of opposition, I wonder if there is canvassing going on from the other side. I tell you, I've often found myself scratching my head in discussions but this one takes the cake. It seems so common sense. (Mind meal (talk) 00:56, 24 April 2008 (UTC))


 * Yeah, it does seem like some editors are being a bit egocentric here. But I think it partially has to do with people not realizing there is a problem. Wikipedia editors generally tend to think that current policies are perfect policies, and there is no need for change (most of the time I myself feel this way, but here I feel we could have improvement). Probably there would be less opposition if the complaints Wikipedia frequently receives about attribution were presented more. I myself only became aware of those complaints in the past few days by researching the issue.
 * Anyway, if there continues to be a lack of consensus, I'd like to formally propose my icon-changing suggestion at the Village Pump, with visual examples and a survey of outsiders. I'd like to wait until Mike Godwin responds, though. If you could notify me when he does, I'd be very appreciative. -kotra (talk) 02:38, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
 * I'd vote for it when it comes up. As for Mike Godwin, he is very slow to respond on issues. My suspicion is he wouldn't object at all, however, as it in no way weakens our legal standing. To the contrary it strengthens it. Sigh. I'm really disappointed with my fellow editors here, who seem to live inside of a policy bubble without a clue as to the real complaints we receive. The last opposition really irks me. They assert Flickr images are useless, and we shouldn't be using them. I'm at wit's end. (Mind meal (talk) 03:29, 24 April 2008 (UTC))


 * Yeah. I think the best thing to do is civilly and rationally respond to each comment, though I don't have time to do that... I'm happy about all the attention this issue is getting, but I can't keep up with all of it! -kotra (talk) 18:23, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

Furry fandom
Thanks for the revert and explanation. The original editor didn't leave an edit summary, so I couldn't tell if it was vandalism or not. -- Kesh (talk) 22:40, 25 April 2008 (UTC)


 * No problem! In the future, if you want to check changes to interwiki links yourself, they're located at the bottom of the left column. -kotra (talk) 00:05, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

Deleting Natural Remedies
Could you weigh in on the Onion Juice Therapy debate? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Onion_Juice_Therapy#Onion_Juice_Therapy Thanks  —Preceding unsigned comment added by JamesMMc (talk • contribs) 01:42, 11 May 2008 (UTC)


 * I've done so. In the future though, you may not want to notify people of AfDs like this, as it may be considered canvassing. Also, it's considered standard practice to add new comments at the bottom of talk pages, not in the middle. -kotra (talk) 03:39, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

Wilgefortis Reference in Anorexia Mirabilis entry
I notice you moved a portion of my entry on Anorexia Mirabilis to the discussion page due to an unreliable/ possibly unreliable source, so I have a new, much better one, and am hoping you will find this acceptable and re-enter the passage and new reference (I'm not sure of wiki ettequite, is this the right thing to do?) Anyhow, here is the new reference link: http://www.philipresheph.com/a424/study/lacey.doc —Preceding unsigned comment added by Esmeralda.rupp (talk • contribs) 21:06, 11 May 2008 (UTC)


 * Thanks for the comment. I'll review the references and respond on Talk:Anorexia mirabilis. Also, usually it's considered standard to add comments to the bottom of a talk page, instead of the top (like with the "new section" tab next to "edit this page"). -kotra (talk) 22:45, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

re: User:Nationalism
Thanks for the note. I agree, being an SPA isn't a problem; his ongoing attempts to /b/-ify the Furry Fandom article are certainly disruptive, though, and that's more what the warning is for. (Plus the occasional attacks on other editors, and so on.) If there's a blocking needed, I'll probably ask another admin to look into it, I'm sure they'll see the issue as well. Cheers! Tony Fox (arf!) 20:14, 21 May 2008 (UTC)


 * Agreed. -kotra (talk) 20:28, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

Wikiquettes
Sorry for the delay. My internet connection went down. -- Realist 2 ( Come Speak To Me ) 16:46, 26 May 2008 (UTC)


 * No problem! Thanks for the note. -kotra (talk) 19:22, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

B12
"The article you reference is good for a basic description of B12 as it relates to vegans, but it doesn't address the question of how often Vitamin B12 deficiency is actually observed in vegetarians/vegans, or how long B12 stays in the body."

True. It seems vegan/vegetarians aren't a very high priority in the medical research field. I did see a reference that talked about the rate at which B12 was metabolized, but I didn't bookmark it and so...

I'll have to admit to having some personal experience with this subject. About three years ago, when I was 50 and getting my first old man physical, they discovered that I had what they called vitamin B12 anemia. They gave me a shot and a bunch of tests, told me there was nothing wrong with me, and then suggested that I start eating meat. Well, rather than eating meat, I started taking supplements, and now I'm wondering if older people aren't more prone to B12 deficiency.

Anyhow, just stopping by to say hello and thanks for working with me on the vegetarian article. -Tom    Mmyotis   ^^o^^  03:07, 8 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Thanks for the note. Actually, I have seen in a couple places that say older people are at a higher risk for B12 deficiency. I just found this 2005 Harvard press release, which talks about how B12 deficiency is more common among both vegetarians and elderly people. I think this would probably be a good reference for the changes you make to the B12 section. What do you think? -kotra (talk) 07:38, 8 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Nice find. I'm hoping to put together a rewrite for the B12 section (at this point I've only talked in generalities) that we can discuss on the talk pages. I've been sick all weekend and trying to get my school work done (yes, this old man is going to school and, in an effort to finish his coursework by next spring, decided to take a summer course) so it'll be a bit before I can put something together. If you have any more thoughts or suggestions, let me know. Thanks! Mmyotis   ^^o^^  14:20, 8 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Alright, I will. Don't worry about Wikipedia, school (and your health, of course) is more important. -kotra (talk) 19:35, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

RE: Username
I will have a read through the username policies again myself, unfortunately "I refuse to change my username" isn't a get out clause in the username policy. I suspect it will probably be okay, however the best thing might be to use WP:RFCN to gain concensus. I'll set that up for you, so hold fast on the category removal for a little bit. I'll link you when I've done it. SGGH speak! 07:22, 8 June 2008 (UTC)
 * There we go, I have listed it at Requests for comment/User names. SGGH speak! 07:28, 8 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Thanks for your response. I've commented there. -kotra (talk) 07:56, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

ShepBot
Ya the problem has already been fixed. There are approx. 100 bad edits that I'm looking for. Thanks for getting one of them. §hep  •   ¡Talk to me!  20:27, 15 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Good to know! -kotra (talk) 20:40, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

I am sorry
I will try to make sure that my comments do not target specific users. However, I request that you accept that there are many differing viewpoints on Furry sexuality and the definition of a Furry. Thank you. --Nationalism (talk) 22:57, 20 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Your apology is appreciated, but unneeded. I didn't accuse you of targeting anyone, I just accused you of straying from the topic of improving the article (which isn't a big deal, just a minor etiquette thing). Anyway, I certainly understand that there are different viewpoints, and though I disagree with your viewpoint, that isn't an issue for me. -kotra (talk) 23:08, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

Vegan
There already exists a section on "eating disorders" in the vegan article. I added the appropriate category so that people researching behaviors associated with eating disorders would be able to find it. A large number of people with eating disorders become or have been vegan, the connection is real and there. The edit was not vandalism; if you feel it was, this is an issue you should take up with the people who initially inserted the discussion of "eating disorders" into the article in the first place. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Zaphraud (talk • contribs) 02:30, 22 June 2008 (UTC)


 * I think you are misunderstanding the purpose of categories. Categories are to group articles that are directly about the same general topic, not to group articles that are tangentially or indirectly related to the same topic. For this reason you don't find Vomiting in Category:Eating disorders, or Veganism in Category:Herbivory. Compare Veganism with the other articles in Category:Eating disorders, and you can see it doesn't match the others. All the others are types of eating disorders or subjects directly related to eating disorders. Veganism is not an eating disorder, and the most the article says is basically that "vegetarianism [note: not veganism, but vegetarianism] may be selected to camouflage an existing eating disorder." That is not sufficient for Veganism to be categorized under Category:Eating disorders. Anyway, sorry for automatically assuming your edit was vandalism, I was not assuming good faith as I should have. Do you mind if I copy our discussion to Talk:Veganism, where other editors can weigh in? -kotra (talk) 03:21, 22 June 2008 (UTC)


 * You are welcome to copy the discussion into the talk page, thats not a problem. I understand that experienced vegans with a high level of nutritional education would be sensitive to having their choice classified as a disorder, that wasn't the purpose of the insertion - sorry about that. Zaphraud (talk) 18:55, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

Discussion continued on Talk:Veganism

Clutter
Hi Kotra. There's no need for you to apologize. My talk page isn't cluttered. CadenS (talk) 11:59, 24 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Alright, no problem then. I hope that dispute has been resolved now, it lasted far longer and got blown up way more than it should have (no fault of yours). -kotra (talk) 16:23, 24 June 2008 (UTC)
 * It's been never ending it seems and its pissed me off. I just hope it's finally over. But thanks for your positive support. I do appreciate that. CadenS (talk) 00:47, 25 June 2008 (UTC)


 * No problem. I hope the archiving works, and nobody dredges the wikidrama back up again. We'll see! -kotra (talk) 00:59, 25 June 2008 (UTC)


 * It's working so far. No more wikidrama. Caden S  ( talk ) 20:07, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

Archive
Yeah pretty much archiving the entire page would be good. Thanks for your help Kotra. I really appreciate it. CadenS (talk) 00:33, 25 June 2008 (UTC)


 * No problem. It's archived now. Feel free to undo my edit or copy-paste stuff back to your talk page if it's not how you want. -kotra (talk) 00:57, 25 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Dude it's perfect! Thanks! CadenS (talk) 11:20, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

Blocking CadenS
''Kotra I have moved your message from my page to yours. No prejudice is implied by my consistent policy to reserve my page for other purposes.''

I do not understand your insistence on this. Keep in mind that his recent comments you feel are against assuming good faith only occurred after you dredged up a month-old dispute that he had taken (at the suggestion of other editors) a WikiBreak to let settle down. Yes, CadenS has been antagonistic, but, recently, only in response to what he (somewhat justifiably) feels are attacks by others. The archiving was performed to try - again - to put this dispute behind us and get back to building an encyclopedia. But now you have dredged it up again. I strongly believe if you just step back and stop pursuing "justice" with him, he will no longer be a problem. This can, of course, be revisited if and when his behavior is again problematic. But right now, unwittingly you are just causing more wikidrama and I'm sure everyone involved would just like to get back to working on articles. -kotra (talk) 12:45, 25 June 2008 (UTC)


 * I believe the latest abusive remarks (i.e. "bigot" etc.) from CadenS occurred in the last 48 hours. Kotra you used the verb "dredge" which I understand has negative connotations of shovelling mud. It may be that your strategy of tolerantly waiting for CadenS to behave will be successful. Indeed CadenS asked a reasonable question (about a quotation, which I was happy to answer) on my page, which signalled that he is active again in Wikipedia. The exchange that followed on CadenS page you have seen. I do not agree that endorsing CadenS's constant pleading that hurt feelings justify his incivility. Like it or not (I don't) we are already at the stage where "his behavior is again problematic". Kotra I agree fully with your last sentence and I shall "wittingly" insist on nothing more here than that WP policies that I mentioned be understood. Cuddlyable3 (talk) 13:56, 25 June 2008 (UTC)


 * I am not claiming his incivility is justified, but it is easily avoided. As I mentioned earlier, the somewhat offensive remarks only continued after and in direct response to your continuation of the earlier discussion, almost a full month after it had stopped and after CadenS had taken a wikibreak specifically to distance himself from that discussion. If you had not revisited the discussion (for what reason is unclear to me), there would have been no incivility. That is why Jaysweet and I expressed disapproval of your comment, and why I stand by my usage of the word "dredge": the dispute was something everyone involved (except you, apparently) wanted to put behind us and move on. Picking it up again is akin to "dredging". Semantics aside, please understand that the more you try to pursue this dispute, the longer the dispute will go on. Although I agree that you are technically within Wikipedia policies to pursue it in this manner, it is neither productive nor helpful to do so. I urge you to let it be for now, as he has. -kotra (talk) 14:39, 25 June 2008 (UTC)


 * CadenS's offensive remarks were disparagements of "that offensive request made by that one editor" that I understand to be Realist. I am not complaining about any offense to myself. I think I explained above how CadenS brought himself to my attention yesterday, and you Kotra did leave a leading question to me on CadenS's page. It is unfortunate that everyone cannot always operate to the time plan you might expect. Kotra you are correct that CadenS's incivility is easily avoided but that avoidance must be done by CadenS himself and not for him by every Wikipedian with whom he interacts. Cuddlyable3 (talk) 16:41, 25 June 2008 (UTC)


 * I understand that you are not complaining about any offense to yourself, and I understand that you were reminded of the dispute when CadenS commented on your talk page. However, I do not see how it could have taken you a month to respond to earlier comments unless you didn't see them the first time, which is certainly possible. In any case, that's all in the past anyway. I see from User talk:Jaysweet that you have no intention of commenting any further unless he causes a problem again. So I think this is probably concluded now. -kotra (talk) 17:13, 25 June 2008 (UTC)


 * We shall see. In fact it took me some time to find how to reply to a post 02:44, 29 May 2008 of yours kotra because it confused me.
 * This is probably not productive, but in the interest of personal etiquette here are my responses:
 * of course there aren't subjects we should avoid discussing with CadenS - this seems hard to maintain, given the sensitivities which he has expressed and the immediate subject of his behaviour.
 * I do not know what "sensitivities which he has expressed" you are referring to. And I have no problem with discussing his behavior, as evidenced by my own comments on this talk page. Since I wrote that original comment a month ago, however, I have expressed consternation with the continued resurrection of the dispute. But I don't consider that the resurrection of the dispute a "subject", at least, not in my original meaning in context, which meant a broad topic like religion or homosexuality.
 * This is a matter of tuning one's antenna to sense what bothers CadenS. Kotra your antenna must have told you that CadenS felt isolated, driven into a corner. If we can please avoid rigorous distinction between what may be a "subject" or a "topic" then I think we agree that broaching with CadenS such themes as homosexuality, sexual politics, religion or the grounds for complaints about his behavior is unproductive.
 * I think those topics (other than "grounds for complaints") would be unproductive to discuss with anyone on Wikipedia (because Wikipedia is not a forum). I wouldn't say they should be avoided for sensitivity reasons, though. That is what I originally meant in the context: no subject should be avoided for sensitivity reasons. Sorry for not explaining that better.
 * I still fail to see why CadenS's religion is crucial information - this prima facie assumption that CadenS has declared any religion is insensitive to the fact that he clearly distanced himself from doing so. I also feel that you Kotra rushed to answer on behalf of CadenS my question earlier, apparently from a wish to "inject tolerance". With hindsight it would have been fairer to CadenS to let him answer (or not) the question than to pre-empt that with, in effect, a well-meaning "Hey I've got a good answer to that".
 * I was not assuming that CadenS had declared any religion. In fact, in several of my comments I was claiming the opposite, that stating a belief in God does not necessarily constitute adherence to a religion. In this comment you quote was referring to the fact that CadenS's religion had been assumed and questioned about by other prior editors, despite CadenS never actually revealing any religion. Simply saying "CadenS's religion", in my opinion, does not mean one is saying he has a religion: "CadenS's religion does not exist" or "CadenS's religion is none" are valid sentences to me. This is just semantics again, though.
 * CadenS was perfectly welcome to answer as well, my response did not stop him. I was just giving my input, as you did. And CadenS was appreciative of my input, so obviously he did not feel it was unfair to him. In fact, it probably would have been more unfair had I not responded, since most of the comments until that point had been inordinately one-sided. Fairness or "tolerance" was not my intention though, just representation of a viewpoint that until then had not been expressed.
 * I agree that it is a semantic distinction whether saying "CadenS's religion" carries an implication that one believes he has one. I think it does prima facie (= at first sight). I guess that it unfortunately added to the feeling of being on trial of which CadenS complained. I know that was not your intention. At that point I hoped to get a reply from CadenS about his advertised(!) concept of God because that could have provided an ethical reference, perhaps the key to him differentiating himself from the likes of Fred Phelps. I am disapointed that I failed because CadenS was too occupied with his defensive thought "everyone is unfairly picking on me". My input was a question. Kotra your input was to declare my question irrelevant and already answered! CadenS then thanked you most effusively for what was ultimately just a confirmation of part of Wikipedia's definition of God.
 * I don't see any evidence that my comment added to the feeling of being on trial. But that's basically beside the point, because you're right, that wasn't my intention. I understand your hope was to learn more about his underlying "ethical" standpoint, but I thought that information was irrelevant. It shouldn't matter if one thinks like Fred Phelps or not. All that matters is that one's edits are constructive and within Wikipedia policy. Personal opinions don't factor into it as long as they are subordinate (on Wikipedia) to Wikipedia policy.
 * my Agnosticism has no practical relevance to my edits - the capitalised word is important enough for you to declare it.
 * That was the first time I had ever mentioned the word Agnosticism or Agnostic on Wikipedia (except on my userpage). I was citing an arbitrarily chosen example. I could have used "Realist2's Atheism" or "Jimbo's Taoist Rastafarianism"[citation needed] just as easily.
 * LOL Kotra you have a way with interesting examples. What a person selects as an example can say as much as the appropriateness of the example, and only you in that discussion introduced an own structured belief system. That can come across as smugness, as would me claiming "my Buddhism gives me high human value".
 * I agree, what one selects can say a lot, but sometimes it's just arbitrary, as it was in my case. The only reason I didn't use someone else's religion as an example is because it might have been misunderstood as a commentary on that person. No smugness was intended, as I never said my agnosticism had any positive or negative impact on my behavior. Also, I'm getting off on a tangent here, but I don't consider agnosticism a structured belief system. It's just a philosophical position.
 * it's often considered slightly impolite to ask someone's religion and Imagine....rudeness - this rambling text might be developed into an essay on manners but I can't say whether it would be a good essay. There may be some foggy rebuke intended.
 * I was trying to explain how asking about a stranger's religion could be considered somewhat uncivil to some people. I did get too wordy though, as I have a tendency to. My apologies.
 * That's true for some people whereas some others delight in advertising their religion. I had asked CadenS to explain why his declaration "I believe in God" is NOT a religous statement, exactly in accord with what he was saying (which was supported by TheBookeeper and contradicted by Realist).
 * Yes, I know. I just didn't think it was relevant to the real issue (CadenS's behavior), but perhaps I should have kept my mouth shut.
 * I confess my reluctance to answer ethical or spiritual questions from one who has declared standpoints of these kinds. As you saw, my belated but considered answer was "I don't know".Cuddlyable3 (talk) 19:59, 25 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Alright.
 * Anyway, hopefully this has cleared up my meaning. Are there any more of my comments you want to go over? -kotra (talk) 22:34, 25 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Yes I understand your meaning better now. No more because I have imposed on you enough. Thank you Kotra for answering my comments so amiably. Cuddlyable3 (talk) 14:12, 26 June 2008 (UTC)


 * I don't mind. If you have anything to add further, feel free. And thanks for being civil (though I wouldn't have expected you not to be). -kotra (talk) 19:19, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

Dancing mania.
Supposedly in here, but I can't find the excerpt. Maybe it's another translation, but I think I'll remove it for the time being, just to be safe. I've found plenty of sources on the topic, so replacing that with other information won't be difficult. · AndonicO  Engage. 21:04, 25 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Ok. Thanks! -kotra (talk) 22:55, 25 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Sorry, got confused with the excerpt from "Contemporary cures." The one you added a fact template too isn't cited at all... Do you think it should be removed? I've found several books on google that we can use to replace it, so I don't think it would be too great a loss. · AndonicO  Engage. 19:55, 26 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Ah, no problem. Yes, I was talking about the long quote that says it's "translated from German" but neglects to mention what German source it's from. If you can find a replacement quote, that would be great. It should probably be removed regardless, since I left a note on the talk page asking about it a year and a half ago, so it's probably never going to be fixed. I've removed it accordingly. -kotra (talk) 21:58, 26 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Yeah, I've found several sources that could be used to rewrite the article (I'll try to get some work in this summer, interesting FA it would make). I'll post them in the bibliography tomorrow, in case you or someone else wants to take a look as well. · AndonicO  Engage. 01:10, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

Adminstrator Support
Can you please support my request for adminship: Requests for adminship/Tyw7 2.

Thanks,

Tyw7, formerly Troop350 (talk) 09:10, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

Can you help?
I see you were listed as a participant in the League of Copy-Editors so it seems likely. The thing is the Military history wikiproject urgently needs prose pros to help with our best articles. In Milhist, A-Class has become the last port of call before FAC and we are looking for people to help identify prose and MoS issues at A-Class A-Class Reviews and help fix them prior to featured article candidacy. We also have a copy-editing section in our Logistics Dept and that can always use experienced copy-editors. For most of our articles, you don't need to be a specialist in the subject matter, just good with words.

If you think you can help, please do! Thanks for your time, -- R OGER D AVIES  talk 03:38, 3 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Currently I don't think I have time to help, unfortunately. But thanks for thinking of me! -kotra (talk) 23:30, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

Adopting me
Thank you Kotra. I really appreciate this. Caden S ( talk ) 03:26, 8 July 2008 (UTC)


 * No problem. Thanks for suggesting it, it's a good idea I hadn't thought of. -kotra (talk) 03:39, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

Sandbox
My sandbox is not working. I tried a simple test but I don't see it. Caden S ( talk ) 23:41, 9 July 2008 (UTC)


 * I'm seeing it ok (it says "Testing Caden's sandbox. This is my second test."). Your sandbox is at User:CadenS/sandbox, maybe you accidentally typed User:CadenS/Sandbox (it's case sensitive). Is it still not working for you? -kotra (talk) 00:05, 10 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Alright, I see it now. Caden S  ( talk ) 00:36, 10 July 2008 (UTC)
 * If you're not too busy editing elsewhere, could you drop by my sandbox and take a quick look for me? I've only just begun so it's pretty messy and are just some ideas. Perhaps you can give me your thoughts on it or help to edit it. Either way, could you provide any suggestions that may be helpful on my talk page? I'd apreciate that. Thanks. Caden S  ( talk ) 21:24, 10 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Sure. I will add my comments at User talk:CadenS/sandbox. -kotra (talk) 22:21, 10 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Comments added. -kotra (talk) 23:47, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

Soccer
Kotra I'm having difficulty locating the WikiSoccer project. Can you please help me. Caden S ( talk ) 02:08, 10 July 2008 (UTC)


 * I typed in WP:Soccer and was redirected to WikiProject Football. Is that the right project? -kotra (talk) 02:10, 10 July 2008 (UTC)
 * I don't know what I did but yes, this is it. Thanks! Caden S  ( talk ) 02:19, 10 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Great! No problem. -kotra (talk) 02:21, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

Boys Like Girls
Kotra please forgive me for bothering you again. My question directly concerns the page on the group Boys Like Girls. I removed an unsourced claim that stated that the band had sold their music publishing to Michael Jackson. Was this the proper way to go about it or not? Caden S ( talk ) 03:56, 10 July 2008 (UTC)


 * No problem, that's what I'm here for. Yes, I would have probably done the same thing (revert it and give an edit summary saying something like "removed unsourced dubious statement"). More cautious editors might have just tagged it with fact and maybe even brought it up on the talk page, but when it's not so well written, unsourced, and without an edit summary I guess I'm a little prejudiced. WP:BURDEN talks about this in more depth. Anyway, the claim might be worth looking for a reliable source for, if you think it's notable. -kotra (talk) 04:29, 10 July 2008 (UTC)
 * That's just it, tagging it didn't feel like an option based on the fact that it wasn't well written and had no edit summary. Even if it had been well written, it still couldn't be considered notable since I can't seem to find anything on the claim to begin with. Regardless of this, the article keeps getting vandalised along with the Metro Station (band) article which can be frustrating. Caden S  ( talk ) 05:05, 10 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Yeah, popular bands tend to get more vandalism than most articles. It looks like the vandalism has been reverted pretty quickly, though. Sometimes if the vandalism gets so bad that it because a significant problem, it will be semi-protected, but I don't think that's needed here yet. You and the other editors are doing a good job of reverting the vandalism those articles get. -kotra (talk) 14:23, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

Infobox library
This is just to let you know that I posted a proposal for the revision/extension of the infobox library that you were kind enough to mention to me a month ago. I know you prefer to have all discussions at a single place but since the page where you have helped me had no traffic for the last two weeks, you may have stopped checking it. The proposal is available here. Best regards, Clpda (talk) 16:24, 11 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Thanks for the note. I do still have Talk:List of national libraries on my watchlist, but occasionally I miss things. I hadn't in this case, but it doesn't hurt to let me know.
 * Concerning your proposal, it seems pretty good (if a bit verbose). However, I would not mention the "Standing Committee of the National Libraries Section of IFLA" or the "non-Wikipedian library community", since that will just confuse other editors who aren't aware of your unique situation. Besides, the Wikipedia community doesn't really care about their opinions or needs, to be honest. We are building an encyclopedia for everyone, and the library community doesn't get any special treatment, even on pages about libraries. I would just pass along their comments and ideas as your own. -kotra (talk) 17:10, 11 July 2008 (UTC)


 * I have also solicited comments on WikiProject Librarians, here: Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Librarians. -kotra (talk) 17:33, 11 July 2008 (UTC)


 * One final comment. Another reason to not talk about non-Wikipedians' opinions is that we have no way of knowing you are reproducing their opinions accurately, or even if these people exist at all. I certainly am not accusing you of any of this (on the contrary, I have every reason to trust you), but in the end, we can only consider the opinions of the Wikipedia community (of which you are a part). I would either encourage them to participate in the discussion themselves on their own username, or I would present their comments as "an idea" (without necessarily stating whose idea). -kotra (talk) 01:51, 12 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Thank you for your positive comments. I fully accept the 'verbose' comment (no offence felt) and assume having been maybe more detailed than absolutely necessary. I tend to avoid non-dit by experience of communication across languages and cultures and, despite this version of WP being in English, many libraries potentially described through this infobox are foreign and the corresponding data input by foreigners.
 * About the mentions of the Standing Committee and non-Wikipedians, I see both of your points. For the first one, I'll keep my stand for historical and transparency reasons. It wouldn't be right to propose these changes just as coming out of my head. For the second, i.e. credibility of the comments I might report, thank you for your trust - I have indeed no intention nor reason to bias the discussion - and I'll indeed remove the sentence concerned. The reason I had put it is that one does not just register to put a comment, that would be a waste of space, and registering for using WP other than just consulting it is no easy matter. Even I, having been a user for barely a month now, tend to forget the number of pages I had to read before hitting a 'serious' button, i.e. making an actual change somewhere. In these circumstances, the feedback of the non-WP librarian community through a WP-canal is likely to be near to nil. But that is not our fault... Clpda (talk) 20:26, 13 July 2008 (UTC)
 * I agree, registering for just one comment would be silly. By the way, one doesn't have to read all the policy and guideline pages before making edits to Wikipedia, though it does make one a better editor. One of Wikipedia's central ideas is that it's ok to make mistakes because they're so easily fixed (hence WP:BB). It's pretty hard to hurt Wikipedia.
 * Anyway, it's probably not a big deal if you mention non-Wikipedians and their opinions, but I would just remember that not all editors will take it at face value (in part due to the Essjay controversy). There's no reason to suspect you (you haven't pushed your POV anywhere as far as I can tell), but some editors are irrationally cynical. -kotra (talk) 18:56, 14 July 2008 (UTC)


 * And thank you for mentioning the proposal on the WikiProject Librarians, as I was unaware of its existence. Clpda (talk) 20:38, 13 July 2008 (UTC)
 * No problem. I didn't know about it either, but I thought it was a likely WikiProject (so I typed WP:LIBRARY and eventually found it through there). -kotra (talk) 18:56, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

GLAAD 2008
As President of Mt. San Antonio College LAMBDA Student Association, I was lucky enough to receive free tickets to the 2008 GLAAD Media Awards. Our VP, Comic artist Aubrey Miranda was also in attendance. Here's what would have happened had I decided to take the plunge. Hope you find it amusing. The Bookkeeper  (of the Occult)  03:00, 12 July 2008 (UTC)
 * I see. It's pretty well-drawn. My compliments to the artist, she does expressions well. -kotra (talk) 03:11, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

Copyedit request
Will you be able to perform a copyedit on the Frank Zappa article? (Ibaranoff24 (talk) 07:57, 13 July 2008 (UTC))


 * Sorry for the delayed response. I may have time sometime within the next few days, but I wouldn't hold my breath. Thanks for thinking of me, in any case. -kotra (talk) 23:39, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

He's stalking me all over again
Realist is back to stalking me. Now he's followed me onto the David Beckham page and is back to undoing my edits just like he did before on the Heterosexuality article. He also left a edit summary attacking me just like before. I'm fed up. Caden S ( talk ) 15:12, 20 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Thanks for bringing this to my attention. The edit summary and the stalking were both inappropriate. I considered writing a report at WP:Wikiquette alerts based on this edit and a more long-term pattern, but I see he has just today agreed to take the articles you edit off his watchlist. If he has actually done so, there should be no more problem. Hopefully this is resolved now (if I had a nickel for every time I had said that in this ongoing situation). Anyway, it is true that when you write an edit summary, it's best to explain the reason you made the edit, particularly when you remove something. That way there isn't any misunderstanding like there was here. Not a big deal, just something that could help in the future. -kotra (talk) 18:09, 20 July 2008 (UTC)
 * As my adopter I felt you needed to know. Both his edit summary and his stalking of me are inappropriate. I don't deserve this, and infact, nobody deserves this. He has agreed to stop following each and every single page I work on. I truly hope he's sincere about this as he's caused me much grief on Wikipedia. I want this to be finally over for the sake of the project. If not, then I'm quitting for good. Yes, you're correct that my edit summary on the David Beckham article could have been more clear. I have taken notice of this for the future. Caden S  ( talk ) 04:43, 21 July 2008 (UTC)
 * I agree with all you said above, but I hope you stick around even if he does continue... because if he does, then he will be going against Wikipedia policy and will be dealt with in the appropriate manner. I don't think it will come to that, though. -kotra (talk) 07:49, 21 July 2008 (UTC)
 * I'm not so sure Kotra if he will ever stop and I fear that it will come to the point where he will go against policy. He appears to really hate me. I'd like to say otherwise but this is what I see. Caden S  ( talk ) 11:10, 21 July 2008 (UTC)
 * There do appear to have been some nerves struck between you and him, but hopefully that's over now. If it turns out that it's not over, please let me know and I'll look into it. -kotra (talk) 20:20, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

Comment
Did you mean to put this edit at WT:FOOTY? Peanut4 (talk) 18:37, 20 July 2008 (UTC)
 * No. I find that efforts to resolve potential disputes are better received when they're made in a different venue. -kotra (talk) 20:29, 20 July 2008 (UTC)
 * I see now that I had accidentally put it at WT:FOOTY. I thought you were asking if instead of putting it at User talk:CadenS (as I thought I had), I meant to put it at WT:FOOTY. Thanks for the helpful comment though. -kotra (talk) 08:12, 21 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Hello. Thanks for the message. Yes, no problem. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 08:22, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

(reply from my talk page)Yeah, that's fine. You can even remove my comment, if you want, seeing as it has no relevance to the actual discussion. – PeeJay 08:41, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

Articles Needing Copy Edit
Hello former LOCE member :)

This is an invitation for you to join a brand-new WikiProject that aims to improve the articles tagged for copy edit. This is pretty important to Wikipedia because there are now over 4,000 such articles, some of which need quite a bit of help. This is not a clone of the LOCE because we will not deal with requests for copy edits, but will happily make improvements to articles at our own pace. If you're interested, sign up at the project page!

Cheers,  Samuel  Tan  02:41, 23 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Thanks for letting me know! I was surprised and disappointed when they pulled the plug on LOCE. I have joined this new WikiProject. -kotra (talk) 20:18, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

E.O. Green School shooting
Hi Kotra. I've noticed you did a bit of editing on the E.O. Green School shooting page. Good job so far. I would ask if you could please consider working on it further, in terms of fixing the biased POV problems that this page continues to hold (which as you are aware of I'm sure, violates NPOV and is misleading to the reader). What do you think? Can you help? The article needs major work due to its POV problems. I want to help out but I fear any edits I may make will result in further personal attacks towards me. Caden S ( talk ) 17:48, 24 July 2008 (UTC)


 * I agree. BotO ('Booker') said he would be NPOVing the article a few days ago, so I held off on working further on it in case he was in the process of editing it. Yesterday I left a note on BotO's talk page asking if he'd mind me taking a stab at it, and today he said he didn't mind, so I'll see what I can do when I get a moment today or tomorrow. -kotra (talk) 18:04, 24 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Great! Thanks Kotra! Caden S  ( talk ) 18:11, 24 July 2008 (UTC)