User talk:Kaldari/Archive 2
 | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
| Archive 1 | Archive 2 | Archive 3 | Archive 4 | Archive 5 |
Congratulations!
Congratulations! It's my pleasure to let you know that, consensus being reached, you are now an administrator. You should read the relevant policies and other pages linked to from the administrators' reading list before carrying out tasks like deletion, protection, banning users, and editing protected pages such as the Main Page. Most of what you do is easily reversible by other sysops, apart from page history merges and image deletion, so please be especially careful with those. You might find the new administrators' how-to guide helpful. Cheers! -- Cecropia | explains it all ® 04:15, 10 August 2005 (UTC)
Func's RfA :)
Kaldari, thank you for supporting my adminship, much appreciated! :)
Please never hesitate to let me know if you have concerns with any administrative action I may make.
Func( t, c, e, ) 22:52, 10 August 2005 (UTC)
CM Hall of Fame image
I didn't shoot that myself. I think I stole that off the web somewhere before I knew about the copyright rules. --Zpb52 02:02, August 22, 2005 (UTC)
Jguk for admin?
You may be interested in this: Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/jguk CDThieme 20:48, 24 August 2005 (UTC)
I realize that there were strong feelings on both sides with respect to the outcome of the AfD for this article, now located at Alternative theories regarding Hurricane Katrina. I would like to assure those who expressed concerns about the content, tone, and potential for degradation of this article that I intend for it to continue to exist only as long as is necessary to draw the contributions of fringe theorists away from the more substantial Hurricane Katrina articles. Once interest in this topic dies down, I'll quietly trim and merge this information into the appropriate general-topic articles. In the interim, I will carefully watch this page to prevent it from being abused, and I will continue to work towards making this article NPOV, properly sourced, and useful to those seeking an accurate record of the hysterics that so often follows catastrophe. Cheers. -- BD2412 talk 00:47, 14 September 2005 (UTC)
If you are in the neighborhood
You need to come over if your in the neighborhood, look me up, (Dinner my treat) Thanks Scott 01:35, 2 October 2005 (UTC)
2003 UB313
Hi - you uploaded an image of the 10th planet and its moon. You tagged it as a NASA and hence PD image, but unfortunately it's not NASA. Images taken by the Keck telescopes are not free for our purposes, as their use is restricted to educational, journalistic and personal use (see [1]). So, I deleted the image. I got permission from Michael Brown to release under the GFDL two other images used in our article, but I don't think he is the copyright holder of this image. Might be worth e-mailing the appropriate person to seek permission though. Worldtraveller 17:16, 3 October 2005 (UTC)
Crosstar
FYI: user talk:Willmcw#I temporarily deleted the crosstar image. Since we have the nearly-identical by user:Alex756, this will not immediately effect the articles. Cheers, -Willmcw 21:29, 4 October 2005 (UTC)
I think I am going to put in a counter-notification under the DCMA "takedown" provisions (17 USC 512). There is no copyright in that drawing and I feel it interferes with my rights to make arrow cross drawings of my own. What do you think about this approach? — © Alex756 01:24, 22 October 2005 (UTC)
Censorship of the subject of Sexual Bondage
An admin and an anonomous user are seemingly determined to censor several images on the article hogtie bondage. Many arguements have been made on the talk pages, but they all seem to boil down to the need to censor the images. So now it's being suggested the images arn't relevant dispite the fact that the article makes direct illustrative reference to them. The admin who removes them has decided he knows best, despite the large number of contributors who state that the images are neccessary. Interestingly, the images remained, and he made no fuss about them for several weeks despite performing edit to the text, until a user complained that the images were "obcene" and stating the Wikipedia is not supposed to have nude images (the images DO NOT display nudity), and might offend people and demanded that they be removed. It was then that the Admin removed the images, and started making excuses as to why. Could you take a closer look at this page and determine if censorship is being performed. I'm becoming concerned that a reversion cycle has begun and that unless something is done it's going to go round in circles. --Jbc01 11:18, 22 October 2005 (UTC)
Caenolestes condorensis
You wrote on the Condor shrew opossum "The Condor Shrew Opossum is only known from an isolated observation in southern Ecuador, and its taxonomic status is not yet well established." The first statement is true, of course, but as far as I know its status has never been disputed. Do you have a source for that statement? Ucucha (talk) 14:59, 26 October 2005 (UTC)
- I answered on my own talk page. Ucucha (talk) 16:48, 26 October 2005 (UTC)
Quotes
Yes, I would! Punctution goes inside quotation marks in the United States and in dozens of other countries. I'm not aware of any kind of global revolution towards the British Commonwealth style. Neutralitytalk 22:49, 13 December 2005 (UTC)
Bah. American style is inconsistent and ambiguous. Even though I'm from the U.S., I prefer the British style in my writing. ThinkingInBinary 00:35, 8 April 2006 (UTC)
Periods on captions
Re captions on John Seigenthaler Sr.. According to Wikipedia talk:Captions they should be sentences, and sentences have periods. Also see Period at the end of the caption or not?. Most all the other articles on Wikipedia have periods on the captions, unless the caption is just a name. --Foofy 00:27, 14 December 2005 (UTC)
Um, BTW, this was supposed to be more like a question! In other words: why not periods? Thanks. --Foofy 00:32, 14 December 2005 (UTC)
How long should an article be semi-protected?
I've raised this question here, as now it's actually real and happening I expect more people will want to comment. Dan100 (Talk) 15:00, 22 December 2005 (UTC)
Wikipedia:User Bill of Rights is a proposed policy / guideline that has been supported by Wikipedians who are concerned that the long term neutrality of Wikipedia depends upon input from minority viewpoints. Continued input from minority viewpoints, in turn can be assured only if the actions of admins and ArbCom are applied fairly and with an even hand. Although the proposed policy / guideline is under active discussion [2], [3], there have been attempts to close the discussion on the grounds that "there is not a snowball's chance in hell" [4] that such a proposed policy / guideline will be accepted. One editor was sanctioned [5] for an allegedly "disruptive" edit, of removing a "rejected" template while discussion was ongoing [6]. Your input on this matter would be greatly appreciated. (The current version of the proposal appearing on the page is a semi-blanked version which was semi-blanked by opponents of the proposal.)[7] --BostonMA 14:30, 30 December 2005 (UTC)
I'm glad I was able to make you laugh. The situation at Wikipedia:User Bill of Rights is a perfect example of this which I refer to in a round about way at the bottom of Wikipedia:Ignore the Arbitration Committee. WAS 4.250 17:13, 30 December 2005 (UTC)
Re: the Kelly Martin RfC
>I think that such things which do not fall under the purview of encyclopaedia editing really don't have to go through the cumbersome deletion processes, simply because otherwise we'll end up doing nothing else than squabbling rather than writing the encyclopaedia.
- So you are suggesting that Kelly Martin's actions have reduced squabbling??? Kaldari 14:29, 3 January 2006 (UTC)
- Dear Kaldari: No, no, of course not; that is clearly not the case. All I meant was that I see no reason that unencyclopaedic content should go through the existing editorial review processes (as they stand) due to their fundamental heavyweight nature and their impractical approach to deletion debate. Indeed, as I mentioned, it was more that Kelly Martin should have communicated better about what she was doing (although, not communicating sufficiently couldn't be construed as misdemeanour, but rather omission, as per Hanlon's razor) and to be honest the squabbling that occurred shouldn't have been allowed to happen, whether or not Kelly did the right thing. In a respect, it is representative of the immaturity of the community as a whole that such actions were allowed to create a furore to that degree - all it takes to reverse such actions is a willing admin to undelete them, which indeed occurred, so such actions become a fait accomplis. We have a long-standing culture of "be bold" here, and a secondary concern of mine (which was one I did not voice on the RfC, due to its non-sequitur nature) is that otherwise admins will become stripped of their ability to use judgement and discretion that ordinary users possess simply due to the community expecting them to blindly follow process without any attention to product. I do hope that clarifies my position on the matter. Thank you, and I wish you all the best, --NicholasTurnbull | (talk) 17:36, 3 January 2006 (UTC)
There are no Wikimedia IRC channels. Ambi 20:54, 3 January 2006 (UTC)
- I was banned from #wikipedia for pasting the five lines. I was later banned again for "trolling" but unbanned immediately by another op. #wikipedia is an official Wikipedia (and thus Wikimedia) IRC channel by Freenode policy; if it was unofficial it would be ##wikipedia. --SPUI (talk - don't use sorted stub templates!) 21:14, 3 January 2006 (UTC)
- Ambi, both times. I told her she shouldn't ban someone she's in conflict with, and she continued to call me a troll. When I told her to assume good faith, she quoted "Carbonite's Law" - "The more a given user invokes assume good faith as a defense, the lower the probability that said user was acting in good faith." --SPUI (talk - don't use sorted stub templates!) 21:32, 3 January 2006 (UTC)
- Nyet. The IRC channels are explicitly not official. Never have been, never will be. Indeed, there are really only two policies on the IRC channels - don't be a dick and don't publicly log the channel. SPUI violated the latter, and SPUI was kicked. Simple as that. He later violated the former, and was kicked for that. Ambi 00:00, 4 January 2006 (UTC)
Qur'an protection
As I mentioned in the talk page discussion, when I clicked on "edit this page" there was no protection (no red text warning of a protected page), and it was only after I clicked on "save page" that the {{protected}} template appeared to my surprise, presumably as a result of Harro5's simultaneous edit. The software did not report a conflict with Harro5's edit or prevent the page save from taking place or warn in any way (possibly since I'm an admin). It was not my intention to edit a protected page and I did not in fact do so, since the protection was apparently applied in the middle of my edit. -- Curps 03:04, 5 January 2006 (UTC)
Why the image is shocking
Kaldari, my take, as a non-Muslim, as to why the woman looking at the Qur'an image is controversial.
Note that it's a guy who claims to be a Saudi Muslim who is deleting the picture over and over. If he's Saudi, he's grown up in a culture in which seeing anything of a strange woman save her eyes and hands is shocking. People get used to that. I recall reading an account by a non-Muslim male who spent some time in the Middle East, surrounded by women in chadors and abayas, who said that he found himself absolutely riveted just by pictures of women's faces. Women in bikinis were just too much! Sensory overload!
If someone has that sort of socially-conditioned response to any sight of female flesh, the bare shoulder of the woman in the picture is arousing. Arousal and the Qur'an do not belong together. Looking at the Qur'an, touching the Qur'an, one must be PURE. That includes a complete bath after sex, masturbation, nocturnal emissions, whatever. This guy is fixated on the bare shoulder, and acting out his fixation. (Says the amateur shrink.)
Of course this seems absolutely weird to folks from countries where the woman's attire would be considered casual but not in any titillating. It would take a women in a bikini, or a naked woman, to trigger the "inappropriateness" sensors.
I'm not sure that you could get a Middle Eastern Muslim to explain things that way, since admitting that responses to clothing/lack of clothing are culturally conditioned is against the mindset that says "The Qur'an decrees hijab and it's the truth for all ages and times". Zora 22:05, 5 January 2006 (UTC)
- Your generalizations are astounding, Zora. Where exactly did you
determine that the people removing the image were Saudi?
- Um, coz he said so. Seems to be one guy, with a lot of sockpuppets, plus various people who are scared of offending anyone. Zora 07:05, 6 January 2006 (UTC)
- Did the editors say they were aroused by the arm?
- Nope, I'm guessing from his language, and from his monomania re the subject. He has GOT to be aware that the woman's attire is respectable in the US, where the picture was taken. Hence the problem is not her, but his response to her. Zora 07:05, 6 January 2006 (UTC)
- And one does not have to be pure to look at the Qur'an.
- OK, then why is he so upset? She's looking, not touching. Zora 07:05, 6 January 2006 (UTC)
- It is your right to wear whatever you want, but I find it sick that you must mock someone else's culture to state that. You are asking others to be tolerant of a women's rights, but you fail to be tolerant of another culture. Ironic. joturner 00:22, 6 January 2006 (UTC)
- Tolerant means not burning him at the stake (as was the wont of Christians, long ago), it doesn't mean I'm not allowed to criticize him or his interpretation of the Qur'an. There's a wide variety of views within Islam. You're new here, or you would have noticed that two of our more respected Muslim editors came down squarely on the side of tolerating the picture till we found something better. Zora 07:05, 6 January 2006 (UTC)
Image in Qur'an article
This is in response to your post on my talk page.
Hi Jotourner. I was wondering if you could explain to me why some people believe the image in the Qur'an article is offensive. I understand it has to do with the woman's arm being bare, but there are images of women with bare arms all over Wikipedia. Why is this one in particular such a problem? Is it because a woman with bare arms is being allowed to read the Qur'an? I must confess I know very little about Islam, but I would love to learn more. I doubt I'm going to change my opinion on this particular matter, but it would be nice to at least understand the point of view they are coming from. Cheers. Kaldari 21:06, 5 January 2006 (UTC)
- Thanks for the interest in learning about Islam. I personally am not offended per se by the picture, although, as you can see by my vote, I am in favor of removing it and, if possible, replacing it with a new one. Most likely, those Muslims who are offended by the picture are offended because the woman is in the presence of the Qur'an. Yes, there are other pictures with bare arms (and bare other-body-parts) on Wikipedia, but they are not in the presence of the Qur'an or any other holy book.
- Muslims do believe in the Bible and the Tanakh in their original forms and therefore it is no surprise that a large part of what is stated in those two books is also stated in the Qur'an. But neither of those can be found today in their original forms; it is fact that they have been altered significantly. Very few, or if not nobody, alive today has even read the Bible in its original language. However, it is a proven fact that the Qur'an remains today as the most preserved book in history; not a single dot or stroke has been altered between the very first rendition of the Qur'an and the copy you can buy from a local bookstore today. By the way, I would like to point out that I am referring to the Qur'an in Arabic as "the Qur'an" in any other language is just a translation; translations can alter significantly.
- The main reason for the Qur'an's preservation is that Muslims regard it as the word of God and therefore the most revered item one could ascertain in this world. Before touching or reading the Qur'an, the Muslim must cleanse himself or herself in a process called wudu. The Qur'an must be treated with the utmost respect; it cannot be taken into any unclean place (like the bathroom) or put on an unclean surface (such as the floor without a clean mat underneath). When disposing of the Qur'an, or any other item that bears a name of Allah (especially in Arabic), it must be burned or buried (odd as that may sound). Some Muslims will even go so far as to put the Qur'an higher than them whenever they read it or kiss the Qur'an when he or she sees one. In some countries, such as Pakistan, desecrating the Qur'an is punishable by a life sentence or death. I think you get the point; the Qur'an is respected most highly by Muslims.
- Surely you can see why it could be considered sacrilegious to portray the Qur'an next to someone doing something un-Islamic. Non-Muslims are allowed to read the Qur'an. But this person, although presumably a non-Muslim, is dressed in a manner that violates the modest clothing outlined by the Qur'an and example (hadith) of the Prophet Muhammad (peace be upon him). The degree to which Muslims are offended by this portrayal of the Qur'an, as you can see, varies.
- Thanks for the explanation. At least now I understand a bit of the reasoning behind why someone would be offended. As you have described it, the issue seems to be closer to profanity than obscenity, i.e. the problem has more to do with the subject's lack of religious reverance than the fact that her arm is uncovered. Would you say that is accurate? This seems a bit more reasonable, at least to my Westernized mind. The issue is certainly a difficult one, as Wikipedia's purpose is certainly not to be offensive. Reading over Wikipedia:Profanity, it seems the question boils down to whether or not the image adds something of value to the article. Although that is certainly open to debate, my personal opinion is that the image does add something to the article as it is an interesting picture and provides good illustration for the last two paragraphs of "Writing and printing the Qur'an". Of course the issue ultimately boils down to editorial judgement, and that is where I suppose we must agree to disagree. It's unfortunate that the debate on the article talk page has accomplished little in the way of actual communication between the two sides of the issue. I think some of the people involved would be more receptive if the objections were explained better. Kaldari 05:41, 6 January 2006 (UTC)
- I would have to agree that it's closer to profanity. joturner 11:13, 6 January 2006 (UTC)
Nashville-Davidson (balance)
Nashville-Davidson (balance) would have to correspond to the former City of Nashville since it says in the article of the balance "This portion generally corresponds to the area of the City of Nashville before the formation of the consolidated Metropolitan Government of Nashville and Davidson County." Heegoop, 13 January 2006 (UTC).
Seigenthaler article
Kaldari, a colleague and I are working on a wikipedia story for the Boston Globe. We've done extensive interviewing, and would like to talk with you by phone, if possible, about the vandalism on the Seigenthaler page. I noticed that on Dec. 14 you protected the page, then unprotected it only minutes later, saying "I hate to leave articles protected for too long." I'm interested in hearing your thinking about this kind of situation: to protect vs. unprotect. If you want to set up a time to talk, my email is mehegan@globe.com. Thanks much. -- David Mehegan, staff writer, the Boston Globe.
- Greetings, Kaldari! It was pleasant talking to Mr. Mehegan. I answered you by e-mail. Antandrus (talk) 21:04, 14 January 2006 (UTC)
Capitaol building image
Yes, but Theresa T. Khayyam is a state employee of Tennessee (see the email for her), and I assumed her work was in the public domain ask, IIRC, most (all?) states put non-classified photo works into the PD. I used the US gov template as I felt it was closest to what I was looking for. If this is not the case then I apologize and will request to have the image deleted. -Greg Asche (talk) 03:18, 21 January 2006 (UTC)
77th Academy Award Nominees
The difference between that list and the crash victims, IMO, are that the Oscar nominees are independently notable (being major films), and were notable for that reason before becoming nominated, whereas the crash victims were not independently notable. --Andy Saunders 16:51, 26 January 2006 (UTC)
Image use policy
I modified the user-created image policy change per your point to include public domain release and was hoping you might be willing to voice support for the change now or rescind your opposition. Thanks for participating in the debate -Nv8200p talk 15:03, 27 January 2006 (UTC)
- See Copyleft#The_ideology. With a public domain images, someone can make a derivitive work and copyright it. GFDL and Creative Commons licenses forbid copyrighting derivitive works. Derivitive works must be released under the same license. -Nv8200p talk 16:26, 27 January 2006 (UTC)
Discussion of deletion of Casualties of the September 11, 2001 Attacks: City of New York
I see that you've applied on Wikipedia:Deletion review to have this article undeleted. I can temporarily undelete it if you think that it would help the discussion. Please ask on my talk page if you want me to. I know that you are also an admin but obviously it would be inappropriate for you to do it. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 10:06, 28 January 2006 (UTC)
Oops! Ya caught me in mid-edit.
I was stealing another user's userboxes and editing them to my own purposes when you checked my page. User:Catamorphism is all those things. I will cop to DDR (once in a blue moon), MacOS/X and Nashville native... but I confess that I do consume the flesh of once-cute little animals and I would call my programming skills amateur at best (HTML and I am learning Wikispeak). Thanks for the encouragement, though. I appreciate you experienced folks' feedback. Iamvered 07:54, 29 January 2006 (UTC)
OMG... I work at the Lipstick Lounge. I sing there all the time. I'm ***. Do you know me? Iamvered 08:02, 29 January 2006 (UTC)
Hey buddy, ya caught me in mid-edit again on State of Franklin. I hope it's better now. What do you think? Iamvered 01:09, 31 January 2006 (UTC)
Thanks so much for the good words. I'm new to the whole Wiki thing and I'm loving it. Now it's time for karaoke... gotta go sing! Iamvered 03:08, 31 January 2006 (UTC)
Thanks for the tips-- about linking years, though: don't you think that years should be linked? I can foresee a future Wikipedia (10 years from now, say) in which you'll be able to hit the 1748 page and find out everything that happened in that year (should some prodigious editor take it upon himself to work on such an enormous task]]. Linking now would make that task easier then! Iamvered 23:28, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
My RFC
Greetings. I value your opinion a great deal, so I take seriously that you've endorsed a part of the RFC filed against me. I don't want this to come between us, and I don't take it personally. All the best, – Quadell (talk) (bounties) 14:37, 31 January 2006 (UTC)
arabic
"'ajami" can actually mean "persian" in arabic, so 'iraaq 'ajamii would be Persian Iraq; in contrast to 'iraaq 'arabii, or Arab Iraq. hope that could be of any help! Arre 00:04, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
'Iraq 'Ajami is Arabic, better al-'Iraq al-'Ajami; 'Ajami was a phrase applied to Persia/Persians, and does mean "foreign" - actually more like 'barbarian' in the old Greek sense of "those guys who don't talk like us" - non-Arab in other words. I don't know the phrase is a correct, it doesn't ring a bell but I'm not a Persia/Iraq guy. (Collounsbury 01:49, 1 February 2006 (UTC)).
- ~Well... yes, but the computer I'm using for some reason won't let me connect the letters. Weird, but unfortunately true. I'm working on that, but you should try someone else for the script. Arre 11:05, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
Your vote on the RFR poll
Hi, Kaldari, you voted oppose on the requests for rollback privileges consensus poll, suggesting that people who would like rollback should just become admins instead - that being an admin is "no big deal". While I think that in an "ideal" Wikipedia, this would indeed be the case, I believe that over time standards for becoming an administrator have clearly risen. This is apparent by looking at the RFA system throughout Wikipedia's existence - intially, all one had to do to become an admin was just ask nicely, now we have a complicated procedure. A recent proposal on the RFA talk page for requiring at least 30 minimum support votes and a significant number of existing contributions was given some serious consideration. There is frequent talk of "bad admins slipping through the RFA net", and while you may not agree with that philosophy of adminship it is undeniable that the standards have risen.
Because of this, candidates who pass are already very experienced with Wikipedia. While this in itself is no bad thing, it means that for the month or so before they become admins they are not being given the tools an admin has which would help them to improve Wikipedia, by removing vandalism and performing administrative tasks such as moving pages. The qualities which make a good administrator are not determined by length of stay on Wikipedia or number of friends you have, but by personality and character. Time at Wikipedia only gives familiarity with the way things are done here. However, being at Wikipedia for an extra month doesn't grant any special insight into the ability to determine which edits are vandalism and which are not. This is why I believe that we should hand out rollback to contributors who are clearly here to improve Wikipedia but won't pass the RFA procedure because of their percieved lack of familiarity with policy by some Wikipedians. I think that adminship should be no big deal, like you, however I see just two ways to make sure Wikipedians can quickly and efficiently remove vandalism - either by all those who believe adminship should be no big deal involving themselves much more in RFA, or by supporting this proposal and giving out rollback to good contributors who have not yet been here long enough to become admins. We have to remember that our ultimate aim here is to produce an encyclopedia, and we should balance the idealism of "adminship should be no big deal" with the pragmatism of granting rollback to our best non-admin contributors. I would be very grateful if you would reconsider your viewpoint on this issue. Thanks, Talrias (t | e | c) 13:55, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
- Actually I like the latest suggestion that has been posted to the page. Getting the rollback button should be automatic if you are logged in, just like the move functionality. I also think that rollback should be a two-step process for everyone. Editors should be able to leave edit summaries for rollbacks. If editors can use god-lite anyway, what difference does it make? Kaldari 17:46, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
- Have a look at the second section in the replies to common objections, which explains why we shouldn't give out rollback automatically. For a real example, see the latest comment by Latinus in the section you are referring to. Thanks, Talrias (t | e | c) 17:55, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
The wager
kaldari: Wikipedia:1911 Encyclopedia topics is getting pretty close to completion. I wonder which will happen first 1911 finished or 1 million en articles
kaldari: any wagers?
Alkivar: Kaldari... how much of a wager are you talking?
Alkivar: how about a 10$ wiki foundation donation?
Alkivar: I think we'll hit 1 million before we complete the 1911 integration
rhobite: 1M is coming soon...
kaldari: I think we'll complete 1911 first :)
kaldari: so $10 donation? for the loser
Alkivar: yeah
kaldari: deal
Alkivar: ok ... deal
Alkivar: we've got witnesses too
kaldari shakes hand with Alkivar
Alkivar shakes back
mindspillage witnesses. :-)
You've been quoted
In the Boston Globe article on Wikipedia. Just so you know... JesseW, the juggling janitor 21:00, 12 February 2006 (UTC)
Star-crossed
Thanks for the note about the latest activity. I'll hold off reverting image deletions while we decide their status. Cheers, -Will Beback 21:40, 12 February 2006 (UTC)
- PS: You might also want to contact user:Alex756. He's on the legal team and was involved previously. In fact, I'll go ahead and point him to your note on Wales' page. Cheers, -Will Beback 06:40, 14 February 2006 (UTC)
- Did you ever get a response from anyone on this matter? -Will Beback 22:23, 25 February 2006 (UTC)
- For your amusement: [9] -Will Beback 18:52, 3 March 2006 (UTC)
IRC
kaldari = Kaldari Kaldari 17:31, 14 February 2006 (UTC)
Legal stuff
Hi. Probably best to send it directly to me at dwool AT wikimedia DOT org. Danny 21:05, 14 February 2006 (UTC)
... is about to be deleted. Kaldari 02:44, 15 February 2006 (UTC)
- What is the purpose of a sockpuppet for all this? -- user:zanimum
- I'm sorry, but I don't understand what your reply means at all. Your article has been nominated for deletion (not by me) and will be deleted in 3 hours. If you would like to save it from deletion, simply remove the prod template from the article. Kaldari 03:13, 15 February 2006 (UTC)
- Not by you? I presumed when you were contacting me about the impending deletion, that you were "user:Gimme a reason to keep this. -- user:zanimum
- I'm actually one of the admins that closes out the deletions. I was going through the list of impending expirations (proposed deletion works by expiration rather than voting) and I noticed that you had never been contacted about your article being proposed for deletion. I just thought you might want to know about it in case you wanted to save the article, which it looks like you did. Kaldari 14:58, 15 February 2006 (UTC)
- Not by you? I presumed when you were contacting me about the impending deletion, that you were "user:Gimme a reason to keep this. -- user:zanimum
- Yes, thank you, I now have gained a better understanding of this project. However, do you know if "Gimme" is an actual user, or is he/she indeed a sockpuppet? -- user:zanimum
Article for Deletion
Greetings. You may be interested in voting on Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Abu Ghraib torture and prisoner abuse (image free). Thanks. --Descendall 01:26, 17 February 2006 (UTC)
re: Population figures
Hi! No harm done lol :). I would like to THANK YOU for pointing a couple of things out! I know how confusing a subject such as this could be very confusing at best. A few others with myself had just finished debated the same subject about Louisville, Kentucky, which consolidated in 2003. And Thanks for the 1960 census map, I can use that for my reference. :) --Moreau36; 1051, 22 February 2006 (UTC)
City edits
Thanks for the heads-up about the redirects; I'll follow that in future. It's just that it's quicker to type (eg) "UK" than "United Kingdom": make the servers work instead of my fingers. The comment about getting a robot sounds interesting, too, but for the moment I'm just hitting the "random" button and seeing where it takes me. Re the changes themselves -- I see the U.S. counties wikiproject page says to use "U.S. state" instead of "U.S. state | state" and, as for others, indicating what country you're talking about instead of just the subnational entity simply seems like the right way to go for an international project (and I remember reading an example on one of the NPOV policy pages, talking about HG Wells being born in Kent without identifying the country -- can't find it now, but it's there somewhere). Still, the thought of getting mass reverted is not attractive. Cheers, Sgt Pinback 18:08, 22 February 2006 (UTC)
1911 articles
Hi: Thanks for the message. Yes, I admit to having an impulse to want to see the project finished; when I saw that the list was shrinking pretty rapidly, I decided to go ahead and work on the remaining articles. I will certainly be happy to help do more research. For the moment, should I put an update tag on the towns and states articles? That at least alerts the reader that the material is out of date. Let me know --FeanorStar7 12:21, 25 February 2006 (UTC)
- I talked to Pcb and he agreed that an update tag is at least a way to alert the reader that the info needs checking and updating. I went back to the ones I imported and added the tags; but I noticed that some other people had also been doing the same as me and importing without checking. Can't we go back into the project page history and copy the research that people had done if there is a concern about losing it? Seems like we could. I'm probably not making much sense. But hopefully you understand where I'm coming from.--FeanorStar7 14:19, 25 February 2006 (UTC)
Date links
Since you have taken an interest in links. Please be kind enough to vote for my new bot application to reduce overlinking of dates where they are not part of date preferences. bobblewik 20:33, 25 February 2006 (UTC)
John McBride
I've got access to the New York Times archives dating back to 1857, which is quite a help! Here's the reference for the John McBride information:
JOHN M'BRIDE, LABOR LEADER, IS KILLED; Federal Mediator and ex-President of American Federation Struck by Runaway Horse. New York Times. New York, N.Y.: Oct 10, 1917. p. 11 158.143.162.119 21:55, 25 February 2006 (UTC)
Caenolestes
Well, MSW3 actually calls each species Xxx Caenolestid instead of Xxx Shrew Opossum, but yes, it calls C. fuliginosus the Dusky Caenolestid. Page 19 if you ever get a chance to get yours hands on one. They do plan to put up a web page like they did with MSW2, and the MSW2 webpage says they are in the process of getting it up and running, so you'll be able to check it out then. - UtherSRG (talk) 01:05, 1 March 2006 (UTC)
"Caenolestid" = member of the family Caenolestidae. Just as hominid is a member of hominidae, etc. Sometimes scientsts use shorthand a little too much. ;) - UtherSRG (talk) 06:33, 1 March 2006 (UTC)
I've just fired off an email to Groves. Would you like a copy? You can email me. - UtherSRG (talk) 15:36, 7 April 2006 (UTC)
Yeah, that's difficult, and I deliberated before unsprotecting. I think it's always worth trying unprotection, since protection is considered harmful. If the problem resurfaces in an irritating way, then it can be re-sprotected. Given the low rate at which the problem occurs, though, semi should really be used only very sparingly. It would be a great pity to wind up with long term sprotection on an article because of one person who has difficulties. I'm inclined to think that using rollback without discussion and not giving it the time of day is the better solution. -Splashtalk 22:07, 3 March 2006 (UTC)
Not a problem--I was surprised myself when I saw Nashville was represented by a Republican in 1873. Happened to look at the 1940s boundaries for the 5th District--it looks like at that time, the disrict that was then numbered the 5th included just about all of the territory that is now the 6th District (Bart Gordon's district); my digging revealed that it was the 4th District for much of the time before the 1980s redistricting. Blueboy96 00:56, 6 March 2006 (UTC)
Hmmm, another quick peek revealed that Nashville and Murfreesboro traded district numbers twice--looks like the Murfreesboro district--the one we now know as the 6th--was numbered as the 5th from 1875-1933. No similarity with the current 5th except a district number, it appears. I know, it's confusing, but I should know--my home congressional district, NC-9, has changed numbers at least three times since its creation in 1943. So it is possible for a district to change numbers while retaining the same boundaries. Blueboy96 01:05, 6 March 2006 (UTC)
Another interesting finding--John Bright's district was originally the 4th District from 1871-75 before becoming the 5th in 1875--and it looks like this district has no connection at all to the current 5th. More than likely its territory at the time includes most of the territory that Albert Gore represented before going to the Senate (Joe Evins' district was merged with it after the 1950 census to form the 4th, which became the 6th after the 1980s redistricting). Blueboy96 01:44, 6 March 2006 (UTC)
Municipalities of Portugal
Hi! Thanks for reporting the existance of another infobox to apply on Portuguese municipalities. Why have you created another one? Personally, I prefer the other one, your template seems to have origin in the Portuguese wikipedia, the other template does not mention the regions or subregions because that's just European Union statistical stuff, along with that, your also mentions the historical region, which were extinct 30 years ago, so, it's a bit useless. The one you created also shows the flag, that is just the coat of arms over a colored square, which shows little or no information where the CoA is already. But anyway, thanks for the work, but I think I'll replace it with the other one (example: Álcacer do Sal), do you agree?
Some advice
I would strongly recommend you not to alter my additions to discussion pages or notice boards in the future. As these are personal messages and not encyclopedia articles, they do not need to reflect a "neutral" point of view (which, I argue, is totally impossible to achieve, anyway). And attempts to alter them is vandalism which I will report. Corax 00:15, 12 March 2006 (UTC)
Talk about alienation of potential allies. Tsk Tsk. Corax 03:23, 13 March 2006 (UTC)
Thanks
. Hi Kaldari. I notice that it's a thankless job starting a group to review censorship issues and I'd like to take the time to thank you properly for sensibly approaching the issue of censorship. If the group survives the deletion proposal, I would like to offer support in cleaning up the WAC guidelines and requesting level-headedness amongst members. Peace. ॐ Metta Bubble puff 03:50, 13 March 2006 (UTC)
Date links proposal
Hi,
You contributed to a previous debate about date links. You may wish to see the proposal at: Wikipedia_talk:Manual_of_Style_(dates_and_numbers)#linking_of_dates. Thanks. bobblewik 08:48, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
There have been some issues raised about your split and merger over on the Talk:History of abortion law page. Would you mind chiming in, if you have the time? Thanks!--Andrew c 05:36, 18 March 2006 (UTC)
Re: Nashville flag
Hiya,
Apparantly the colours on Image:Nashville flag.png are still wrong... Alphax τεχ 01:02, 26 March 2006 (UTC)
A fellow citizen of Nashville, I was writing Flag of Nashville, Tennessee and noted that when the seal is used on flags I have seen in pictures, the seal usually is depicted in color. You can see this in the photo of Bill Purcell, a photo by the North American Vexillology Association, the Flags of the World website, and on a photo of Bill Purcell handing the flag to a school principal. Could it be possible for the flag to be updated with the seal in color? Daniel Bush 01:08, 26 March 2006 (UTC)
Also, please note that in the final picture I linked to, where the flag is being handed off, the flag is presented backward. The yellow stripe should be on the right, rather than on the left. The shield and tobacco plant are usually on opposite sides. I think the current flag photo would be rather inaccurate if it is left in black and white. Thank you. Daniel Bush 01:15, 26 March 2006 (UTC)
- Please see my response on Talk:Flag of Nashville, Tennessee. Kaldari 02:26, 26 March 2006 (UTC)
Ohiopyle
PLease tell me. Someone claimed that the last comma is wrong, but didn't reply to tell me in what way. If I know what is wrong I can easily fix it. BY the way, I did write a reply to your previous message, but must have lost it, sorry about that. Rich Farmbrough 02:23 28 March 2006 (UTC).
- OK, I see what you mean about the prepositon "in" would probably have been better. I'll leave the two sentence struture alone, although I think it's a bit verbose. Rich Farmbrough 02:36 28 March 2006 (UTC).
- Yes. Rich Farmbrough 09:40 28 March 2006 (UTC).
- Just a quick summary of what my previous reply would have said
- Yes - we want up to date info and when we get the 2010 census data no doubt Rambot will import it. However it still does not seem right to talk in the present tense about something that is six years old. The population of the US has grown by about 10 million in this period, and Las Vegas by about 41%. Some of the really small places could have seen even more massive percentage changes.
- On your second point, I agree with you in principle, however users do not like to see lots of small edits, becasue it "pollutes their watchlists". Perhpas this is something to discuss at talk-bots.
- Well, I'm going to tear myself away from WP for a while and get a little real life. Regards, Rich Farmbrough 15:16 28 March 2006 (UTC).
Thanks for your comments! I've replied to your post, hopefully clarifying my reasoning. Staxringold 22:17, 29 March 2006 (UTC)
- In addition, all use of information from the unpublished manuscript has now been removed from Hopkins School pending an actual policy change (so that Hopkins' isn't persecuted for being unnecessarily groundbreaking). If your only opposition was to the unpublished materials, I hope you will consider changing your vote. Staxringold 22:30, 29 March 2006 (UTC)
I left a note on the talk page about the few remaining cleanup tasks, the article is just about good to go. TKE 01:06, 30 March 2006 (UTC)
Office Actions
Who was desysoped? Kaldari 19:02, 30 March 2006 (UTC)
- See the rights log on meta if you are really interested. Since the desysopping lasted only three minutes, I prefer to not point fingers (which is also why I'm not adding the reference directly to the page). --cesarb 19:06, 30 March 2006 (UTC)
- So this is a "secret" desysoping? Kaldari 19:18, 30 March 2006 (UTC)
- No, a number of people have commented on the sysop's user talk page, anyone who was following the events at the time saw it, and I believe it was also discussed on the mailing list and/or IRC. I just do not want to have a permanent policy page with a big "look at this sysop! He went against Jimbo!" banner (which is the effect you would have by giving the details about it). --cesarb 19:25, 30 March 2006 (UTC)
Thanks for the note.
Rich Farmbrough 14:23 2 April 2006 (UTC).
P.S. Sept 11 I think the rationale for increasing the en: coverage at some point is that en: has significantly expanded. Rich Farmbrough 14:25 2 April 2006 (UTC).
Sam Korn and Jimbo's comment.
I like your point about WP:AGF sufficiently that I don't mind your putting it in as an edit. If you want to put it in and make it a joint outside view I have no objections. JoshuaZ 04:17, 4 April 2006 (UTC)
A watered-down version of the proposed policy against censorship is now open for voting. Will you knidly review the policy and make your opinions known? Thank you very much. Loom91 10:11, 5 April 2006 (UTC)
Request for assistance
I posted the poll concerning the Community Portal to protest the reversion of the Community Portal to a months-ago version, and specifically asked in the poll for the immediate reversion of the reversion by having Wikipedia:Community Portal/Redesign/Draft1a returned to its proper place. The plea has gained overwhelming support, and the community has made it clear that they want that draft back on the Community Portal page. The CP is protected, so this requires that an admin do it. Please copy draft1a onto the Community Portal. Sincerely, --Go for it! 17:33, 6 April 2006 (UTC)
Thank you
I appreciate your assistance. --Go for it! 17:43, 6 April 2006 (UTC)
Community Portal Redesign
I noticed that the Community Portal's design was changed, with the edit comment saying that consensus was reached. After reading the discussion, it doesn't seem like any consensus was reached. I started a discussion on the Community Portal talk page — J3ff 16:40, 7 April 2006 (UTC)
1998 tornado damage
The >$150M figure is based on the $100M (1998$) figure for Nashville, plus other damage elsewhere. Damage figures for all weather events are expressed in 2005 dollars in the infoboxes; it was a standard we set first with hurricanes. CrazyC83 19:35, 10 April 2006 (UTC)
Grats!
Just dropping by to say beatiful pictures!
History of Abortion
Thank you for your continued contributions to History of abortion. It is thoroughly appreciated! -Severa | !!! 03:25, 13 April 2006 (UTC)
Citation templates
Hey there, I'm dropping by to comment on your work on 2006 U.S. immigration reform protests. You've done some great work, but you're not using citation templates. Check out these edits I just made to the article. Notice how I am using {{cite news}}. It's good because it formats things automatically; you just have to plugin some template values. It's also really good because it segregates the citation data into separate computer-readable metafields. Citation templates also exist for just about anything else you'd ever care to cite, such as journal articles, websites, books, etc. Here are all of the Citation templates. If you have any questions, please don't hesitate to ask me. --Cyde Weys 05:28, 13 April 2006 (UTC)
Which articles were they?
Hey Kaldari, got your note on those earlier edits--what articles were they? They might have come when I first started editing here, when I was still getting my feet wet. Blueboy96 16:54, 13 April 2006 (UTC)
- Hmm, interesting ... I have a few friends who lived in and around Nashville who told me that part of Brentwood is in Davidson County. I even remembered seeing a corporate document listing one of the incorporators as living in "Brentwood, Davidson County, Tennessee." Go figure ... Blueboy96 18:53, 13 April 2006 (UTC)
List of U.S. states pop
Hey Kaldari. Afraid I can't provide the link to where I found the 2005 figures, although I do have the actual file from census.gov. I'll try to look it up. Jack Daw 14:31, 17 April 2006 (UTC)
Here it is: http://www.census.gov/popest/counties/CO-EST2005-03.html Jack Daw 14:32, 17 April 2006 (UTC)
Cuba
Hi Kaldari, sorry to revert your edit on Cuba but it's a bit of a testy subject at the moment. I agree that the details should be in the main body of the section, but at the moment I can't move it and this is the most NPOV and technically correct wording we've hammered out after weeks. Thanks --Zleitzen 04:15, 19 April 2006 (UTC)
- I've changed back to your version with a slight amendment. As I said above, it's a testy business, and I just wish the whole thing could go down the page! --Zleitzen 07:52, 19 April 2006 (UTC)
Tangerine Dream
Hello, Kaldari. Thank you for the advice you wrote in my talk page. I just want to remark that disambiguation notes could be put in many cases at the bottom of the page. I feel that many users are annoyed by that notes at the top, because those notes can really take away one's attention from the main objective; in this case, you should consider that even the band Kaleidoscope made an album named "Tangerine Dream", so the note is not complete. It would be very annoying to see the complete list of albums and songs named "Tangerine Dream" at the top of this page; the same would apply to any other article referring to a band whose name is similar to someone's else album or song. I am afraid that in many cases the list would be very long.skysurfer 17:03, 19 April 2006 (UTC)
Need your help
Hi Kaldari,
Saw the no. of stars and accolades recd by u....great congrats dude!!! Got ur site address from GraemL
Ok I have created an article Atmospheric water generator. Now me being an ametuer wiki'an need your help to refine the article so as to make it fit to be featured on wiki. Pl help me in formating the text and pictures positioning etc.
Awaiting your prompt response and action. email me at ashvidia@gmail.com
Regards,
Ashvidia
Rjensen
He's back at it again, and this time he appears rather hysterical (and I don't mean the funny kind). This time it's in Georgia's opening paragraph. Southern is vague and has baggage. Southeastern is more specific and lacks other connotations. At this point, though, he's ranting and calling the other editor a vandal, etc. Can you do something to cool this guy down or help resolve the matter? He really doesn't seem to have learned from the TN discussions. Rklawton 23:17, 30 April 2006 (UTC)
Tennessee State Museum
Hi Kaldari. I would actually rather like if you donated the 10 $ to the foundation, they need it more than I do! I hope you can use the article. -- Snailwalker | talk 09:56, 1 May 2006 (UTC)
I Care Passionately
- I care passionately what others around the globe think of my home state. I do not want to be associated with the Pro-Southern movement or the organizations that are in that movement up past their eye balls. I am a former SCV member and I left that organization due to their desire to be activists' and radical in tone. I do not have time in my life for such things. I have grown beyond such infantile ideals. Those who desire to look foolish in the eyes of others can do so. I, sir, live in the Southeastern United States of America in the great state of Tennessee. --Bookofsecrets 12:48, 1 May 2006 (UTC)
Red-Linked Blues , Jug Band, and Gospel Musicians
Here are some, all in red as of today, May 1st, 2006: Blind Mamie Forehand, Hattie Hart, Mississippi Shieks, Tom Dickson, Will Shade, Nugrape Twins, Roosevelt Graves, Teewee Blackman, Charlie Burse, Will Batts, Richard Rabbit Brown, Kate McTell, Louis Lasky, Papa Harvey Hull, Otto Virgial, Charlie Jordan, Mooch Richardson, Jed Davenport, Will Batts, Elijah Avery, Mattie Delaney, Luther Magby, Minnie Wallace, Daddy Stovepipe. Good luck and have fun! Catherineyronwode 01:40, 2 May 2006 (UTC)
Citation needed on BellSouth Building?
Are you serious? You're that nitpicky? There was a Tennessean article following the merger announcement that said as much. I don't know the date, and it's too far back in the archives to search for free. --Zpb52 02:24, 3 May 2006 (UTC)
Southeast
First let my apologize in the tardiness of my reply. I do not believe that your request will be problematic but please make a formal request on the the maps talk page of the WikiProject U.S. regions. Since you are requesting an adjustment of states rather than an exclusion I don't expect that their will be any objections. Just please keep in mind that the maps exists to show possible regional definition rather than a single one since classifications vary from source to source. -JCarriker 23:14, 3 May 2006 (UTC)
- I have responded to your request, on the maps talk page with policy points to support your postion and state my intention to make the changes if their are no objections within the next few days. Please also consider signing up as a participant in the project. -JCarriker 00:13, 4 May 2006 (UTC)
- There is currently an edit war at Southeast, so I am holding off on making the changes until it blows over, because I don't want to get embroiled in it. Please feel free to remind me to make the changes latter. -JCarriker 15:12, 12 May 2006 (UTC)
- I have updated the map, but it may take sometime for the image to cache. -JCarriker 11:45, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
Walmart questions
Hi! I'm working with a journalist regarding the Walmart article, and was wondering if you were around and, if so, if you could visit #wikinews-en to help out with some questions? - Amgine 23:15, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
Crosstar #2
Thanks again for your diligence with Image:Crosstar.png, etc. I was getting ready to poke Wales as a reminder, but I see he remembered on his own (or someone else reminded him). I guess I find it especially amusing because of the triumphant postings claiming victory over Wikipedia. I guess Barrett is in the difficult position that he can't mention the ongoing problems because doing so would undercut his past statements. Poor guy. Cheers, -Will Beback 04:37, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
- Oops, I spoke too soon. For your amusement:
- He never stops claiming victory. Now that's optimism. Cheers, -Will Beback 04:47, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
Recent compromise on where to list past congresscritters
Hey Kaldari, wanted to let ya know there's been a compromise of sorts reached on listing the histories of current congressional districts--it looks like they're going in separate sections of the district pages. See [[[User_talk:Blueboy96#North Carolina 9th and 10th Districts|this section]] of my talk page for the details.
I wanted to add a separate section on Nashville's congressional representation in a separate section of the TN-5 page, but wanted to bounce it off you as well since you put a ton of work into it. I know we almost came to cyberblows before over this and wanted to avoid it in the future. Blueboy96 22:34, 27 May 2006 (UTC)
- That would work for a big city like Memphis, Nashville or Charlotte--but for all 435 districts? That just isn't realistic. My original compromise--putting the seat histories in the current occupants' articles--probably works best. Blueboy96 21:51, 28 May 2006 (UTC)
Long talk page
Greetings! Your talk page is getting a bit long in the tooth - please consider archiving your talk page (or ask me and I'll archive it for you). Cheers! BD2412 T 00:05, 17 June 2006 (UTC)