User talk:Kaldari/Archive 4

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

[edit] Emma Goldman

I notice you were a major contributor to the excellent Emma Goldman article. Someone has added a section on the Spanish Civil War that is simply a list of hyperlinks. Perhaps you might consider it for a cleanup, if you are familiar with that part of her career. Garydave 14:31, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] NPA and Astroturfing

Thanks, but in the first instance, like the lady sings "I knew before"...about 12 hours before, however I literally hadn't got a clue what "Astroturfing" was until you provided a link and somehow, responding with "I really don't know how to respond to your allegations of astroturfing" (while my head tries to figure out what the HECK plastic grass has to do with anything) lacks a certain je ne c'est quoi in terms of both precision and conviction!

FYI I don't actually know Anthony Benis very well, I just know of him for a long time, and he is a sweet, honorable, man, a relic of a distant era who managed to find half a way to transition into the cyber age. I know that a young fan of his talked him into submitting his theory and bio to Wikipedia, I know that, in spite of not actually agreeing with NPA theory I personally wheedled him into giving me permission to include a small section in Narcissism on the strength of him providing a different useage of the term Narcissism to the norm (actually he only agreed to do it on condition I kept an eye on another article for vandalism on his behalf).

Somehow that doesn't seem to me to match up with the term "astroturfing" very accurately. --Zeraeph 22:02, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Image:Teenidolspromo.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:Teenidolspromo.jpg. I notice the 'image' page specifies that the image is being used under fair use, but its use in Wikipedia articles fails our first fair use criterion in that it illustrates a subject for which a freely licensed image could reasonably be found or created. If you believe this image is not replaceable, please:

1. Go to the image description page and edit it to add {{Replaceable fair use disputed}}, without deleting the original Replaceable fair use template.
2. On the image discussion page, write the reason why this image is not replaceable at all.

Alternatively, you can also choose to replace the fair use image by finding a freely licensed image of its subject or by taking a picture of it yourself.

If you have uploaded other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified how these images fully satisfy our fair use criteria. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on this link. Note that any fair use images which are replaceable by free-licensed alternatives will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. --Chowbok ☠ 02:08, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Maybe time to wrapup Al Gore III?

As I've stated, conversation has gone pretty stale. BusterD 13:45, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Re:Grammar on Ganeshbot

It was using Wikipedia:As of technique. Regards, Ganeshk (talk) 00:27, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Logical quotes

Hi; I saw that you participated in a previous debate over the location of punctuation in relation to quotations marks, and since I'm not particularly familiar with the Wikipedia system of punctuating quotations, I'd like your opinion on something. Should it be:

George writes that it "gives the impression that it is actively speciating to fill the many ecological niches through its range".

Or,

George writes that it "gives the impression that it is actively speciating to fill the many ecological niches through its range."

I'd like to add an example such as this one to WP:MOS to clarify what exactly a fragment is. The easy cases are dealt with, but it's unclear how a sentence such as this one should be punctuated. Thanks! --Spangineer^ws (háblame) 01:14, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the response! I suppose there's no easy way to add an example like this to WP:MOS that will work 100% of the time. --Spangineer^ws (háblame) 06:48, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] ArthropodTalk template

hi,

I'm entering the assessments for arthropod pages right now, and noticed that you reverted the template that shows the assessments. would you please, if you absolutely see the need to make the template smaller, at least retain one of its core functionalities, that is that it shows the rating? thanks :) --Sarefo 21:17, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Grammar

Could you explain why you believe the following sentence is grammatically incorrect. I honestly can't see why that would be the case: "Islam is a monotheistic religion based upon the Qur'an, its principal scripture, whose followers, known as Muslims, believe God sent revelations to Muhammad." Indeed, it seems to me to be more gramatically correct than the previous version. Kaldari 02:17, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

I've actually copy-edited to improve the flow of the text. The redundancy was the word "believe". To be grammatically correct you would have to add the word "as" to the former text thusly:

"Islam is a monotheistic religion based upon the Qur'an, its principal scripture, whose followers, known as Muslims, believe God sent as revelations to Muhammad." ... does that help you understand better? (→Netscott) 02:19, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

I suspect you may prefer the text as I've just copy-edited it, no? (→Netscott) 02:21, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

By all means revert back but be sure to add the "as" bit. :-) (→Netscott) 02:31, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

Just to be clear, the "as" bit is needed because the word "revelations" is a noun. (→Netscott) 02:35, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

Final illustration: The Qur'an as revelations (Qur'an=revelations), otherwise in your version it's Qur'an revelations. (→Netscott) 02:44, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

The line says that according to Muslim belief the Qur'an was revealed to Muhammad. I suppose it could be broken down into simpler sentences to facilitate ease of understanding for the common reader. Be bold! Edit away. (→Netscott) 02:50, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] The "idea" of changing Coke?

Not that it wasn't unreferenced (I need to look it up anyway), but what exactly about that was spurious? Daniel Case 01:21, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

Well, according to the research I have done, much of the hate mail that Coke got took the theme first of "How can you change this?" then "This sucks". They noticed, as the preceding sentence says, that the angriest people weren't switching to Pepsi in droves ... they were simply refusing to buy the new formula.

Just be careful with what you remember, if you remember those times (I do). It isn't necessarily true. Daniel Case 04:39, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Your GA nomination of Mary Wollstonecraft

The article Mary Wollstonecraft you nominated as a good article has passed , see Talk:Mary Wollstonecraft for eventual comments about the article. Good luck in future nominations. Shimeru 21:31, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Your input is requested

Your input would be appreciated at this Request for Comments. Kelly Martin (talk) 18:44, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Doing something about the ridiculous date autoformatting/linking mess

Dear Kaldari—you may be interested in putting your name to, or at least commenting on this new push to get the developers to create a parallel syntax that separates autoformatting and linking functions. IMV, it would go a long way towards fixing the untidy blueing of trivial chronological items, and would probably calm the nastiness between the anti- and pro-linking factions in the project. The proposal is to retain the existing function, to reduce the risk of objection from pro-linkers.Tony 15:00, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Just a note about your userpage

I happened to notice that all your edit links are bunched up at the end of the page, due to the barnstars. Check out WP:BUNCH; example two has always worked for me, and is wicked easy to implement.

I'd make the edit myself, but some people get upset with other people edit their userpage, so I'm just dropping you a line instead of doing it myself. EVula // talk // ☯ // 21:14, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Inform 152 users of Common.css change

Done! Merry Christmas ^_^ ShakingSpirit^talk 00:43, 25 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Change to Common.css

Per recent discussions, the way in which Persondata is viewed by Wikipedia editors has changed. In order to continue viewing Persondata in Wikipedia articles, please edit your user CSS file to display table.persondata rather than table.metadata. More specific instructions can be found on the Persondata page. --ShakingSpirit^talk on behalf of Kaldari 01:21, 25 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Mary Wollstonecraft

Hey Kaldari, you've improved this article beyond recognition, and the lead is excellent. I really mean that. It flows really well, there's no unnecessary information, and all the important stuff is there. Are you planning to put it up for FA status at some point? I think you should. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 03:15, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the compliments, but I certainly can't take all the credit. I've been working with Awadewit to hone it into an FA-quality article. She's done most of the writing, I just take care of the details :) Kaldari 03:32, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

		The Minor Barnstar
		I, Raystorm, award you Kaldari the Minor Barnstar for all the high quality minor and practical edits you've been doing in the Mary Wollstonecraft article, and hope you will keep up the excellent work!

[edit] Zhou Tong (monk)

Thank you for your comments on my peer review page. However, I need you to elaborate. You wrote, "...many of your references and external links do not have good descriptions (or have no descriptions at all)." Which ones are you referring to? Please leave your reply here.(Ghostexorcist)

[edit] Emma Goldman

I noticed your request for help on the Emma Goldman article on the Reward Board, and I may be able to help you with that. She is one of my favorite historical figures, and as soon as I am done improving some articles I am working on rewriting, I will do my best to improve this article. J0lt C0la 00:14, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Talk:Mary Wollstonecraft

I added a box around the archives link because the single two words were lost between the TOC and all the other boxes, and were hard to see. If you don't think it's an improvement, feel free to tinker or revert. --lquilter 12:04, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Wither Martin Luther

We've gotten the article down to fighting weight and I've opened a discusssion about what is needed to bring the article to FA status. I'd appreciate it if you have a moment to drop by and opine. --CTSWyneken^(talk) 14:20, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Usernames

Hi Kaldari, I removed the debate on Hit Bull, Win Steak from the WP:RFCN board. WP:POINT issues aside, there simply isn't going to be a consensus to disallow this name, hence leaving it up can only invite unnecessary discussion. If you disagree with HBWS's interpretation of WP:U it might be more effective to contact the editor directly. Cheers, Deizio talk 02:22, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

Fair enough. The problem with WP:RFCN is that some approach it from a really policy-literal direction, which often translates into being very conservative, while others are more philosophical and tend to be liberal, sometimes too liberal. Language and intentions behind usernames should be subject to more scrutiny than other forms of wiki-self-expression, eg talkpage posts, but don't need to be completely sanitized and finding the balance is hard. For issues surrounding username policy, the talkpage at WP:U is the best place to start, as the RFCN board should really only be for debating usernames a nominator has genuinely deemed to violate :U. Cheers, Deizio talk 02:59, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

In general, when you run out of productive arguments on a subject, it's best to stop talking rather than violate WP:POINT by creating a frivolous RFC. If you establish a pattern of such behavior, you can be blocked for violating WP:HARASS.

To respond to your remarks from the deleted page: The difference between my username and "OhOurGod" is relatively simple. "OhOurGod" violates WP:U by mentioning God within a specific religious context, an excerpted phrase from the liturgy of the Eastern Orthodox Church (and possibly other branches of Christianity as well). It is likely to create controversy, and many similar names have been blocked in the past. In contrast, my name does not contain the name of a deity or a passage from a religious service, in that it is a reference to a sign on display in a AAA baseball field in Durham[1], something that you could've noticed if you'd visited my talk page at some point before you decided to act like a dick.

I hope that you will learn a useful lesson from this experience, though I am not optimistic. -Hit bull, win steak^(Moo!) 04:22, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

I had not previously noted that you were an administrator. In light of this information, your actions seem grossly inappropriate, and for this reason I have started a thread about the situation on WP:ANI. I tell you this solely as a courtesy so that you may present your side of things, if you are so inclined. -Hit bull, win steak^(Moo!) 04:35, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Sure

Oh sure I will look in to it. Actually I didn't aware of that article. Thank you --♪♫ ĽąĦĩŘǔ ♫♪ ^{Walkie-talkie} 18:18, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

According to my knowledge there is no any factual errors or POV issues. I'm going to contact Meteorology Department on Monday, how many days we have to change the article? --♪♫ ĽąĦĩŘǔ ♫♪ ^{Walkie-talkie} 18:50, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Thank you

Thank you for the Gender Studies award for the Mary Wollstonecraft page as well as your helpful edits. I'm glad that it is in a more usable form now. Perhaps I will go back later and spruce it up. Awadewit 21:28, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

Hello Kaldari, I hope you are doing well. I wanted to let you know that I think I fixed the problem you mention here. Please let me know if you have any other suggestions for improving the article. Best, Johntex\^talk 20:21, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Re: Boohyah

I just read your note to Boohyah and replied this to it: There was no edit dispute, as far as I'm concerned. It was User:Jondel who reverted his edit. As soon as I found Booyah put the citations on the article, I converted them into proper citations. The edit he wrote should still be on the article right now. As far as blocks go, It was my mistake for checking the admin IRC channel first before filing a username RfC, as you said. But the username is unblocked. I'm not sure why the he couldn't ask for another username, as I set the block settings so that a new username can be created, and that anons can edit. --w^{L<speak·check·chill>} 18:40, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

I didn't read the diff thouroghly. Because Jondel's reason for reverting was because of WP:V, which has been an ongoing problem with the INC article from both sides (in which the arbcom was involved at one point). When Booyah put it back, he didn't say that he added the ciations, but instead had an edit summary that said something along the lines on "INC doesn't own this article" and saw it as incivility. When I was going to remind him about it on his talk page, I had trouble typing the username, with the long string of 0s, and thought the username was nonsense. It's like making a username like User:Yeeeeeehaaawwwww. So I went to the IRC admin channel for a fast answer to whether or not I should username block so he can have a more coherent username, and the person there said it was okay to block it. When he returned as Catholicdefender2222, I fully read the diff, and converted the ext. links into ref tags. But at the same time, I remember username policy saying something about religious bias, so this time I did the RFC the right way, and here we are now. Sorry for the inconvienience. --w^{L<speak·check·chill>} 19:23, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Threat by Kaldari in Edit Summary of Al Gore III

Dear Kaldari: I notice this Edit summary in Al Gore III: 19:17, 27 January 2007 Kaldari (Talk | contribs) (removing link to mugshot. you're skating on thin ice Getaway) You can review your Edit Summary threat here: [2] Your comment is a clear threat. Wikipedia draws a clear line against threats. What "thin ice" am I "skating" on? All I did was link to a Smoking Gun mugshot. Now, Smoking Gun is linked to throughout Wikipedia. That is a fact. You removed it because you personally did not believe that it belonged in the article. So, I ask again? What Wikipedia rule did not violate and what do you mean by your threat that I am "skating on thin ice?" Remember, Wikipedia rules are very clear that you are not to engage in threat. So please stop. Your threat violates several Wikipedia rules: (1) WP:FAITH You are to assume good faith. You did not. I made an edit and then you threatened me. Therefore, you violated WP:FAITH.--Getaway 21:57, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

Call it a threat if you want. What I'm saying is that if you continue editing in a disruptive manner I will have to file an RFC about your behavior. Please read over Wikipedia:Disruptive_editing and WP:NOT#BATTLEGROUND. Kaldari 23:22, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

The specific edit that you made your Edit Summary comment about me "skating on thin ice" was simply adding a sourced link to a Smoking Gun page referring to Al Gore III. You have not provided any reason from my edit that justified your comment. Once again, I added a link to the Smoking Gun and you removed it. I don't see one Wikipedia that I broke in that edit which would have lead you to state: "you're skating on thin ice." You did not assume "good faith" and you did not provide a rule that I broke to lead you make that threatening comment. How is my adding a valid sourced link to the Smoking Gun to the Al Gore III article "editing in a disruptive manner"? I don't think that it is. Have a good day!--Getaway 00:37, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

The following comment was left on my talk page by Kaldari::: When I said you were skating on thin ice, I was referring to your editing style in general, not just that one edit. I'm not interested in splitting hairs, but your edits to Al Gore III (and other articles) have not been especially helpful. I'm not here to be a censor or agree/disagree with any political POV. (In fact I'm known as a rather outspoken administrator when it comes to opposing censorship, believe it or not.) However, I also take WP:BLP very seriously. Wikipedia is a serious project with serious goals and we don't need to waste time and money fighting off lawyers due to embarassing trivia being coninually added to biography articles, especially when we're talking about non-public figures (or border-line cases) in which we should at least be trying to show some type of respect for people's privacy. In case you're not aware, Brad Patrick (the interim executive director of Wikimedia) spends most of his waking hours talking to irate people and their lawyers about content in Wikipedia that they find libelous/disparaging/unflattering. The more we can limit that type of interaction, the better. People like Al Gore III really shouldn't even have articles in Wikipedia. But since it seems there will never be consensus to delete it, the best I can do is to try to make it as clean and NPOV as possible. I'm not sure, however, what your motivations are. Perhaps you could enlighten me. Judging by your talk page comments on the Al Gore III article, I would say you are more interested in embarassing "Gorebot Jr" than substantially improving Wikipedia. I'm certainly not compelled to assume good faith when there is ample evidence to the contrary. Kaldari 01:16, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

First of all, let me state that this comment is a breath of fresh air. You did not threaten me. You did not talk down to me. And you expressed to me what your concern about my edit was. Second, I totally disagree about your analysis of my edits. I have made quite a few and my edits have helped articles become better articles, whether you agree or disagree with that analysis. You can review the Islam in the United States article to see that my "contentious" edits did make that article a better article, as one example. Third, I have a legitimate concern about the Al Gore III article and it is in relation to the articles about the Bush Twins. I know that other editors want to make the argument that we can't compare articles, but to be fair we can. You expressed your highest concern about is: "However, I also take WP:BLP very seriously". I understand and I respect your position. That is exactly my point. Why is it that, it seems in my opinion that WP:BLP is taken seriously when Al Gore III is the subject, but WP:BLP is NOT taken seriously if it the daughters of the President? There are links to the Smoking Gun in the articles about the First Twins, but if I went over there and attempted to remove them, there would hell to pay. In the last week, I attempted, because almost six years have gone by, not to entirely delete, but to trim down and de-emphasis the Twins' run-in with Austin police with alcohol when they were underage. Let me repeat I did not attempt to remove the incidents, just tried to tone them down. I was completely reverted AND the references to the incidents were actually MOVED up in the article. I understand that you do not want to give me the benefit of good faith and I understand that you have concerns about WP:BLP, but what I don't understand why your concerns do not apply to the Bush Twins. You want to assume that all I want to do is embarass Gore, but I think the same thing about those who think that three minor misdemeanors for "minor in possession of alcohol" six years ago should be ranked above in importance to the Twins' college graduation and bringing international media attention to AIDS suffering in Africa. To me when editors want to focus on this minor, trivial incidents when they were idiots college students and not focus on media attentin that they are bringing to AIDS treatment and prevention in Africa seems to be biased and just as much as a violation of WP:BLP. Yet, I'm not hearing you complain about those editors focus on negativity. I'm only hearing about when it applies to Al Gore III. Well, I'm sure that I am not going to convince you in anyway. That is the experience that I have had at Wikipedia. For all of the talk about airing disagreements and coming to concensus, that is not the experience that I have had. I will write and write and try to make a point and I get responses to the effect that: "Well, that's a different article, tough" or "Well, you are just trying to shove your POV down our throats, get lost", etc. If you got this far in my comments, thank you for at least reading them, even though they probably won't have any effect on your opinion. Have a good day!--Getaway 01:50, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for your assistance on the Bush Twins and I understand your point about tit for tat. Take care.--Getaway 18:12, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

Just to step in for a moment, it's incredibly difficult to apply WP:AGF to someone who edits while making comments which are hostile to other editors, misrepresent their own edits, or misrepresent the edits of others and who push such blatant POV while criticizing others for doing the same.--Strothra 04:47, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

Kaldari stated on my talk page: You were right about the Bush twin articles. They were at least as bad as the Gore III article, if not worse. I've tried to clean them up. I guess we'll see how long it lasts. Kaldari 06:54, 30 January 2007 (UTC) My response: Your edits did not last long. They were reverted today. You can review the edit here: Revert of all of yesterday's clean up. So once again, I ask, is it fair to apply the WP:BLP rules to Al Gore III, but not to the Bush twin articles? Look, I will concede that maybe there should be some mention of the misdemeanor "minor in possession of alcohol" incident from six years ago, but why does it have to be at the top of the article. That violates not only WP:BLP, but it also also violates "undue weight" and other Wikipedia considerations. I would appreciate your assistance. Thank you.--Getaway 00:12, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

One other thing that I would like to bring to your attention, not only has the Smoking Gun link been added back into the articles (which of course was the point of contention in the Al Gore III article), but another link has been added today. You can review that edit here: Addition of another link to the six year old misdemeanor. This is the exact type of thing for which I was criticized. Once again, I believe that you could be helpful with these two Bush twin articles. Thanks,--Getaway 00:20, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

I added a notice about the articles to the BLP Noticeboard. Kaldari 00:48, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

Thanks--Getaway 00:50, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Image sizes

I noticed you change the default size of images to a fixed width ([3]). While this is not illegal or anything, it's generally a bad choice as everyone is able to set the default width of their own, while a fixed width would look bizarre on screens other than yours. //Halibutt 03:23, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

You're wrong, my friend. Check the My preferences tab on the right, go to files and set the default thumbnail size of our liking. That way all thumbs without a fixed width set would look to you as if they were fixed. Personally I use 300px. //Halibutt 10:12, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Your edits to Killed_in_action have been reverted by another.

OK - I take your comments onboard this rather touchy dispute and would have left it as you had edited the Killed_in_action fine but the other user has reverted your edit and now calls your edits vandalism and you made a spelling mistake (Welcome to the club !). You might want to look at [4]. My "3rd Opinion" who promised to watch the page removed the user warning template but the original reverted content is still there. I hope you now understand the difficulty I've had with this other user. That he has mentioned he has phoned Wikimedia means I really want to drop this hot potato as it's not a content dispute any more. Ttiotsw 20:01, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Tennessee Supreme Court

Have you considered starting an article about Penny White? The content you deleted did not belong in the TN Supreme Court article, but it would be appropriate in an article about her. --orlady 16:56, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Earth article

Do you think the Earth article is still just a GA or A class? FMF|contact 02:04, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Religious Censorship

I think the title explains Talk:Muhammad/Mediation well enough. It flagrantly violates Wikipedia policy, and is religious censorship in the worst form. Please don't let this assault on Wikipedia suffice; It's another Bahá'u'lláh in the making. I would like to request your participation in this "discussion". --Hojimachong^talk_con 05:28, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

Interesting discussion and relevant to the discussion at hand. Liberal Classic 07:00, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Michael Jordan

I think you made a mistake, Michael Jordan is indeed in the core biographies list. I'm not sure how you missed it as he's right on the top of the page and is the second person on the list titled "Arts & Entertainment". Quadzilla99 15:59, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Al Gore III

I understand your reversion, but disagree with it. I'll try to explain: I honestly don't think that we should have an article about him at all (which is why I nominated it for AFD), but as a thought experiment of sorts I'm going through the article and trying to re-work it into a good article, just to see whether it can actually be done. The 13-year-old thing would normally be irrelevant by itself, but there are several sources which state that his father intervened on his behalf with news organizations at the time of the school suspension. As such, it's theoretically relevant as a supporting piece of evidence for the only structure under which Gore III might even possibly be notable: As a force affecting his father's political career, and as an examplar of/cautionary tale about the media's treatment of the minor children of public figures.

Anyway, I'm willing to leave it out at present, but in return I'd ask that you be willing to reconsider your position once the article reaches a more advanced state (assuming it isn't deleted/merged first). Thanks! -Hit bull, win steak^(Moo!) 00:03, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

• I don't disagree with anything that you're saying, but it does put us in kind of an awkward position, since the "crassness of the media" (as you put it) really is the bulk of the story here. I will try to find more information of a positive nature to add as a counterbalance, to give some sense of his life as an actual person, rather than a cudgel used on his father. There's still nothing about his college football career, for instance. -Hit bull, win steak^(Moo!) 00:36, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

Yes, Al Gore III can be used as a "cudgel" as you say to "hit" his father, but on the other hand, Al Gore, the father, uses Al Gore III as a prime example of the father's "great" parenting and "concern" for his family, which has provided him with a lot of political mileage, which is a fact that I believe that you are overlooking.--Getaway 01:29, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] National varieties of English

Hi Kaldari, As you can tell from what I've written, I have some strongly held views about what should go on the example page. I'm not going to be able to take part in the debate for the next little while (probably about ten days or so), so I'd like to ask you to try to avoid making any decisions about it in the meantime, unless there's an obvious consensus for them. Joeldl 21:47, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

Hi again. I'm back, thanks for waiting. As you know, I'm opposed to the change made to the Sean Connery example on Wikipedia:Manual of Style (national varieties of English). Would you like to continue the discussion on that topic? Joeldl 10:04, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

Kaldari, it seems to me that you might be bored with the subject. Are you done? Joeldl 21:31, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

Hi again. We've neglected this issue for a long time. You originally placed the "under consideration" template. It was never removed, but the page continued to receive some attention. Now someone has come along and placed a "rejected" template on it. Have a look and see if you agree with this. Joeldl 10:21, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Wikiproject Biography March 2007 Newsletter

The March 2007 issue of the Biography WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you. Mocko13 22:22, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for adding Mary Wollstonecraft. Sorry I missed it. - Mocko13 22:46, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Vindication of the Rights of Woman

Kaldari, I have substantially expanded the page on Wollstonecraft's A Vindication of the Rights of Woman. I was wondering if you had time to look at it. I was planning on putting it up for FAC in a few weeks. Thanks. Awadewit 11:24, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Possibly unfree Image:TennesseeRiver1.jpg

03:17, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Image:TennesseeRiver1.jpg listed for deletion

[edit] request for comment

User:Chitrapa has a habit of putting his name in a photo caption in the articles where his images are located, for example: Fort Sam Houston. I see that you've done work on the captions part of WP:MOS, and I was wondering if I could get your opinion on whether or not this was appropriate behavior with regard to the MOS. Thanks! Cornell Rockey 01:01, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Photo Credit for Real World Images

Iraqi soldier on patrol in Baghdad, Iraq
(April 2005).

At some point, the gate keepers of Wikipedia will recognized that ALL images should contain some sort of photo credit. Like any other form of art, a photographer should be given credit for his or her efforts. Additionally, for places such as a war zone, an individual who risk his or her life to capture an image should be noted for their work. There's a big difference between a picture of some mundane location in middle America and a photograph that captures a moment in time on the streets of Baghdad, Iraq.

Photographers and/or photojournalists, recognizing the value of Wikipedia as a place to publish their work, may start becoming major contributors to this growing corner of cyberspace.

Indeed, in regards to written articles, Wikipedia could/would gain greater credibility if significant contributors (i.e. writers/authors) would be required to use their real names. While Wikipedia is not an actual newspaper or book, the idea of attribution remains ones of the major pillars of publishing:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Journalistic_ethics

What if it was discovered that Ann Coulter wrote an article on Wikipedia using a fictitious name (i.e. such as Chitrapa or Kaldari), how would that impact the future editorial content of Wikipedia?

And finally, in order to save itself from possible...future...Copyright legal headaches, Wikipedia should require that ALL uploaded images contain the author's name. The business folks at Google are finding out that the recent purchase of You Tube came with a host of unresolved internet legal issues.

As Wikipedia moves forward in its development as a new medium of information, a serious discussion needs to take place regarding the attribution of material (i.e. both print and visual) contained within these pages. Only when that happens will Wikipedia move forward to its next level of development.

In the interest of Wiki-Peace, I've removed ALL the photo credits from each and every submitted caption. Until I reach 1,001 active photo submissions, I'll refrain from battling over the merits of this issue...
v/r
Peter Rimar
—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Chitrapa (talk • contribs) 22:20, 14 March 2007 (UTC).

[edit] You helped choose Vladimir Lenin as this week's WP:ACID winner

Thank you for your support of the Article Improvement Drive. This week Vladimir Lenin was selected to be improved to featured article status. Hope you can help.

AzaBot 01:46, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Persondata and hCard microformat

Hi, I note you're an editor of {{template:Persondata}}. I wonder if you would kindly assist in adding the hcard microformat to that template? I can advise on mark-up usage, if you will apply it to the template. See also Wikipedia talk:Persondata#hCard microformat Andy Mabbett 21:28, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] TfD nomination of Template:PDL team

Template:PDL team has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for Deletion page. Thank you. --Iamunknown 05:36, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Mary Wollstonecraft

Kaldari, I have to go out of town for a few days to an academic conference, so I do not know if I will be able to continue my barrage of arguments at Talk:Mary Wollstonecraft in order to keep the abortion bit out of the article. Would you mind watching over the talk page (in case you aren't already) and the article for me? Thanks so much. Awadewit 13:36, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for watching over the Wollstonecraft page. I am going out of town for yet another conference next weekend (to Nashville, actually), but I hope that by that time, the debate has died down. Awadewit 17:55, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Thanks for the flag essay!

Kaldari: I just wanted to thank you for your perceptive, well-written, and very much needed flag essay. Writtenright 21:59, 23 March 2007 (UTC)Writtenright

I agree and I added a bit of vandalism to your user page in recognition. I hope that was ok.--Guinnog 16:44, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Schermerhorn picture

Hey Kaldari, I have to applaud you on the fantastic picture you took of Schermerhorn, as well as your other Nashville-area images. They are fantastic additions to the site! -- Huntster ^{T • @ • C} 05:16, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Seigenthaler's sting

I would be happy to discuss this matter with you, despite the fact that our dialogue begins with you leaving a threat on my talk page. It reminds me of a certain admin who has gained an international reputation for conducting content disputes via adminstrative bans -- she also left a similar threat.

Having gotten that off my chest, it seems clear to me that have the article simply assert that Seigenthaler and Gore were investigating corruption on the city council is a bit of a whitewash, no matter how you slice it, particularly since Morris Haddox was found innocent. I propose that we use this quote from your preferred source, "Al Gore's Other Big Week": "Gore, Cohen, Seigenthaler, and another player they invited in -- Nashville district attorney Tom Shriver -- concocted a sting operation to nail [Morris] Haddox, a young pharmacist widely viewed as an up-and-comer in local black political circles." If you can live with this, so can I. --Tsunami Butler 22:15, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Wollstonecraft

If you have time, would you mind reviewing Wollstonecraft's Original Stories from Real Life for me? It's over at peer-review right now. I would really appreciate it. Thanks. Awadewit 06:26, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Image copyright tags

While I was reading up on some image copyright tags discussion your name keeps cropping up so I thought I would address my question to you. I noted a particular photo had a {{PD-release}} on it, when the website it was taken from had not, in fact, released the image into public domain but retained the copyright and allowed uses of any purpose. I remembered the {{CopyrightedFreeUse}} template and decided to replace it with that, only to find it had been deleted several months ago by your actions. So is the crux of this whole debacle that the website is wrong, and when all rights are renounced you cannot retain copyright and it is public domain no matter what you say to the contrary? And wouldn't this bring up the issue that if you have a '(C)' and a 'No Rights Reserved' on a piece of work as the website did, we are assuming that that latter takes precendence over the former, when the legal viewpoint might be the contrary? --AdamM 01:13, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

I know I haven't been very clear in the first place but that's not an entirely satisfactory answer... If you say If it is possible, it isn't a "free license" and thus isn't appropriate for Wikipedia, then that would render the hundreds of images already uploaded to Wikipedia that fall under that definition unusable. Shouldn't securing a sound legal basis on this matter be appropriate instead of leaving it ambiguous? And what about the last part of my previous query - if we come across both a copyright notice and a disavowal of all rights, which do we listen to in order to avoid legal hassle? --AdamM 14:18, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Persondata

Hi. I'm curious as to the status of Persondata, and whether we will be able to search and display results. For WP Hawaii, it would be nice to see a sorted table of all persondata within the project so I can reach out to other related projects to improve the articles. It seems like sorted table creation could be performed by an assessment-like bot. And, wouldn't it make sense to merge this into the infobox once and for all? If there are editors who are anti-infobox for whatever reason, they could just add a nobox tag making it invisible on the page, but preserving the persondata. —Viriditas | Talk 11:31, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] The WikiProject Biography Newsletter: Issue II - April 2007

The April 2007 issue of the WikiProject Biography newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you BetacommandBot 18:54, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Al Gore III

You left the following message: I know we've discussed this before, but I would like to reiterate that adding information about Al Gore III's use of marijuana as a 13-year-old is a violation of Wikipedia's BLP policy. I'm not interested in arguing further about this. I've been generous in allowing editors to tread the gray area on this policy, but I'm drawing the line here. Please respect both the letter and spirit of Wikipedia's BLP policy. Thanks for your cooperation. Kaldari 20:35, 1 May 2007 (UTC) My response: I did put the information back in the article. However, I have been recently attempting to verify the information through proper reliable sources. Also, you do not unilaterally make, interpret, and/or enforce Wikipedia policy. Please do not write message with the underlying assumption that you do.--Getaway 22:56, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

The following comments were left on the Biography Notice Board under the topic of Al Gore III, a topic thread that you started: Notice Getaway's hoary, flimsy device of using a red herring argument to avoid addressing the argument. Kaldari is right. Getaway (formerly banned user "Keetoowah") is a blatant POV pusher, who has never made a "reasonable argument" for the unduly-weighted POV he wishes spread on the Al Gore III page. Getaway/Keetoowah seems to enjoy libelling the children of Democratic politicians, while removing any remotely negative information from the children of Republican politicians. (Contrast his edits on the Bush twins' pages with those he made on the Al Gore III page.) What a hypocrite. And, yes, Getaway/Keetoowah's actions are those of a troll. Eleemosynary 01:49, 3 May 2007 (UTC)Please notice dear admins of all stripes that Eleemosynary personally attacked me with the word "hypocrite" (among other personal attacks) and not one admin on this page has attempted to tell Eleemosynary that his behavior violates the Wikipedian rules of WP:CIVIL and WP:NPA. Once again, I would ask Eleemosynary to stop engaging in personal attacks.--Getaway 12:31, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Response

You wrote: I'm willing to give you the benefit of the doubt and even assist you in working out disputes with other editors, but before I can do that you need to give some kind of indication that you acknowledge the problems with your editing habits. I believe that I conceded that point. I have not engaged in a shouting match with Eleemosynary. However, as the rules clearly state my past actions are not an excuse for editors such as Eleemosynary to follow me around revert all of my work (not because of substantive reasons but merely because it was me that made the edit) and personally attack me with "troll", "hypocrite", "POV pusher" "liar", or state that I am someone that I am not, etc. These comments are all examples of violations of Wikipedia and just because I have not been a model Wikipedian citizen in the past does not mean that Eleemosynary has the right to engage in that behavior. The rules are quite clear about that and Fred Bauder agrees with that point.--Getaway 18:57, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

I have walked away from Wikipedia, as the conflict resolution guidelines suggest, and taken a break to attempt to calm things down. However, I have returned, for small edits only, and Eleemosynary is starting his Wikistalking again. Please review this edit and and Eleemosynary's edit summary: [5]. Thank you. --Getaway 14:25, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

Getaway, after a handful of ostensibly innocuous edits, apparently cannot keep himself from trying to insert POV into articles about political figures and personalities with whom he disagrees, as he has done with the Alec Baldwin article. Correcting such POV is not wikistalking. This is more of the same from Getaway/Keetoowah. Enough is enough. Eleemosynary 21:03, 12 May 2007 (UTC)