User talk:Kaldari: Difference between revisions

Browse history interactively ← Previous edit Next edit →Content deleted Content addedVisual WikitextInline

Revision as of 12:11, 8 March 2014 editIselilja (talk \| contribs)Extended confirmed users9,359 editsm Reverted 1 edit by 86.173.196.16 (talk) to last revision by Kaldari. (TW)← Previous edit		Revision as of 12:13, 8 March 2014 edit undo86.173.196.16 (talk) Undid revision 598681731 by Iselilja (talk) Don't remove other people's comments!Next edit →
Line 191:		Line 191:

	] There is currently a discussion at ] regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. <!--Template:ANI-notice--> Thank you.. ] (]) 03:13, 8 March 2014 (UTC)		] There is currently a discussion at ] regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. <!--Template:ANI-notice--> Thank you.. ] (]) 03:13, 8 March 2014 (UTC)

			== It's interesting... ==

			...that you chose to remove , yet you chose to leave for all to see. Or do you deny that you were caught by Checkuser and believe that you deserve the praise? ] (]) 12:09, 8 March 2014 (UTC)

Revision as of 12:13, 8 March 2014

Archives

Archive 1 (Nov. 10, 2004 – Aug. 10, 2005)
Archive 2 (Aug. 10, 2005 – June 17, 2006)
Archive 3 (June 19, 2006 – Nov. 3, 2006)
Archive 4 (Nov. 6, 2006 – May 12, 2007)
Archive 5 (May 9, 2007 – Feb. 16, 2008)
Archive 6 (Feb. 18, 2008 – Feb. 20, 2009)
Archive 7 (Feb. 20, 2009 – Nov. 25, 2009)
Archive 8 (Nov. 27, 2009 – May 21, 2010)
Archive 9 (May 25, 2010 – Mar. 16, 2011)
Archive 10 (Mar. 17, 2011 – Aug. 1, 2011)
Archive 11 (Jul. 28, 2011 – )

This page has archives. Sections older than 31 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III when more than 5 sections are present.

ANI

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

New Page Patrol survey

New page patrol – Survey Invitation

Hello Kaldari! The WMF is currently developing new tools to make new page patrolling much easier. Whether you have patrolled many pages or only a few, we now need to know about your experience. The survey takes only 6 minutes, and the information you provide will not be shared with third parties other than to assist us in analyzing the results of the survey; the WMF will not use the information to identify you.

If this invitation also appears on other accounts you may have, please complete the survey once only.
If this has been sent to you in error and you have never patrolled new pages, please ignore it.

Please click HERE to take part.
Many thanks in advance for providing this essential feedback.

You are receiving this invitation because you have patrolled new pages. For more information, please see NPP Survey

Barnstar

		The Original Barnstar
		This barnstar is awarded to everyone who - whatever their opinion - contributed to the discussion about Misplaced Pages and SOPA. Thank you for being a part of the discussion. Presented by the Wikimedia Foundation.

Dowry

Hello, Kaldari. You have new messages at Netha Hussain's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

You're invited! Ada Lovelace Day San Francisco

Rater

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

KITTENS

Seanbobe's cat has given you some kittens! Kittens promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. Kittens must be fed three times a day and will be your faithful companions forever! Spread the WikiLove by giving someone else some kittens, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend.

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

Ada Lovelace, une

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

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

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

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

Infobox template

Hey, I reverted your edit to {{Infobox}} because it threatened to break everything. I'm guessing it was a mistake? {{Nihiltres|talk|edits}} 23:03, 10 January 2014 (UTC)

@Nihiltres: Oops, definitely a mistake. Thanks for reverting! Kaldari (talk) 23:04, 10 January 2014 (UTC)

No problem; I'm glad it only lasted a minute or two. I've been updating the parameters used in some infoboxes (specifically, clearing out this category) and had a real rush of adrenaline when I saved four pages and got "{{{data}}}" garbage all through the newly updated infoboxes. :P {{Nihiltres|talk|edits}} 23:14, 10 January 2014 (UTC)

@Nihiltres: I had the exact opposite experience. I was setting up a bogus Infobox template in my local MediaWiki instance (to play around with mobile styling) and I decided to just copy one of the first versions of the en.wiki template. A co-worker started talking to me about SVGs in the middle of it and distracted me. When I finally saved the template and tried to use it in an article, it wouldn't appear. It took me about 5 seconds to realize what happened, and I'm sure you can imagine the rush of adrenaline I had myself once I realized that I had broken {{infobox}}! Luckily you had already reverted it at that point :) Kaldari (talk) 23:23, 10 January 2014 (UTC)

I think we have a new candidate for the village stocks. :) — Mr. Stradivarius 06:15, 11 January 2014 (UTC)

LOL, I knew something like this would happen one day. I'm just glad I didn't replace the Infobox with something totally random like a picture of Michael Jackson. I can only imagine the worldwide hilarity that would have ensued Kaldari (talk) 06:58, 11 January 2014 (UTC)

Ok, you are now enshrined at Misplaced Pages:Village stocks#Kaldari for the "Just testing" award. Feel free to copy edit, prune, or remove it - there's no obligation for you to be on the list if you don't want to be. :) — Mr. Stradivarius 14:22, 12 January 2014 (UTC)

And since nobody has done this yet...

		You have been sentenced to the Village Stocks
		For "just testing" and breaking the Infobox

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

Disambiguation link notification for February 10

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

List of Salticidae species (D–F) (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added links pointing to Erica (genus) and Fuentes

List of Salticidae species (N–P) (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added links pointing to Napoca and Peckhamia

List of Salticidae species (A–C) (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to Balmaceda

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

Your edit to Clovis culture

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

@Dougweller: I'm confused, what are you saying is wrong about it? Kaldari (talk) 08:23, 15 February 2014 (UTC)

Replied at Talk:Clovis culture. Kaldari (talk) 08:29, 15 February 2014 (UTC)

Eric Corbett

Opinions have been noted and appropriately filed.
You have made a serious allegation and insult. Could I please have a diff for User: Eric Corbett "belittling a suicide victim" (publicly or privately). It's likely you have been reading many of the recent ridiculous posts without checking your facts, but if you can't a diff to support your allegation, please apologise; it would be a pity for this case to escalate further. Giano 19:03, 25 February 2014 (UTC) @Giano: Yes, I can and will provide a diff. I stand by my statement 100%. Kaldari (talk) 19:29, 25 February 2014 (UTC) Good! I look forward to seeing it. Giano 19:30, 25 February 2014 (UTC) What do you mean by "escalate further"? Could you clarify your rather vague threat? Kaldari (talk) 19:37, 25 February 2014 (UTC) @Giano: Also, I didn't say that Eric belittled a suicide victim (although you put that in quotes as if I said it directly). I said that Eric belittled the suicide of a Wikipedian. You have distorted my words and misquoted me. Please apologize. Kaldari (talk) 19:41, 25 February 2014 (UTC) You really are a repugnent little Admin. Giano 19:45, 25 February 2014 (UTC) Please don't personally attack me any more. Kaldari (talk) 19:50, 25 February 2014 (UTC) Tough get used to it. You claimed Corbett was "belittling" - you lied. Stop posturing too because your precious admin status won't protect you from this either. Giano 19:53, 25 February 2014 (UTC) Uh, Kaldari, I'd hate to be the voice of reason here, but this is your statement in its entirety: Admonishing Kevin for a single statement that he has has repeatedly acknowledged as a mistake while taking no action whatsoever against Eric Corbett's deeply offensive behavior (both in publicly belittling the suicide of a Wikipedian and in personally attacking Kevin) is deeply troubling. (emphasis mine). How could the bolded section be interpreted in any way other than "belittling a suicide victim"? Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 20:03, 25 February 2014 (UTC) Eric didn't say anything about the suicide victim. He was belittling the tragedy of the suicide and criticizing the ensuing outpouring of sympathy. I doubt Eric even knew who the victim was. Kaldari (talk) 20:37, 25 February 2014 (UTC) Really? Where does he do that? It looks to me like he was belittling the act of putting a template on one's userpage, or perhaps the notion--that the OP expressed--that putting a template on one's user page constitutes a cry for help that Wikipedians must cater to. Was that insensitive, tactless, callous of him? Sure, but that's not the same as "belittling the tragedy of the suicide" by a long shot. People do commit suicide every day; that doesn't make it any less of a tragedy, but as Eric said in that very comment, their reasons aren't always what you might think, and as none of us are psychiatrists who know about him, we are not qualified to speculate on why it happened, nor were we ever in a position to render preemptive aid. It's easy to look at our partial evidence and draw conclusions based on that, but that's not something we can or should do, because our information will always be incomplete and we do not have the training to handle it well even if it wasn't. Because, again as Eric said, we are not in fact a psychiatric hospice. Putting things in perspective is not the same as "belittling". Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 21:07, 25 February 2014 (UTC) I'm afraid I agree with Writkeeper here, Kaldari. You should post a diff that shows what you claim, or strike through your comment if you decide on second thought that it is inaccurate, as I believe. --John (talk) 21:15, 25 February 2014 (UTC) I agree as well and have removed what I consider a personal attack from the request page; please, do not reinstate. Salvio 21:16, 25 February 2014 (UTC) Yes, if you look at partial evidence, you will probably come to the wrong conclusion. If you look at Eric's statements in the context of the discussion, it is clear that he is belittling the suicide. For example, in response to people's comments about how saddened they are by the editor's death, Eric replies that "People commit suicide every day." Yes, that is a factual statement, but in context it is belittling (as it downplays the importance of this particular suicide). Saying that something "happens every day" makes it sound less important. Making something sound less important is the definition of "belittling". Kaldari (talk) 21:20, 25 February 2014 (UTC) Please note that if you revert me again I'll block you. Don't revert arbs or clerks on arbitration pages. Salvio 21:27, 25 February 2014 (UTC) @Salvio giuliano: In that case, you may also be interested in , as it is an actual personal attack on the RfAr page. Kaldari (talk) 21:30, 25 February 2014 (UTC) To be completely honest, while I consider that a personal attack as well, I find it less serious than the accusation that another person was belittling a suicide. I'm of two minds whether it should be removed and have asked for opinions on the mailing list. Salvio 21:52, 25 February 2014 (UTC) What Eric actually did was say that this suicide is no more (or less) important than any of the multitude of suicides that we don't get a thread on Jimbo's talk page about. Is that so bad? Is he that wrong? I don't really think so. I mean, technically yes, I suppose he did say something to make the suicide sound less important. But that's because the OP was assigning it greater importance than was due as a result of making assumptions about the cause of the suicide they were in no way qualified to make (namely, that we as a community caused it). I would not describe that as "belittling" (which the very definition you link to equates with "disparage"), I would describe that as "providing perspective". Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 21:35, 25 February 2014 (UTC) Actually, what Eric did was to state outright that a cry for help or a need for others to assist an editor at Misplaced Pages when said editor is having personal issues, is simply not what we are here for. And he is right, so the next time I get an e-mail from one of Eric's friends asking me to cut him a break because of the personal issues he is going through...I'll remember his own opinion on such sensitivity.--Mark Miller (talk) 21:58, 25 February 2014 (UTC) (talk page stalker) I'm going to have to back Ryan here, mostly. Ryan's comment "...Eric Corbett's deeply offensive behavior (both in publicly belittling the suicide of a Wikipedian..." seems to hit the nail on my head, and I've read the page history of Mr. Wales talk page, most of the ArbCom discussion, and the TfD for the template. Now, I do think that the rhetorical question asking if ArbCom is becoming something of a lynch-mob like the admin noticeboard (or something to that effect) was out of line. I also agree that with a different tone, Eric's comment may have been more appropriate (for me the tone was partly set as "what a bunch of retarded morons, get over it already and move on you pansies" by Eric's edit summary of "when did WP become a hospice?" I must partly apologize to Eric for my ABF of him in most cases, but my view of the actions I've seen him make and the responses I've seen in behavioral discussions has left be with that as a default assumption.) — {{U\|Technical 13}} 01:16, 26 February 2014 (UTC)

Opinions have been noted and appropriately filed.

You have made a serious allegation and insult. Could I please have a diff for User: Eric Corbett "belittling a suicide victim" (publicly or privately). It's likely you have been reading many of the recent ridiculous posts without checking your facts, but if you can't a diff to support your allegation, please apologise; it would be a pity for this case to escalate further. Giano 19:03, 25 February 2014 (UTC)

@Giano: Yes, I can and will provide a diff. I stand by my statement 100%. Kaldari (talk) 19:29, 25 February 2014 (UTC)

Good! I look forward to seeing it. Giano 19:30, 25 February 2014 (UTC)

What do you mean by "escalate further"? Could you clarify your rather vague threat? Kaldari (talk) 19:37, 25 February 2014 (UTC)

@Giano: Also, I didn't say that Eric belittled a suicide victim (although you put that in quotes as if I said it directly). I said that Eric belittled the suicide of a Wikipedian. You have distorted my words and misquoted me. Please apologize. Kaldari (talk) 19:41, 25 February 2014 (UTC)

You really are a repugnent little Admin. Giano 19:45, 25 February 2014 (UTC)

Please don't personally attack me any more. Kaldari (talk) 19:50, 25 February 2014 (UTC)

Tough get used to it. You claimed Corbett was "belittling" - you lied. Stop posturing too because your precious admin status won't protect you from this either. Giano 19:53, 25 February 2014 (UTC)

Uh, Kaldari, I'd hate to be the voice of reason here, but this is your statement in its entirety: Admonishing Kevin for a single statement that he has has repeatedly acknowledged as a mistake while taking no action whatsoever against Eric Corbett's deeply offensive behavior (both in publicly belittling the suicide of a Wikipedian and in personally attacking Kevin) is deeply troubling. (emphasis mine). How could the bolded section be interpreted in any way other than "belittling a suicide victim"? Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 20:03, 25 February 2014 (UTC)

Eric didn't say anything about the suicide victim. He was belittling the tragedy of the suicide and criticizing the ensuing outpouring of sympathy. I doubt Eric even knew who the victim was. Kaldari (talk) 20:37, 25 February 2014 (UTC)

Really? Where does he do that? It looks to me like he was belittling the act of putting a template on one's userpage, or perhaps the notion--that the OP expressed--that putting a template on one's user page constitutes a cry for help that Wikipedians must cater to. Was that insensitive, tactless, callous of him? Sure, but that's not the same as "belittling the tragedy of the suicide" by a long shot. People do commit suicide every day; that doesn't make it any less of a tragedy, but as Eric said in that very comment, their reasons aren't always what you might think, and as none of us are psychiatrists who know about him, we are not qualified to speculate on why it happened, nor were we ever in a position to render preemptive aid. It's easy to look at our partial evidence and draw conclusions based on that, but that's not something we can or should do, because our information will always be incomplete and we do not have the training to handle it well even if it wasn't. Because, again as Eric said, we are not in fact a psychiatric hospice. Putting things in perspective is not the same as "belittling". Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 21:07, 25 February 2014 (UTC)

I'm afraid I agree with Writkeeper here, Kaldari. You should post a diff that shows what you claim, or strike through your comment if you decide on second thought that it is inaccurate, as I believe. --John (talk) 21:15, 25 February 2014 (UTC)

I agree as well and have removed what I consider a personal attack from the request page; please, do not reinstate. Salvio 21:16, 25 February 2014 (UTC)

Yes, if you look at partial evidence, you will probably come to the wrong conclusion. If you look at Eric's statements in the context of the discussion, it is clear that he is belittling the suicide. For example, in response to people's comments about how saddened they are by the editor's death, Eric replies that "People commit suicide every day." Yes, that is a factual statement, but in context it is belittling (as it downplays the importance of this particular suicide). Saying that something "happens every day" makes it sound less important. Making something sound less important is the definition of "belittling". Kaldari (talk) 21:20, 25 February 2014 (UTC)

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

Disambiguation link notification for February 26

Euromaidan (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to Ukrainian Front

Night Wolves (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to Russian

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

Discussion about "Template:Wpcm"

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

WikiCup 2014 February newsletter

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

Godot13 (submissions), a WikiCup newcomer whose high-quality scans of rare banknotes represent an unusual, interesting and valuable contribution to Misplaced Pages. Most of Godot's points this round have come from a large set of pictures used in Treasury Note (1890–91).
Adam Cuerden (submissions), a WikiCup veteran and a finalist last year, Adam is also a featured picture specialist, focusing on the restoration of historical images. This month's promotions have included a carefully restored set of artist William Russell Flint's work.
WikiRedactor (submissions), another WikiCup newcomer. WikiRedactor has claimed points for good article reviews and good articles relating to pop music, many of which were awarded bonus points. Articles include Sky Ferreira, Hannah Montana 2: Meet Miley Cyrus and "Wrecking Ball" (Miley Cyrus song).

Other competitors of note include:

Hahc21 (submissions), who helped take Thirty Flights of Loving through good article candidates and featured article candidates, claiming the first first featured article of the competition.
Prism (submissions), who claimed the first featured list of the competition with Natalia Kills discography.
Cwmhiraeth (submissions), who takes the title of the contributor awarded the highest bonus point multiplier (resulting in the highest scoring article) of the competition so far. Her high-importance salamander, now a good article, scored 108 points.

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

If you are concerned that your nomination—whether it is at good article candidates, a featured process, or anywhere else—will not receive the necessary reviews, please list it on Misplaced Pages:WikiCup/Reviews. If you want to help out with the WikiCup, please do your bit to help keep down the review backlogs! Questions are welcome on Misplaced Pages talk:WikiCup, and the judges are reachable on their talk pages or by email. Good luck! If you wish to start or stop receiving this newsletter, please feel free to add or remove yourself from Misplaced Pages:WikiCup/Newsletter/Send. J Milburn (talk • email), The ed17 (talk • email) and Miyagawa (talk • email) 00:01, 1 March 2014 (UTC)

Spirit

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

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

ANI Notice

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

It's interesting...

...that you chose to remove this factual statement, yet you chose to leave this misguided praise for all to see. Or do you deny that you were caught by Checkuser and believe that you deserve the praise? 86.173.196.16 (talk) 12:09, 8 March 2014 (UTC)