User talk:Kaldari

ANI

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion at Wikipedia: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 Wikipedia 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.

Enable gadget

Hi Kaldari, would you be so kind to enable a gadget here? See this topic. Thank you, Multichill (talk) 11:34, 14 October 2012 (UTC)

Hi Ryan, did you have time to have a look at this? Multichill (talk) 20:04, 20 October 2012 (UTC)

Sorry it took me so long to get around to this. See Wikipedia:Gadget/proposals#Direct imagelinks to Commons. Kaldari (talk) 18:46, 21 October 2012 (UTC

Ryan, please, no talk page hopping, I'm running low on bunnies.

Thanks for placing that there, it never ceases to amaze me how bureaucratic this Wikipedia is ;-) Multichill (talk) 20:22, 21 October 2012 (UTC)

Open for quite some time, only a few positive responses. Could you enable the gadget? Multichill (talk) 11:54, 17 November 2012 (UTC)

Poke? Would be nice if you could reply. Multichill (talk) 13:33, 8 December 2012 (UTC)

Done. Kaldari (talk) 21:51, 8 December 2012 (UTC)

Thank you! Multichill (talk) 10:54, 15 December 2012 (UTC)

Reftoobar

Hi, Kaldari. The history of the MediaWiki:RefToolbar.js lists you as an active contributer. Do you still maintain interest in that project? There are a few minor issues that could use attention. I have have some simple ideas for improvement. I have listed them on the code's talk page if you are interested to read them. I have more that I have not written about too. Jason Quinn (talk) 04:35, 27 November 2012 (UTC)

Bump. Jason Quinn (talk) 04:58, 4 December 2012 (UTC)

I'm afraid I no longer have any involvement with the RefToolbar project. You might try asking User:Mr.Z-man. Kaldari (talk) 05:19, 4 December 2012 (UTC)

WikiLove customization for WP:Teahouse badges

Hey Kaldari!

So our wikilove customization is going great... except that signatures aren't being added to the posts with Teahouse badges (and the default form instructions say not to include a signature). Here's my code: User:Ocaasi/WikiLoveinstallscript.js. Any idea what I'm missing? Cheers, Ocaasi ^{t | c} 02:21, 3 December 2012 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) Hey, Ocaasi, judging from the example at MediaWiki and the default configuration, it looks like the tildes for the signature need to be included within the text field. Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 02:39, 3 December 2012 (UTC)

Thanks Writ! I tried adding the tildes using ~~~~, <nowiki>~~~~</nowiki>, and <includeonly>~~~~</includeonly>, but none of them work. All either transposed to a signature on the WikiLoveinstallscript page or delivered as ~~~~ rather than a signature. I see from the Mediawiki example that they jump through similar hoops, although theirs work. Thanks for pointing me to it :) Ocaasi ^{t | c} 02:53, 3 December 2012 (UTC)

Did you get this working or is it still broken? I might have time to look at this tomorrow. Kaldari (talk) 19:14, 3 December 2012 (UTC)

essay Cherrypicking and time

This essay is new. I did most of it.

Separately: Your talk page gave the time as 9:26 when I'd expect it to be 8:26 for you (it was 11:26 for me). Maybe I'm wrong; no reply needed; just saying what I perceive.

Nick Levinson (talk) 16:35, 5 December 2012 (UTC)

Points addressed

Hi Kaldari, once again, thank you so much for reading and reviewing Joseph Grimaldi. I have addressed all of your excellent points and would request a re-visit if you have time, to check what I have done. I have also added a lot more about his influence on performers, authors and on the field of clowning from critics and contemporaries for an added benefit. If you agree with my changes and are happy with it please use bold text to either Support or Oppose. Many thanks! -- Cassianto^Talk 21:35, 7 December 2012 (UTC)

Hi. I saw that you made this change. I don't think you're right. The writer must have been talking about people playing the role of Clown in pantomime, not the other clowns in pantomime, and certainly not other kinds of clowns, like circus clowns. I think it should be with the initial cap. All the best. -- Ssilvers (talk) 00:01, 8 December 2012 (UTC)

If he's only talking about the Clown character, it doesn't really seem worth mentioning, IMO. But if it is to be mentioned it should be reworded. If it's referring to the Clown character, it should probably say "the greatest Clown" or "the greatest performance of Clown", rather than "the greatest of all Clowns". Kaldari (talk) 00:15, 8 December 2012 (UTC)

[<--left] Hi, Kaldari. I'm American, but I have spent several years learning about the British pantomime and harlequinade, which were wildly popular entertainments in Britain in the 18th and 19th centuries, from the time of John Rich (producer) through the Victorian era. The British still have Christmas pantomimes, but these no longer have the magical transformation scene that always changed the pantomime into the chaotic harlequinade in the 18th and 19th centuries. Indeed, in many cases, the pantomime story was merely a way to introduce the characters that would then be transformed into the harlequinade characters for the balance of the evening. Every Harlequinade had the same five clown characters: Harlequin, the romantic lead; the scheming and crafty Clown; Harlequin's girlfriend Columbine; old Pantaloon; and Pierrot. All of the major harlequinade characters were different types of clowns; minor characters included a policeman. The pantomime/harlequinade entertainment was so popular that nearly every West End theatre, and most theatres throughout the country, played a panto/harlequinade from December to February every year, and often another one at Easter. Some of the biggest theatres specialized in playing them year round. People like W. S. Gilbert (of Gilbert and Sullivan) wrote of their childhood obsessions with "Clowns" - meaning the famous actors who portrayed the Clown character. Gilbert wrote about how, as a child, he used to "follow Clowns" in London, to see where the actors lived (or where they would go after leaving the theatre) and that his love of the character made him want to run away from home to join the theatre.

The harlequinade is a theatrical genre that is almost unknown here in the US, but the most famous Clown in London would have been far more popular in the 19th century than the most famous stand-up comic is today - far more famous than, say, Jerry Seinfeld, because there were limited opportunities for entertainment in the days before the invention of the phonograph, TV, radio, film and video games. After sundown, your flat had only lamplight; but if you went to the huge Drury Lane Theatre, you could see and hear the great Grimaldi. So I definitely think that his status as the greatest of the Clowns is worthwhile, and I also think that when Cassianto wrote "the greatest of all Clowns", he was phrasing it precisely to signify "the greatest Clown of all times". I asked Cassianto to get back to you to confirm that the quoted writers were referring to pantomime Clowns, as opposed to any other clown characters in the harlequinade or in any other entertainments. All the best! -- Ssilvers (talk) 01:35, 8 December 2012 (UTC)

Yes, but I'm afraid "the greatest of all Clowns" doesn't mean anything to anyone in the modern world, whereas "the greatest of all clowns" is meaningful to everyone. Thus I imagine that 99.9% of readers would misinterpret that sentence. Kaldari (talk) 08:15, 8 December 2012 (UTC)

I'm not entirely sure I am understanding this discussion. When I think of Clowns, I don't differentiate between those within the harlequinade and those in other forms of entertainment. Sure, he was the greatest Clown performer of his period, but he has also been considered to be so by many historians, performers and authors up to the present day. I have put some thoughts down from two of his biographers, who considred him to be the greatest Clown performer. With regards to the Bentley's Miscellany, I was phrasing it exactly to the word. I cannot elaborate any further, thus it's ambiguity may still present to you I'm afraid. Would it be better trying to find something else Kaldari? -- Cassianto^Talk 21:14, 8 December 2012 (UTC)

My suggestion was to change 'Clowns' in that sentence to 'clowns' (or rephrase the sentence entirely). I recognize that this may not have been the exact meaning intended by Bentley's Miscellany, but I think it would be good to change it for 2 reasons:

• A modern reader has no interest in who was the best performer of the Clown character in the harlequinade, but would be very interested in who was the best clown, period. I realize that at the time there may have been little distinction, but we are emphasizing the distinction by using the proper noun.
• Most readers are going to assume that 'Clowns' in that sentence is supposed to be 'clowns' anyway.

Kaldari (talk) 22:15, 8 December 2012 (UTC)

I've changed the way it's phrased, so let me know if you're pleased with it now, Kaldari. I have also gone through the whole article to clarify that Clown with a big C refers only to the Clown character in the harlequinade. If a person wants to understand the distinction more precisely, they have to go to the harlequinade article. -- Ssilvers (talk) 22:21, 8 December 2012 (UTC)

I added some further comments at Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Joseph Grimaldi/archive1. Kaldari (talk) 22:47, 8 December 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for your comments. They led to substantial clarifications in the article, and I think the legacy section will continue to improve even more. All the best! -- Ssilvers (talk) 14:57, 13 December 2012 (UTC)

Signpost

Do you think you'd be willing to do another interview? I'm really busy with my master's programme, so I haven't had a chance to interview anyone. Malleus would be a good subject, if he'd be up to it. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 05:00, 8 December 2012 (UTC)

Sure, I'd be up for doing one. I don't imagine Malleus would accept an invitation from me as I once blocked him for personal attacks and he has a tendency to hold grudges. What about Brion VIBBER (WMF employee #1) or SlimVirgin? I think either of them could give an interesting interview. Kaldari (talk) 08:00, 8 December 2012 (UTC)

• Either of those would be good, yeah. Just go with it. I'll do the more formulaic stuff (the summaries). — Crisco 1492 (talk) 12:46, 8 December 2012 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, Kaldari. You have new messages at Darkwind's talk page.
Message added 04:23, 10 December 2012 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

—Darkwind (talk) 04:23, 10 December 2012 (UTC)

POTD notification

POTD

Hi Ryan,

Just to let you know that the Featured Picture File:Ansel Adams - National Archives 79-AA-Q01 restored.jpg is due to make an appearance as Picture of the Day on December 12, 2012. If you get a chance, you can check and improve the caption at Template:POTD/2012-12-12. —howcheng {chat} 23:37, 11 December 2012 (UTC)

Edit-a-thon tomorrow (Saturday) in Oakland

Hi, I hope you will be joining us tomorrow afternoon at the Edit-a-thon at Tech Liminal, in Oakland. We'll be working on articles relating to women and democracy (and anything else that interests you). It's sponsored by the California League of Women Voters, Tech Liminal, and me.

If this is the first you are hearing of this event, my apologies for the last-minute notice! I announced it on the San Francisco email list and by a banner on your watchlist, but I neglected to look at the San Francisco invitation list until this evening. If you can't make it this time, I hope to see you at a similar event soon! -Pete (talk) 04:46, 15 December 2012 (UTC)

Source usage analysis of Women in Chile

You might be interested in this page, which includes an analysis of the source usage in the article Women in Chile. I started doing this because of a discussion at the Education Noticeboard about whether students typically used sources correctly. I decided to take some example articles from the spring 2012 semester and look at every single source in them, and determine whether there were any errors in the way the sources were used -- either direct quotation without quote marks, or close paraphrasing, or inaccurate representation of the source material. You are one of the main editors of that article, so quite a few of the source attributions are to you. So far I've analyzed references 1, 2, 7 and 9, and your name has come up multiple times; I thought you might like to take a look at the analysis I've done so far and let me know if you think I've made any mistakes. (You'll have to scroll over the blank rows where I don't have access to the sources.) I'll leave you another note when I complete the analysis. Thanks for any feedback or corrections. -- Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 13:11, 18 December 2012 (UTC)

Hi Mike, this is a very useful analysis. Thanks for your work on this! I have to say that I disagree with some of your assessments of close paraphrasing, however. Several of them are simple presentations of facts that should be covered by WP:LIMITED. A couple ones in particular:

Article text	Original
Despite the fact that 47.5 percent of students in college are women, many still choose to be homemakers rather than join the workforce.	Although 47.5% of university students are women, many university graduates choose to be homemakers instead of seeking employment.
Today, younger women are opting out of marriage and having fewer children than their predecessors.	Younger women often choose cohabitation over marriage and they have fewer children.
Women in Chile have long life expectancy, living an average of 80.8 years, about six years longer than men.	Women in Chile have a long life expectancy and high rates of literacy. Women live on average 80.8 years.

Let me know if you have suggestions for how to reword those, but they seem OK to me. Maybe I'm just not creative enough, though. :) Kaldari (talk) 20:18, 18 December 2012 (UTC)

Yeah, I'll gladly take recommendations and of course encourage people to #sofixit for these things. Really embarrassing stuff to see about my writing on this subject. I do agree with Kaldari, a lot of it falls under WP:LIMITED. Crazy stuff. SarahStierch (talk) 21:09, 18 December 2012 (UTC)

I started to think as I went through this that (a) it wasn't fair to y'all to do this without letting you know, and (b) maybe my interpretation of LIMITED wasn't the same as others. I'll get some more eyes on those examples and try to understand consensus on that a bit better before I go on. I'm really mostly interested in the students' work, but I figured that the right way to do the analysis was to take a snapshot of the article and look at how the students' work compared with that of experienced editors -- you two, in other words. I'll post another note here with a link to wherever I ask for more opinions. Thanks for the detailed response and I appreciate you not getting too annoyed with me. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 22:37, 18 December 2012 (UTC)

No problem! Most of your analysis is quite accurate, it's just a bit strict on the paraphrasing, IMO. Some things are quite difficult to rephrase without changing the meaning or emphasis. I would even allow a sentence to repeat a source verbatim if it is clearly the most straightforward way to state a fact. If the wording of the sentence is unique or there are multiple sentences involved, I would be much more strict, however. Of course, that's just my interpretation of the guidelines and others may disagree. Cheers! Kaldari (talk) 22:48, 18 December 2012 (UTC)

OK, I posted a query here. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 23:45, 18 December 2012 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for December 24

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited First Sino-Japanese War, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Battle of the Yalu River (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). 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.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 19:20, 24 December 2012 (UTC)

Percentages

Hi - I saw the the table of percentages of blackout votes on Andreas' talk page. Can you clarify what the percentages are of? I can't get the numbers to make sense on simple inspection. E.g. You say that 443 is 39.1% of something, and on the same row that 479 is 39.6% of something. That doesn't add up. Also, what is an autoconfirmed account? There were many accounts that voted after a long period of 'sleeping'. Would they have been autoconfirmed? 86.171.239.229 (talk) 18:47, 26 December 2012 (UTC)

The percentage is the percentage of all the votes (that meet that threshold) across all the options. If you add up all the percentages vertically, you'll get 100%. Sleeper accounts would only be counted as autoconfirmed if they had at least 10 edits to Wikipedia. Kaldari (talk) 01:59, 27 December 2012 (UTC)

Now I understand. Actually the non-confirmed and IP votes were a significant percentage of the total. However, enough of them voted against the blackout to nullify the effect (as I read it). 86.171.239.43 (talk) 16:35, 27 December 2012 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Barnstar of Diplomacy
	awarded for reaching out to people that are beyond my ability to reach out to; and doing a very impressive job of it --Demiurge1000 (talk) 05:19, 27 December 2012 (UTC)

Brion Vibber interview

Your interview with Brion Vibber at Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/2010-12-31/Interview is really interesting. Thanks for drawing early attention to it at Wikipedia talk:Wikipedia Signpost#Interview with Brion Vibber posted. The sub-page seems to have the wrong year: 2010 not 2012; I thought I'd draw this to your attention before the page is more widely known, in case it is a mistake and the page needs redirecting to Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/2012-12-31/Interview. Best wishes — Richardguk (talk) 14:32, 27 December 2012 (UTC)