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.

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)

Yes, that's my read of it as well. Kaldari (talk) 20:58, 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)

Book on SOPA protest

Was this the book, you were talking about? Interesting.86.171.239.43 (talk) 16:36, 27 December 2012 (UTC)

WikiCup 2013 starting soon

Hi there; you're receiving this message because you have previously shown interest in the WikiCup. This is just to remind you that the 2013 WikiCup will be starting on 1 January, and that signups will remain open throughout January. Old and new Wikipedians and WikiCup participants are warmly invited to take part in this year's competition. (Though, as a note to the more experienced participants, there have been a few small rules changes in the last few months.) If you have already signed up, let this be a reminder; you will receive a message with your submissions' page soon. Please direct any questions to the WikiCup talk page. Thanks! J Milburn 19:49, 30 December 2012 (UTC)

Your SP contribution

It's a good piece, although it would have been better to post it closer to publication. I've gone through it, making a few surface changes. Could you check my inline queries? In particular, some of the tech terms could do with wikilinks, or better still, a brief gloss straight after first mention, in parentheses or within commas. Thanks. Tony (talk) 10:53, 31 December 2012 (UTC)

Thanks! Kaldari (talk) 11:13, 31 December 2012 (UTC)

Request for comment at ANI page

Hello Kaldari, since you are familiar with the partisan I/P article editing environment, perhaps you'd consider commenting on the following: Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#Comments_by_Ubikwit_and_Evildoer187.--Ubikwit (talk) 07:37, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

Sorry, but I'd rather not get involved in this one. Kaldari (talk) 10:34, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

No problem. It's rather a tedious chore dealing with the scenario, including the volunteer administrators. Even the RSN related to the I/P articles is out of control.--Ubikwit (talk) 12:30, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

Your comment on Signpost

I think you are missing the point, FA2010 is not complaining about the amount, cause or internal handling of OFFICE, but saying the implementation is done in a rude way. I have no idea why he says that or if he's right, but it is a different question. Rich Farmbrough, 00:16, 4 January 2013 (UTC).

Oh, I guess I was completely misunderstanding him. Reverted my comments. Kaldari (talk) 00:21, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

Page Curation

Have you ever encountered a bug where a reviewing of the page, in this instance University of Mohaghegh Ardabili, appeares reviewed to one person, but does not appear in the page curation log until someone else reviews it, in this case User:SarahStierch reviewed it a few hours later?--Gilderien Chat|List of good deeds 20:58, 6 January 2013 (UTC)

SOPA

Hi Kaldari, about our conversation the other day – I just came across this from here: "One possible view is that because the law would seriously impact the functioning of Wikipedia for everyone, a global strike of at least the English Wikipedia would put the maximum pressure on the US government." "Seriously impact the functioning of Wikipedia for everyone" sounded very ominous, and is completely at odds with what Tim said here would actually have been involved: "The compliance cost would be no worse than a typical WP:RSPAM report." This is just for your reference, because you asked me about statements like this, and I didn't remember this one at the time. Best, Andreas JN466 03:18, 11 January 2013 (UTC)

Another question about the SOPA protest

Kaldari, I have seen references to a 'war room' that operated at WMF headquarters during the January blackout day. Can you give me a sense of what people were doing there? I mean, didn't you just have to black out Wikipedia and sit back? What else was going on? Grateful for any details. 86.146.79.118 (talk) 11:25, 12 January 2013 (UTC)

Blacking out the site was the (mostly) trivial part. Setting up a system for millions of people (8 million to be specific) to look up their congressional representatives and contact them without melting our servers (or someone else's servers) took a bit of work. We were also continually updating the wording and content of the blackout page itself and all the related informational pages. And of course dealing with a tidal wave of media coverage. Kaldari (talk) 23:38, 12 January 2013 (UTC)

Thanks 86.169.242.194 (talk) 09:15, 13 January 2013 (UTC)

Moderation of Jerusalem RfC

Hello. You are receiving this message because you have recently participated at Talk:Jerusalem or because you were listed at one of the two recent requests for mediation of the Jerusalem article (1, 2). The Arbitration Committee recently mandated a binding request for comments about the wording of the lead of the Jerusalem article, and this message is to let you know that there is currently a moderated discussion underway to decide how that request for comments should be structured. If you are interested in participating in the discussion, you are invited to read the thread at Talk:Jerusalem#Moderation, add yourself to the list of participants, and leave a statement. Please note that this discussion will not affect the contents of the article directly; the contents of the article will be decided in the request for comments itself, which will begin after we have finalised its structure. If you do not wish to participate in the present discussion, you may safely ignore this message; there is no need to respond. If you have any questions or comments about this, please leave them at my talk page. Best regards — Mr. Stradivarius ^{♪ talk ♪} 12:10, 13 January 2013 (UTC)

Wikissentials Proposal on Meta

Hi there. This is just a quick note to say that you may be interested in having a look at http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikissentials Your name was listed as one of the users that was interested in another proposal similar to this. Regards ·Add§hore· ^{Talk To Me!} 20:21, 15 January 2013 (UTC)

Need Input on Parts Per Billion

Hi Kaldari,
I returned from my honeymoon a few days ago so you're going to start seeing a lot of me around the community more. I need your advise on a task. I'm a fan of Josh Hartnett. While reviewing his page, I noticed that two of the latest entries appear to have similar sources, even though they're identified as different movies. The article Parts Per Billion (film) in particular seems to be completely made up of references for another film Singularity (film). The way I see it, they’re either the same film with two different titles, which will require a merge, or they're two different movies and the second has been added with no credible reference. Could you please take a look at both and give me some advice on how to proceed. On a quick search, there does seem to be some news activity regarding Parts Per Billion, but I'm hesitant to add these as references for obvious reasons. Carlang (talk) 00:27, 16 January 2013 (UTC)