User talk:Kaldari

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 when more than 5 sections are present.

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.

You're invited! Ada Lovelace Day San Francisco

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

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).[reply]

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

Good catch. It looks like someone started the Parts Per Billion (film) article by copying the article Singularity (film). Unfortunately, it seems they didn't finish the job and left a lot of the material from Singularity in the new article. I've removed all the duplicated material (which unfortunately included all the references). Feel free to build off of that. Cheers! Kaldari (talk) 01:13, 16 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Kaldari. I'll get to work adding the references. While I'm doing that, is it okay if I add additional information that I find sourced online? If it is I'd still want you to look it over to make sure that it doesn't read as promotional.

Given my last run in with the Admins (thunderclap), I don't want to take on too much at once and I particularly want my contributions to be meaningful. So I was thinking that maybe I'd only focus on the Parts Per Billion (film) page for this week, with the aim of trying to develop it with the material available.

Do you think that's a good idea? Carlang (talk) 08:32, 16 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It sounds fine to me. Just be careful about the external links. Kaldari (talk) 01:57, 20 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. Will do. I'm also currently working on the page for The Americans (2013 TV series). I added a reception area and I'm fleshing out the development section.Carlang (talk) 07:54, 31 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Collaboration template

I am going to be reverting some of your changes slowly back to what the purpose of this template was intended, as an overview and quicklink to the project collaborations and speecific collabortion pages developed by editors. A collaboration is not just on a single article. The template was originally designed for use in conjunction with Wikipedia:Collaborations for editors to learn how to creat their own collaboration efforts. The edit you made reduced the template's scope more then in probably needed.--Amadscientist (talk) 01:54, 20 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

What is your definition of a 'collaboration'? A lot of the links that were on that template were nothing more than links to WikiProjects, WikiProject to-do lists, WikiProject task forces, or article collaborations that hadn't been active in years. I would consider most of those to be dead-ends to someone actually hoping to collaborate with other editors in a short time span. If the template goes back to being a random list of semi-active projects with no coherent definition, I think it will lose it's usefulness. Kaldari (talk) 02:13, 20 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I am not taking any immediate action and I agree that some of the ways it was previously do not need to be brought back into the template, but it's intent is as promotion for projects and editor collaborations that are created. Some of them are still active and some that appear semi-active took a great deal of time and work to get there. This was supposed to help the projects and the individual editor collaborations recieve attention. Yes, it was near inactive, and I actually appreciate your input and help, but i just wanted to give you a heads up that i was going to be revisting the template and the artilce it relates to as part of efforts with several projects, incuding WP:WER, WP:TAFI, and others.--Amadscientist (talk) 02:23, 20 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

That sounds good to me. I think the 2 main things that would improve that template's usefulness are keeping it fresh and making sure that users understand what they are going to when they click one of the links. Let me know if there's anything I can do to help. Cheers. Kaldari (talk) 02:35, 20 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

articles we shouldn't write

I started an essay I think will have thought value. Feel free to add from your experience or that of others or from hypotheticals. Nick Levinson (talk) 19:42, 20 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The King and I is at FAC

Hi, Kaldare. The King and I has been nominated for FAC. I see that you have reviewed FACs in the performing arts area before. It would be great if you could take a look at the article and give comments at the FAC. Thanks for any time you could spare! -- Ssilvers (talk) 00:28, 27 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]