User talk:Kaldari

Archive 1 (November 10, 2004 – August 10, 2005)

Congratulations!

Congratulations! It's my pleasure to let you know that, consensus being reached, you are now an administrator. You should read the relevant policies and other pages linked to from the administrators' reading list before carrying out tasks like deletion, protection, banning users, and editing protected pages such as the Main Page. Most of what you do is easily reversible by other sysops, apart from page history merges and image deletion, so please be especially careful with those. You might find the new administrators' how-to guide helpful. Cheers! -- Cecropia | explains it all ® 04:15, 10 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Func's RfA :)

Kaldari, thank you for supporting my adminship, much appreciated! :)

Please never hesitate to let me know if you have concerns with any administrative action I may make.

Func( t, c, e, ) 22:52, 10 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

CM Hall of Fame image

I didn't shoot that myself. I think I stole that off the web somewhere before I knew about the copyright rules. --Zpb52 02:02, August 22, 2005 (UTC)

Jguk for admin?

You may be interested in this: Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/jguk CDThieme 20:48, 24 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Alleged causes of Hurricane Katrina

I realize that there were strong feelings on both sides with respect to the outcome of the AfD for this article, now located at Alternative theories regarding Hurricane Katrina. I would like to assure those who expressed concerns about the content, tone, and potential for degradation of this article that I intend for it to continue to exist only as long as is necessary to draw the contributions of fringe theorists away from the more substantial Hurricane Katrina articles. Once interest in this topic dies down, I'll quietly trim and merge this information into the appropriate general-topic articles. In the interim, I will carefully watch this page to prevent it from being abused, and I will continue to work towards making this article NPOV, properly sourced, and useful to those seeking an accurate record of the hysterics that so often follows catastrophe. Cheers. -- BDAbramson ^talk 00:47, 14 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

If you are in the neighborhood

You need to come over if your in the neighborhood, look me up, (Dinner my treat) Thanks Scott 01:35, 2 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

2003 UB313

Hi - you uploaded an image of the 10th planet and its moon. You tagged it as a NASA and hence PD image, but unfortunately it's not NASA. Images taken by the Keck telescopes are not free for our purposes, as their use is restricted to educational, journalistic and personal use (see [1]). So, I deleted the image. I got permission from Michael Brown to release under the GFDL two other images used in our article, but I don't think he is the copyright holder of this image. Might be worth e-mailing the appropriate person to seek permission though. Worldtraveller 17:16, 3 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Crosstar

FYI: user talk:Willmcw#I temporarily deleted the crosstar image. Since we have the nearly-identical by user:Alex756, this will not immediately effect the articles. Cheers, -Willmcw 21:29, 4 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I think I am going to put in a counter-notification under the DCMA "takedown" provisions (17 USC 512). There is no copyright in that drawing and I feel it interferes with my rights to make arrow cross drawings of my own. What do you think about this approach? — © Alex756 01:24, 22 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Censorship of the subject of Sexual Bondage

An admin and an anonomous user are seemingly determined to censor several images on the article hogtie bondage. Many arguements have been made on the talk pages, but they all seem to boil down to the need to censor the images. So now it's being suggested the images arn't relevant dispite the fact that the article makes direct illustrative reference to them. The admin who removes them has decided he knows best, despite the large number of contributors who state that the images are neccessary. Interestingly, the images remained, and he made no fuss about them for several weeks despite performing edit to the text, until a user complained that the images were "obcene" and stating the Wikipedia is not supposed to have nude images (the images DO NOT display nudity), and might offend people and demanded that they be removed. It was then that the Admin removed the images, and started making excuses as to why. Could you take a closer look at this page and determine if censorship is being performed. I'm becoming concerned that a reversion cycle has begun and that unless something is done it's going to go round in circles. --Jbc01 11:18, 22 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Caenolestes condorensis

You wrote on the Condor shrew opossum "The Condor Shrew Opossum is only known from an isolated observation in southern Ecuador, and its taxonomic status is not yet well established." The first statement is true, of course, but as far as I know its status has never been disputed. Do you have a source for that statement? Ucucha (talk) 14:59, 26 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I answered on my own talk page. Ucucha (talk) 16:48, 26 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Quotes

Yes, I would! Punctution goes inside quotation marks in the United States and in dozens of other countries. I'm not aware of any kind of global revolution towards the British Commonwealth style. Neutrality^talk 22:49, 13 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Periods on captions

Re captions on John Seigenthaler Sr.. According to Wikipedia talk:Captions they should be sentences, and sentences have periods. Also see Period at the end of the caption or not?. Most all the other articles on Wikipedia have periods on the captions, unless the caption is just a name. --Foofy 00:27, 14 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Um, BTW, this was supposed to be more like a question! In other words: why not periods? Thanks. --Foofy 00:32, 14 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

How long should an article be semi-protected?

I've raised this question here, as now it's actually real and happening I expect more people will want to comment. Dan100 (Talk) 15:00, 22 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:User Bill of Rights

Wikipedia:User Bill of Rights is a proposed policy / guideline that has been supported by Wikipedians who are concerned that the long term neutrality of Wikipedia depends upon input from minority viewpoints. Continued input from minority viewpoints, in turn can be assured only if the actions of admins and ArbCom are applied fairly and with an even hand. Although the proposed policy / guideline is under active discussion [2], [3], there have been attempts to close the discussion on the grounds that "there is not a snowball's chance in hell" [4] that such a proposed policy / guideline will be accepted. One editor was sanctioned [5] for an allegedly "disruptive" edit, of removing a "rejected" template while discussion was ongoing [6]. Your input on this matter would be greatly appreciated. (The current version of the proposal appearing on the page is a semi-blanked version which was semi-blanked by opponents of the proposal.)[7] --BostonMA 14:30, 30 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Ignore the Arbitration Committee

I'm glad I was able to make you laugh. The situation at Wikipedia:User Bill of Rights is a perfect example of this which I refer to in a round about way at the bottom of Wikipedia:Ignore the Arbitration Committee. WAS 4.250 17:13, 30 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Re: the Kelly Martin RfC

>I think that such things which do not fall under the purview of encyclopaedia editing really don't have to go through the cumbersome deletion processes, simply because otherwise we'll end up doing nothing else than squabbling rather than writing the encyclopaedia.

So you are suggesting that Kelly Martin's actions have reduced squabbling??? Kaldari 14:29, 3 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Kaldari: No, no, of course not; that is clearly not the case. All I meant was that I see no reason that unencyclopaedic content should go through the existing editorial review processes (as they stand) due to their fundamental heavyweight nature and their impractical approach to deletion debate. Indeed, as I mentioned, it was more that Kelly Martin should have communicated better about what she was doing (although, not communicating sufficiently couldn't be construed as misdemeanour, but rather omission, as per Hanlon's razor) and to be honest the squabbling that occurred shouldn't have been allowed to happen, whether or not Kelly did the right thing. In a respect, it is representative of the immaturity of the community as a whole that such actions were allowed to create a furore to that degree - all it takes to reverse such actions is a willing admin to undelete them, which indeed occurred, so such actions become a fait accomplis. We have a long-standing culture of "be bold" here, and a secondary concern of mine (which was one I did not voice on the RfC, due to its non-sequitur nature) is that otherwise admins will become stripped of their ability to use judgement and discretion that ordinary users possess simply due to the community expecting them to blindly follow process without any attention to product. I do hope that clarifies my position on the matter. Thank you, and I wish you all the best, --NicholasTurnbull | (talk) 17:36, 3 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

There are no Wikimedia IRC channels. Ambi 20:54, 3 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I was banned from #wikipedia for pasting the five lines. I was later banned again for "trolling" but unbanned immediately by another op. #wikipedia is an official Wikipedia (and thus Wikimedia) IRC channel by Freenode policy; if it was unofficial it would be ##wikipedia. --SPUI (talk - don't use sorted stub templates!) 21:14, 3 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ambi, both times. I told her she shouldn't ban someone she's in conflict with, and she continued to call me a troll. When I told her to assume good faith, she quoted "Carbonite's Law" - "The more a given user invokes assume good faith as a defense, the lower the probability that said user was acting in good faith." --SPUI (talk - don't use sorted stub templates!) 21:32, 3 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Nyet. The IRC channels are explicitly not official. Never have been, never will be. Indeed, there are really only two policies on the IRC channels - don't be a dick and don't publicly log the channel. SPUI violated the latter, and SPUI was kicked. Simple as that. He later violated the former, and was kicked for that. Ambi 00:00, 4 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

SPUI is correct in the freenode sense; the #wikipedia channel is in the channel namespace reserved for primary channels. If it is not an officially sanctioned channel it should be named with a double hash. See the freenode channel naming policy: [8] - Synapse 01:36, 4 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]