User talk:Kotra

I prefer to keep conversations all in one place.

• If I commented on your talk page, I prefer if you reply there instead of here. I'll be watching your talk page.
• If you comment here, I'll reply here also. If you aren't going to be watching my page, let me know, so I can leave you a note whenever I reply here.

Thanks!

Criticize me. If you see me doing something wrong, tell me. I'll appreciate it.

prekazi81

Thank you very much for your information. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Prekazi81 (talk • contribs) 23:24, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

No problem. -kotra (talk) 18:04, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

Nice work

I must say, thanks for your tireless struggle against linkspammers over on the PDX Wiki so far. — Athelwulf ^[T]/_[C] 10:01, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

Thanks! I'll bring the problem up at today's meeting, hopefully we can install a CAPTCHA or something. -kotra (talk) 16:57, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

Good plan. By the way, I've brought up some ideas over there, and I'd like your input. The point you brought up there is referenced. — Athelwulf ^[T]/_[C] 09:50, 14 March 2009 (UTC)... PS, happy $\pi$ Day!

Question about refs

Hi, I'm very new to wikipedia and was editing The Portland Alliance page today. I noticed that you had added the citations box at the top. I added a couple of sentences today and included refs for them and was wondering if you think they are OK. Also, I'm wondering if more are needed or if it is OK to remove the box at the top? There are a couple of refs to the portland alliance home page, which may be the problem. I'm actually just curious about when the box should stay or go (I don't care if the box stays or goes on the Portland Alliance page). :) Tdferro (talk) 18:51, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for expanding the Portland Alliance article. The citations you added are good, exactly what we look for. If we can find a citation that says Dave Mazza himself investigated the story, we can also mention that; until then I've changed it to say the newspaper uncovered the tapes, which is what the KGW citation says.

About the {{refimprove}} box I added to the top, you're right: mainly I put it there because the Portland Alliance website is probably not independent enough to be the sole source for some of the statements, only a backing source. I'll make that more clear on the talk page (where I should have explained when I placed the box to begin with). -kotra (talk) 20:06, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

Cool. Thank you. I was wondering about things like circulation data. That isn't the type of thing that will be reported (or known) by any other source, but the paper itself. Should that just not be cited? Tdferro (talk) 20:13, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

So other interested editors can see this discussion and give their input, I'll be responding to this at Talk:Portland Alliance, hope you don't mind. -kotra (talk) 20:33, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

Your "RFA"

Kotra, your RFA on that other wiki has been approved unanimously and enthusiastically. Congratulations, and may you wield the anti-vandal sword with valor and glory! Thank you for your service good sir. -Pete (talk) 16:52, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

I am humbled and honored by the overwhelming result, 1/0/0. I thank every single one of the supporters, and will seek to gain the trust of the opposers by directly addressing their criticisms. Thank you, and may God bless the wiki. (in all seriousness, though, if you have a minute from time to time, I'd be appreciative if you check in on my actions there occasionally and let me know if I make any mistakes) -kotra (talk) 18:25, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

~*Hands you a bouquet of roses.*~ :) The Bookkeeper (of the Occult) 22:06, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

Thank you so much! I promised myself I wouldn't cry... oh good, I kept that promise. -kotra (talk) 17:00, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

Andry Rajoelina

I have been keeping a close eye on the Andry Rajoelina page and others associated with current events in Madagascar. I noticed that you reverted an edit based on the source - I couldn't tell but the site appeared to be a racist site. Was this the case? (If so, good catch.) CopaceticThought (talk) 22:38, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

I originally reverted it because the article was attributed to "Lone Wolf, AfricanCrisis Volunteer", which didn't strike me as a reliable source. Since then I found the added content was a direct copy-paste, bad grammar/spelling and all, from that article, thereby constituting a copyright violation. The text could be paraphrased and made more presentable, but I'm still not any more inclined to trust a volunteer who goes by "Lone Wolf" as I am inclined to trust a volunteer who goes by "kotra" (which is to say, not enough to cite him on Wikipedia). That said, some of the embassy stuff could be re-added if a source like BBC is cited instead (the bottom of that BBC article mentions it). -kotra (talk) 23:00, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the explanation! CopaceticThought (talk) 23:59, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

Portland

Portland's a wonderful town. I used to live in John's Landing, with frequent journeys to the Bagdad and the Mission.  :-)Ferrylodge (talk) 20:33, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

It is indeed a wonderful town. Interestingly, I'm two blocks away from the Bagdad right now... I could see it if I leaned out the window. Good times spent there! -kotra (talk) 21:23, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

Misuse of rollback

You should not have used rollback on this edit. Rollback should only be used to revert vandalism. It was not vandalism. The proposal has been dormant for more than a month and has effectively been rejected by the community. Soberknight (talk) 21:14, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

The edit summary was "major pwnage", and the editor, who has only made that single edit, was named "You've been REJECTED!". For those reasons, it seemed like blatant vandalism to me.

If the proposal is considered rejected, I'd expect a more established user to make the change, after discussing on the talk page or at least supplying a reason in the edit summary. -kotra (talk) 21:28, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

So basically you rejected the edit because it was done with a bad edit summary and a bad username even though the edit is a good edit.

I'll have you know that I'm the same guy as "You've been REJECTED!" and I made the same edit and it stuck.

You got pwned, man. Soberknight (talk) 19:49, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

I rejected the edit because it looked like vandalism to me. Sorry if I was mistaken, and I'll try to be more cautious in the future. However, "pwning" each other is not what we do here. We're trying to build an encyclopedia, not play a MMORPG. You would find your edits would be taken more seriously if they weren't about trying to pwn people (or proposals). -kotra (talk) 20:51, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

Spartel etc

Thanks. I was planning to do some cleaning up but got called away by real life unexpectedly. Dougweller (talk) 16:57, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

Ah, no problem! -kotra (talk) 17:01, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

re:Barnstar

Thanks! I originally thought "oh this won't take very much time, I'll work on this for a few days then start on some other article..." Kellen^T 20:09, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

Haha! Such is the trap of Wikipedia... -kotra (talk)

Hide and show

Hi Kotra. Regarding your comment here, I was wondering if you would please add a clarification. Does this mean that you would prefer to add the image without hide and show but would support hide and show for the time being, or does it instead mean that you would prefer to add the image without hide and show and would not support hide and show for the time being?

I think that using hide and show would eventually lead to full inclusion of the image, whereas not using hide and show would lead to permanent exclusion of the image. If you could clarify at the article talk page, that would be great. Right now it kind of sounds like you're totally against hide and show, and if that's really your opinion then please say so. Thanks.Ferrylodge (talk) 22:13, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

Sorry for not being clear. I've left a comment there to clarify, let me know if it's not sufficient. -kotra (talk) 00:25, 30 March 2009 (UTC)