User talk:Kaldari

From Wikiversity
Jump to navigation Jump to search
Welcome!

Hello Kaldari, and welcome to Wikiversity! If you need help, feel free to visit my talk page, or contact us and ask questions. After you leave a comment on a talk page, remember to sign and date; it helps everyone follow the threads of the discussion. The signature icon Button sig.png in the edit window makes it simple. To get started, you may


And don't forget to explore Wikiversity with the links to your left. Be bold to contribute and to experiment with the sandbox or your userpage, and see you around Wikiversity! If you're a twitter user, please follow http://twitter.com/Wikiversity. --Adambro 15:29, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

Thank you[edit]

Thank you for your support at my RfA, and for your feedback in making changes to the policies. Are you going to stay on WV? I hope you do. There's a lot of interesting stuff going on here, and the pages about breaching were only the tip of the iceberg. For example, this is where people with their own ideas about the subjects of Wikipedia articles can write these ideas, and where people who want to test new types of educational materials can do so. --AFriedman (talk) 20:07, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

Is anyone actually using Wikiversity to do anything useful? It looks like a bunch of bizarre pet projects, half-implemented ideas, content dumps, and navel gazing. It's also somewhat disturbing that many of the most active editors here are refugees from other WikiProjects (where for some reason or another they didn't integrate successfully). Kaldari 20:38, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

Kaldari, I think that for every "cranky" learning resource on this site there is a solid one, and many are based on very interesting and innovative ideas. See History of Ireland Through Song (IMO, quite an original way to make a potentially dry subject engaging), RadixSort, ExtraDix, Introduction to Computer Science, Other Free Learning Resources, What is the sixth sense? (a page I made out of one that was "cranky", and that I linked to from several places on Wikipedia), Reviewing My Semester with the FUN WITH ENGLISH 7A & 8A Textbooks (Darklama and I recently helped mentor the creator of this page, and it's an account of an American person's experience teaching English in China), Russian Roulette (Drinking Game) (was proposed for deletion after its recent creation, but our Custodians are turning it into an information resource about binge drinking), and many others. We have over 12,000 learning resources right now, so they're quite diverse. Wikiversity is really what you make of it and is so much more flexible about content format than any of the other Wikimedia projects, which is why I like it. As for me, I've made over 2500 edits to Wikipedia since 2008. On Wikipedia, I work a lot on WikiProject Judaism and WikiProject Israel Palestine Collaboration, which are quite controversial areas. You may want to look at my Wikipedia Talk page and User page to see for yourself what kind of Wikipedian I am. Before I crossed over into Wikipedia, I used to focus my editing nearly exclusively on Wikiversity. Actually, I became involved with Wikimedia Foundation editing in the first place because I was excited by Wikiversity's promise to decentralize academia as Wikipedia has decentralized information availability. Wikiversity still needs a lot of work, but then again, it's only 3 1/2 years old and Wikipedia needs a lot of work at 9 years old. As for some of our active editors: User:Mackiwg is also a top contributor to WikiEducator; User:Pmlineditor, User:Jtneill and User:Mu301 are well integrated into Wikipedia; and even User:SB_Johnny is a Wikipedia sysop with over 5,000 edits. Wikipedia also has its messy side and its problematic editors that are allowed to continue for a while--I've dealt with some of this on the WikiProjects I've been working on. So does Wikiversity. However, good things can and do get done here, just as they do on Wikipedia. What would you like Wikiversity to accomplish? --AFriedman (talk) 21:28, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the examples. I'm glad to see people actually using this project for educational purposes. My main hope for Wikiversity would be to improve the signal to noise ratio. Right now it's hard to find any legitimately useful resources when browsing through the portal guides due to the huge number of questionable, unfinished, or poorly developed resources. Anyone coming here looking for useful learning materials on a particular topic or for a particular age group is probably going to leave in frustration. Wikiversity should really set some kind of minimum bar for inclusion in a portal. It doesn't necessarily have to be full-blown peer review, but at least some sort of cursory vetting process. Kaldari 22:18, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

I agree with you--a major task right now, on Wikiversity, might be creating a more formal coordination system for people to receive external feedback on the content they create. With this in mind, I had been working on Wikiversity:Mentors. I don't think it's quite got what I just mentioned, but it could probably be improved in this direction. Thoughts? --AFriedman (talk) 02:50, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

Blocked for a day[edit]

You have been blocked for a day because you forgot to be civil when discussing issues. Trolling discussions is unhelpful [1][2]-- darklama  17:32, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

My goodness! You have a very liberal blocking policy, those two quotes by no means warrant a block. Please reconsider, you have a lot of eyes on you now from the other projects, may I kindly suggest you try to make a good impression or do you truelly want this project shut down? Charles Edward 18:13, 5 April 2010 (UTC)
I find it ironic that you criticize Jimbo's blocking of Privatemusing as heavy-handed, but you have no problem blocking me solely for criticizing the project. It makes all the cries of "censorship" seem a bit hollow. Kaldari 19:10, 5 April 2010 (UTC)
I agree with you. I don't think the comments that you made were worthy of a block. At the very least you should have been warned before the block was imposed. --JWSchmidt 19:31, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

{{Unblock|Criticizing the current state of Wikiversity is not a breach of civility. I did not criticize anyone in particular, and I even offered suggestions for how I thought the project could be improved. If this is grounds for blocking (without even a warning), I do believe Wikiversity needs to do some serious soul-searching.}}

I am a bit perplexed by this block. Kaldari made some forthright criticisms of WV. I think that's OK. Discussion with him/her first would be desirable before blocking. Looking at this talk page suggests that Kaldari is open to reasonable discussion. The 1 day block should have expired by now, so maybe we could get on with hearing Kaldari's criticisms and some civil discourse. -- Jtneill - Talk - c 21:25, 6 April 2010 (UTC)
Darklama, even though his two comments are totally rubbish, his work in fixing spellings are great contributions to Wikiversity. Thanks. Hillgentleman | //\\ |Talk 22:45, 6 April 2010 (UTC)
I appreciate the desire to keep discussions civil, but this seemed hasty. This conversation is going to be emotional, and I hope people aren't regularly kept from participating in it simply because they express themselves with passion (even to the point of exaggeration :). SJ+> 00:55, 7 April 2010 (UTC)
Oy vey! I go away from Wikiversity for Passover and this block is what I see? Re: Kaldari's behavior--there are many ways to criticize our pages, even while proposing to delete them, and many people are so sensitive about criticism of their work that harshly worded criticism of the work can sometimes be viewed as an attack on the editor. Better to tread as lightly as possible whenever we can. However, I think the block was WAY too abrupt. I am glad to see it's expired (I would unblock him myself if it hadn't), and I agree with Charles Edward, JW Schmidt, Jtneill, Sj et al. --AFriedman (talk) 04:46, 7 April 2010 (UTC)
I disagree with this block. Kaldari's passion seems well-meaning. Darklama should have discussed or warned first. Kaldari, I hope this doesn't put you off participating, and I hope you can work with us to ensure Wikiversity becomes a nicer and more productive place to work. Cormaggio talk 12:34, 7 April 2010 (UTC)
I understand the block, but also dislike blocking except to get an editor's attention. I don't see that Kaldari was warned, so the block was improper. If there is going to be a block without warning, there should be a showing of emergency, and that was also not done. But, on the other hand, it was just a short block. --Abd 17:13, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

Your comments at Wikiversity:Requests_for_Deletion#Unified_Theory_of_Interactions_-_DELETED[edit]

You wrote:

  • Delete. Conducting a peer review would be a supreme waste of time. The page is full of utter non-sense:
    • "gravitational fields... do not exist"
    • "Increasing velocity of motion of particle increases its mass."
    • "The motion in the 'absolute emptiness' (Absolute Nothing) is impossible."
    • "Black holes probably are impossible condition"
    • "The Big Bang is impossible"
There is no science here to refute. No data, no coherant theories or formulae, nothing but the rantings of someone who has very little understanding of physics. Kaldari 23:59, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

Several of these comments are not intelligible outside of context. These would be, at least, controversial, but without deeper examination, whether or not they are "utter nonsense" or not is quite unclear. But two are very cogent and clear, not utter nonsense at all.

  • The velocity of motion of a particle increases its mass in the reference frame of the observer. Well-known relativistic effect, not nonsense at all, standard physics.
  • Motion in "absolute emptiness" is completely undefined, because there is nothing to reference it to, there is no outside observer, just the object allegedly moving. How would you define the motion? I'm not sure I like the word "impossible," but "meaningless" would certainly apply.

Wikiversity is not a place where pseudoscience is excluded, and WV pages are not required to be NPOV unless they are represented as such. Pseudoscience, fringe science, emerging science, all can be studied on Wikiversity. "Rantings" is uncivil. Thanks for understanding this. --Abd 17:27, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

A long-term followup on this. Ottava Rima correctly deleted the page per author request.[1] All that debate was actually useless, ignorant of the page history. From the discussion, though, the ultimate decision would probably have been Keep. Contrary what was implied by the close by Ottava, the author had provided an email in the page text, and could have been invited to register an account. However, this was quite old, 2008. --Abd 16:45, 4 September 2011 (UTC)

References[edit]

  1. "90% of the content is complete rubbish"
  2. "This particular asylum seems to have been taken over by the inmates"

Pagemoves, bugs, etc.[edit]

Hi Kaldari. No, we're not all banned from Wikipedia :-).

Would you mind briefly explaining what the issue is with the pagemove you're discussing with Abd? I generally find it hard to wade through the walls of text on his page.

As to the project you're working on (or trying to), I'm curious: have there have been any ecological impacts related to the introduction of these spiders? I've been researching the Emerald ash borer and the Brown marmorated stink bug for professional reasons, but haven't run across anything about introduced spiders until running across your work here. --SB_Johnny talk 12:26, 4 September 2011 (UTC)

The issue has been resolved. Abd moved a page I created and was actively working on to another user's Userspace without any warning or discussion. I then moved the page to my own Userspace, which Abd agreed was acceptable. I'm not really interested in getting wrapped up in the 3-ring circus here, lest I get blocked again for daring to criticize the project. I just want to do my work and not get harassed by the trolls thoughtful critics from Wikipedia Review. I hope that's possible. Kaldari 19:00, 4 September 2011 (UTC)
Nobody is going to harass you here, Kaldari, it will not be allowed. Nor is anyone going to block you for "daring to criticize." That block, back then, by Darklama, was unusual. You had parachuted into a huge disruption, and you weren't helping.[2] But blocking you without warning was extreme. Nobody supported that. I don't know why Darklama (who isn't banned anywhere, and who is also admin elsewhere) snapped on that one and picked you to block for 24 hours. And this has zilch to do with Wikipedia Review. Nobody here, routinely, is "from Wikipedia Review." Some of us have accounts there, and sometimes comment, as do many users, including stewards, arbitrators from enwiki, etc.
I'm concerned that you are worried about harassment for disagreement. Has this happened to you? A single 24-hour block by a single custodian for an arguably uncivil comment, warning or not, isn't harassment. Has there been any?
On the other hand, using an uncivil term for people in a comment, without any necessity,[3] and then striking it instead of revising it,[4] before anyone has commented, could be a device for being uncivil while claiming not to be. You wouldn't be doing that, would you? Just asking. --Abd 21:35, 4 September 2011 (UTC)
I haven't actually been harassed on Wikiversity (just forcefully dismissed), but I have been harassed off-wiki by several editors who are thankfully banned from most projects except this one. I'm not going to name names since that will only attract unwanted attention, but the very fact that they have been welcomed here with open arms makes me feel like I'm in an unwelcome threatening environment, even though I would actually like to contribute to this project. Of course, I suppose this is my own personal problem, and not the responsibility of Wikiversity. Also, I'm not saying that every person with an account on Wikipedia Review is a troll, but there are definitely a few there. Kaldari 22:09, 4 September 2011 (UTC)
It's been said that there are those who will not be able to enter heaven because there are others there whom they detest. It's not that they wouldn't be allowed. The gates are open. But, unfortunately, the open gates allowed them to enter.
People do all kinds of nasty things to each other, but a lot depends on context. If someone has harassed you elsewhere, that doesn't mean that they will harass you here. Why would you conclude that this environment is not welcoming and is threatening because it welcomes someone else? (But it doesn't allow anyone to harass anyone else, not long-term, anyway. There have indeed been short-term problems.) Kaldari, I'd like to know who you are talking about, could you email me? But it looks like you aren't claiming that those users, themselves, were harassing you here. So what, exactly, is the problem? --Abd 23:19, 4 September 2011 (UTC)
Well, hopefully there isn't any problem. I sincerely hope that Wikiversity has turned a new leaf and will deal with any future issues decisively. I'll try to reserve my judgement in the meantime. Kaldari 23:28, 4 September 2011 (UTC)
We couldn't ask for more. Thanks. Meanwhile, I appreciate all the work you have done, in any case. --Abd 23:50, 4 September 2011 (UTC)
Meanwhile, on the page name, do you consent to the move back into mainspace, as a subpage as your other page was moved to by you, of the original page moved? I'd like to complete this. Okay? --Abd 21:35, 4 September 2011 (UTC)
Yes, you can move it to mainspace. Just please make sure that all the previous redirects still work. Thanks. Kaldari 22:09, 4 September 2011 (UTC)
Thanks. I'll be careful. I will fix any double redirects. --Abd 23:19, 4 September 2011 (UTC)
YesY Done. Looks good to me. Notice that subpages (of Salticid studies) are linked very easily and cleanly, in a way that will still work if the whole structure is moved. Let me know if I missed anything, or if I can be of any further assistance. --Abd 23:50, 4 September 2011 (UTC)
Arrgh. I caught that wayward "i' left over from Kaldar"i" in one change, but obviously missed it in the original move. Thanks for catching that and fixing it. --Abd 00:40, 5 September 2011 (UTC)
If you're interested in the topic of the ecological impact of exotic spider species, I recommend the following two papers: [5][6]. There's also an excellent paper on exotic spiders in Austria, but it isn't available online. Kaldari 19:53, 4 September 2011 (UTC)

Great work[edit]

Congratulations on your work, with the other two users, on the papers under Salticid studies. I just added a link to the page on Topic:Arachnology. Seem right to you? --Abd 19:51, 6 September 2011 (UTC)

Nice. I didn't even know we had a Topic:Arachnology page :) Kaldari 20:58, 6 September 2011 (UTC)
Thanks. Neither did I. I was going to create something on Spiders. In fact, I'll make that a redirect. --Abd 23:09, 6 September 2011 (UTC)

Rename for Dr.salticid[edit]

Hi Kaldari. I was going to do the rename but noticed he doesn't have email enabled, so thought I'd make sure you could inform him first (he would have to log in under the new name).

Just to avoid doing it twice, should I add a space between "Dr." and "Salticid" as well?

I'll be online here and there today, doing storm cleanup on the farm. --SB_Johnny talk 10:02, 9 September 2011 (UTC)

Dominant group etc.[edit]

Thanks for the heads up on my talk page. I've reviewed the discussion on SBJ's talk and on Colloquium, and I'm not sure that there's anything I can offer input on. RFD seems to be an appropriate venue for the discussion as it relates to these resources; as to managing copyright, perhaps we just need more detailed advice from the Foundation. --Draicone (talk) 12:47, 24 September 2011 (UTC) It appears that there are three distinct issues here: MS' ban on enwiki, potential copyvio, and OR scope.

  • enwiki ban: I'm not sure I fully understand the AN/I thread, but it seems like an indef ban was handed out for creating articles outside enwiki's scope. The enwiki AfD seems to have come to a fully appropriate conclusion on the basis that the articles were outside enwiki's scope, which isn't an issue here. I can't really comment on enwiki block/ban policy, and I think we're all familiar with Abd's views on the topic. However, I'm not sure I can see what he could do here, regardless of the assistance he intends to offer. At face value, it seems like he's just trying to welcome a user who's quite suddenly found himself banned from a sister project for editing outside the relevant scope.
    • No, Marshallsumter was actually banned for pervasive copyright violations (and refusing to help meaningfully address the issue). His "research project" only exacerbated the problem. I have no objection to Abd welcoming Marshallsumter. I object to Abd getting involved in issues on a wiki he is banned from, especially if it involves another banned user. I'm not saying this is currently causing disruption, I'm just saying it's a bad idea. Kaldari 06:35, 25 September 2011 (UTC)
  • Potential copyvio: From what I can see in the colloquium thread, there is an issue as to whether a work which is almost entirely composed of snippets from other works constitutes fair use. IANAL, and I really think that unless we have some obvious copyvio including source links which we can action (which we would generally blank), we need to get Foundation advice on this. I understand Abd has offered a logical opinion on the issue, but I can't comment.
    • Works consisting entirely of snippets from other works are not necessarily copyvios. This is why we can have projects like Wikiquote. The standards for such works, however, are necessarily stringent. I'm satisfied at this point, however, that there are no obvious copyright violations remaining in the work. Kaldari 06:35, 25 September 2011 (UTC)
  • Scope: I'm not familiar with MS' research, but OR is very much within scope here. On that basis alone, the enwiki ban would seem not to extend here (this isn't exactly a straightforward cross-wiki vandalism case). I'm not sure I fully understand the basis that this research 'disrupts' Wikipedia and I intend to at least begin my foray into this issue assuming good faith. If the research does 'disrupt' Wikipedia (which isn't clear in this case), then perhaps we need to formally scope out such research to justify deletion, but for the present I'm not actually sure that we have a stated position on this. It would certainly seem reasonable that research disrupting a WMF project should not be conducted from/organised on Wikiversity - if nothing else, there are undoubtedly countless non-WMF wikis which could host such material - but where the disruption is not obvious we can't jump to conclusions and bite the newcomers.
    • I haven't argued that Dominant group is out of scope because it's disruptive, I'm arguing that it's out of scope because it has no educational value. Indeed it has no value to anyone other than Marshallsumter. Kaldari 06:35, 25 September 2011 (UTC)
  • On the issue of Abd's activity here, rest assured that Abd and I regularly discuss a number of issues over email, including his interactions with MS and his comments on the Colloquium discussion. I understand Abd is currently travelling and unable to respond, but I'm sure he's able to discuss this directly and clarify his position. --Draicone (talk) 04:13, 25 September 2011 (UTC)
    • Thank you for the reassurance. Perhaps you could consider discussing these matters with him on-wiki in the future. Thanks. Kaldari 06:35, 25 September 2011 (UTC)
Draicone is always welcome to comment on-wiki, but private consultation can also be important. Mentorship is a personal relationship, and the parties should feel free to communicate openly and honestly. To be clear about one thing: my advice to Marshall, should he ask, would about how to go about requesting unblock/unban on Wikipedia. I'd not advise that this be attempted immediately, but if he develops a record of positive contributions here, he could reasonably request unblock to appeal his ban, or could appeal to ArbComm. I'm quite familiar with what works and what doesn't work. He does have a quite sound basis for an appeal, if he provides adequate assurances that there will be no more problems. I don't know where you got the idea that I'd recommend some kind of disruption. Can you find any example of my doing that anywhere? I'd set aside one example I can think of here on Wikiversity where I suggested a banned user make self-reverted edits, under custodial supervision. It worked and the user was, with a 75% consensus, unbanned, unblocked, and delinked from his global SUL, which had been locked, and there has been no ensuing disruption, period. So someone might call that disruptive, but the effect was the opposite. Years ago, I also suggested self-reverted edits for a topic-banned user on Wikipedia, and that worked as well, it led to cooperation between the banned user and the editor who had requested the ban. Kaldari, I'm about seeking consensus, real consensus, not "winning" or "disruption." Sometimes what I do requires standing out from a (small) crowd, because I'm considering the larger community. --Abd 01:28, 30 September 2011 (UTC)

About my supposed encouragement of disruption[edit]

You wrote on User talk:SB Johnny:

  • I don't want to see a repeat of the "Ethical breaching experiments" debacle. I'm especially concerned that Abd is actively encouraging Marshall's activities: "I see you have been blocked on WP. Not terribly surprising. Piece of advice: don't try to make sense of it. If you want to, you can probably get unblocked there. If you want advice, ask me." It's one thing to argue that Wikiversity is autonomous and can welcome users banned elsewhere; it's another thing entirely to offer them advice and encouragement on how to continue their disruptions elsewhere.

I'd respond there on this point, except that SBJ asked me not to. I don't see where I offered Marshall any encouragement about "how to continue their disruptions elsewhere." Please read that carefully. The advice I'd give him, if he asked -- he hasn't -- would have been about how to get unblocked there, legitimately, and how to participate there without causing disruption. I do understand all that, and am an expert on it, in fact. Don't be confused by the fact that I'm banned there, I largely engineered that ban, defying a block, because I was tired of cooperating with a dysfunctional system, and I suspected that I could accomplish more as a blocked editor. Turns out I was correct, but I don't necessarily expect you to believe that unless you really want to study that page of my self-reverted edits and the effects they had. I don't encourage others to take up that position, it was personal. I have recommended self-reversion to others, and it was effective, but it would not be appropriate or necessary for Marshall. I have not continued editing Wikipedia in any form, since what was documented on my page here, to date.

Marshall fell afoul of a sad situation on Wikipedia. Please understand, Kaldari, that this user had contributed for, what, two years?, without incident, without warning, and suddenly he was indeffed. As S Larctia noted, when welcomed and assisted here, he has been cooperative, cleaning up "copyright violations" even when it could be argued that they are not copyvio. He was indeffed on Wikipedia because of the mess he made. It was punitive. He was not allowed to help with the cleanup. There was no emergency. --Abd 00:50, 30 September 2011 (UTC)

Well, perhaps you're right. I'm just not encouraged that his only contributions here relate to a dispute on en.wiki. This seems emblematic of a person that is not able to disengage from a disagreement. Anyway, I've had my say on the matter, so I'll let it rest for now. Kaldari 05:40, 30 September 2011 (UTC)
If a person cares passionately about a project, and they are banned from Wikipedia because of their (even clearly inappropriate) attempt to work on it there, for them to come here to pursue their interests is not "pursuing a disagreement." In fact, it resolves the disagreement, unless others come from Wikipedia and pursue it here, which might be a better description of what happened! I don't see Marshall running "make-wrong" comments on what happened on Wikipedia, criticizing Wikipedia users, and he is, in fact, showing ability to negotiate consensus, he's satisfied most objections. So thanks for letting this rest. And you can return to your excellent work with spiders. --Abd 17:33, 30 September 2011 (UTC)

Congratulations on the publication of your article[edit]

... at [7]. I noticed that some images were removed from your draft here: one by you and one by CommonsDelinker, both for the same reason, i.e., no OTRS permission. However, possibly lower-resolution images were released under CC-BY-3.0 with the publication of the article, so OTRS permission would not be needed. Instead of downloading those images and uploading them here or on Commons, I'm first asking if you could obtain permission from the photographer (I assume it may be one of your co-authors) for full-resolution images, at least here, given that all the other images were fully released at Commons. That would be more satisfying and more educational, image quality matters in a resource like this.

On the other hand, if that's not going to work, I can grab those images. Please let me know. --Abd (discusscontribs) 16:14, 14 March 2014 (UTC)

Why are you asking him to restore an image he himself has deemed inappropriate by virtue of having deleted it directly from Commons? You shouldn't tell others what to do, nor restore material even they themselves thought inappropriate. If you removed a personal attack on you and I restored it, saying "it's necessary for the educational mission of Wikiversity" how would you feel? TeleComNasSprVen (discusscontribs) 19:57, 14 March 2014 (UTC)
Don't be silly, TCNSV. Kaldari did not decide that the "image was inappropriate," but they were deleted on Commons because of no permission through OTRS. However, the subject article was published in October, 2011, under a CC-BY-3.0 license, see the pdf linked from the page. The pdf contains reduced resolution images.
Kaldari was notified 19 December 2011 that the Cape May image would be deleted if there was no OTRS permission.[8]. It was actually deleted 27 December. File:Walton Hakka himeshimensis male 02.jpg was previously deleted, as TCNSV said, by Kaldari, on 12 November, with deletion reason OTRS: Unaccepted or insufficient permission for use on Commons: OTRS Pending expired. So something happened with the permissions, both images were from his co-author Richard K. Walton. So Walton didn't respond to an email or something.
However, by this time, the paper had been published, and even if it had not, the files could possibly have been hosted here under fair use. My guess is that Kaldari didn't want to or didn't have time to hassle it.
There is nothing here at all resembling a personal attack, except maybe TCNSV's implication that I'm telling others what to do. I happened to look at the published article and this version, saw the missing images, and proceeded to arrange to restore them. As a first step, I restored the links, I am one who thinks a page is not improved by removing redlinks, and we may decide to revert CommonsDelinker (which effectively I did, like two years later). I also notified Kaldari, requesting that he look at the situation to see if he could obtain permission for the higher-resolution images. There was no "telling others what to do" in that. Kaldari may be busy now, he's had a lot on his plate.
In any case, instead of waiting for a response, as I'd planned, and because of TCNSV's reversion of my edits, I went ahead and extracted the images from the PDF of the article, and uploaded them to Commons, and have now inserted links to those files in the resource.
Kaldari, there is nothing you must do. Higher-resolution images would be nicer, to be sure, the ones that are in the article are beautiful. However, for simple page display, the extracted lower-resolution images look about the same. Thanks again for creating content on Wikiversity, this was a nice exercise in using Wikiversity to prepare a scholarly article for publication, I hope it worked well for you also. And good luck with the other stuff going on. --Abd (discusscontribs) 00:55, 15 March 2014 (UTC)
It's completely obvious Kaldari considers it inappropriate for Commons to host such content, otherwise he would not have deleted it himself. Trying to play wordgames and presuming to know someone else's intention despite reality and all evidence to the contrary doesn't change this fact. TeleComNasSprVen (discusscontribs) 01:51, 15 March 2014 (UTC)
Kaldari may respond if he wishes, and you know what you can do about any of the other nonsense. Kaldari considered it inappropriate to host images without permission through OTRS. He was correct. But what I uploaded are not the same images, they are reduced resolution, and they are explicitly free. --Abd (discusscontribs) 01:58, 15 March 2014 (UTC)

Thank you both for your concern. The issue is pretty much moot at this point, as the paper has been published and is now available on Commons as a PDF. If you want, you can just delete all the content at Salticid studies/First records of Hakka (Araneae: Salticidae) in North America and replace it with a link to the PDF, but it doesn't really matter much to me. Kaldari (discusscontribs) 05:09, 15 March 2014 (UTC)