Article snapshot taken from Wikipedia with creative commons attribution-sharealike license.
Give it a read and then ask your questions in the chat.
We can research this topic together.
Welcome to my talk page. Please sign and date your entries by inserting ~~~~ at the end. I'll reply here if you post here. Start a new talk topic.
This user is backlogged and requires the attention of experienced editors who can create more hours in a day. Please remove this notice when the backlog is cleared.
Israeli-Palestinian conflict disclaimer
Yes, I'm a member of Misplaced Pages:WikiProject Israel Palestine Collaboration and mentor to Jaakobou. That doesn't mean I'm an expert in the content dispute. Roughly I've got as much knowledge of those issues as a well-informed Jerusalem resident would have of U.S.-Mexico border relations. Well-informed by Jerusalem standards isn't the same thing as knowing this week's border crossing waits along la frontera, and vice versa. Durova18:59, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
Just a note to thank you. It is nice to see discretionary action expeditiously undertaken that resolves misunderstandings without recourse to the nuisance of partisan bickering in formal courts or noticeboards on adjudication. You may pass on this to our mutual friend, with whom I have a tough relationship. Neither User:Gatoclass nor I availed ourselves of the usual recourses, but held our silence, independently for a week, hoping for a change of mind. Though my judgements on my page were then harsh, (and he is welcome to express himself freely on my page in remonstration, whenever, without fear of my having recourse to sanctions. We're blokes), they were so to hasten a change of mind in lieu of the facile recourse to formal denunciations, which all to easily lend themselves to gaming and wasting administrators' time, something all too frequently used by many posters in this difficult area. Best wishes then, and that is the end of it. Nishidani (talk) 14:14, 15 March 2008 (UTC)
Thank you very much for that post. It must have been terrible seeing that for days -- bad enough as it actually was, but with it seeming even worse...I really wish I had known sooner. Durova18:01, 15 March 2008 (UTC)
Thanks
Thanks for your kind words at ANI. I really am flattered that you think I'd be a good sysop but as I said to Fozzie I just don't feel that I have the time to give that that office deserves at the moment. Hope everything is going well at your end. Actually would you mind have a quick read of Women's rights - just to give a quick opinion on how coherent and generally readable it is--Cailil19:37, 15 March 2008 (UTC)
Consider it a standing offer with no flattery intended. You've earned that respect. Now I'll go look at that article and see what I can say. Durova21:16, 15 March 2008 (UTC)
(outdent) It's hard to cover such a large topic in a single article. The page needs work. I'll bullet point this:
What's the scope? Is this article about legal rights only, or the broader sense of the personal is the political?
What's the organization: chonological, geographical, topical?
However you slice it up there are big gaps. Geographically those gaps are as big as China and Latin America (and several other places). Topically those gaps include maternity leave, education rights, employment discrimination, rape laws, and domestic abuse laws. Plus (no surprise to see me raising this, I'm sure) service in the armed forces.
Factually I'm not convinced it's entirely on target. From memory here (sorry no sources at my fingertips), I thought Blackstone's commentaries wrought a substantial change in married women's property rights under British law, and in France married women had the right to own property until Napoleon took it away, and during the Napoleonic era married women could own property under Russian law also. Even restricting this to the British example, Blackstone did accord married women certain limited property rights--which was one reason women set about acquiring fantastically expensive jewelry and silverware and table china (assets which were firmly their own and which could be liquidated if necessary). That would be a small example of the broader gender-based distinction between land ownership and portable wealth (Salic Law, etc.) that crosses many eras and cultures. I thought the first U.S. state to grant women the vote was New Jersey (briefly) in the early nineteenth century.
In terms of general format and copyediting, summary style is the right choice. That's probably the only way to go. Lists are disparaged in articles and it's unusual to see one in the lead section. Needs a going-over for consistency and encyclopedic tone.
Poke me if I forget--I think I remember some historic suffragist photos in the Library of Congress archives that might be potential featured pictures. Durova22:04, 15 March 2008 (UTC)
Thanks for the quick peer review. You should have seen it back in October. Fundamentally I think the History of women's rights needs its own article and to have a summary of it placed at Women's rights. As it stands I too have concerns about some of the points in the Women's rights's history section.
Structurally my own view is that it should act as the parent page for a historical, thematic and regional description of the broader meaning of 'Women rights'. This would need thematic arrangement, I think, but I'm open to other ideas. I totally agree there is a huge systemic bias towards the Anglo-American there but that can be fixed. And BTW that list in the lede has been giving me stomach cramps since I first saw it - I'll have a look at fixing that tonight or tomorrow--Cailil22:20, 15 March 2008 (UTC)
Good idea to put the historical aspects into a separate article. Some of the basics such as voting rights aren't entirely historical. Women didn't get the vote nationwide in Switzerland until the mid-seventies, and one canton held out until the nineties. Durova04:07, 16 March 2008 (UTC)
Oh, and it looks like people have been leaving stuff for the "Great Triple Crown Race" on your talk page, but there is also one at the noms page, and I'll leave that to you as well. Cirt (talk) 11:43, 16 March 2008 (UTC)
In keeping with your past efforts
In keeping with your past efforts, you may wish to nominate Don Murphy for deletion/merge/redirect (for a third time) as he has a Daniel Brandt level notability and trouble making probability and has asked for it to be deleted. Do we really want two years of Brandt like disruption over this? Why not move the most notable content to other articles like we did for Brandt and redirect the article to his most notable movie? There is a book written by his partner in which he figures prominently, but reviews of the book make it arguable that it could non-libelously be called fiction. If you choose to start such a deletion process, you can add my name or not as you choose. I dislike bureaucratic process and shy away from it. WAS 4.250 (talk) 16:30, 16 March 2008 (UTC)
Viridae said he thought about starting the delete process but he "frankly can't be bothered stick my neck out and arguing for someone who is frankly so nasty at every turn." WAS 4.250 (talk) 16:44, 16 March 2008 (UTC)
I found myself in a Talbots yesterday and their spring line has a lovely 2-button, short-sleeve cardigan done entirely in fan stitch, crocheted from the neckline down. The spacing between the fans is gradually increased as you move down the cardigan, by increasing the number of chain stitches between them. It'd be really easy to make, I think, but has an understated, elegant look. Anyway, it made me think of you. :) I'll get to those revised crochet images soon, hang on a little longer! :) Willow (talk) 14:33, 17 March 2008 (UTC)
Awesome. BTW if you ever head over to Wikibooks there's a crochet module. I've contributed to it some, adding several of my projects, and it could use the help of a right-handed crocheter. Enjoy that new cardigan! Durova18:49, 17 March 2008 (UTC)
all the files are now online - and thanks again for coming along for a chat... whether you were vocal, or more of a listener, your support is fantastic - and do consider hosting a skypecast of your own before too long! (I think I pressed all of three buttons this time!) - once again thanks, and I look forward to seeing you around! cheers, Privatemusings (talk) 03:18, 18 March 2008 (UTC)
Heads up..:) I am thinking where to go with this! I see an issue in the article itself. And the issue is bias, because there is no criticism of USA actions at all in the article. The general in charge of the bombing mission was awarded some medals by Japanese goverment, which is strange! (here) Curtis LeMay also became USA vice Chief of Staff. I have no COI here and I am not anti-American, but I try to bring NPOV to articles. I saw a few editors bring their consern on the article talk page, but it was not addressed. I am thinking of bringing this issue to Misplaced Pages:WikiProject_Countering_systemic_bias and requesting RfC. Can you advise? Igor Berger (talk) 09:48, 18 March 2008 (UTC)
There's no reason to raise issues at RfC. Simply find a reliable source that documents criticism of the action, and then add it to the article. As for the photo, I don't think it will be a featured photo. Featured photos are usually nominated based on their being among the "finest" photos on Misplaced Pages, not just the most shocking or historically significant. From a photography standpoint it's not a great picture; it's just shocking. Equazcion•✗/C •11:49, 18 Mar 2008 (UTC)
Hello, I wanted to ask if you had seen my revision, since at the deletion review for Don Murphy, you did not think he was a notable figure. I had attempted to expand the article to cement his notability, but due to a sockpuppet reverting me, the article was then protected and discussion was initiated. I just wanted to see if you were aware about the more fleshed-out revision that seemed to show that he has been covered in much detail. RTFA (talk) 03:57, 18 March 2008 (UTC)
My standard since last June has been this: when a BLP subject asks for a courtesy deletion I want to know whether any paper-and-ink encyclopedia would have an entry on this person. Mr. Murphy's main claims to notability have been public for a while, so show me one specialty encyclopedia that runs a biography on him. If not, then I support courtesy deletion upon request. Durova04:03, 18 March 2008 (UTC)
Thank you for explaining. I doubt that Don Murphy has an encyclopedic article, considering that paper-and-ink encyclopedias are pretty limited in identifying notable figures. I really would believe that Don Murphy is not the only notable person in Hollywood who would be neglected in such a print encyclopedia. Hopefully you've taken the time to review the references that I linked at the deletion review covering him in detail -- while I don't believe that he is a household name, I think he has definitely been talked about in the media (and has even spoken about himself), establishing that he is not just a private figure who wants to be left alone. I hope you understand what I'm trying to say, but we'll agree to disagree. RTFA (talk) 04:24, 18 March 2008 (UTC)
I can see where you're coming from. The way I take these things is to use standard notability guidelines unless the person objects, and then to honor their wishes unless they're so notable that a paper-and-ink encyclopedia covers them anyway. That leads to some quirky results (lucky for Mr. Murphy he hasn't played a role in the Star Trek universe...) but mostly gets it right and at least has some measurable cutoff. Durova04:37, 18 March 2008 (UTC)
You wanted to be alerted when the Don Murphy DRV was complete if it resulted in the article being overturned. That result has now occurred so I am alerting you. However, given how many people in the DRV thought that he was clearly too notable to be reasonably subject to courtesy deletion, and given the previous AfDs, I feel compelled to advise you not to AfD this. JoshuaZ (talk) 01:43, 23 March 2008 (UTC)
Thx for your msg. informing me of the problem with one of the FA's listed in my application. I'm unclear for FA's as to whether you look at significant contribs by edit count (such as MOS fixes and added images) or solely inline cites (refs?). If the former, I had 12 edits/images on William Hillcourt between Feb. 7-26, when the article passed FAC.
Thanks for the clarification. I'll take another look into that. For purposes of triple crown credit I established a somewhat arbitrary cutoff of 10 inline citations. Basically it's there to head off attempts at gaming the system, so we don't wind up with people who hang out at GAC and FAC doing minor copyedits in order to collect the goodies. Hold on a little bit while I give a second review to your nomination, and thanks for being patient. Durova18:57, 18 March 2008 (UTC)
Durova, thought I'd drop by again to find out if you've had an opportunity to give this a 2 look. I see you're very busy, so would it expedite my Triple Crown Jewel if I simply re-nom myself without the questioned article? JGHowes - 16:49, 24 March 2008 (UTC)
Regarding I don't have a citation off the top of my head, but in material I've read about him, that's a pretty common sentiment. If someone wants to get out one of the dread tree sources on his life it shouldn't be that hard to find good source for that statement. At minimum, the summarizing note that the patents were heavily disputed is easily verifiable and important. JoshuaZ (talk) 04:16, 19 March 2008 (UTC)
Also, could you maybe take a look at my comment on the talk page? One of the sources we are currently using may not be reliable. JoshuaZ (talk) 04:20, 19 March 2008 (UTC)
If there were a better manner of expressing it I'd have no exception, but there's something grandiose about the tone and third person plural is not encyclopedic. I'll have a look at your note because I agree some of the things I see in that body disagree with the online sources I'm reading. Thanks for the heads up. Durova04:26, 19 March 2008 (UTC)
Re:Triple crown race award
Many thanks. I look forward to shooting for that Genghis Khan award (need eleven more pieces of featured content, and quite a few DYKs/GAs though :p). Cheers, Sephiroth BCR06:16, 19 March 2008 (UTC)
I thought you were too shy? Well maybe I will be able to remember. Hopefully. As you can see, I suggested this back in August. And now we are trying it! That is great.--Filll (talk) 00:12, 20 March 2008 (UTC)
When I suggested this to DGG last year, he was very negative about it. But I think it could be valuable in some cases, just like the meetups. I do have a very strange voice personally, however. It makes me cringe every time I hear it.--Filll (talk) 00:24, 20 March 2008 (UTC)
Hi Durova. I recently read your excellent Signpost article and was inspired to attempt a restoration for myself, of a portrait of Ulysses S. Grant. The original image is public domain, from the Library of Congress, Image:UlyssesGrant.jpg, and my restoration is at Image:UlyssesGrant-restore.jpg. What do you think? I'm a complete novice at this, so any input or tips would help a lot. :) Best, Keilana| 14:09, 20 March 2008 (UTC)
Good start! That's quite a bit of work you put in there and I can tell it was carefully done. That particular image is too small for featured picture candidacy, but I hope you'll do more. Suggest you save interim versions as something other than .jpg (the format overwrites itself and degrades). If you want more, feel free to pick up any of the gallery images from my workshop linked at the top of this page (there's plenty to choose from), and best wishes! Durova19:10, 20 March 2008 (UTC)
Thanks very much. I've taken an interest in American Civil War portraits, are there any you'd recommend? Also, what size should they be to be a featured picture? Thanks. Keilana| 23:42, 20 March 2008 (UTC)
I suggest you look up Matthew Brady's work at the Library of Congress site. Try to concentrate on files where the original is at least 10mb because you'll probably need to do some cropping. Colloidon glass negatives tend to be unusable at the far edges. The minimum size for featured picture candidacy is 1000px on a side, although many featured pictures are larger than that. Misplaced Pages/Wikimedia hosting tends to cough and sputter if you get above 10mb, so for featured work I usually crop for esthetic/encyclopedic reasons and then resize to 3000px on the long axis. Feel free to touch bases with me as you go; I've got a couple of Civil War pics in the works too right now. :) Durova23:50, 20 March 2008 (UTC)
I've actually been looking through their public domain archives, there are some treasures in there. I just found another Grant portrait, it's a .tif file at 16.4 megabytes, would that be large enough? (here's a link: ) Thanks very much for your help, restoration is strangely addictive. :) Keilana| 00:03, 21 March 2008 (UTC)
Ahh, useful to know. I may restore it anyways later for the historical value (or for the practice). I've been looking through the Brady collection, and found this. What do you think? Keilana| 00:21, 21 March 2008 (UTC)
Interesting choice. At 20 megs it's definitely large enough to work with. Voters might have issues with the depth of field and sometimes people grouse about full profile. If you like it, give it a go. I think it has potential. Durova01:44, 21 March 2008 (UTC)
Happy First Day of Spring!
Happy First Day of Spring!
A Beautiful Cherry Tree in Spring BloomTheres nothing like seeing a field full of spring flowers.
Just wishing you a wonderful First Day of Spring {{subst:CURRENTYEAR}}! ~~~~
If you live in the Southern Hemisphere and are entering the season of Autumn not Spring then I wish you a happy First Day of Autumn {{subst:CURRENTYEAR}}! To spread this message to others, add {{subst:First Day Of Spring}} to their talk page with a friendly message.
With all respect, I would have to let you know that the overwhelming consensus on that DRV was that subject was notable. Doing an AFD so soon afterwards may not be desirable, given the DRV. NonvocalScream (talk) 01:53, 23 March 2008 (UTC)
The overwhelming consensus, as I read it, was that the deletion had been out of process. Quite a few people specifically stated that their decision there had no bearing on a potential AFD. Also, for people such as myself who support a two-tiered notability standard for BLP (low bar default, high bar for courtesy deletion requests), notable may have more than one meaning. I'd certainly vote to keep Mr. Murphy's biography if he hadn't requested its deletion. Yet he has asked in very clear terms and that merits consideration. Durova02:12, 23 March 2008 (UTC)
Thanks for doing that, Durova. Hopefully we won't have to deal with the requests for snow closures. I'm not sure which way I'm going to go on it. Cheers! -- Flyguy64902:35, 23 March 2008 (UTC)
Well, if it turns out to be a clearly snowball thing I'll request closure myself. I'll look into the thing after 12 hours or so and see where it's headed. Durova02:38, 23 March 2008 (UTC)
Thanks. I had a pretty good understanding of your motivation beforehand, but again, we already considered exactly this sort of request one AfD ago. I don't see what is substantially different between now and then. As to snowballing it, I'm not sure that's a good idea although I think if you were supporting such a snowball it would be much less likely to cause drama (in general snowballing drama-intense stuff seems to create more rather than less drama). JoshuaZ (talk) 02:39, 23 March 2008 (UTC)
Well I haven't notified anyone of the nomination (apparently quite a few people were looking out for it) and the people who support deletion are likely to notice this pretty soon. Yet it takes a supermajority to change the status quo. So if the discussion doesn't change shape radically pretty soon then it won't make any sense to leave this open a full five days. In the interests of minimizing drama I'd be glad to step forward. Most editors probably know how impartial I am with these things. I wish there were a way to do this without any drama, and fully intend to do my best to keep that at a minimal baseline. Durova02:47, 23 March 2008 (UTC)
Just realized I hadn't addressed a concern you've stated twice, Joshua. I think it falls within the realm of reason to start a new nomination after half a year when the subject's wishes are strong. JzG didn't mention the relevant precedents in his writeup. So there's a little to this that hadn't been in the last discussion. I just wish I'd started this AFD days ago before Viridae went rouge. Looks like that's casting a long shadow over the present discussion. Durova02:54, 23 March 2008 (UTC)
Personally I'm quite happy with the new AfD, though I have to say I was startled at how quickly it appeared! Given the attention that the recent DRV has brought, I think it's probable that the current AfD will be as close to a definitive statement of the community's views as we're likely to get. Having said that, I do think that once the AfD closes there should be a moratorium on any further AfDs or DRVs on this subject - say six months or so. -- ChrisO (talk) 03:18, 23 March 2008 (UTC)
Half a year would be fine with me. Actually if you look a few sections up on this page I was discussing whether to write this AFD when Viridae stepped in and deleted the article. Durova03:24, 23 March 2008 (UTC)
So you were. Well, we'll see how it turns out. Given the views expressed on DRV, I suspect there'll be a large-to-overwhelming !vote in favour of keeping the article. -- ChrisO (talk) 03:38, 23 March 2008 (UTC)
Durova, after reading your rationale on the talk page, I have to applaud your sense of doing the right thing. I have not looked at the talk page of BLP lately, have you considered proposing a policy change? NonvocalScream (talk) 04:16, 23 March 2008 (UTC)
Thank you very much. I guess it might be a good idea to propose the dead trees standard as explicit policy and let it stand or fall. With the way my last couple of courtesy AFDs have gone, I'm thinking about discontinuing that standing offer. Wish I had something better to offer, but I don't want to continue making these nominations if the community is backing away from the idea behind them. Wish I had something better to offer to resolve these situations without drama. Durova04:34, 23 March 2008 (UTC)
This AfD is educating a lot of editors about BLP concerns, and you clearly have reason to be concerned and to bring this up. There seems to be quite a few ideas on BLP policy bubbling up these days. This discussion (which started a while back and has been revived) has Doc G's and SirFozzie's ideas. I think Doc's is more likely to pass, mostly because it works within concepts and practices we already use. Looking at the DRV and AfD, it seems there's a very strong vein of support for WP covering people between your higher paper-'pedia standard and the (vague) "marginal" / "ambiguous notability" level. There's also a lot of unease, even on the Keep side about how these biography articles can be vandalized. Here are some more ideas: Do we have bots that can identify articles in Category:Living people that have words likely to be used by vandals? (That might help with more childish vandals.) Can we put on the top of BLP discussion pages a notice that subjects of articles can contact the foundation? Perhaps it could be added to the box at the top of Talk:Stephen Abas (that's all one box!). We could even put a notice saying subjects could contact the foundation at the bottom of each article page whenever the Category:Living people is added to one of those pages (similar to our stub notices). I also wonder whether there would be enough support for a Living People WikiProject or some kind of specialized vandal patrol. Well, they're ideas, anyway. Noroton (talk) 14:27, 23 March 2008 (UTC)
I see your steeplechase section. I can tell you I am almost surely never going to get a sound. I do not know code well enough to do much for the Chicago Portal. I could only see myself possibly getting a topic. You may want to reduce the hurdle to three or four. or come up with something new. 4 could be the 400m hurdles and 3 could be the 110m hurdles.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTD) 07:30, 24 March 2008 (UTC)
Tony, your triple crown will be ready soon. Cirt's a great collaborator with portals; he's been invaluable to the textile arts project. We supply content, he supplies code. He demands more content, we strain to provide it, he does more coding. And actually if you can convert to .ogg files there are lots of important historic recordings you could upload. Pre-1923 and U.S. Gov't public domain would be among the easiest places to start. Best wishes! Durova08:55, 26 March 2008 (UTC)
Cirt and I are working on Portal:Chicago. I have to figure out all my recent additions for the DYK verification. Then we have to figure out a few more wrinkles and I think it will have a good shot. I just think that with all the triple crowns you could make the standards similar for steeplechases and let some less extraordinary efforts get some type of merit with three or four. I am not so sure about .oggs because I have never used them.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTD) 22:40, 28 March 2008 (UTC)
There is some discussion of the moratorium there. You may wish to comment (and possibly correct me if I misinterpreted your earlier statements). JoshuaZ (talk) 20:51, 23 March 2008 (UTC)
Hi, actually I'm just about certain that wasn't Matt Sanchez who trolled you. It's an AOL account and Matt isn't in North America right now. He did an interview in France the other day. I fully support the block on that IP, though. That was completely out of line. Durova01:31, 24 March 2008 (UTC)
I'll add that if your topic ban isn't lifted (see my post to AE) you're welcome to post concerns about the article to my user talk page. All I want is a well-sourced neutral article that complies with site policies. In the interests of full disclosure, I'll also mention that I do mentor Sanchez on Commons, mostly about unrelated image upload issues. He's expressed his concerns about the biography to me, but I do not proxy for him. And if there's anything I can do to reduce that trolling problem, please let me know how I can help. Durova01:37, 24 March 2008 (UTC)
I feel that topic-ban is in error so will hopefully be a non-issue but appreciate your willingness to filter my contributions. As for that IP, please add as a possible WP:MEAT if nothing else and add your assessment that it likely wasn't Sanchez himself. Sadly this may be a new trend since his other socking was dealt with. Benjiboi03:36, 24 March 2008 (UTC)
Thanks for your interest in coming and being a part of a conversation! - I'm going to host a chit chat at 00.00 UTC March 26th (which is probably tomorrow for most - it's 8.00pm east coast US) - it'd be great if you can come along, and I've created a new 'confirmed' participants section at the wiki page, which it would be great if you could pop over and sign, if you are indeed available! - I hope so, and I look forward to chatting tomorrow! best, Privatemusings (talk) 02:12, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
Justanother et al
I am removing myself from this situation, including my restrictions, as they were not the core issue. If you wish to seek my input on this in the future, as with what I attempted recently, do not bother.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 08:08, 28 March 2008 (UTC)
Thanks for expressing an interest in coming along to the next conversation - if you click above you'll see that we've confirmed a new date and time, and have also created a new 'confirmed participants' section (sorry about the extra hoops to jump through - but hopefully it'll help us figure out if 'everyone's here'!) - if you do happen to be free at the suggested time, that's great! - I'll create the 'room' about 30mins early, as usual, and please do pop in as soon as possible so we can iron out the inevitable technical problems in time for a prompt-ish start! thanks, and I look forward to chatting tomorrow! best, Privatemusings (talk) 22:29, 30 March 2008 (UTC)
JD Estes
I uploaded this fine US-OWI photo Image:JD Estes fsac 1a34896.jpg some time ago but could never find a good article for it. I thought it would make a good FP, but without encyclopedic value, it'll never make it (didn't pass at Commons because people were too put off by the propaganda value). If you have any ideas, that would be great. Thanks. howcheng {chat} 05:39, 31 March 2008 (UTC)
Just curious, if he were scanning in photographs from postcards or museum brochures, as opposed to taking them himself, would this kind of thing show up at all in the metadata? For example, Image:AndhraPradeshRoyalHearings1stCenturyBCE.jpg struck my eye. I searched on "earrings" instead of "Hearings" and found this. It seems a different image based on the flash pattern, but the level of detail and arrangement and everything else seems identical. What are your thoughts? --Elonka04:03, 3 April 2008 (UTC)
This element is legitimate. The metadata resolves to the same camera he used for the rest of the shots. He did some cutting and pasting in Paint Shop Pro afterward, probably to get a cleaner background than the one in the display case. I suspect the original shot had glare problems. These earrings are probably permanently mounted so you'd get the same arrangement in any photograph. Durova04:16, 3 April 2008 (UTC)
Following up on the museum permissions issue, I've confirmed at both the Commons level and the Foundation level that PHG's uploads are a contractual issue between him and the museum that doesn't place WMF or any of its daughter projects at risk. Durova02:36, 5 April 2008 (UTC)
The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : Issue XXV (March 2008)
The March 2008 issue of the Military history WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you. This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 01:05, 3 April 2008 (UTC)
Images issue
SlimVirgin pointed out this site Icons that seems to be the origin of some images on Commons. Specifically This one, but I suspect there are others also. Any ideas on what to do? Ealdgyth - Talk 02:32, 3 April 2008 (UTC)
See this page also, where it is claimed it is free for use. Image:StWilfrid.jpg. The main page of the artist though, says no commercial use. Ealdgyth - Talk02:37, 3 April 2008 (UTC)
Ah, you're right. That's a living artist who works in historic styles. I'll delete it as copyvio right away. Please let me know if you find any others. Props to SlimVirgin on an excellent catch! Durova02:43, 3 April 2008 (UTC)
The second one is hosted on en:Misplaced Pages, not Commons, so I can't delete it. The copyright rationale is false; I can't see any reproduction permission on the owner's website. I doubt there's a site-compliant fair use rationale for using a copyrighted image of this saint - surely some public domain icon survives from the 1300 years since he lived? I'd recommend deletion. Durova04:27, 3 April 2008 (UTC)
Well, the RCC doesn't use icons like the Orthodox church does, so there may not be a contemporary image of him surviving. If there isn't one for the article, it'll survive the loss. Lots of medieval articles go without images, it's part of the territory. Do I need to do something about the rationale being off? Ealdgyth - Talk21:55, 3 April 2008 (UTC)
Oops, RCC. Still, there ought to be plenty of later images that have gone into public domain? Durova23:27, 3 April 2008 (UTC)
NOt that I can easily find. (i'm in the States, most of the windows and statues of him are in Britain) Like I said, it's not a biggie. I didn't even add the image, honestly. Somehow I think my accountant would strangle me if I said the bills for the trip to England were because I needed a picture of a statue! Ealdgyth - Talk23:29, 3 April 2008 (UTC)
Heh, well then I wouldn't oppose fixing the licence to a fair use claim and seeing whether that flies. Durova00:07, 4 April 2008 (UTC)
I suspect we can find other images, if folks would just go take pictures in cathedrals, or mark down the names of the statues/windows/etc. that they take. So, while I like the image, I'd rather not step on someone's living that way. Ealdgyth - Talk00:16, 4 April 2008 (UTC)
A request about an image
Hi Durova, I have been bold this evening and uploaded my first image. I *think* I did everything right, even added the "local" tag, but I wonder if you would be so kind as to check my work. The image is here. Thanks in advance. Risker (talk) 04:15, 3 April 2008 (UTC)
What a flattering thing to be asked. Yes, it's lovely. A good start! The best thing would be to go ahead and port this over to Commons. Misplaced Pages's hosting requirements require images to be used in article space, but it'd be compliant with Commons project scope. Best regards, Durova04:21, 3 April 2008 (UTC)
You've got mail
No rush, thanks for your time, and sorry I can't increase the hours in a day to bring that backlog down... :P -Dureo (talk) 06:45, 3 April 2008 (UTC)
Although I have a vested self-interest in speeding the process, the following offer is genuine – and of course would not extend to my own application. Is there anything I can do to help with the backlog of Triple Crown Noms? Just lemme know. – Scartol • Tok14:12, 3 April 2008 (UTC)
SMX Long Beach
Hi,
My name is Jon Rognerud (New SEO Book Author: "Ultimate Guide to SEO" coming out April McGrawHill/Ent Press).
I was thinking of attending your session in Long Beach. I'm excited about it.
I was wondering if it would help me to position messages and updates for Misplaced Pages for my clients? I know the basics, but what are the guidelines? What are rules that would exclude some, and not others - while very similar? I get these questions a lot.
The problem with most sound files, is that the uploader did not add enough information about the source of the file to meet criterion 5. Zginder12:46, 5 April 2008 (UTC)
Hi if you don't mind I have some medical pictures that I think might be appropriate for Misplaced Pages and the Pyoderma gangrenosum. Would it be possible to send the pictures to you via email? Just a warning, these pictures are graffic and maybe too graffic for use, but to be honest, I really don't know. I just know this article could use a good picture of how nasty this can be. If you wouldn't mind, would you respond on my talk page about this so that I don't miss it? Thanks Durova, I appreciate you listening, --CrohnieGal12:49, 5 April 2008 (UTC)
Wonderful, thanks, I'll get them together as attachments and send them to you. Please expect an email from me, Crohnie, which will contain attachments. I like to fore warn people that emails will have attachments so they are aware and expect it. If you feel like playing with them to make them more Wiki usuable please do not hesitate. I don't mind at all if you find you think they are acceptable to go ahead and put them up where they are needed. I don't know how to plus I just want to help so I don't care who gets the credit or anything. Thanks Durova, I hope you like them. --CrohnieGal12:06, 6 April 2008 (UTC)
I've confirmed a time for the next conversation on Tuesday night, US time, (Wednesday, 02.30 UTC). Huge apologies that this isn't going to be good for Euro folk, and I know Anthony and Peter will likely be unable to attend therefore. It's possible we need a bit of a wiki effort at the project page to better organise and plan conversations - and I'd also like to encourage all interested folks to watchlist that page for updates / changes etc. which will probably be a smoother way of staying in touch than many talk page messages (though it's great that more people are expressing interest in participating...). With that in mind, if you'd like to reply to this message, please do so at my talk page, and I'll respond as soon as I can.
If you are able to attend at the given time, please do head over to Misplaced Pages:NotTheWikipediaWeekly#Confirmed_Participants and sign up - this is a great help in making sure everyone is around. We generally chat for about 10 minutes before 'going live' and the whole process takes about an hour, and I very much look forward to chatting to all!
Hello, I'm a member of the Milhist Project and I mostly copyedit, but I've noticed that this article seems to belong as a sub-article to the US Coastguard rather than as a stand-alone. The title has been around for centuries and this article coopts it to one time/place. I think the content should be copied to a new article for "Coast Guard ranks" or something like that and the title deleted until someone wants to write about the concept more generally.LuckyThracian (Talk) 08:08, 9 April 2008 (UTC)
Why so? It's as much a Navy occupation as a Coast Guard occupation and BM isn't a rank per se; it's what they call a rate. Other rates get their own articles (List of United States Navy ratings) and boatswain's mate is one of the oldest ones. What this particular article needs is expansion and balance. Durova17:25, 9 April 2008 (UTC)
Sorry, I forgot that Bosun and Bosun's mate are the derived forms. When I remembered and searched them I found the article Boatswain. Now it makes sense. LuckyThracian (Talk) 04:10, 11 April 2008 (UTC)
Ooh, I'll need to go do some updating. When I started the Alexander the Great edition I thought it'd take longer than it did to get any recipients. So now...who knows? Once somebody gets Genghis Khan I'll dangle just one more carrot: the only way to go bigger is to resort to mythology. So the last triple crown ever will be for 100/100/100. At that point, in some sort of parody of Greek legend, the editor eats Jimbo Wales for dinner and takes over Misplaced Pages. We've had editors get well over 100 DYKs and one editor has over 100 FPs, so it might actually be feasible. Durova18:40, 9 April 2008 (UTC)
FPs and DYKs are much easier to get than FAs (unfortunately), so it'll take a while, don't worry. In the meantime, I'll try to find an appropriate Greek myth. ;) · AndonicO20:09, 9 April 2008 (UTC)
(outdent) That'd work. And if you have the stuff for it Misplaced Pages could really use more featured sounds. You've got my mental gears turning about the 100/100/100 award. Durova02:20, 10 April 2008 (UTC)
I'll try to find free use classical music, I'm sure there's quite a bit of it. I think you've nailed the 100/100/100 award; my photoshopping skills are abysmal, else I'd offer to help. How about "Greek mythology/Cronus edition eat Jimbo for breakfast and take over wikipedia triple crown," as the name (though perhaps that's too long)? · AndonicO14:44, 10 April 2008 (UTC)
Is User:Jaakobou still your mentoree? After making a number of somewhat WP:BOLD edits to the article Avigdor Lieberman, two other editors and I reverted and engaged him on the article talk page. The discussion is still underway, yet User:Jaakobou insists on repeatedly injecting his contested version into the article, accusing the other editors and myself of tag-team edit-warring.
This is obviously not the way WP:BRD works, and I have tried many times to explain this to User:Jaakobou. The last attempt ended here, in rather bad form.
Could you have a word with him, i.e. explaining to him how WP:BRD works, before I take this to WP:AE?
I've inserted a completely different version, a huge compromise which included addition for the English translations from the Hebrew sourfce. Please apply the "discussion" part of BRD, rather than repeatedly try to cite it against me. Jaakobou13:50, 11 April 2008 (UTC) more context, 13:53, 11 April 2008 (UTC)
Oh, and did I mention he has stalking issues? Anyway, I would be very glad if you could have a word with him. Cheers and thanks, pedro gonnet - talk - 11.04.2008 13:57
Whew, how about a cold glass of water and a walk around the block on both sides? I'm pouring my morning coffee here and I'll be glad to talk. Durova16:13, 11 April 2008 (UTC)
Image issue
I know you're busy but could you please take a look at something quickly? There is a dispute about the lead (infobox) image at Susie Castillo. The alternatives are a low-res headshot that is face on, and a hi-quality hi-res version that is a long photo and not such a good photo of her face. My argument is that the smaller image should be in the infobox, because regardless of quality issues, the proportions of image itself and the angle of the face are more suitable. I argue that "I disagree with your reasoning, and highest quality needs to be the lead. Also, for someone who is a beauty pageant contestant, full body works better anyway". We're not going to get anywhere with this and I would appreciate another opinion, perhaps at the article talk page? Thanks. --David Shankbone14:44, 11 April 2008 (UTC)
Yes; if you prefer to listen you could join the chat and remain at listening status. You'd need Skype for that. Durova19:11, 11 April 2008 (UTC)
Great! I have Skype, but how do I join? Or would someone invite me? Dorftrottel (canvass) 19:39, April 11, 2008
We'll post a link at the NTWW page. Suggest you e-mail me as a backup; due to the Skype traffic at this hour we may need to go to a backup plan. Durova19:53, 11 April 2008 (UTC)
I'd articulate that support for different reasons from the ones given, but sure. Not certain how much time I'll have to work on it. Basically agreed, though. Maybe sometime I'll write an essay about why. Durova16:26, 12 April 2008 (UTC)
Re the ANI thread on same, whilst generally agreeing that there is cause for concern, I was also concerned at misinformation (not intentional) - it is fairly simple to point out any number of possibilities for metadata inconsistencies or absence, from "What Lightroom export options are used", to "Where data is embedded, be it EXIF or IPTC", to "What format is used for export or import into Photoshop, be it TIF, RAW, JPG, and status of import filters in ACR (Adobe Camera Raw)" through "What options are used for Export from Photoshop, be it Save As, Save For Web, format used, Web Save metadata options" - not at all conclusive, and quite possibly inconsistent, given the ad hoc and inconsistencies of human nature.
Further, a quick check on Google revealed several after market lens adapters and extenders for the Fuji S5700, including a wide angle fisheye lens (which you had said did not exist for his camera). Further, though I will apply a due grain of salt here, as history review has not turned it up again, I had found (not necessarily for his model) an aftermarket adapter that claimed to allow use of all Canon EF lenses (though even if it does exist, I have my doubts as to its effectiveness).
I added these points to the ANI thread, and wanted to flag them with you, not as criticism, but in the spirit of informing. Achromatic (talk) 18:57, 11 April 2008 (UTC)
Why are you raising this days after I accepted Adam's explanation about the metadata? Under the circumstances it was perfectly reasonable to question that - he had actually threatened to perpetrate wholesale copyright violations of another photographer's work. I raised several points, asked for an explanation there, and accepted this portion as soon as he provided a reasonable answer. Most of the remaining questions are still unresolved, and it's a little bit frustrating to see the others languish while people return to the part that's already wrapped up. How about the Bin Laden issue? Durova19:10, 11 April 2008 (UTC)
Because the points I made are still valid, and I don't want to see possibly incorrect conclusions being drawn in other cases on the basis of flawed hypotheses. As I specifically qualified re this case, "agreeing that there is cause for concern". It doesn't make my points any less valid - I didn't realize there was a temporal limitation on responses, or issues raised thereon. Achromatic (talk) 04:23, 14 April 2008 (UTC)
Well, I've posted twice to that thread that discussed it. So that shouldn't be a problem in the future, and if it becomes one please ping me. I think Adam might turn out all right after all. Durova05:32, 14 April 2008 (UTC)
Your mentoree, again
Do you think you could discourage him from posting notes on talk pages warning other editors, even those he has disagreements with, against editing in places where he doesn't want them. Especially when he does it in response to an initial offer to collaborate on improving and expanding an article. Accusations of "not being neutral" are also a bit wide of the mark, which has long been Jaakobou-speak for "disagrees with me".
And while you're there, you might want to encourage him to respond a bit more positively when another editor - ie me - very politely (at first) points out to him that he has introduced a couple of minor errors into an article, and also says that he will leave it up to Jaakobou to put right rather than reverting his input. He spent most of the next twenty four hours fighting over content on other articles, rather than spending two minutes to correct those basic and uncontroversial errors. Thanks --Nickhh (talk) 15:04, 12 April 2008 (UTC)
And since I started, can something also be done about constant accusations (this wasn't the first) of tag-team editing against three independent editors who just happen, of course, to broadly disagree with a lot of his edits. As well as his behaviour in removing third party comments from a MedCab page. --Nickhh (talk) 15:21, 12 April 2008 (UTC)
Dear Nickhh,
I apologize if my suggestion that us involved editors leave the decision on keeping/merging the article to less involved editors seemed to you as a warning, I assure you that was not my intention. I do however still believe (see reason (1), (2)) that you might not be the most neutral person to approach this descision of how to pursue a possible merge (or keep).
As I've noted you before, if I've missed some gross error, you can correct it.
1) Then why didn't you write "We should probably let someone more neutral handle this ..", instead of "You should .."?
2) I'd have thought my professed interest in preventing Misplaced Pages from being used as a forum for bashing a particular ethnic or national group was evidence of my neutrality, not the opposite. Unless they deserve bashing?
I really wish I had a magic bullet for that. Thanks for bringing it to my attention. I guess we'll have to take this one day at a time. Durova18:08, 13 April 2008 (UTC)
Sorry but instead of merely being "not neutral", editors who disagree with Jaakobou now have a "conflict of interest", apparently, and are being warned off participating in debates about merging or deleting one of Jaakobou's favourite pages here, because they have a view different from him as to what to do with it and as to whether the subject matter needs a whole separate wiki-page devoted to it. Because I have a view, I am apparently not allowed to express it - especially because it does not accord with his. I'm all for content disagreement and even robust debate, but this is something else, and is a direct repetition of the behaviour referred to above. I'm only coming here again in order to hold off going to WP:AE. --Nickhh (talk) 20:03, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
Nick, some editors have a different definition of COI than mine. I do not agree that a strong opinion constitutes a conflict of interest. As a separate matter, I think it's often a good idea to recognize areas where one cannot be neutral and recuse oneself from them. My choices are stated at User:Durova/Recusal. You, Jaakobou, and others each make your own choices there. Durova20:20, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
Well the COI guideline here relies on pretty much the standard definition in the wider world - that is, someone having a personal, professional or financial etc interest. As the article is related to the I-P conflict, arguably Jaakobou is far nearer to COI than I am, given our respective nationalities. Plus the views at issue here are not about taking "sides" over the fundamentals of the conflict (even if Jaakobou has me down as a fanatical pro-Palestinian, whatever that means anyway), but about what I think of the notability of specific material and the value of one specific page. It would be an odd conclusion which says that I shouldn't make my opinion known when that issue is being discussed. And beyond that rather academic point, the reason I bought it here is because of Jaakobou's behaviour in trying to order me off a discussion page - for the second time in three days. --Nickhh (talk) 20:34, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
Nickhh,
I've never once pegged you down as a "fanatical pro-Palestinian" and now would be a good time to present a diff if you have one. Jaakobou21:02, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
Apologies, I was using a bit of dramatic licence there. However as the diffs above show, you frequently claim I am "not neutral" or even have "conflict of interest", and I am assuming you don't have me down as a fanatical "pro-Israeli" editor. Actually the reality of course is more subtle than that - I am a partisan of neither "side" and have no stake whatsoever in the underlying conflict. However, as an outside observer, when I see blatant attempts to push a point of view into articles and use Misplaced Pages as some kind of advocacy site, I react against it. And given that English wikipedia is mostly edited by Westerners, the greater amount of any bias here often tends to favour a broadly Israeli perspective, even if you don't see that from where you're sitting. --Nickhh (talk) 08:05, 16 April 2008 (UTC)
On 13 April, 2008, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Bli Sodot, which you recently nominated. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.
Anthøny has smiled at you! Smiles promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. Spread the WikiLove by smiling at someone else, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend. Cheers, and happy editing! Smile at others by adding {{subst:Smile}} to their talk page with a friendly message.
Cool, but I actually have some stuff to do this afternoon out in the real world. Remember that? Psst: try a search for my blog on Blogspot; I've just posted. ;) Durova19:38, 13 April 2008 (UTC)
I was reading this and noticed the lack of response to that (and to my section below). There was also little response to this. I was wondering if the Tango-MONGO drama had the effect of sucking the light out of other debates and turning it into heat over there? I'm also a bit disappointed with the slow-moving nature of Commons, with little response to my post here. Similarly here. Is that par for the course on Commons? Carcharoth (talk) 21:04, 13 April 2008 (UTC)
Yes, sometimes that happens. Particularly with the drama-of-the-week effect (sigh). Apologies that I haven't been more active this month so far. Everyone needs a mini-breather sometimes. Durova05:26, 14 April 2008 (UTC)
My interview
I trust it is coming along and will appear? I am getting a few responses but it wouldn't hurt to get some more publicity for the User:Filll/AGF Challenge and get a few more willing to try the exercises.--Filll (talk) 18:30, 14 April 2008 (UTC)
Wow thanks. I almost look rational in that interview.
Hi Durova - I just caught your self revert here and it was only then that I realised you might not have caught the link to my brief analysis in the section above. I am sorry if I was misunderstanding your request for further information as being more information than that analysis. In an ideal world, I would have written up a full-scale investigative report; however, with a computer that was freezing on me every half hour and a six–inch stack of RL work sitting on my desk I had to be realistic in what I could accomplish. My Arbcom submission is already well over the usual 500 words and I am not convinced that the case will be accepted there, so I hope you understand my hesitation in focusing on a diff-by-diff description of each of the blocks at this point. If anyone knows the frustration of developing evidence without knowing what Arbcom really wants, it's probably you. As I've mentioned in Tango's RfC, I have doubts that the forum as it is designed is all that helpful in resolving issues when it comes to patterns of behaviour as opposed to specific incidents; your mileage may vary, however, and I would never suggest that others stop participating if they believe there is an opportunity for a good outcome. Again, I'm sorry that I misunderstood you. Best, Risker (talk) 04:09, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
What an evocative photograph. I remember those days only too well; for those of you who have been personally affected by 9/11, this situation must tear at those barely-healed wounds. Risker (talk) 04:53, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
Thank you. Back on 9/11 I got in touch with my cousin, who had just found out his father was still alive, and the two of us made a telephone tree together so that everyone in the family would get the news without any duplicate phone calls, because we wanted to be careful not to tie up the lines. The lines did indeed get a lot of use that day: millions of people who had nothing much at stake were talking. Durova06:18, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
A study to test sock puppetry
Durova, perhaps you might be interested in Misplaced Pages:Suspected sock puppets/Fredrick day (2nd), which I filed because some IP evidence tended to implicate what would be a good hand account -- no problems or known associations with a blocked user, and I had loaded all edits of involved users into a spreadsheet to study the time sequence, which I found unmistakably associating the accounts, in spite of some probable effort to conceal it (such as occasional ping-ponging of two accounts, possibly with two computers). Thinking you might have some experience with this, would you mind looking at Misplaced Pages:Suspected sock puppets/Fredrick day (2nd)/Evidence, which is a wikified version of my spreadsheet? If I've made some dreadful error, the sooner an innocent editor could be exonerated. On the other hand .... I also have ideas about how to improve the method, which I'd prefer to discuss off-wiki. May I email you?--Abd (talk) 04:40, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
It isn't my own namespace. Thanks for the links and the pic. Not sure either of us nailed the right tone yet; we'll try to get there. Durova16:01, 16 April 2008 (UTC)
It looks to me like a secondary account that was "built" for a year or so, and then handed off to someone else. The topic areas of interest received a dramatic change within the last day, as well as the frequency of editing. It's also interesting that the controller of the account removed the "Romanian" babel boxes from its userpage. And the areas of editing definitely had nothing to do with Romania. In particular, look at the article creator on the 15:13 edit. --Elonka00:22, 17 April 2008 (UTC)
I think that has more to do with Gypsies, who aren't necessarily Romanian. Anyway, if the account isn't disruptive there isn't much to be said. Or has it edited during PHG's blocks? I'm dubious... Durova02:05, 17 April 2008 (UTC)
Well, you could go to a recent historical version of the article and save that with a reverting vandalism summary. And I don't have a hussar uniform, but I do own another period costume. Durova02:59, 18 April 2008 (UTC)
I've added a section on literature which I found via Google book et.al. All that's left now is adding inline citations and some more language tweaks. Dorftrottel (harass) 15:58, April 19, 2008
Hi Durova - I'd like to ask you to take a look at this article, which is now on AfD. Coppertwig and I had been keeping an eye on for a little bit, but it just didn't feel quite right, and finally Coppertwig put it on PROD. The tag was removed so off to AfD we went. We noted that the German Misplaced Pages had deleted an article on this man, apparently because of original research and lack of notability. As best I can figure, this English version has more sources, but since neither of us is able to read German, we can't really venture to guess if they are supporting the statements in the article. If I remember correctly, you're conversant in German, and I wonder if you might be able to give the references a once-over from a more informed point of view. Thanks. Risker (talk) 03:18, 18 April 2008 (UTC)
You've done the right thing. Although I suppose you could have reached this decision without reading German. This is almost entirely dependent upon primary sources. I've voiced my opinion at the AFD. Durova05:36, 18 April 2008 (UTC)
Hey Durova, I saw your message here about editing the NTWW audio and converting to ogg. I think this should be pretty easy if you use something like Audacity. You probably have already found some type of program, but in case you haven't, that is a good one to use. Take care, daveh4h03:40, 20 April 2008 (UTC)
He disputes that and claims that his computer was hacked, and has been gathering evidence to mount an appeal. Although normally I've assumed ArbCom's conclusion is correct until proven otherwise, since the Mantanmoreland case I'm more apt to reserve judgement. Durova17:45, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
Sorry, yes, and I reposted it...! No, the point was to demonstrate that the usual pains we take and good faith we assume and so on cannot deal with this sort of thing, in response to MastCell's "no problem, carry on" statement. (We can consider asking for volunteers to mentor one Jaakobou, but not fifty colluding ones.) I'm sorry if it startled you. --Relata refero (disp.) 07:03, 23 April 2008 (UTC)
Thank you for the clarification. Text can be a frustrating medium. To Jaakobou's credit, he sought out mentorship without any prompting. Does it seem to you like the editors who ask for mentors on their own do better than the ones who have to be led to it? Durova07:34, 23 April 2008 (UTC)
If I had the skill and knowledge to make good awards or barnstars I'd have to give you one for your /Dark Side page on wikisleuthing and such. Its sadly very rampant. You deserve a Kicking Ass Barnstar. Hooper (talk) 04:56, 25 April 2008 (UTC)
On 25 April, 2008, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Kloster Wienhausen, which you created or substantially expanded. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.
Thank you very much; it was looking like a permanent fixture on FPC. Of course now I'll have to go finish another restoration to replace it... :) Durova08:01, 25 April 2008 (UTC)
And another one - yep, better get something else up there! Pretty appropriate to put this through on ANZAC Day though.
BTW, two things about this. I replaced another version of this in the Norman Lindsay article - see Image:Lindsay trumpet calls.jpg (I'm guessing you probably weren't aware that Lindsay was a noted Australian artist). While doing so I noticed the colour balance was considerably different, I'd say your version has far more reds in it. To me the colours in the other version looked a bit more realistic for images from this time. Any ideas? The other version also had a bit of extra information on the image page that perhaps would be worth adding to yours.
Second thing, I recommended to Howcheng that this be kept as POTD for ANZAC Day next year, unfortunately we just missed this year (I know this is a long way off). See here. You may like to go and drop him a note as well if you agree or disagree with this. Cheers, --jjron (talk) 09:03, 25 April 2008 (UTC)
I found this one and suggested it to Filll, & in in turn suggested it to you. and like you, I did not believe it until I went to the official links. I don't trust myself to do it with the solemnity it deserves. DGG (talk) 03:35, 27 April 2008 (UTC)
Improper grounds
Durova, on what grounds do you have the authority to restrict my contributions without it going through Arbcom? It would seem that process is most important, especially seeing as how there are two and only two people who get to decide if a comment/oppose/support is accepted in deciding the outcome of an FAC: Raul and Sandy. I believe that your comments may be biased towards Awadewit and ignore the process of the FAC. I have not violated any Misplaced Pages policy, and if I have violated procedure at the FAC, then it is for Raul and Sandy to decide. I take this matter very seriously, and the fact that this is resulting from an editor unwilling to produce more citations is almost laughable. Ottava Rima (talk) 04:35, 26 April 2008 (UTC)
The community has been doing topic bans for over a year without ArbCom. Your suspicions that my comments might be biased ought to be tempered by this site's assume good faith policy. I intend this for the best interests of the site only, and with no malice. Durova04:39, 26 April 2008 (UTC)
"Don't blame her for this thread, please. I urged her to initiate it." That is enough grounds to suggest a potential bias. You told her to perform the action, therefore, you probably back her up in such a case. I have no stated that you do this with malice, but I do state that there is no grounds for this, unless you are willing to posit that I have violated a Misplaced Pages policy. My "incivil" comments resulted in the agreement that I should not use such things, as the community has interpreted them to be "rude". However, there is nothing in the FAC which says I am not to posit such opinions, and opinions can only be judged by Raul and Sandy, whose authority you are currently usurping. Ottava Rima (talk) 04:52, 26 April 2008 (UTC)
If I meant to do anything improper, I would have concealed that fact rather than disclosing it immediately. It's quite simple from my perspective: Awadewit is one of this site's most prolific contributors of featured content. I am concerned that your unusual interpretations of FA standards place undue burden upon her and others, and that this situation has reached the point where it is in danger of both reducing FA writers' productivity and damaging the morale of our most productive editors. Regarding civility, I let the block log speak for itself. Since you place this much esteem in SandyGeorgia and Raul654, I'll go ahead and offer them both links to the ANI thread; I agree their input would be valuable. Durova04:58, 26 April 2008 (UTC)
I am not saying that you have abused your authority. You have not actually used your authority, so there cannot be an abuse. However, I must object - how can it put an "undue burden". If she thinks it is non-applicable, she can ignore it, and if Sandy agrees, she will too. But please explain how adding a few "ref name=" templates to show that some of the important details are referred through the next citation is a "burden". Now, regarding civility and my block log, I have been blocked for 3RR. Not for civility concerns. I have always taken the utmost care to speak in an objective, scientific, and fair manner without using insults, slurs, or anything else that would be disrespectful to the character of the other. I do not cuss, nor do I enjoy vulgarity. I do not believe in describing anyone's level of intelligence or anything close. I believe that everyone here is equal, regardless of what they have contribute, or what their status may be. The interesting thing is that I had a conversation with Kim Bruning yesterday and you came up. It is a strange coincidence that this would happen, with you, involved, today. But she will sure get a good laugh (most likely at my expense, as usual). Ottava Rima (talk) 05:08, 26 April 2008 (UTC)
Though having said what I have just said (below and at ANI), once again I urge Ottava: here as elsewhere your way of dealing with disagreement really does not help your cause. --jbmurray (talk|contribs) 05:20, 26 April 2008 (UTC)
I was born without a soul and I never learned how to laugh, so I tend to be loathable, especially when clouded behind the cold bleakness of this ever oppressive text. Ottava Rima (talk) 05:24, 26 April 2008 (UTC)
I agree that something doesn't look good here, and have left a note to that effect at ANI. And I say this as someone who has had problems with Ottava's style of engagement (as I have also repeatedly detailed at ANI). Some clarification might be in order. --jbmurray (talk|contribs) 05:17, 26 April 2008 (UTC)
I really don't think that my participation in this discussion is the kind of thing that merits minute examination. For what it's worth, I have respected Awadewit's contributions for months; she is one of only two editors who have earned the most competitive triple crown award: Alexander the Great edition. Other than that, my interaction with her is limited to the following: she is conducting an academic survey of Misplaced Pages editors and I am one of the respondants to her survey. She joined yesterday's Not the Misplaced Pages Weekly Skypecast recording, and returned to Skype today to ask for advice about how to handle this problem. I looked over the situation independently and reached my own conclusion about it. I really don't know her very well at all. And now this is three detailed responses, which I think is quite enough. Durova05:26, 26 April 2008 (UTC)
I, too, have nothing but the highest respect for Awadewit. That's not at issue for me. I, too, have problems with the way in which Ottava sometimes conducts him or herself at FAC. But I remain a little surprised at your role here. --jbmurray (talk|contribs) 05:31, 26 April 2008 (UTC)
Durova, I could never have hard feelings towards you. Plus, now I have a great story for Kim Bruning to make fun of me even more over. I am sure she will be surprised that I didn't get banned over this. However, I believe that she is surprised every day that I am not banned. Everything I say and do seems to surprise her. :) Ottava Rima (talk) 06:26, 26 April 2008 (UTC)
I didn't know you knew Kim Bruning? Anyway, if he makes any joke over this I'll throw something else at him one more time (I've got one on him that I'm milking for all it's worth). Best wishes, and I hope things go better upon your return. Durova06:40, 26 April 2008 (UTC)
It is not an edit war. The image name uses 'grey' so if you change it to 'gray' the thumb code will render the iamge link dead and the image will not show. Do you understand? UNI15:22, 26 April 2008 (UTC)
Unisouth, check the last two years' history on the page. And I'm an admin on Commons; I fixed the image title as soon as you brought it to my attention, which you might have done without all caps and a premature 3RR alert. Do you understand? Durova15:31, 26 April 2008 (UTC)
Therefore there was no need to message me in the first place! Do you not understand? Also replying on your own user talk pages means I might have not replyed again if I didn't look on my Watchlist by chance. UNI15:34, 26 April 2008 (UTC)
Well, apparently I don't; exclamation points and angry responses mystify me in this context. I'd been watching the page for two years, saw the humorous side of things, and hoped that we'd both be able to chuckle at ourselves a little bit. Durova16:00, 26 April 2008 (UTC)
Well in my view all issues need to be taken seriously. Thankfully this issue has been sorted so thank you very much for your co-operation, hopefully we both understand now. UNI16:07, 26 April 2008 (UTC)
Durova's DYK advice
Hi there Durova, whilst putting the finishing touches to the DYK Signpost dispatch it has been pointed out that your DYK advice says the articles need to be 2000 characters. The official DYK advice disagrees and says it is 1500. Would you mind if I amended it to the "official" number to remove the discrepancy. I say this as we don't want people reading it to get confused. Thanks and best regards. Woody (talk) 22:14, 26 April 2008 (UTC)
Hi Durova. I massively reduced the content of the conspiracy theories section during my rewrite the other day, and attempted to included sources to balance these sections back to the majority viewpoint. Can I just clarify: do you think there is a problem with the section as it stands, or are you just concerned that there is a tendency for this section to become massively full of wild fringe theories? Fritzpoll (talk) 09:22, 27 April 2008 (UTC)
Well, what percentage of the leading experts suppose that alternative theories hold water? Right now the space in the article is about evenly split between conventional and alternative. Unless this is really an open debate with no firm expert consensus, which I doubt is the case, then per WP:UNDUE the alternative stuff is still getting way too much weight. Durova09:37, 27 April 2008 (UTC)
Yes, I think what is actually lacking is sufficient content about the event itself. I will reduce the content again in the CIA involvement section, since yours is essentially the second concern I've seen, but ultimately, more information in the Event section or in the perpetrator section will probably balance this article out. I hope you won't object, but I'm going to put a copy of this discussion on the article talk page so it is more visible Fritzpoll (talk) 09:48, 27 April 2008 (UTC)
It's about doing the right thing. I'd do this for anyone who deserved it as much as you do. Keep creating more featured content; your work is fantastic. Durova17:50, 27 April 2008 (UTC)
JDAM tagging
Hey, I see you tagged the JDAM article, that I added a significant amount of material to, as sounding like an advert. I have to say that you are probably 75% correct, considering that the source for most of the material were USAF, Boeing, and other industry press releases. Overall the article has a good start IMHO. I appreciate you tagging the articel, why don't you help clean it up to make it Wiki worthy? Thanks. Andrew (talk) 00:40, 28 April 2008 (UTC)
If I had enough expertise in that particular subject I would have done so. Thanks for commenting; I'll give it another look. Not sure if I'll have any more to offer than what I've already posted to the talk page. Durova00:48, 28 April 2008 (UTC)
Hi there Durova. I'm applying.... how shameless....
Template:FAIan Thorpe - Australian swimmer, first person to win six gold medals at one World Championships, first person to win 11 world titles, first swimmer to be world swimmer of the year four times
Great :-) Had I realized before, I would have put the DYK off 'til another date, since we like to feature individual achievements. I got caught by surprise on that one, since I didn't really know what they were! SandyGeorgia (Talk) 03:14, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
Both IP's talk pages say they are registered to... Navy Network Information Center. I sense the need to tread carefully here. I don't think it should necessarily go to ANI. What do you advise?
Yes, this would be an embarrassment. Whether you alert ANI is your own decision. I've found that in situations like this a little polite feedback often solves the problem. I could give them a heads up. Durova03:06, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
If in your opinion a quiet email (for example) would be most productive, I'd appreciate that. I know you have experience dealing with these situations. SHEFFIELDSTEEL15:04, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
Dear Durova. That's a beautiful story. I also appreciate the sentiment behind the suggestion, but I don't use Skype or any other messaging/chat programs since they slow down my computer (it's ancient) and as a general rule, I don't meet with other Wiki editors in person. When you are a minority that is viewed as a "fifth column" despite your citizenship, in a state that has no qualms about locking people up to protect its "national security", you tend to kind of value your anonymity, as you might imagine.
Please do note, I harbour no resentment towards Jaakobou. I decided to "unilaterally disengage" (so to speak) and stop editing at pages he edits at for a while to allow for a cool down period after that last encounter we had on AE. I think it's unfortunate that he has again stirred up a hornet's nest with his latest poking and prodding, and that he would do better to take some distance of his own from the editors he seems to find so offensive. Anyway, I appreciate your efforts to find a resolution here and can commit to pursuing whatever on-wiki remedies you think would help. Warm regards, Tiamut06:47, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
Thank you very much for that candid reply. I don't have a magic solution for the wiki dilemma, much less the real life one, but I'm committed to trying. I don't think every editor in Serbia or Croatia crossed the border to shake hands. Some of them did, and apparently that was enough. Best wishes to you. Durova06:59, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
While there is no physical border between Jaakobou and I (remember, we both live inside Israel), you are certainly correct in noticing that there is some kind of obstruction inhibiting our ability reach out to one another. I appreciate your good wishes and good faith and remain hopeful that an on-wiki shaking of hands and even good hearted back-slapping will one day be possible. Tiamut07:24, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
Hi Durova. your ideas sounds interesting. I have read some information about it on others' talk pages. please keep me posted on this as things go on. thanks. --Steve, Sm8900 (talk) 15:40, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
Reply by Nishidani to note on his page
That's not a bad idea, Durova. I'm the sort of bloke who jumps planes to meet people - I once flew from Tokyo to Toronto merely to honour an undertaking to have a cup of tea with a person on a certain date 5 years after the promise was made - but hates telephones. The only function of a telephone line at my age is to have an internet connection (and of course to call an ambulance if my ticker plays up, which it probably will shortly if these endless recriminations of kindergarten-level bitching don't end!). I hope some of the younger people in here think it over. I don't have Skype. Still, I hope you and a few other admins haven't taken the extensive, and for my part wholly frank, outlining of deeper problems surrounding these conflicts too badly. I have seized on that particular suit with some recklessness in order to talk, indirectly, to Jaakobou and about him, before other editors he is in constant conflict with, and before some admins or ex-admins, in the confidence that when a problem is recurrent, it is wise, as in all forms of negotiations, to drop the extreme niceties of formal etiquette and get things off one's chest. This is my form of telephoning. Just one more ruling, punishment, victory or defeat is not going to help. I don't know if you are familiar with the role Omar Sharif plays in James Clavell's 1969 film, The Last Valley, but the message was: when tit-for-tat warring and defence is the problem, deciding for one side is not going to solve the problem, but only feed the inertial momentum of attrition. One must use a higher logic, expect tensions, but see a way round the reciprocal logic of aggression and defence that lies at the heart of this darkness. The point is true of the conflict whose history we are editing, as it is true of the editing-conflicts that mirror these realities. Etiquette is essential, (but not the prerequisite, as the rules often suggest to harassed administrators, since that is too often a lip-service formality belied by a certain cold ambition to 'win'). Rather a change in the logic of aggressive pushing of a unilateral vision, by whomever, is the key.
I don't think our mutual aquaintence has yet the slightest idea of the impact both his treatment of Tiamut, who is a very fine, precise and accommodating editor indeed, and his general outburst on the Islamic-culture of violence responsible for all the woes of Israel, had on many people here. The former spoke of a cast of mind I have documented on Nickhh's page, the latter of a fixed mindset that has absolutely no ear for the 'Other'. One doesn't lose one's wariness with others by a change in their formal tone, but when one observes a change in outlook, from self-assured personal conviction to attentive listening to others who cannot understand you. If he checks my record, he will see that I do work well with many other editors 'on his side', some with strong Zionist commitments, and have devoted quite a lot of effort to improving pages on the great thinkers and scholars from his particular tradition. Hardly evidence then that I have some animus for his country, as opposed to the very strong interests I have in human rights and justice, for which Jewish thinkers and activists have long been in the forefront. Thirdly, writing these dossiers did him great harm. Whatever our differences, the rest of 'us' (I presume) hail from a cultural and historical context where profiling and dossiers are regarded with extreme reserve, as abuses one associates with the degradation of civil society by authoritarian power-mongers. I think had I pursued, in formal arbitration, the way he got off that 3RR rap by contacting User:Swatjester offline, it would have shown him in a very poor light and the administrator as well. It certainly worries other editors that he, who complains much of minor transgressions of procedural formalities, lives a charmed life, by now notorious, when he himself has infringed them, whereas others, less enamoured of litigiousness, usually take a hard rap. Administrators, caught up in endless cases, can't be expected to note what editors on a page see. They will tell you, 'take it up in a formal complaint'. But a lot of us dislike complaining. I didn't pursue the case because I hate whingeing, and I should think that he would do well to renounce this kind of administrative option himself, except when some serious, I mean, serious abuse of wiki editing procedures occurs that damages the growth of the pages he is working on. These finicky recourses to 'the law' are fascinating - they read like new episodes in Kafka's The Trial, where recourse to justice is constant, and nothing but the weirdest outcomes result. Ultimately, it all sounds to many like political gaming. He must be tough to edit with the intensity he does. If he learnt to wear a tough hide as well (and listen closely to what others argue for - they are not irrational) things would run improve notably. I have no illusions, this place ranks among the hardest to edit, and the pages are, both sides concur, shamefully riven with textual politicking (compare any article with the Encyclopedia Britannica) but every now and then, surprises do occur, and the world changes. Like it or not, these articles have to be written so that a rationally-minded Israeli and Palestinian would not take exception to them. That is the rule he, like the rest of us, must keep ever-present when editing. Take this also as a public email to Jaakobou, in lieu of a Skype monologue! p.s. Serbians and Croats have their own countries, share a common language, more or less, share a similar religion, and often, can offload their differences on the third group in the area, which happens to be Muslim (and unfortunately they don't drink as often as the former!). Still, point taken. Best regards, apologies for long-windedness and take it easy Nishidani (talk) 07:50, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
I agree with the barnstar of Peace in the above case. I was wondering whether you, who have substantially more military experience than I do, think that the Purple Barnstar might also be merited for this estimable colleague who fell as a result of our ongoing battle against stupidity. John Carter (talk) 20:50, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
A couple of people tried to give me one. Maybe it would be different for Brad; I don't know. I served in a war. My grandfather served in an earlier war and got a purple heart--and I wouldn't want to cheapen his sacrifice by accepting an award patterned after it. Sticks and stones may break my bones...nothing on Misplaced Pages comes close. Durova02:11, 30 April 2008 (UTC)
an idea ...
Hi, here's a thought that might do some good. Today I was chatting with an editor from Serbia. Mentioned the Serbian-Croatian ethnic disputes on en:Wiki and he surprised me by telling me the Serbian and Croatian Wikipedias actually get along pretty well. Basically what happened was some guys packed into a car, drove to Zagreb, and shook some hands. Then some other guys packed into another car, drove to Belgrade, and shook some hands. Once they saw that they were all pretty normal people, things calmed down a lot.
Maybe there's a way we can replicate that. Would you be willing to try a voice chat on Skype? I've noticed that when Misplaced Pages editors get into a conference call, with voices instead of just text, it's easier to find common ground. Wishing you well, DurovaCharge! 06:28, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
I think that's an excellent idea, actually. Unfortunately, my schedule is insane, so I am pretty much only available on weekends. Time zone coordination might also be an issue -- I'm in CE(S)T, local time in Germany, which will be much closer to the time for any users actually in the Balkans as are any users who might be in the states. These are just details, though, I guess -- I laud the idea itself. - Revolving Bugbear22:52, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
That might work, actually. Would Saturday be good for you? Danke sehr für diese Antwort. Ich möchte es versuchen.Durova03:29, 30 April 2008 (UTC)
Podcasting for luddites
This site has free telephone conferencing. It's a long-distance call in the US, but otherwise there's no charge. All the reviews online seem to be good, and that it's not a scam (it appears to be promotional for the company's other services). Here's a podcast that uses this service (the service includes a recording function). This could be a way for NotTheWikipediaWeekly to tap into some of the great mass of people who are not on Skype. I wonder if it would be difficult to hook people on the telephone conference and Skype together on air at the same time...--Pharos (talk) 01:18, 30 April 2008 (UTC)--Pharos (talk) 01:18, 30 April 2008 (UTC)
I think we could dial in to this service from a Skype conference call, linking the Skype group together with a dial-in group on regular POTS (plain old telephone service) for people who did not want to give their phone number out.--Filll (talk) 13:03, 30 April 2008 (UTC)
Hi, here's a thought that might do some good with the Israeli-Palesinian dispute on AE. Today I was chatting with an editor from Serbia. Mentioned the Serbian-Croatian ethnic disputes on en:Wiki and he surprised me by telling me the Serbian and Croatian Wikipedias actually get along pretty well. Basically what happened was some guys packed into a car, drove to Zagreb, and shook some hands. Then some other guys packed into another car, drove to Belgrade, and shook some hands. Once they saw that they were all pretty normal people, things calmed down a lot.
Maybe there's a way we can replicate that. Would you be willing to try a voice chat on Skype? I've noticed that when Misplaced Pages editors get into a conference call, with voices instead of just text, it's easier to find common ground. Wishing you well, Durova06:33, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
I am very open to the idea and find it very interesting. I congratulate the Serbian and Croatian Wikipedians for such a big step - though it took only a few steps. I am thinking of proposing it at Misplaced Pages:IPCOLL and Misplaced Pages:SLR as well. -- FayssalF - 06:58, 1 May 2008 (UTC)
Well, let's see how far it goes. I can't say that everyone in this dispute welcomes the idea. Thank you, though. Would you like to meet me on Skype as a preliminary? Durova07:03, 1 May 2008 (UTC)
Hm, I could do a few things to that one but it won't work miracles. It's got a very shallow depth of field so that his shoulder is the only thing in sharp focus, not his face. Wouldn't be too tough a job to do the things that can be done, though. Is this urgent? I'd like to finish a toughie first. I've been on this for days. Durova08:42, 1 May 2008 (UTC)
I did a quick look at yours. It's been downsampled from the original Library of Congress file, and hasn't been handled particularly well. It's not worthwhile to try to fix the .jpg artifacting on the current Commons file, but I might download the original 63 meg file. Don't expect miracles: it's got composition problems and lighting problems on top of the focus issue. I might be able to do a selective sharpen on that face. Will give this a look-see, but it's actually more work than I expected at first. Durova09:35, 1 May 2008 (UTC)
The LoC have other Learned Hand pictures, but only one other one from the Bain collection (ie. the others are not free). Doesn't need to be featured pic standard, just featured article pic standard, if that makes sense! :-) No rush. It will probably take a while before the article goes to FAC. Carcharoth (talk) 10:09, 1 May 2008 (UTC)
OK. Try this one and this one. Probably no better (the first one is another scan of the same negative, the second one is a different picture). Would be nice to have both, but if you only have time for one, no problem. Carcharoth (talk) 10:17, 1 May 2008 (UTC)
Heh, I'm getting stretched pretty thin with so many hands pulling on my sleeve. Still not done with lil' Abner, but you're next. :) Durova04:44, 3 May 2008 (UTC)
Gah, I just realized what this is for. I'll be right on it. Unfortunately this is the only archival image that's at high enough resolution to work on. Will do my best. Durova17:00, 3 May 2008 (UTC)
On 2 May, 2008, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Shnaim Ohazin, which you recently nominated. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.
The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : Issue XXVI (April 2008)
The April 2008 issue of the Military history WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you. This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 00:41, 3 May 2008 (UTC)
restructuring petition
Thanks for the heads up. I didn't get your message until after it went to press. I'll keep my eye on that an the mailing list discussion for a possible follow-up story.--ragesoss (talk) 14:23, 3 May 2008 (UTC)
Thanks. Actually I'm not a frequent poster to the Foundation mailing list - once every week or two is about it. Not the Misplaced Pages Weekly had a discussion about that in our latest segment (episode 13) and we'd like to invite a guest for follow-up. Regards, Durova14:27, 3 May 2008 (UTC)
Myself and several other editors have been compiling a list of very active editors who would likely be available to help new editors in the event they have questions or concerns. As the list grew and the table became more detailed, it was determined that the best way to complete the table was to ask each potential candidate to fill in their own information, if they so desire. This list is sorted geographically in order to provide a better estimate as to whether the listed editor is likely to be active.
If you consider yourself a very active Wikipedian who is willing to help newcomers, please either complete your information in the table or add your entry. If you do not want to be on the list, either remove your name or just disregard this message and your entry will be removed within 48 hours. The table can be found at User:Useight/Highly Active, as it has yet to have been moved into the Misplaced Pages namespace. Thank you for your help. Useight (talk) 17:19, 3 May 2008 (UTC)
Gah, I barely have time to keep up with the requests I already get. Thank you very much for thinking of me; it's very flattering. I just don't think I can commit to it. Durova17:39, 3 May 2008 (UTC)
Yes, I've fixed it for you. You typed "public domain" in the description, which is fine and dandy from one sensible human to another, but the bot saw that you didn't use a little selection box at the bottom of the upload page and--silly program that it is--it put a nasty looking tag on the picture and scolded you. These are well-meaning programs that exist to spot copyvios, which are serious problems, but unfortunately they also swat at serious contributors, especially new ones. They scold me too when I'm tired or distracted. Sometime when we're both on Skype I'll step you through it. Not hard at all to get right, once someone points it out to you. Maybe it'd be worth nudging the developers to make the interface more user friendly. Durova03:16, 4 May 2008 (UTC)
Oh, I didn't even think to check that. I just kept reading the fields over and over again. Thanks so much! Awadewit (talk) 04:03, 4 May 2008 (UTC)
Hi there, Durova! I would like to invite you to WikiProject 24, the WikiProject related to all 24 articles. I have seen that you have been helping out on a 24 article, so thought you might like to join the WikiProject. If you would like to join, then please click here and add yourself to our list of participants. Thanks and have a nice day! TheHelpfulOne13:10, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
Durova's thirteenth law: Editor X has a strong ideology and comes to Misplaced Pages to promote it, sidestepping various policies along the way. Editors Y and Z object, so Editor X presumes Y and Z are conspirators for the opposing ideology. When Y and Z point to X's policy violations, X wikilawyers to accuse Y and Z of similar policy violations. Run any ideology through that grinder and it produces the same sausage. - from User:Raul654/Raul's laws, added by me on 5 April 2007.Durova02:37, 6 May 2008 (UTC)
Aw, thank you very much! Now go make this worth it and finish that GA drive; you're in the home stretch (cheers you on). :) Durova07:48, 6 May 2008 (UTC)
You might try downsampling it. There's also a perspective distortion that I'm not particularly good at correcting, but I think some other people may have tips regarding that. Durova08:38, 6 May 2008 (UTC)
Well thanks, I've been doing some copyediting on GA and FA candidates recently. Really I have no interest in your underlying subject, but I've never watched the 24 series either and I don't normally pay much attention to New York state highways or hurricanes. I'll give the page a careful look and see what I can do. Durova18:09, 6 May 2008 (UTC)
I wish I could just walk away from this place. I hope you fare better at Rosalind's page than I, but I'm not holding my breathe.... (Particularly note-worthy is the back-slapping going on at Odd Nature's talk page for calling me a "dramamongerer". Sigh.) Kyaa the Catlord (talk) 17:49, 6 May 2008 (UTC)
I hope so. I got the article full protected so they could discuss the article, but they seem to be wandering around in circles tilting windmills for meat-puppets rather than having any sort of real discussion of the article. :P Kyaa the Catlord (talk) 18:11, 6 May 2008 (UTC)
Well I've had several discussions with Moulton--he's been a guest on Not the Misplaced Pages Weekly--and some of his points regarding the article are valid and insightful, particularly IMO the WP:UNDUE issue. There are also WP:NOR problems with his analysis, and as you probably know Filll is one of our NTWW regulars; we've discussed this in depth from his perspective also so I think I'm getting quality input from both sides of the fence. I have little interest in the topic itself, but the article has become a flash point and that's never good--particularly at a living person's biography. What I'd like to do most is turn down the volume enough so that both sides listen to each other better. And fwiw, my standard offer of a courtesy AFD nomination is open to Professor Picard if she asks for it. Durova18:18, 6 May 2008 (UTC)
I've never edited the article. I know who Moulton is, I have an account at the site which shall not be named, but I'm certainly not a regular there... the article just piqued my interest when I saw it flash on the 3rr noticeboard. :) (Didn't even put it together wth the ANI thread the other day until just a few minutes ago... Sigh.) Yeah, its certainly flash-y. :( I don't really understand why, other than that some editors really freak out when ID is involved. I think more people need to stay far away from topics that they are emotional about and these issues would just... vanish. Yeah, I know I'm dreaming! :) Kyaa the Catlord (talk) 18:23, 6 May 2008 (UTC)
Well, fwiw I disclosed my own POV on the underlying topic two years ago at an arbitration case where I was the sole defender of a young earth creationist: I'm about as staunch an evolutionist as they come, privately, but I set personal politics aside when I log into Misplaced Pages. I later gave evidence regarding the Discovery Institute and other ID activists at a different arbitration case. I've done some work on the Mary Leakey biography and added some photographs related to human evolution to Commons and various articles, but when it comes to the disputed articles I generally restrict my efforts to dispute resolution. Durova18:57, 6 May 2008 (UTC)
It doesn't matter what your opinions are here - I was told, the second time I mentioned them (the second time I've ever mentioned opinions about anything!) that I was protesting too much. Best avoided, really. --Relata refero (disp.) 20:45, 6 May 2008 (UTC)
Thanks! I am now waiting for someone to follow-up Guy's request for a clear indication that someone said those IPs were the subject, failing which I'll remove them.
Meanwhile, I've been wondering: how long, in general, should we keep the "edited by the subject" template up? I can't help thinking that if we keep it up long after the edits they made have been erased, and the page is unrecognisable, its somehow unnecessary and perhaps a little derogatory in tone...... Thoughts? --Relata refero (disp.) 07:27, 7 May 2008 (UTC)
My best advice is to wait a month for things to calm down. I don't think any consensus is likely to form right now. The page is drama du jour. Durova09:44, 7 May 2008 (UTC)
I agree, of course, but I thought that people should start thinking about a more general rule to use in all such cases. --Relata refero (disp.) 10:39, 7 May 2008 (UTC)
I agree, and I also agree that a more general rule would be a very good idea. It's more likely that people will consider that seriously after the initial conflict is over. Durova18:24, 7 May 2008 (UTC)
Your suggestion
While I appreciate your suggestion I'm not going to take it right now. I'm a bit tired of having my name dragged through the mud while I've had to defend myself behind closed doors. Moreoever, it is apparent from Flo's latest remark that the ArbCom hasn't even been paying much attention to either my or Jimbo's(!) emails. If you have a suggestion other than putting this in public I'm more than willing to listen. JoshuaZ (talk) 20:15, 6 May 2008 (UTC)
I was wondering what you meant by "Asking fellow Wikipedians to honor the dignity of 9/11." Could you provide a brief explanation? - Shiftchange (talk) 01:20, 8 May 2008 (UTC)
User:Durova/Recusal...there's been a bit of a problem related to that topic lately. Some senior Wikipedians act like they've lost perspective. My uncle was very lucky to survive that day; he was one of the last people to escape from the World Trade Center. And I joined the Navy and went to war afterward. Basically I'm hoping that a few individuals--who ought to know well enough and who have a track record of usually knowing well enough--remember that this is one topic that deserves decorum and respect. Durova03:09, 8 May 2008 (UTC)
Sorry to butt in here but this caught my attention big time. First, let me say thank you for volunteering to help protect our country. My son signed up straight out of college, three months prior to 9/11 so it touches me also. He got injured prior to going out of the country and has had one surgery and will unfortunately have a couple or more to look forward to in the future. You do our country proud, though I too wish it was a better 'war' than what it has turned into. I just want to say thank you Durova.--CrohnieGal13:19, 8 May 2008 (UTC)
No need to be sorry at all; you're a perfect lady and I'm glad to have met you (in cyberspace at least). Thank you; it helps to know people care. And best wishes to your son! Durova18:18, 8 May 2008 (UTC)
Blog
If one were interested in reading this upcoming blog post about family friendly encyclopedia stuff, where would one go? This is probably common knowledge, but there's no mention of its location on your user page... --barneca (talk) 13:30, 8 May 2008 (UTC)
Aha, it was there, I missed it. Also, someone was kind enough to send me an email, pointing out that there's this newfangled invention (I think the kids are calling it "Google", or something), and you can type things in it like "Durova" and "blog" and "Misplaced Pages", and evidently this whole long list of pages comes back, and you can find things with it. What will they think of next. --barneca (talk) 18:24, 8 May 2008 (UTC)
Hi, would you be free for a Skype chat with Jaakobou tomorrow? He's requesting I set up a call with a few people and you're someone he'd very much like to talk to. He wants to be sure he's on the right side of site standards when he returns. E-mail me and I'll give you my Skype screen name. Best regards, Durova04:37, 3 May 2008 (UTC)
I am sorry Durova. I have been away for a couple of days. I will also be very busy for a couple of weeks (business trip) but will be available afterwards for a Skype chat. I will still be able to read messages here or via email. Regards. -- FayssalF - 22:45, 8 May 2008 (UTC)
BTW, this has been moved to Template:POTD/2008-05-17. I originally moved to make way for what was supposed to be an anniversary, except that the requestor got the initial date wrong (they asked for the 15th but the actual date was the 14th). howcheng {chat} 04:58, 13 May 2008 (UTC)
I have been thinking over this for a few weeks - I almost wrote this a fortnight ago, but events made me hold back - but I am volunteering as a co-nominator should you express a wish to run. I do not foresee a time where I would begin to believe it possible that I might consider that we share the same views on a lot of subjects and interpretations of policy, but that is not the same thing as believing that you would be an excellent admin. I am of the opinion that your previous stint in the position was generally positive for the community, and that the one major misuse of the tools was the result of an unfortunate conclusion drawn from a poorly executed "investigation" (which itself reflected poorly upon the open editing model of Misplaced Pages) conducted in an inappropriate atmosphere of bad faith. However, and notwithstanding my principled opposition to such manner of conduct, I truly believe that you have learned and re-evaluated your conduct from that incident, and that your subsequent actions on WP have demonstrated that you have an understanding of the pitfalls of adminship (and I am all too willing to have the beartraps pointed out to me) and of the belief in an innate superiority of judgement coming along with the buttons. I think you would be a better sysop than you were previously.
As I said, this has been on my mind for a little while. I have written at length above, because I am uncertain how you would view such a suggestion from me given some of our previous interactions and because of the general difference in opinion that we hold over many aspects of WP. I also realise that you had a very unpleasant experience which resulted in you giving up the bits, and I would sympathise if you felt unready to face the likelihood of a rerun in the event of reapplying. It is as much for the latter consideration that I have volunteered to co-nominate, a voice from that which may have been considered a natural opposer.
As I have mulled this over for some time, I have no expectation of a speedy response. Suffice to say that this offer remains open for as long as is required. LessHeard vanU (talk) 22:50, 10 May 2008 (UTC)
It is very flattering to receive this offer, particularly from you. Yes, we've been on opposite sides of the fence quite a few times. You have the advantage over me: actions speak louder than words and your offer demonstrates respect more clearly than any reply I can give. The respect is mutual; I'm touched. Thank you. I'm not ready to try RFA right now, and that's no reflection on you. There are some things I want to wrap up and it's easier to do that with fewer demands on my time. Maybe sometime soon. Warmest regards, Durova00:16, 11 May 2008 (UTC)
I would be willing to support in such an RfA and I think it may be indicative of something if someone you blocked, i.e. me, would be willing to support. Best, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles03:47, 11 May 2008 (UTC)
Thank you very much. I'm very glad to see the improvement in your contributions. Wish every block ended so well, and on such cordial terms. It speaks a lot for you. All the best, Durova04:51, 11 May 2008 (UTC)
Sorry to bug you with this. You kindly gave some advice regarding the balance of the above article - I have since removed a further conspiracy theory that seemed the least sourced, and some more information documenting the event is on the way in. Could you cast you eye over it again for me, and let me know if the balance is improved, taking into account the hoped expansion of the "Aftermath" section. Problem is, I can't get another independent editor looking at it, and having edited it so heavily myself, I'm not sure I should attempt to judge the balance without input! If you can help, I'd be very grateful Fritzpoll (talk) 21:35, 11 May 2008 (UTC)
Hi Durova, its ages since I was last talking to you - hope things are going well. I sent you an email asking for a spot of advice. Drop me a line if you get a chance--Cailil17:08, 12 May 2008 (UTC)
I'm pretty much backlogged, but I'll certainly do some COI runs once my backlog is cleared. --Kim Bruning (talk) 02:58, 14 May 2008 (UTC)(was a tad displeased to be pushed too much (also was tired). You're prolly right that it's a good idea. But I need time to do it properly, I will make time, but not before I'm done with existing promises I've made to people first)
Oh, I do. Bear in mind that YouTube (for example) has a terms of use statement and makes specific efforts to enforce it. That's very different from the other site's practices. Plus a formal statement from the ArbCom endorsing a link to the site in question looks--to my layman's eyes--like it might put the Foundation in greater risk than if editors merely acted alone. Certainly while a related action is underway--and front page news on Slashdot at this very moment--the sensible thing for you, me, and the entire arbitration committee to do is defer to counsel. Durova20:38, 14 May 2008 (UTC)
I agree. On a side note, your post that linked to the yro.slashdot.org address that linked to the Mormon manual when saying we shouldn't do that made me chuckle. Lawrence Cohen § t/e21:14, 14 May 2008 (UTC)
They linked to the Mormon manual? I was aware only of their linke to the Wikinews piece. I'll redact shortly. Durova21:19, 14 May 2008 (UTC)
G'day NotTheWikipediaWeeklian (p'raps we need a catchier nom de plume?) - it's terribly short notice but I'm going to be hosting a discussion tomorrow, Thursday 15th May at 23.00 UTC (head to the 'NotTheWikipediaWeekly' page for full info, and a date and time convertor) - that's about 21 hours from now....... There could well be an additional conversation 24 hours later - so take your pick! - I will likely cover the topics which I nominated, and am aiming for a snappy 40minute conversation - do come along if you can! cheers, Privatemusings (talk) 02:10, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
Hi, I would like to know why you removed my Myths and Legends section in the Joan of Arc article, after all they are subject of interest concerning her. Okay, they might be legends rather than confirmed truths but I believe that they are important ones which add charm and appeal to the subject — and I did supply references. The issue of Joan spotting the real Dauphin in a crowd is especially famous and important. Cheers.--Marktreut (talk) 17:43, 19 May 2008 (UTC)
As I explained on the article talk page, none of it was adequately referenced and none of it was in the version that passed featured article candidacy. As I also stated, it bears a strong resemblance to linkspam. If there are further questions you would like to ask I will gladly respond; please also note that the section was added without discussion.
We used to have a subordinate article called Joan of Arc facts and trivia as a repository for information that was interesting in its own right but not sufficiently significant for the main article. For example, two men in France fought a duel over her honor more than four centuries after her death. One of Misplaced Pages's anti-trivia executioners lopped out most of its content and retitled the stump Name of Joan of Arc, which was about all that was left. I suggest you check out the history of those pages and maybe rework the section I removed (with better sourcing) into some new subordinate article along those lines. Durova20:13, 19 May 2008 (UTC)
People like you are taking all the fun out of contributing to Misplaced Pages. You're the fourth so-called editor who has undone my well-meaning work and, I think, based on good grounds, in the past month. This is getting past a joke.--Marktreut (talk) 13:13, 20 May 2008 (UTC)
Because we're seeing a little too many of these "routine editorial discussions" lately. They're not even discussions: the editors simply take out everyting you put in and will not accept compromises. Like I say, they are taking the fun out of wikipedia.--Marktreut (talk) 23:08, 20 May 2008 (UTC)
Your conduct isn't following site norms. I left adequate edit notes and followed up on the article talk page. Then I followed up there--exactly where editorial discussion ought to take place. I have been swift and forthcoming with all relevant information and suggested alternatives. You have bypassed normal editorial discussion and acted unilaterally. You say you have had difficult interactions with four different editors recently. Perhaps these difficulties are of your own making. Durova01:55, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
The difficulties are editors who are making wikipedia more restrictive than enjoyable. Cards on the table: these Myths and Legends are part of Joan of Arc's appeal and are mentioned in many history books. What exactly have you got against them and what will convince you to let them stay?--Marktreut (talk) 17:57, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
I will gladly continue this discussion on the article talk page. Please post your question there. Durova18:15, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
A request...
It was suggested by fellow WP:USRD editors that I ask you to help copy edit my current FAC, M-35 (Michigan highway). Any assistance would be appreciated. Imzadi1979 (talk) 00:16, 20 May 2008 (UTC)
Betacommand etc
Hi Durova. I have just replied to you on this thread on AN and wanted to make absolutely sure you saw. I made a mess of it last time, so I thought I should let you know properly this time! Sam Korn13:17, 20 May 2008 (UTC)
Yes I had a question about the nature of Eleemosynary's block. I was informed that you had fully self-identified. (I now see that my understanding of this was flawed.) I brought the issue to the blocker, and then to a wider community for input. I have no axe to grind against you, on the contrary, your contributions to the project seem quite useful. Rather I would simply like to see Eleemosynary, who has been a useful member of our project, rejoin. It seems like the issues can be resolved to mutual satisfaction, even though there are strong feelings involved.Wjhonson (talk) 17:44, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
Thank you. I wouldn't object to an unblock if he promises not to do the same thing again. Suggest you consult with JzG and Swatjester regarding the insults he posted after the block. Durova18:35, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
Case study
Sorry for using your situation as a case study with Steve's coaching. I figured it was recent enough and documented enough that it could help him learn that many things around here involve shades of meaning and nuanced decisions. And well I am a business major and we do love case studies as teaching methods :) MBisanz20:20, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
It's a difficult example to take on, due to the signal to noise ratio of the case. I'm not offended, thanks. :) Durova20:55, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
Harris Coulter
You, MartinPhi, and I have previously worked on the Harris Coulter bio, and it seems ready for prime time. What are you waiting for? Curious minds want to know. With appreciation... DanaUllman23:51, 22 May 2008 (UTC)
Not the Misplaced Pages Weekly
On 24 May 2008, 17:00 (UTC), Not the Misplaced Pages Weekly will host a special episode on start-up Wikipedias in African languages, and other information on Misplaced Pages around the world, with special guest: Gerard Meijssen of OmegaWiki, and the World Language Documentation Centre Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 00:33, 23 May 2008 (UTC)
The title says it all; I thought you might be interested, given your advocacy for more mentorship in RfA. I'd like your feedback before I propose it formally in the future. Best and friendly regards, – Thomas H. Larsen23:58, 23 May 2008 (UTC)
Counting reversions
I think someone in the NTWW chat room showed us a tool that counts number of times an editor has been reverted. I stupidly did not make note of it. Am I imagining this? Does such a tool exist? Thanks.--Filll (talk | wpc) 17:19, 24 May 2008 (UTC)
Also, if I recall correctly you were somewhere in the vicinity of California's fires in the not-to-distant past. As I have seen on the news that the states is experiencing new fires, I hope that you, your friends, and family are all safe. Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles23:27, 24 May 2008 (UTC)
Thank you very much. My county isn't having problems this time around. I appreciate your concern very much. Durova02:01, 25 May 2008 (UTC)
rammedearth.info
hello,
i hope i am talking to the right person, recently my website was blacklisted and i did not know why.
i had put my website www.rammedearth.info on the rammed earth page. it was removed so i put it up and it was removed again.
Was someone maliciously removing my site? a Competitor? i didn't know so i continued to re-post. i only posted on pages related to environmental building and rammed earth.
then found out my site was blacklisted and had no idea why, in my ignorance.
since i have researched this more on wiki, i realize i shouldn't have put my link there.
what i don't understand why no one would e-mail me with a courtesy warning it is on my website instead of going through the trouble of editing my posts.
i only discovered the posted wiki warning today, not much good.
sorry for any trouble to anyone, how can i get off the blacklist? i do not want to be on any blacklists, it's bad energy.
The Bellwether account was opened a bit after I vanished. I had vanished due to RL concerns that are no longer a problem. Thus, on the advice of an administrator I'm friendly with, I was redirecting both my talk and my userpage to the page of my formerly vanished account. Is that a problem in some way? BobTheTomato (MrWhich) (talk) 12:39, 25 May 2008 (UTC)
Hi, Suddenly we're filling a gap in the weekly SignpostDispatch section with an article on Featured Sounds, and I'll have to do it within a day. I'm contacting several people on the history page, you among them, who might be able to review the draft (I hope it will be written in about 12 hours' time). Can you suggest anyone else? Do you know anyone who's been around from the start, who might know more about the history of the page? I guess I can find it via the edit histories. TONY(talk)04:28, 27 May 2008 (UTC)
Have you tried Zginder? He spends a lot of time there. I'm a newcomer to that area. I think Raul654 has done some featured sounds also. Durova07:36, 27 May 2008 (UTC)
Video clip as FP?
Hi, Durova, I've seen you nominated a video clip to be considered as FP. I wonder, if I could nominate one of my personal video clips at Misplaced Pages FP too. Thank you.--Mbz1 (talk) 01:40, 28 May 2008 (UTC)
Yes, it can on en:Misplaced Pages (although not on Commons--different rules there). I'd love to see your clip. Link, please? Durova07:13, 29 May 2008 (UTC)
Ah, the sinkhole. I wish everybody who posted there just saved their time and did real admin coaching. How many changes ever got implemented because of that page? How many more good sysops would we have if we all mentored instead? Durova10:43, 29 May 2008 (UTC)
Giovanni33 ArbCom
Hi Durova, sorry to bother you if you're on a break now, but I was wondering if you might take a look at some new evidence I presented at the Giovanni33 ArbCom case (see here). You've commented there but have basically been neutral, and I know you no small experience in these sockpuppet cases. If you're too busy or just don't want to get any deeper involved in a tedious case then no worries.--Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs01:43, 29 May 2008 (UTC)
Whew, tall order. The case will probably stay open a little longer--I've got some commitments to make good on. Please poke me if I neglect this. Durova10:42, 29 May 2008 (UTC)
I've added some new proposals to the workshop page in this case and thus append this one-and-only "poke" on this issue to your talk page. Honestly I feel a bit bad even bothering you about this again, but the whole case does seem somewhat up your alley and you're definitely a fairly objective yet informed observer when it comes to the specifics. The community-wide drama level on this case is, relatively speaking, fairly low which is mad nice. I'd be interested in your view if you have some time, and if you're too busy now then please don't think twice about it. --Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs09:54, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
I hope so. One of the hardest things to do is to realize, after you've stuck your neck out sufficiently far, that you've done it for the wrong purpose. It's embarrassing and it's very tempting to bluster on ignoring whatever contradicts the things you've already chosen to believe as true. Easy to call other people on that--but so hard to actually call oneself and make the change. Durova10:41, 29 May 2008 (UTC)
Which is one reason I always try to refer to community actions as 'we'. No one is perfect, and NOT taking things personally even when they are meant that way is often very very difficult, but ultimately helpful in keeping a good outlook. Hope you have a great day. --Rocksanddirt (talk) 14:45, 29 May 2008 (UTC)
You too. And I promise the next time I'm wrong I'll own up to it again and try to set things right (can't promise to be perfect so this is the best I can do). :) Durova17:45, 29 May 2008 (UTC)
Well, actually I've asked Relata Refero to hold off from logging this in the list of bans just yet. Despite the outcome being obvious here, there are some longer term considerations that make it a good idea to allow more time in the interests of fairness and precedent. It hasn't been 24 hours. Durova20:30, 29 May 2008 (UTC)
The speed at which that happened worries me slightly. Althought I belive its definitely the correct thing to do, there should have been more time in order to make it stick properly. Viridae22:29, 29 May 2008 (UTC)
Good idea!
I think this idea you've raised about transcluding blocked users' talk pages to their AN/I threads in certain cases is a pretty good one, just stopping by to cheer you up with that opinion! Have a nice day! --tiny plastic Grey Knight⊖10:27, 29 May 2008 (UTC)
PS: if you do find anyone who can put more hours in the day, please put me in touch with them!
Wish I could call it my own idea. Very clever thing someone came up with a bit over a year ago. I'm just filling the role of institutional memory. Yet thank you very much. If that helps, it's worth it. :) Durova10:45, 29 May 2008 (UTC)
Great Quote
"Common sense says the camel's back has broken, and we can put our straws to better use sipping lemonade as we return to building the encyclopedia." Laughed out loud. :-) ATren (talk) 15:18, 29 May 2008 (UTC)
Group of editors (including admin) coordination continues to disgrace Misplaced Pages
A group of editors has been working together on Jonathan Wells (intelligent design advocate) and related articles for years to preserve highly biased articles like this BLP. Some intervention from a high level may be needed. They seem to prefer a hatchet job to presenting the facts in a neutral manner. They work together to oppose reasonable attempts to make the articles NPOV, seeming to be uninterested in other viewpoints, or in attempts to point out statements in the articles that are not supported by the citations, etc. These editors coordinate using power plays to enforce the over-the-top version they like. Critics' perspectives are presented as core material (even in the introduction), claims are made which go beyond even what a critic said in a source, etc. It's the best example I know of perhaps Misplaced Pages's main weakness - articles at the fringes of Misplaced Pages are sometimes so far from NPOV that they are absurd and disgraceful, because not enough neutral people care enough about them to make them decent. -Exucmember (talk) 07:23, 30 May 2008 (UTC)
The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : Issue XXVII (May 2008)
The May 2008 issue of the Military history WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you. This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 00:28, 3 June 2008 (UTC)
Improved procedures for unblocking editors
I can't find it anymore, but at one time there was a "second chance" procedure whereby an editor who has blocked for more than a year could ask for a second chance. The template {{Second_chance}} still exists, but it is only useful to editors whose talk page hasn't been protected.
Here's something that might work:
Have a bot that:
When a block is over a year old, mail is restored, the user's talk page is unprotected, and the user gets an email notifying him of the second-chance procedures, with the caveat that he is ineligible if he's edited at all in the preceding 12 months. The log files will indicate that these unblockings were automated.
When a user is blocked, all known socks have their clock restarted.
For people who are blocked for non-global reasons, such as edit warring on particular articles, letting them come back sooner with parole restrictions is a lot more sensible. Arbcom should do this as a matter of routine.
Durova, any input from you would be highly appreciated. Sorry to bother you with this, but you're the one person whose judgement both LGRdC and me fully trust. I'm ready and willing to follow your advice whatever it entails. And yes, I already know that the way I commented there is not fruitful. But I don't see any fruitful, constructive way for myself to deal with this issue. I just think it's wrong to oppose RfA candidates over perceived deletionist tendencies when you are yourself a strong inclusionist. Moreover, the AfDs linked to from the respective RfAs more often than not contain very agreeable, policy-conforming comments by the RfA candidate, many of whom later succeed to become admins, or fail for more or less totally different reasons. To that effect, I think a list of RfAs where LGRdC opposed over AfD participation (some of which I didn't participate in, IIRC) would be far more useful. I'm going to compose that list. dorftrottel (talk) 16:17, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
Here is a list of the RfAs that are most suited to illustrate my point of view: Blueboy96_3, OverlordQ, Abd_2 (LGRdC supporting), Lawrence_Cohen (LGRdC neutral), EyeSerene (LGRdC switching from oppose to neutral), VanTucky_2 (LGRdC opposing), Thingg (particularly telling support by LGRdC), Avraham RfB 2 (neutral in an RfB over a year-old AfD, for crying out loud), Vivio_Testarossa (LGRdC opposing).
All in all, I think I'll have to amend my point that, from my perspective, this is about LGRdC opposing for highly doubtful reasons, he occasionally supports for such reasons, too. All in all, the only thing he appears to vote on is the candidate's inclusionist/deletionist tendency as LGRdC perceives it. The reason I despise this is that anyone could very similarly vote based exclusively on e.g. the candidate's stance on science, or, more hilariously, on RfAs ('candidate opposed too often'). I'm somewhat distressed by LGRdC's apparent unwillingness to move away from his stance so much as one inch, even when faced with valid reasoning. He's gaming the system to a degree I find highly disruptive. Also note that he employs tactics like basing keep votes on GFDL concerns, which he probably picked up somewhere and found is a useful tool to keep articles. He does not care about GFDL concerns at all. He just has his agenda, and stops at almost nothing to push it through, especially not passive-aggressive behaviour. Without much success, but with too much success as it is imo, given the average validity of his reasoning vs. other people's reasoning. Not only is he unwilling to understand the issues others take with the way he aggressively wants to keep most things, he opposes them at RfA, even where their AfD comments were nothing but 100% valid and should have given LGRdC a pause instead. He's not participating based on the candidate's trustability with the admin tools, like e.g. Kurt Weber does. That's disruptive to the RfA process, and I'm afraid if tolerated, it will help transform RfA to an exercise in pure soapboxing and battling.
I'm not saying that my own RfA participation is anything near perfect, quite to the contrary, but I participate based on a variety of things, with the final goal being imho coherent with what RfA should be doing: Evaluate the candidate's trustability. And that does not entail my personal agreement with the candidate's stance on things like deletion. I have emphatically supported candidate's I almost never agree with on anything, some of whom I even dislike personally, simply because there was no intellectually justifiable reason to oppose them. I am also capable of some ambiguity tolerance, as shown e.g. in WBOSITG_2, where I supported, but simultaneously defended Kurt Weber from being badgered.
LGRdC's RfA participation is disruptive because he doesn't recognise what RfA is about and what it is not about. The warning in Tanthalas' RfA that he is making himself ridiculous actually expresses my hopes — I do hope that Misplaced Pages is not so weak a system as to tolerate this abuse of it's processes. But the most hilarious footnote for me personally is that LGRdC does not realise that I am occasionally intentionally assuming the bad boy role, e.g. when I do have legitimate concerns but know there's no way changing a particular user's opinion with any amount of nice words and impeccable reasoning. I do that because it affords others, genuinely good guys, to come in and tell me off while at the same time rephrasing my very concerns. This has frequently worked with people like LGRdC. They won't listen to me, but when others join in, they can change their stance without losing their face before an arrogant dogmatist like myself; they can think I'm a jackass and peacefully accept my reasoning. dorftrottel (talk) 17:45, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
It's inaccurate and unfair to just take a select few choice RfAs, as the big picture matters and the big picture is that I argue to support or oppose for a variety of reasons when looking at the totality of my RfA participation. I also allow the candidates to persuade me otherwise and am open-minded to what happens during the discussion and have changed my stance many times now. I'm just not sure what to make of the above, given Dorftrottel's obviously unconstructive approach to RfAs: per , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , etc., which have received and in response. Not to mention so many other similar edits elsewhere: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , etc. Conisdering the civility and personal attack blocks to his various IPs and accounts (see , , , , , , , , , , etc.), I'm just not sure if I'm being trolled or how all of this subsequent incivility even in the face of warnings and cautions is able to continue. If my RfA participation were so horrible, so many editors would not have responded as they did at , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , etc. As far as me being an inclusionist, well, we are here to build a paperless encyclopedia that combines general and specialized encyclopedias as well as almanacs aren't we? And I argue to delete a diverse range of things: hoaxes, how tos, original research, and other unconstructive stuff. It would be nice if those critical of myself and other inclusionists would argue to keep as many articles as I argue or nominate to delete. Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles19:33, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
I did in fact suggest a Skype conference with you as mediator already, and still think it would be the best possible option. Right now, I'd like to hear your opinion about those RfA comments. As outlined, I think there's a very negative pattern there. If you don't think there's anything wrong with the way LGRdC frequently supports and esp. opposes, then I'll defer to your judgement and leave it be. I think right now LGRdC is afraid to learn that not everything about his comments is perfectly fine, so he declines mediation. // Wow, and I only just noticed that he actually calls me a troll right above. Now it's getting really nice. He constantly refuses to react with anything resembling actual reasoning, he never shows any insight into his own behaviour whatsoever, and now he calls me a troll because he knows he has no reasoning to offer, only honesty and open self-reflection, which understandably threatens him in his defence mechanisms. ...troll... Truly hilarious, coming from someone who holds what must be the all-time record of 88 (that's eighty-eight) postings to a single AfD discussion. dorftrottel (talk) 01:17, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
I respect both of you, for different reasons and in different ways, and hope there's a venue or means that could bring you together harmoniously. Skype appears unlikely to work out. Would you consider formal mediation? Durova07:05, 6 June 2008 (UTC)
Generally speaking, yes of course. But since this is not a content but rather a 'meta' dispute, I'm not sure where to start. I was hoping for an outside opinion, to get LGRdC into anything resembling an actual, open discussion. I've tried it before, but was always left with the impression that he was actually doing everything to avoid an actual intellectual exchange, always avoiding a situation where he may be logically pinpointed to the imho very relevant question of why he is doing what he is doing on Misplaced Pages (I've given a hint as to my according suspicion above). He never seems to respond to what is at the core of my concerns about his behaviour. Thus, I think he isn't at all interested in discussing what I want to discuss: His behaviour and the reasons for it. Without that, mediation is pointless. Alternatively, less to my liking, I can try leaving him alone as best I can. But when I see him making outrageously invalid keep votes (as he does on a daily basis) or opposing RfAs based on legitimate AfD participation by the candidate, I cannot guarantee that I won't give him some very honest feedback every once a while. dorftrottel (talk) 07:31, 6 June 2008 (UTC)
If I may interject (considering I noticed this on my watchlist and it's late so I'm bored :p), I've also had cases where I've been drawn into similar discussions concerning LGRdC's RfA !votes and AfD philosophy, and frankly, it's like talking to a wall. A recent discussion is this one in which he's basically running around the point every other is expressing and repeating the same point over and over again or placing a giant wall of irrelevant links. I originally contested his AfD !votes but I know abstain from doing so because it leads to a circular discussion that leads nowhere. My honest recommendation is simply to let it go, as you're not going to convince him to stop doing so, and the closing 'crat can laugh at how ludicrous it is when closing the RfA. And even if formal mediation was gained, I don't think you would be able to get anything out of it either, as you probably would be entertaining another endless circular discussion. I do realize it's frustrating but let it go. Sephiroth BCR09:28, 6 June 2008 (UTC)
You have no idea how good it is to hear that someone shares both my concerns and experiences. Ok then, I'll continue to do my best to ignore him (but as I said I simply can't promise I won't react from time to time, as rarely as I can). dorftrottel (talk) 09:38, 6 June 2008 (UTC)
Oh, and to Durova, a couple of nominations (including mine) have been sitting at WP:CROWN/NOM for quite a while now :p (maybe hire a clerk or two to expedite the process?) Sephiroth BCR09:34, 6 June 2008 (UTC)
Thank you
For your well-written comments at the RCC FAC. I had been been searching for a graceful way to make those very points. I had succeeded earlier, but the re-start did not help me find grace this time. --Relata refero (disp.) 09:11, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
It's difficult, and thank you. So much work, and a very important subject. It would be wonderful to have a featured article there, and I hope the participants aren't discouraged. What they're undertaking is very much worth doing. Durova15:31, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
RCC FAC
I plan to do some more photo uploads to work on the Kodiak article later this summer. Right now I have photos on some pages of Misplaced Pages but they could be improved, I would like to keep your name for possible advice in the future if thats ok with you? NancyHeise (talk) 22:55, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
Thanks again. Here's a question: with my most recent restoration (the Louis Brandeis portrait) I've gotten in touch with Brandeis University to see whether they'd like to request a date for the main page. Maybe something with their university or his life would be especially meaningful. How would I pursue that, once I hear back from them? Best, Durova23:02, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
ArbCom
Thanks for the heads up - I hadn't caught the comment, although I saw the AfD participation. I think I will sit this one out and just watch, unless I am further implicated / accused. And, for those who watch such things, I have never communicated off wiki with Durova, and am responding to a notice that I was mentioned in an requ for arbitration.
You seem to get dragged into these sorts of conflicts with some regularity, and to always handle yourself with poise. I hope this gets worked out. Pastordavid (talk) 13:30, 6 June 2008 (UTC)
Yes, and thank you, Durova, for taking care of this situation. I assumed this was a new user, who was overwhelmed and frustrated. I only wanted to calm him down and I contacted Pastordavid because he has helped me before with an editor, who was slightly troubling, but then it was a matter of a very opinionated, but otherwise highly educated and intelligent person, while this case seems very very different. I apologize for any part I had in prolonging this. Merzul (talk) 17:40, 6 June 2008 (UTC)
No need for apologies; what you did was a kindness. Thank you for your good faith and helpfulness. This fellow had been quite successful at flying under the radar, so the red flags weren't obvious. Durova18:38, 6 June 2008 (UTC)
JFK motorcade
I'd be happy to help out with the cleanup. I've actually already started, but have only had a quick once-over to remove some of the worst black spots and a wrinkle (I prefer removing the same kind of problem throughout the whole picture to working intensively on one area). If you've had a chance to do significant work, I'm willing to ditch mine and work with yours. TBH, after working on it a bit, I'm not 100% sure it's worth it (i.e. the end result still might not be great), but I enjoy the challenge. :-) I prefer not to put my email addy in my profile, but you can reach me here, on my talk page, or at mderes1224 at rogers dot com. Matt Deres (talk) 14:24, 7 June 2008 (UTC)
Let me know if I can be of assistance too, I am busy the next few days but then I have a few days of downtime. Mfield (talk) 14:33, 7 June 2008 (UTC)
Thanks. It's saved on another computer right now. We've got two basic ways we could do this: trading e-mail attachments or loading successive files to Commons. Would prefer the latter because I'm building an image restoration tutorial at Wikibooks. So far I've worked mostly on spot removal, more intensively in some regions than others. Been doing the healing brush in default settings and 4-8 pixel selection samples at low resolution (200%). Soon as I get to the machine that has the file I'll upload. :) Durova16:40, 7 June 2008 (UTC)
That sounds fine by me; just let me know where they ought to go. Do we just upload and put the thumbnail in the original request page? My work is still very preliminary at this point; this is not a restoration to attempt in one sitting ;). Matt Deres (talk) 17:59, 7 June 2008 (UTC)
This message is being sent to all opposers of the Roman Catholic Church FAC. Thank you for taking the time to come see the page and give us your comments. I apologize for any drama caused by my imperfect human nature. As specified in WP:FAC, I am required to encourage you to come see the page and decide if your oppose still stands. Ceoil and others have made changes to prose and many edits have been made to address FAC reviewers comments like yours. Thank you. NancyHeise (talk) 23:54, 7 June 2008 (UTC)
"Jew Crew" as hate speech
Dear Durova, I tried to have a reasonable discussion with user Cush about his use of the phrase "Jew Crew," explaining myself in full, but it seems he has no respect for the point of view that Jews should not be universally grouped as nationalist fanatics. See the Jerusalem talk page as well as Cush's talk page. Do you know what to do about hate speech? Can you tell me how to address this? Thanks, LamaLoLeshLa (talk) 03:01, 8 June 2008 (UTC)
Yeah, that's over the line. Particularly his aggressive response to feedback. Recommend a report to ANI. Durova03:17, 8 June 2008 (UTC)
Thanks, dear Durova but no need for thanking me. This sort of thing is a civic duty. I can't stand language like that in any form, and am surprised that some highly educated, otherwise acutely intelligent people can shrug it off lightly. One of my ancestors was a 'terrorist', in that he was chosen to kill the foreigner who appropriated his people's land. Another was an imperialist who poisoned the natives whose land he stole. We were raised as children on these facts, as a monitory lesson on the evils of race prejudice, national cant and the insidiousness of any form of put-down. As a boy I read extensively holocaust memoirs and literature, that made me get even more physically agitated by anything like this (or this Gideon Levy, ‘One swift kick’, Haaretz 6/6/2008). Best regards Nishidani (talk) 21:11, 8 June 2008 (UTC)
Unprotecting Potential superpowers
Hey Durova, could you please unblock Potential superpowers. That dispute on the talk page has been resolved and a new improved, better sourced ediition has been created and is waiting to be added to the page. Full unprotection or semii-protection would both work well. There is simply no need for the protection, as things have simmered down. --Hobie Hunter (talk) 17:47, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
Okay, as soon as I pass WP:RFA. ;) Seriously, suggest you head to WP:RFPP and file there. I don't have the ops to help. I'm glad things have calmed down. Durova17:57, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
Ah, I put that there to inform others that discussion is still going on, but at another page. It says on the WP:ANI page: When moving long threads to a subpage, add a link to the subpage and sign without a timestamp: "~~~"; this prevents premature archiving. Move to Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents/{{Name of ANI Topic}}. Also consider adding/updating a status tag (e.g. {{unresolved}}).. I never really looked at the discussion at all, I just shifted it to a subpage as it was over 50kb. If you want to remove the tag, I won't mind. Go ahead and do it, no hard feelings. Thanks, D.M.N. (talk) 08:52, 13 June 2008 (UTC)
I'm taking your advice and taking up issues with your mentoree, User:Jaakobou, with you here directly. I'm bringing this here to you and not to him directly to avoid a direct confrontation that may quickly turn heated. No, no rules have been broken, but there's something I think you should have a word about with him:
In the discussion on Gaza beach blast (2006) (here), I offered a compromise on one wording issue (here) to avoid a long and unproductive discussion. Jaakobou's answer to this offer was triumphalism (here). Trumpeting my agreement to disagree as an admission of defeat, as he did, is not the way to lead a productive, civilized discussion. This especially since he takes me to task for supposed incivility already in his second post to the same thread.
Please have a word with him about what language to avoid in discussion if he does not want to appear to be taunting or unrespectful. I'll WP:AGF and attribute it to his unfamiliarity with the English language.
I'm kind of used to this coming from him, so I don't usually take the bait, but this is what starts heated edit-wars and personal attacks and should therefore be avoided at all costs. Perhaps you could ask him to strike that comment and apologise?
Cheers, kind regards and many thanks for your time, pedrito - talk - 13.06.2008 09:25
I've talked with him about this. Looks like you're both near wit's end with each other. Aside from the ongoing mediation, how about a mutual week's break from the articles where you're both editing actively? A gentleman's agreement: get some fresh air, go to the movies, etc. and both return in better form. Sounds fair? Durova16:46, 13 June 2008 (UTC)
Hi Durova,
Thank you for your intervention. I think a break would be an excellent idea. I do note, however, that your mentoree has neither stricken his comments nor apologised. I know this is not in his habits, but for the good of the debate there, I would strongly suggest he do so.
Cheers and thanks, pedrito - talk - 17.06.2008 06:13
I'd like to claim a Triple Crown for Creatures of Impulse: DYK through GA and on to FA in one month, two days. Main co-collaborator: User:Ssilvers, but hey, I think I count for this DYK, as I did start the article and brought it up to length mostly alone, though Ssilvers' assistance for GA and FA cannot be ignored. Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 19:01, 13 June 2008 (UTC)
OTRS image stuff
I saw your comment about the images and OTRS at ANI, and I must admit I am confused. I thought that OTRS was for the copyright holder to confirm details, not for Misplaced Pages editors to submit "confirmation details" that should be discussed on-wiki if publically available. How do OTRS volunteers confirm that the information they receive is correct? Carcharoth (talk) 09:29, 14 June 2008 (UTC)
I've known of at least one other instance where a Misplaced Pages volunteer assisted a copyright holder in filing an OTRS. Not being OTRS myself, I can't give you the full ins and outs of that. But in that other instance it eventually led to a long Commons discussion that concluded the OTRS ticket was wrong. An honest misunderstanding: the fellow had been given republication permission from the actual copyright owner and neither he nor the Misplaced Pages volunteer understood the difference between that and a rights transfer. Durova16:34, 14 June 2008 (UTC)
Thanks for agreeing to tackle this photograph. How is it going so far? My image editing skillset isn't exactly robust, but I'd love to see the progress you've made and see if I can't help finish the tedious task of cleaning it up. Please upload your version to the commons or send it to me via e-mail. Regards, ˉˉ╦╩01:01, 17 June 2008 (UTC)
The nomination of the above article was archived by the Featured Articles Director, with the comment that the page had again grown too long. He has asked that all remaining objectors produce a list of their specific problems with the article in its current form. These will then be addressed by the article's editorial team before re-presentation for FA status.
Can you therefore please post a complete list of any specific remaining objections you may have on the article's talk page at: Talk:Roman_Catholic_Church. If possible can we have this list in by the end of June, so that editors can begin to address them all in detail in July. To prevent the nomination again becoming over-long, we would ask that you raise ALL of your remaining concerns at this stage, making your comments as specific and comprehensive as possible. It would help if all your comments were gathered under your name in a single heading on the page. Thank you. Xandar (talk) 01:09, 17 June 2008 (UTC)
Hi Durova, I hope your resting break is helping. If you come back nice and refreshed and ready to retackle another difficult topic then I hope you'll take a look at the Roman Catholic church article. I'm operating on a potentially stupid incorrect assumption that part of the problems in the history section of that article might be that it just goes into way too much detail. If we can strip that section down to the basics, it might be tight enough to help us get to NPOV more easily. I'm working solely within what is already in the article (no new sources), and I've managed to cut about 30% of what I consider fluff already. Since you have experience in Catholic history topics I hoped you might be able to take a look at my working proposal and make further cuts, restore data that might be necessary, or make other suggestions for improvements. I'm asking a few other editors with interest in pieces of Catholic history to do the same, and after a while of mulling it over I'll present it as a proposal at the RCC talk page. Karanacs (talk) 15:42, 17 June 2008 (UTC)
Re: Your mentoree
Re-posting from above to get your attention.
Hi Durova,
Thank you for your intervention. I think a break would be an excellent idea. I do note, however, that your mentoree has neither stricken his comments nor apologised. I know this is not in his habits, but for the good of the debate there, I would strongly suggest he do so.
Cheers and thanks, pedrito - talk - 17.06.2008 06:13
How about "for the good of the debate" you let it die, Pedro? Pressuring Durova and Jaaka to win points like this is seriously gaming. Kyaa the Catlord (talk) 06:10, 18 June 2008 (UTC)
Ideally we shouldn't be looking to score points, just to move forward collaboratively and build an encyclopedia. Durova20:17, 18 June 2008 (UTC)
Hi Durova, this is not a cheap shot to score points, as Kyaa has insinuated. As I have pointed out above, it is not exactly me who is trying to score on the sly. User:Jaakobou has to learn how to avoid inflaming a discussion -- a lesson which includes striking out comments and apologising. Cheers, pedrito - talk - 19.06.2008 06:18
Cheap or not, the one-up/one-down approach isn't the most productive avenue. Forgive me if lack of in-depth familiarity of the subject occasionally blinds me to subtle digs. I've been in enough editing disputes to understand how an intentionally disruptive editor will make statements that look reasonable to passers-by but are really outrageous to people who understand the context. I just don't actually see the aspect that's given you offense. In other conversations Jaakobou has demonstrated his willingness to retract improper statements (and better still, is increasingly getting feedback in advance to ensure his posts are appropriate in the first place). I ask you to trust that he's doing his best and take no offense where none is intended. If there's something significant that's going over my head about this particular exchange, I'm all ears, yet I often ask Jaakobou to let the small stuff slide and assume good faith. That seems to be the case here, near as I can tell. Durova06:55, 19 June 2008 (UTC)
Hi Durova and thanks for the quick reply.
This has nothing to do with content, but everything to do with tone and leading a productive discussion. In order to avoid a long and fruitless edit war, I offered a compromise on a wording issue by agreeing to disagree with User:Jaakobou (here). This compromise offer was immediately trumpeted as an admission of defeat on my behalf (here) and User:Jaakobou proceeded to edit this change into the article and continue warring on the other parts of it (here).
In summary, I offer to let his wording be and just leave the article alone -- the essence of conceding a point to avoid a conflict -- and he takes the wording (immediately effecting the change), plays it as an admission of defeat on my behalf, and does not take the rest of the deal (i.e. "leave the article alone").
Again, this has nothing to do with content and everything to do with behaviour and is symptomatic of most of my interactions with Jack. Yes, his style has been getting better, but as long as things like this keep on happening, productive discussions will continue to be very difficult.
Cheers and thanks for your time, pedrito - talk - 19.06.2008 07:28
P.S. To use your wording: I am the one who "let the small stuff slide" here... What bothers me is Jack's reaction thereto. pedrito - talk - 19.06.2008 07:32
Ed Johnston's comment about sourcing looks like the most salient argument in the discussion. To bad it's neither supported nor refuted. Borderline edit warring probably isn't bannable, but misuse of sources is. Durova20:20, 18 June 2008 (UTC)
Uh, have you seen my argument? I refute the very weak argument by Ed, by pointing out that once the book was criticized, Molobo added a new source (from the city's official pages), and the fact is verified by several Polish (non-fiction) book. Also, nobody has so far presented any proof that the alleged fragment is from a fiction book (there are just editors claiming it is, but nobody provided a link to a book review or such).--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk 04:39, 19 June 2008 (UTC)
You know what? A firsthand statement from Molobo would be a lot more meaningful. Back at WP:CSN we used to use a transclusion template so that blocked editors could present a statement and evidence to a community sanctions discussion. That's been done a couple of times at AN and ANI lately (most notably with DreamGuy) and I think it would be a healthy development all around if that became more of a standard practice. Not much of a code monkey myself, but you could probably nick the template from a CSN discussion and put it to use here. How does that solution strike you? Durova07:03, 19 June 2008 (UTC)
I am not sure I understand how it would work. If he emails me a statement, I could just paste it somewhere with attribution, although he should still be able to edit his talkpage, I believe, so there is even no need for that...? --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk 17:20, 19 June 2008 (UTC)
The template automatically transcludes a statement from his talk page to the specific discussion about a potential ban. This would allow him to post additional evidence and respond to concerns actively, without placing him at automatic disadvantage within the discussion. Despite the bad rap CSN got (much of which was undeserved), it was actually an innovative place that worked toward making sanctions more mild and equitable, incorporating commonsense notions of fair play. This was one of the cooler things that board did and it would be a good idea to import it. ;) Durova18:09, 19 June 2008 (UTC)
Suggest putting phrases that are directly quoted into quotation marks and introducing the name of the quoted source in article text. Durova22:55, 18 June 2008 (UTC)
Which bits do you think are directly quoted? Does that apply to public domain stuff as well? We don't quote EB 1911 stuff. We just stick a template at the bottom saying it came from there. If you don't have time now, don't worry. I'd prefer a longer answer later, or just a pointer somewhere else if you don't have time. Carcharoth (talk) 23:02, 18 June 2008 (UTC)
I see the ANI thread has expanded somewhat. I'm going to pick a few people from that list and point them here. I'd still be interested in what you think, but it was unfair of me to expect you to have the time to review this, sorry about that. Carcharoth (talk) 07:29, 19 June 2008 (UTC)
Minor BLP
Hi Durova, I'd be interested in your comments on this. I'll not express my views here one way or the other, though they are not hard to discern. Should you decide to comment at the AfD within the next 20 hours, I'm sure you'll note that your views on the subject were solicited externally; otherwise your comments here would be most informative, marginal BLP's with controversial views, dead trees, and all that stuff. Thanks! Franamax (talk) 02:37, 19 June 2008 (UTC)
g'day durova - I thought I'd swing by here because I noticed your interest in Misplaced Pages:Plagiarism, and also because you'll be aware of how hot a potato this issue is, and hopefully might be prepared to offer an independent view. It's bothered me for quite a while that the Giovanni di Stefano article is in some way a violation of the GFDL - the version of 29th December 2007, currently the oldest version in the history, being quite clearly the sum of work by many (it's word for word the same article created by many contributors prior to that date). It now occurs to me that this might in many ways be a very clear example of 'wiki plagiarism' - a sort of 'not really violating copyright, but just plain wrong' situation. I'd love to hear your thoughts.
I think you're aware of the controversies around that article, and the fact that Fred Bauder (for it was he) felt there were legal concerns - this doesn't add up to making this sort of plagiarism ok in my book. My feeling is that the history of both the article and the talk page should be restored as much as possible, but there's no rush with this, and I'd very much like your thoughts on the broader issue first......
I'm not sure how this applies to the plagiarism concept. The way I understood that conflict, it had more to do with pecualiarities in British defamation law. Durova22:44, 19 June 2008 (UTC)
The article conflicts have to do with UK law but the plagiarism issue is completely different, having to do with GDFL law. I would suggest deleting the article and starting again with a stub in order to avoid the issues PM is talking about. Thanks, SqueakBox23:00, 19 June 2008 (UTC)
Is there a chance we could discuss this on Skype maybe, in order to avoid any potential defamation issues for WP? Durova23:32, 19 June 2008 (UTC)
Squeak's idea is a pretty good one, I reckon - although it may be likely to meet resistance elsewhere... both plagiarism and copyvio are certainly pretty strong labels to be thrown around - and I want to be clear that the central issue I'm concerned with is not appropriately attributing credit both where it is legally due (GFDL) and ethically necessary (plagiarism). Squeak is also correct that the legal issues (possible libel, defamation etc.) are separate, and don't negate the need to address the attribution issue properly. I'll hop on Skype to chat further - and I'll drop a short note at Fred's page, the lack of which is a bit of an oversight on my part. cheers, Privatemusings (talk) 00:55, 20 June 2008 (UTC)
I just realized you are eligible for this. Thanks for your contributions over the past several years. (If you don't ant it just trash it) Geoff Plourde (talk) 05:45, 21 June 2008 (UTC)
Hey, I'm pretty new to the featured image business, and you seem to know what you're doing so I'm dropping by with a question. I nominated an image for Featured Picture status (it's the Ivory-billed Woodpeckers) and everything was going fine until I tried to add the FP candidate box to the image. Instead of having an "edit page" button it said "create this page", which it then told me not to do when I clicked on it. Apparently the image is on Commons but not on Misplaced Pages? I'm not even sure if that makes sense, but if you could check it out I would appreciate it. Thanks! Fleagle06:39, 21 June 2008 (UTC)
Right. What you do is put the FPC template on there. It's okay, you can create the page for FPC. Best wishes! Durova20:50, 21 June 2008 (UTC)
You seem to be interested in helping to bring high-quality old non-copywrite protected photos to wikipedia so I thought you might be interested that the smithsonian recently created a Flickr feed for their old photos. You can find it here (http://flickr.com/photos/smithsonian/). Hopefully, this will be of some use to you and to wikipedia. Remember (talk) 16:38, 22 June 2008 (UTC)
Hello Durova, I hope I find you well this fine evening.
some time ago, you made an offer to the ice hockey wikiproject of a special edition Triple Crown if we had five editors earn triple crowns. I realize you are very much backlogged with this project, however I am pleased to report that we have completed this goal. Maxim and myself already have triple crowns related to hockey, while Kim Williams, Nurmsook and Wafulz are each queued up in your nominations page for triple crowns of their own, all three based around hockey articles. As such, I come to you in the hopes of recognizing these four editors, as well as the project as a whole who have combined to contribute a great many FC's, GAs and DYKs and seen the quality of ice hockey articles improve in leaps and bounds in the 2 1/2 years I've been here. Cheers! Resolute04:10, 23 June 2008 (UTC)
I noticed User:Salimfadhley hasn't edited since February, and I've emailed him in case he's not checking the site. Hopefully he'll get the message one way or another. Take care. Fletcher (talk) 01:21, 25 June 2008 (UTC)
BTW,
do you want other people to help out handing 'em out or would you prefer leaving that to yourself alone? I (and others) can hlpe in that way. Cheers, Casliber (talk·contribs) 01:30, 26 June 2008 (UTC)
Thanks, I'd really love it. I've been meaning to get onto that but stuff keeps coming up. Last week I was under the weather and had computer problems. This week people have been asking me for urgent help, plus I'm just discovering someone uploaded large numbers of images to Commons with questionable public domain rationales. Gmail chat or Skype? Durova01:33, 26 June 2008 (UTC)
I am not in a position to talk but will trawl through later and award and mark as done/etc. I'm not much of a chatter online as I am not good at multitasking (or so my other half tells me)...Cheers, Casliber (talk·contribs) 01:47, 26 June 2008 (UTC)
Your post with the satellite image has to be reverted as image has wrong name and localisation (really it is Üüreg Nuur lake out of the Uvs Nuur basin). This image was erased from this page couple times. Bogomolov.PL (talk) 10:01, 27 June 2008 (UTC)
Where do you get that information? Are you saying the NASA description was wrong? I suppose that's possible; please show alternate sources to confirm. Durova10:26, 27 June 2008 (UTC)
Ah, thanks for the heads up. I'm heading to bed; will fix in the morning. Appreciate the help. :) Durova11:11, 27 June 2008 (UTC)
Triple Crown and DYK
Would you have time to look at User talk:Gatoclass? If you pick up the threads from there, you will see criticisms of the Triple Crown award. If people did point out plagiarism in past DYKs (or any other problems with the various meta-awards you administer), would you consider withdrawing them? Your opinion on how things could have been better handled between Blechnic and Gatoclass would also be appreciated. There is stuff hidden in page histories as well, so things on the surface aren't always what they seem. See here, here, here, here, here, here, here and here. I'm sure you get the drift. Blechnic's behaviour wasn't ideal, but people got defensive far too quickly. Carcharoth (talk) 11:34, 27 June 2008 (UTC)
Y Sent. Dorftrottel (criticise) 20:14, April 11, 2008
That's very appreciated, would it help if I threw in a Cessna 310 ride? 
JGHowes - 20:26, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
At Harvard
circa 1910
Hasty Pudding Club
Phi Beta Kappa
Same, cropped
Hi Durova and thanks for the quick reply.
