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.

"I would rather be paid the compliment of being believed sincere… Can I speak plainer? Do not consider me now as an elegant female, intending to plague you, but as a rational creature, speaking the truth from her heart."

- Jane Austen, Pride and Prejudice

---

Interested in potentially featurable images? Help improve existing material from the Wikipedia/Commons archives at User:Durova/Landmark images. Durova^Charge! 18:53, 20 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

---

Israeli-Palestinian conflict disclaimer Yes, I'm a member of Wikipedia: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. Durova^Charge! 18:59, 28 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Durova, I made a large amount of improvements to this article as well. Maybe we can boost it up to good status as well. Best, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 03:12, 17 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The list of notable alumni is large enough to branch off as a separate page. GA reviewers aren't fond of long lists. Without that, it's a start-class article. Although it might be worth pursuing the list as a separate featured list candidate. It's well referenced and has a variety of images. Check into current standards (it's been a while for me) if you're interested and we'll see how this looks. Best regards, Durova^Charge! 08:22, 17 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the reply. A couple of other articles I have focused on are the ones for the films Cloverfield and Alexander. Maybe one of these will pan out. Best, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 01:47, 18 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

After seeing PR's insinuations to Sam Blacketer about me, and then seeing PR refer to me again in his evidence statement, I felt compelled to respond. As I wrote at the evidence talk page, I'd be glad to strikethrough if PR withdraws those insinuations. And I'd still be glad to collaborate with him in uncontroversial areas. Best regards, Durova^Charge! 00:27, 15 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry, Durova, you're in a tight spot. Jaakobou defined the meaning of "mentorship", the mentors business is to make sure the mentee is squeaky clean. That means that he answers questions, you don't tell us he's denied sock-puppeting - he either confesses what he's been doing or he denies it. If the latter, I present my evidence. It's simple enough really. I'll be perfectly happy to collaborate with you in all areas - I'll not pull any stunts. PR^talk 10:04, 17 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for that explanation. Would you modify your evidence to make it clear that I'm pursuing this in good faith? I think Jaakobou is also, but there's such a divide of perspective between the two of you that you might not agree. And by the way, the image of Palestinian cultural history just passed FPC on Commons. They haven't formally promoted it yet, but the voting period has ended and it's obviously passed. Durova^Charge! 10:11, 17 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

(as Jaakobou's mentor Durova would tell us) - it's inappropriate to put words in my mouth. You never contacted me with any of these details and I've only just now started skimming your claims for the first time, now that you've made them available. You don't speak for me; please withdraw the attempt to. Durova^Charge! 00:13, 18 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

PR, I see you've changed your evidence to the case. May I ask you to change your user page as well? If you'll shake cyberhands and move forward cooperatively I'd be glad to strikethrough my own evidence. Apparently you've had bad luck with previous mentorships and that's too bad. Please remember I'm a different person from them and from Jaakobou - just doing my small part to try and help make a bad situation better. Durova^Charge! 17:32, 18 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Several fine people have stepped forwards and offered themselves as my mentor, and the whole collaborative process could work much better than it has done. But beware, despite any slight suspicion of POV you may have about me, I'm more or less rigidly straightforward. I want to see articles reflect either the truth or, at least, what the RSes say on the subject. I'll start making waves again if I think there's been funny business. PR^talk 20:43, 18 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

What do you think of this model: build - criticize - build? The idea is that if you see a problem with an article, first demonstrate your good faith by helping to make the article better in an uncontroversial way. Then raise your criticism. Then continue to show good faith by helping in other uncontroversial ways. That's a working proposal I've made for the Israel-Palestine collaboration project, for everybody to follow. Durova^Charge! 20:52, 18 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Over and over again, I've put good, non-controversial material into articles and had it thrown out. In May I did so and suffered an indef-block because my information might have come from the Holocaust Deniers (I'd neglected to explain that it came from a book in front of me). The action against me was taken by an admin and specialist on the topic, who must have known the truth of what I said (which is currently in the article). Under such circumstances, BCD leads me to show good faith and the next editor (rather often) show bad faith. I don't think the ArbCom has come to grips with this problem. PR^talk 09:29, 19 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

See my additions here. I haven't had a chance to review them yet, but the lists don't seem that comprehensive or well-organised yet (well, the Wikipedia PD resources list is the best one and probably is fairly comprehensive), and there seems to be some overlap and failure of synchronisation between the Wikipedia and Commons lists, but it is a start. Carcharoth (talk) 13:07, 17 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

And sometimes the best way to find new sources of images is to browse through Commons:Category:License tags, and to see what the sources are, and how many of the images have been uploaded (some, of course, are not encyclopedic). Carcharoth (talk) 13:12, 17 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. The Commons PD categories were a big part of how my survey search for FP-worthy material topped 100,000. It was much quicker searching there: Wikimedia categories display up to 200 images at a time. I can only get 20 at a time from the Library of Congress, then there are downloading and licensing issues. I've been putting my Spanish language skills to the test trying to translate relevant passages of Cuban and Panamanian copyright law.

What would you think of initiating a copyright translation drive on Commons? I'd call that a prerequisite to countering systemic bias on historical images. Durova^Charge! 18:49, 17 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That's an interesting question. The LoC page (I've linked it from the image) says "No known restrictions on publication." To be honest, for 1913 pictures, if you didn't know the photographer, that would tend to be enough. I tend to go by the rule of thumb that if no-one now knows the provenance of the pictures (photographer or initial publication), it is unlikely we will ever find out and it is unlikely that anyone living or dead cares any more. Things are more complicated here because the name of the photographer has survived [Thos. (Thomas) Marine], and a copyright date (1913) - though who wrote that is unclear. At the bottom it says "Gift; Mr. Harold L. Jenkins; 1976". Did Mr Jenkins write "Copyright Thos. Marine, 1913, Panama City" on the picture? The story there is probably that the photo somehow made its way into the collection of Mr Jenkins, and he then donated his collection to the Library of Congress. But to get back to the Panama question, I know nothing about whether Panama would be able to restrospectively apply copyright laws to photos taken in 1913. One thing to remember is that (I think) these laws apply to initial publication. If the photo has never been published in the USA, the US PD-laws may not apply. Something else applies - I'm sure you know the thing I'm talking about (don't have a link handy at the moment). But finding out when this photo was first published and where could be difficult, if not impossible. Why not ask at WT:NFCC. Some of the people there seem to know a bit about copyright stuff. Good luck with the translation drive - I'll have to just watch and encourage from the sidelines - I know nest to nothing about languages other than English. Carcharoth (talk) 20:55, 17 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I've posted a query to the Commons and Foundation e-mail lists. Maybe we'll get responses. More generally, these kinds of gaps are a serious obstacle to overcoming systemic bias. Durova^Charge! 21:08, 17 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, and if you weren't aware (I wasn't), most images at the LoC collections do have hi-res versions, even if clicking on the picture doesn't do anything. Have a look at Commons:User talk:Carcharoth (Commons) for more details. Carcharoth (talk) 21:16, 17 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Pfft. You shouldn't have told me about the Commons mailing list! Now I have wikien-l, Wikback and commons-l to keep track of and eventually join... :-) Carcharoth (talk) 21:20, 17 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Actually I'm all too aware of the hi-res versions at LoC. Some of the files I've downsampled and imported to Commons were 150-200 megs when they landed on my computer. Durova^Charge! 21:38, 17 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I've responded to your comments on Silence as consensus with a question. I hope that the timeline I recall is correct. I'm also wondering if the wording at what ignore all rules means might need further elucidation. --Kim Bruning (talk) 15:02, 17 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oof, I was um, somewhat dissapointed, in your reply, as you will see when you read what I have to say about it. I'm sure you're acting in good faith, but perhaps we should use some real time communications system (like irc or skype) to do a bit more postmortem. That would be a good idea indeed, I think. --Kim Bruning (talk) 20:51, 17 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Kim, I have never used IRC. Contrary to the rumors, I've always shunned communications methods that had overtones of cabalism. The cyberstalking list was an exception I made because I actually dealt with very serious problems and my previous response, which had been to be fully forthcoming on Wikipedia, had worsened the problem. It takes about five minutes on Google to spot the tip of that iceberg. I didn't enable e-mail until my RFA when another editor demanded it. My e-mail is still enabled and you're welcome to use it. Durova^Charge! 21:06, 17 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I would like to use a real-time system. Do you have any of irc, skype, or msn or aim? My preference is skype or phone , especially if you are not accustomed to text chat. --Kim Bruning (talk) 21:42, 17 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I have just sent you e-mail. Real time comms systems are a poor substitute for meeting face-to-face, but it will have to do as long as humanity hasn't invented macro-size teleporters yet. --Kim Bruning (talk) 21:46, 17 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I have temporarily removed the section of our conversation until we have had time to talk using a real time comms system. I reserve the right to place the text back, if necessary. --Kim Bruning (talk) 21:51, 17 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Now I know it is my opinion and I WP:AGF but I feel the admin is too in the hurry to perform his admin duties. This is the second time it happned and the admin himself stated, "Sorry for the delay in responding Igor _ I have been busy at my real life working." User_talk:Igorberger#Andy_Beard_AfD Once with Social_Network_Aggregation related duplicate page and now with closing Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Andy_Beard and deleting Andy Beard. Now it is not about the article but what was the hurry to delete it and not give it the full 5 days? Please advise, Igor Berger (talk) 07:39, 18 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Durova,

I noticed you added an ‘Edited by Durova’ to some recent historical FP images on the Wikipedia:Featured pictures/History page. What some people do is add an 'Edited by...' to the Author section on the image description; see here for example. Without that it's not necessarily obvious it's been edited, especially when there's no note on the description page about what's been done or whatever. Often it's not mentioned during the FPC nom either. If I’m closing them and see that note I’ll put in the “Edited by” with the FP credit (and give you a credit on your talkpage as well, as for the Carpenter). I can’t speak for other closers though! --jjron (talk) 12:14, 18 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. It just didn't make sense to randomly get credit for some restoration jobs but not others. I hope that wasn't out of line. I save all of my restorations under a new filename, and I'm careful to note what types of changes I've made (although I might not have been so detailed when I first started). Best regards, Durova^Charge! 15:55, 18 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Doesnt this comment of yours about banned user Jed here belong below the bullet for Jed and not as a separate bullet?

Tennessee Jed 4415 has been blocked indefinitely for attempting to post private and possibly hacked personal information about Matt Sanchez

Since its related to his vote only, not the rest of the page. What do you think. --Matt57 ^{(talk•contribs)} 19:17, 18 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That's a fair point. You're welcome to move that post as you deem appropriate. Thanks for bringing that to my attention. Durova^Charge! 19:19, 18 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ok thanks, moved it now. --Matt57 ^{(talk•contribs)} 19:23, 18 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Durova. I noticed that you placed Palestinian costumes as a suggested article for collaboration for the new Wikipedia:WikiProject Israel Palestine Collaboration. I'm wondering how appropriate this is, considering that it is not an article related to the conflict, but rather a cultural article fundamentally related to Palestinians, and not Israelis. I don't really want to see the issue get needlessly politicized, especially with a GA review underway. Would you mind retracting the suggestion? Thanks. Tiamut^talk 20:20, 18 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well, it wasn't my suggestion. Durova^Charge! 20:29, 18 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Did I muck this up? Durova suggested the collaboration idea back at the Talk:Rfar only, (well before the WikiProject was started). I added it to the WikiProject and am open to retracting it. But maybe we could discuss this in the context of Durova's basic idea of us working on low-tension articles, a thread here? Would it be plausible if the next collaboration moved to a low-tension article that's more Israel-related, e.g. Israeli culture? Thanks. HG | Talk 20:47, 18 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'll take it up with you both there, if you don't mind. (If I sound stern, I don't mean to.:)Tiamut^talk 00:30, 19 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

What do you make of this edit and this justification? (You may need to go to the previous edit to check what "improvements" I claim to be making). It seems to me that the NPOV version of the article is being undermined on POV grounds by legalese intended to mislead me, and mislead the reader of the article. Actual or potential racism has been incited by the wording and the time scale of another legal action has been pointlessly removed, thus tending to mislead the reader. (There are huge other POV problems, see this revert but let's just examine the legal parts above). PR^talk 09:57, 19 January 2008 (UTC) PS - I've responded to you above on Build - Criticise - Build, you may not spot it. I've also mentioned your name here but I'm not asking you to involve yourself immediately. PR^talk 11:07, 19 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

PS - I fear that, however much you want to distance yourself, you will also become involved in the cordial exchange of opinion here. PR^talk

Hi, what did your mentors make of it? Durova^Charge! 18:00, 19 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I have a situation where, if my mentors show collegiality in the smallest way, they are liable to personal attack for so doing. That's why I came to you to ask for advice. The last entry concerns your mentee, over a concern that he is behaving exactly the same way now as he was before the ArbCom that has just closed. PR^talk 00:01, 20 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I don't pretend to know the content issues as well as the disputants. My mentorship is about conduct, dispute resolution, and site standards. Some of the editors from the Israel-Palestine collaboration project know these matters in more depth: how about asking the project for help? Durova^Charge! 00:28, 20 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm glad you told us that your mentorship was about conduct - what about cases where he appears to have edit-warred 8 editors into silence over an entry everyone else considers UNDUE? 4 editors consider BLP? And careful examination might suggest were FRINGE - or indeed, simple falsehoods? PR^talk 17:51, 26 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Durova, I made an interesting contact recently and he has a lot of interesting information about world events.

Please take a look http://www.mybloglog.com/buzz/members/EuroYank/

There are a few blogs with videos and other stuff. Regards, 02:42, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

Blogs may be entertaining, but they're seldom acceptable for citations at Wikipedia. Durova^Charge! 02:51, 20 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Durova. Thanks for you support on one of my images. Also, I do believe the halo's were added deliberately, to show a better conception of the Black Hole. - Ohmpandya ^{We need to talk... ♦ contribs} 04:11, 20 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding your vote from Cape St. Vincent image, that is not an image of earth, it's actually an image of Mars. - Ohmpandya ^{We need to talk... ♦ contribs} 17:49, 20 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Show me? Durova^Charge! 19:41, 20 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

What are your thoughts on having the Dead trees criteria for all BLP articles regardless of whether the subject wants them deleted or not? It seems to me that these articles are really more trouble that they are worth. Pocopocopocopoco (talk) 06:03, 20 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

See what other people think. Durova^Charge! 06:11, 20 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Once before, not too long ago, you sanctioned a misbehaving editor who threatened legal action against me for removing their edits. We now have a different but similar case, with a legal threat posted to my personal talk page (see this diff: [1]). All I had done was politely pointed out to them that original research was prohibited, and that constantly reverting the removal of their edits was violating 3RR rules - which provoked this amazingly hostile and belligerent response. They do say that I should go ahead and contact an admin, and I'm doing so now (since I know and trust you to do the right thing), to request if you would please have a nice chat with this individual. Obviously anything else I say is only going to agitate them more. Thanks, Dyanega (talk) 22:39, 20 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I'm not an administrator these days so I can't intervene directly. I've reviewed the post and I agree this is an explicit legal threat. So I've posted to WP:ANI. Best wishes, and try to remain calm and collected. Durova^Charge! 22:45, 20 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I was worried about the length, as DYK now requires 2,000 characters, but the long quotation from Davenport, which is out of copyright, gets it there! Xn4 01:09, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, thank you for the heads up. I'll update my DYK page. There's a second article I'm planning to start about an embroidered book done by Elizabeth I as a child. Durova^Charge! 01:11, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Nice work, you two. - PKM (talk) 02:45, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, time to get to work on the Elizabeth embroidery. :) Durova^Charge! 02:46, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I think I now qualify for this:

• DYK: article(s):

• Lilstock created - 1 Jan Front Page - 8 Jan
• Midford Castle created - 14 Jan Front page - 18 Jan
• Writhlington created - 13 Jan Front page - 16 Jan

• GA: article(s):

• Bath promoted to GA 8 Jan
• Roman Baths (Bath) promoted to GA 14 Jan
• South West Coast Path promoted to GA 9 Jan

• FA: articles:

• Exmoor promoted to FA 21 Jan

If you need more info let me know.— Rod ^talk 07:58, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The more the merrier! I'll check this out, thanks. Durova^Charge! 08:00, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Durova. I got rid of the tongue in cheek intro as you suggested. Just posted a list of potential low tension articles. I can come up w/more candidates, well - maybe, if you tell me what you might be looking for. Thanks. HG | Talk 08:49, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Durova, greetings. It seems to me that the best chance of getting a low-tension article effort underway would be if you spearhead the effort. It seems unlikely that we'll get folks to put up candidates and make choice anytime soon, it would be much simpler and effective if, just as you did with Palestinian costumes, you choose an article and spearhead the effort. (I can keep suggesting options until you find one you like. I'll pitch in myself and make an effort to invite various involved parties.)

I hope you're willing to give this another try, especially since you helped get so much improvement on Costumes. Alternatively, perhaps we could go with one of the more tense situations, as Tiamut suggested. While you said that you wouldn't contribute as much content, just having you there for basic editing and work on images, etc., would be a good model and might loosen things up more than you might imagine. Thanks, I know you're busy, and I appreciate your giving this consideration.

PS. In terms of the restored pottery image (userbox/barnstar), will you be working on it? Not my forte, I'm afraid, but let me know if I can help out. Thanks again very much, HG | Talk 16:48, 22 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

fyi sent you email about the pottery image contact info. Thanks. HG | Talk 17:21, 22 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well, we're here to work with both cultures. After getting a FP and a GA candidate for the Palestinian project it's time to do more for the Israelis. I've been working with Jaakobou toward an article about Biblical clothing laws. Our aim is to make it a DYK so it won't go live until it's nearly ready. Also I've had my eye on 613 Mitzvot, which could become a featured list if the introduction were better written and referenced. Durova^Charge! 19:57, 22 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Greetings again. Haven't got much response on the polling for a low (or high) tension article. Still, there seems to be a budding interest in Israeli-Palestinian conflict. I wrote you a note on the IPCOLL Talk. Maybe we could set it up in some way, where a few of us try to resolve the live dispute -- yet encourage other project members to drop by and do low-tension improvements? Just an idea. Pls respond on the project Talk page when you have a chance. Be well, HG | Talk 23:16, 27 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Let's move with this organically. Durova^Charge! 23:20, 27 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

jc37 has requested some help on a recurrent issue, and with your previous involvement with the problem, I was hoping you might help him out. If you didn't have anything to do with this, then my apologies. Octane ^{[improve me]} 21.01.08 0854 (UTC)

Ah, I see. Sad case. He's welcome to e-mail me if he wants. But really, it seems like he's made his choices and decided not to adjust. I wish him well. Thanks for touching bases with me. Durova^Charge! 09:08, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding your vote from Cape St. Vincent image, that is not an image of earth, it's actually an image of Mars. - Ohmpandya ^{We need to talk... ♦ contribs} 17:49, 20 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Show me? Durova^Charge! 19:41, 20 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ok. Look at the alternative image # 1. I have never seen that on earth last time I checked! If you have, please take me there :). Also, please reconsider if you like on Alternative 1. - Ohmpandya ^{We need to talk... ♦ contribs} 15:23, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Your Featured picture candidate has been promoted Your nomination for featured picture status, Image:SanFrancisco1851a.jpg, gained a consensus of support, and has been promoted. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates. jjron (talk) 16:35, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Nice edit job too, but you only get one of these; I've credited your edits on the FP page though. --jjron (talk) 16:35, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. :) Durova^Charge! 18:49, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, just wanted to say thanks for all the work you've been doing on the WW2 FPCs. I really like what you have been submitting. Keep up the good work! Clegs (talk) 18:06, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you very much. I've got another possible nominee in the works right now, could I ask for your feedback on it before PPR? Durova^Charge! 18:50, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oh wow...just remembered this. Here goes;

• FA: I Don't Remember (FAC)
• GA: Black Tears
• DYK: Nambour State High School (Jan 14)

Dihydrogen Monoxide (party) 03:16, 22 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

On 22 January, 2008, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Felbrigge Psalter, 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.

--BorgQueen (talk) 13:53, 22 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. :) Durova^Charge! 18:40, 22 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I have given a peer review for Portal:Textile Arts. I laid out five key points, using examples from five currently Featured Portals. Hope that helps, Cirt (talk) 23:33, 22 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I think you have made a wise decision in respect of this. I also suspect that Jimbo's reaction was instinctual rather than reasoned; it's hard to fault anyone for being insulted when they've been called arsehole and worse - and I am quite sure that plenty worse has been said there. What I find saddest of all is that the problems seem to bubble up mostly in the admins channel, where one might expect a higher degree of decorum. Although heaven only knows why. Well, we can continue to avoid IRC together. Risker (talk) 07:32, 23 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It's the nature of the beast, I think: real time communications are more prone to see things that - on wiki - a reasonable person would leave on the screen, walk away from the computer for a glass of water, and then not send. Add to that a leakyish channel and a perception of power, and periodic to-dos are just about inevitable. A similar dynamic probably operates on other channels, but minus the perception of power nobody much cares. More often I've felt foolish by standing on principle about that, but in this particular arbitration it's been a huge relief. Durova^Charge! 07:46, 23 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, just curious if you're not awarding triple crowns at the moment, as I've had a request present for about a week and a half. By all means, I'm not faulting you, I'm simply curious as to whether there's a reason or extenuating circumstances. Cheers, Sephiroth BCR ^(Converse) 07:49, 23 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry about the delay. I'll have it out shortly. Durova^Charge! 08:24, 23 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No problem at all. I was simply satiating my curiosity. Cheers, Sephiroth BCR ^(Converse) 08:29, 23 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Durova, I do greatly appreciate your sensitivity as well as courage regarding your recent suggestions about using the 613 Mitzvot article. IZAK (talk) 10:57, 23 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

		The Special Barnstar
		You are a very brave and wise person. See Wikipedia:Barnstars: "The Special Barnstar may be awarded to a user as a gesture of appreciation..." With best wishes, IZAK (talk) 10:57, 23 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you very much. What a pleasant surprise! Warmest regards, Durova^Charge! 11:18, 23 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You most certainly deserve it. I liked the way you did not drag things out. Hoping that we can have a meeting of the minds over some other articles. I will try to give some thought where we could possibly co-operate. IZAK (talk) 11:00, 24 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Israel Defense Forces Women's Corps

OK, here goes, I thought of something we could work on. There is no article about the Israel Defense Forces Women's Corps known as "Chen" in Hebrew, an abbrevaition for "Cheil Nashim" ("Women's Corps"). In the main Israel Defense Forces article there is a sub-section for Women in the IDF, but there is no full-blooded in-depth analytical well-researched comprehensive article on this topic, and the time is ripe to write one because since the creation of Israel in 1948 the policy of its secular political leaders has always been to have young women conscripted like men (they serve two years instead of three) something that no other modern nation has ever done. Not a single Arab or Islamic nation requires any (certainly not a majority of) its females to do compulsory military training! There are many reasons for Israel's tradition of conscripting its young women. One is that Israel has few citizens compared to the Arabs so it needs every person's service. Another reason is that the state uses the army as a great integrator and socializer of a society that is made up of Jews who arrive/d from many different countries and cultures. It is also a continuation of the Socialist egalitarian mind-set of Israel's early pioneers where young men and women worked and defended the land together, as in the Kibbutz ethic. Israeli females' role in the IDF has expanded in recent years and wowmen have begun to serve in other roles outside of the Women's Corps, see this recent article in Haaretz for example IDF commission to recommend women soldiers serve in all units (17/09/2007) and this IDF to integrate more women in army (March 8, 2007) about the most recent trends. Another important issue is that service in the army by women, or the refusal to serve, reflects the various political and religious positions of Israeli society, its religious leaders and the political parties that reflect those views. Thus all those affiliated with Haredi Judaism absolutely forbid their daughters or women from their groups to go to the army upon pain of being excommunicated. This was also a great political debate and an arrangement was reached to relieve very religious girls from serving, see Religion in Israel#The secular-religious Status Quo. The ssue of conscription of women should have its own article actually called Giyus banot meaning "conscription or the drafting of women" (the word "banot" means "daughters" in Hebrew.) There are those who are part of Religious Zionism who allow and encourage their daughters to serve in a non-military National Service that the state offers (such as teaching or communal work in places where there are needs for this), but most secular Israeli female high school graduates have no choice but to submit to the rules of the state and fulfil their two years of compulsory army training with many doing so enthusiastically, see this 9 minute YouTube short about IDF Israel female soldiers or this shorter 4 minute version from MySpace Women Of The IDF. These young women, like the young men, will not go to college and will not be accepted for jobs unless they first serve, so that this means that the Israeli college population starts out at a later age than in Western countries and results in a student body that is more focused and more serious (as befits soldiers.) Take a look at this Women of the IDF on the Jewish Virtual Library, it's a reliable source and see the links there. See this Israel Women in the IDF (from CIA World Factbook 1988). There are many more articles online and it's a great topic. Feel free to start the article with the material and the comments I have made here. I have no doubt you will enjoy it, and I would help out as best I can. Thanks again. IZAK (talk) 11:00, 24 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ooh, very interesting. :) I'll put that idea on my list. Thank you for the suggestion. Durova^Charge! 01:04, 27 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, I was waiting to see your response. It is a great topic, and in terms of modern Israel it is a KEY topic, and essentially untouched on Wikipedia as a complex subject. I would post the stuff I wrote above as the start of it but I am letting you have the first shot at it. IZAK (talk) 04:15, 27 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm starting a new article atm about the arts of the World War II Japanese-American internment camps. Have a few other things on my plate also, so not sure how long this will be. Thanks very much for the suggestion and for your patience. The subject is certainly well chosen, given my general interests. Cheers! Durova^Charge! 05:16, 27 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

On 23 January, 2008, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article The Miroir or Glasse of the Synneful Soul, 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.

--BorgQueen (talk) 15:50, 23 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. :) Durova^Charge! 18:38, 23 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

As per your original answer to a question that wasn't posed to you. El_C 07:53, 24 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Obviously there were parts of her complaint that I couldn't address. Phil Sandler had been responsive to my input before. It's possible to try to do some good without imagining oneself the center of attention. It's dismaying to see the way you phrase this title. Please adjust it to something in better faith. Durova^Charge! 08:30, 24 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Face it, your record of interaction with Bishonen's friends is, infamously, bleak. El_C 08:31, 24 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Your Featured picture candidate has been promoted Your nomination for featured picture status, Image:AlfredPalmerM3tank1942b.jpg, gained a consensus of support, and has been promoted. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates. MER-C 03:41, 25 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Your Featured picture candidate has been promoted Your nomination for featured picture status, Image:Waldenburg1945edit.jpg, gained a consensus of support, and has been promoted. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates. MER-C 03:41, 25 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Congrats! I'll keep my eyes open for any other possible candidates. BrokenSphere^{Msg me} 06:31, 25 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You too; you found it. Please do keep your eyes open. :) Durova^Charge! 06:39, 25 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Durova,

Are you still mentoring User:Jaakobou? If so, you might want to to have a look at some of the recent discussions he's started (if not for WP:AGF, I'd assume he's picking fights) on Talk:Israeli-Palestinian conflict, namely here and here.

I was going to wait for one more discussion to take it to WP:AE for an opinion, but I thought maybe I should give you a heads-up first.

Cheers, pedro gonnet - talk - 25.01.2008 07:52

Hi, yes I'm mentoring him. I've made a comment at the second thread. Regarding the first one, please bear in mind that I don't claim expertise on content issues. May I suggest that the first discussion is a little bit "hot" and that turning the temperature down would be a good thing? Thanks, Durova^Charge! 08:02, 25 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Durova, thanks for your input! I was a bit upset about the casualty figures issue since the issue had been discussed on that same talk page over a period of weeks, namely here, here, here and again here. Considering User:Jaakobou's interest in the article, it is hard for me to believe that he could have missed them. In any case, I will try to tone-down the discussion.

Cheers and again, thanks pedro gonnet - talk - 25.01.2008 08:26

Well, it looks like you've made a fair effort to discuss this. Next time I talk to Jaakobou I'll show him those diffs. Thank you for your help. Durova^Charge! 08:34, 25 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

User:Jaakobou's understanding of mentorship clearly includes demands that the mentee be challenged over particular edits he has made - eg these demands.

And it might appear to be time that you challenged Jaakobou, over some of his activities concerning WP:UNDUE, WP:BLP and WP:FRINGE, particularly with regards to Saeb Erekat. Or concerning his relationship to the edits of User:MouseWarrior and User:Paul_T._Evans. PR^talk 23:37, 26 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I offered to mentor Jaakobou on specific terms that I defined and he accepted. There might someday be an angle of Israeli-Palestinian issues where I do feel knowledgeable enough to step forward as you request, because I'm not entirely ignorant, but bear in mind that I live on the other side of the world. The big news over here this week is whether several respected museums were heavily involved in an art theft ring. We have perennial debates about people who die of exposure in the desert as they try to cross the border, or whether langostino can be sold as lobster. I don't ask you to weigh in on whether the economic interests of Maine fishermen should take precedence over a different imported Mexican species because, in all likelihood, you would be as much at sea as I would be if I attempted to fulfill your request. Previous opinions you believe Jaakobou to have held about other mentors whose talents and skills were different from mine really aren't binding upon my mentorship. I have never agreed to such terms, nor has anyone but you suggested them. Durova^Charge! 00:08, 27 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Being as perplexed as you, I'm having a hard time trying to imagine what sort of weird scenario would have to exist for this situation to arise as it has, assuming good faith of the arbcomm members involved. I started with a list of about a dozen scenarios. Upon carefully considering all of them, these are the situations where I believe I am assuming the greatest possible amount of good faith:

1. Arbcomm members cannot understand what has happened because they are too busy to read the RfC or they somehow had a problem understanding what the people responding to the RfC were saying.
2. There is dramatic evidence that arbcomm members are privvy to that they have not shared with the rest of us because of foundation issues.
3. The arbcomm members truly believe the community to be wrong in this instance and are trying to gently lead us away from the path to certain destruction.

This is me assuming the greatest amount of good faith that I can find with as much bending-over-backwards as I can muster. In each of these situations, I'm assuming that arbcomm members are acting with the best of intentions, but in each of these scenarios I'm still left with a poor evaluation of the arbcomm members in question. If 1 is the explanation then we probably should get rid of the arbcomm members in question since they are either too overworked to be able to make reasonable decisions or they simply don't understand what's going on. If 2 is the explanation then there should at least be some indication that this is going on. An appeal to WP:OFFICE could be made or an arbcomm member could mention e-mails or the like that indicate to the community that there are issues that could not have been addressed by the RfC. Assuming this is the case, then there has been a dramatic misstep on the part of arbcomm members and they owe the community an explanation at the very least. Having not provided one in a timely fashion seems almost inexcusable. If 3 is the explanation then arbcomm has inappropriately expanded its mandate and deserves censure. Is there any other explanation I'm missing here? Because I'm really trying very hard to assume good faith and this is all I can come up with.

ScienceApologist (talk) 09:35, 25 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

For the Committee's sake, I hope option two; for Adam's, I hope anything else. There's a comment at the bottom of the proposed decision page, but it stops a long way short of explaining why they paused for a month for the community to give feedback, then acted this way. Durova^Charge! 09:52, 25 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If you're talking about User:FT2's comment, I can only say that this only really makes sense if option 3 is correct. If we assume that 2 is correct due to the cryptic mention that Adam wants to be desysopped for six months, then we're put in a very weird situation which requires me to assume an extreme amount of bad faith on Adam's part. It would entail Adam saying one thing on Wikipedia pages -- including, quixotically, asking for help from ANI -- but saying something else entirely when privately discussing the matter with the arbcomm members. If this is the case, then Adam should be banned for disrupting Wikipedia to make a point. Yikes! I have interacted with Adam enough to know that he doesn't do this kind of thing. So, in order to minimize the amount of bad faith in total (I'm being utilitarian here) I must assume that FT2 is really telling us that option 3 is what is going on. Is my analysis incorrect? ScienceApologist (talk) 10:11, 25 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

For what it is worth, Adam has indicated that he has been e-mailing the committee about certain wider issues (ie. private issues similar to option 2). These issues were briefly raised before. I don't want to go into details (Adam has e-mailed me about this before), but that might be what has resulted in the ArbCom going in this direction. I would say a combination of 2 and 3. Option 1 is also possible if you look at the sheer volume of pages to read concerning arbitration cases. Go to all the open arbitration cases and try and read them all. Include the open requests, and the arbcom mailing list (which gets requests for unblocks as well), and they have a lot of work. Not an excuse, but just a reminder of the workload. I suggest e-mailing Adam to offer your support. It would probably help. Carcharoth (talk) 11:30, 25 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Carcharoth, I'm well aware of their workload. Being an arbitrator may be the toughest assignment at this site. That's one reason why I wonder they increased their load by taking on this experimental case in lieu of normal dispute resolution, about an old block on an account that had hardly ever been active in two years. Nobody forced this upon them, and it would even reasonable for them to conclude that the experiment failed and to close the case without prejudice. A lot of people put a lot of time into that RFC at the Committee's invitation, believing that their opinions were valued. If the Committee has relevant information that the community doesn't have, then it would be a relief at least to get a signal that there's more to this case than there appears. I trust the Committee to weigh confidential evidence. But frankly, I don't like what this appears to be. Have you ever talked to someone who asked you a question, then interrupted your answer in order to contradict you? It's rude. Durova^Charge! 11:42, 25 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

About the last bit, you mean ArbCom interrupting the "answer" of the RfC? Well, there was a deadline and that passed. No need for the RfC to drag on. As you are in contact with Adam, ask him what I mean by "other issues" here. It maybe that I am missing the point entirely, and the ArbCom aren't responding to that, but I can't expect them to confirm any of this. What they can do is confirm this to Adam privately, and indicate more clearly that private correspondence impacted on the decision. Carcharoth (talk) 11:47, 25 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Actually what I mean is they interrupted the arbitration case in order to run the RFC that ought to have preceeded RFAR. Given the point things had reached by that time, I think they were right to put the case on hold for that purpose. What surprises me (and I suppose other people) is how little it seems to have mattered. Durova^Charge! 20:32, 26 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I noticed no one had posted a follow-up to Alison's note at David's talk page. It's possible he hasn't logged on since the AN thread heated up. Probably we've all been surprised occasionally to see a flareup after we took a day off. Let's assume good faith. I've urged him to drop by the noticeboard as soon as he's back online. Durova^Charge! 07:01, 26 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I would be surprised if Gerard comments on the issue. The entire affair has been a huge black eye for him, Jimbo, the project, and a great many other editors, me and you included. I don't believe the entire truth of the matter has come out yet. Hopefully it will eventually for the sake of all concerned. Cla68 (talk) 14:30, 26 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I hope my good faith in David Gerard proves to be well founded and he addresses the concerns as soon as he comes online. Likewise, if you really want to help this editor, you might steer him in a more productive direction? There's another editor banned from en:Wikipedia I've been working with who's making positive contributions to another WMF project. None of us are perfect. Let's move forward as best we can. Durova^Charge! 20:27, 26 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sure, what would I have to do? First off, instead of combing through your talk page, I think it would be easier if all of the requests were in one subpage somewhere. (Could be your own user space, or project space, but either way it'd be easier if they were in one location.) Cirt (talk) 15:08, 26 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

A subpage would be fine. Durova^Charge! 20:21, 26 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, can I be WP:BOLD and start moving the nomination requests from your user talk page to User:Durova/Triple crown winner's circle/Nominations ? Cirt (talk) 21:54, 26 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sure. Thank you. Durova^Charge! 22:26, 26 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

User:Durova/Triple crown winner's circle/Nominations

• Please see the subpage. I did not move the nominations on your talk page for "The Great Triple Crown Race of 2008", because I wasn't exactly sure on the formatting/process of exactly how that is working, so probably best for that to stay on your talk page. (It'll be over soon anyways, and won't be a regular part of the process at any rate, at least, not perhaps til next year.) I also may have missed some requests from your talk page that I didn't catch. Cheers, Cirt (talk) 02:31, 27 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Another idea

• If you could create subpages in your userspace (perhaps User:Durova/Triple crown, User:Durova/Imperial triple crown, User:Durova/Imperial Napoleonic triple crown, etc.) of templates we could "subst" (with a spot for the username and perhaps a note as well) to actually award people the triple crowns, it would make the process much easier. Cirt (talk) 02:46, 27 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Update, modifed instructions slightly

• I modified it so that you will still be responsible for The great triple crown race of 2008, the Valiant return triple crown, and the Special edition WikiProject triple crowns - as they are all A) Much rarer than the others, and thus easier for you to keep track of and less work than the constant stream of the others, and B) These special situations mentioned above should be looked over extra carefully. Cirt (talk) 12:37, 27 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'll wait for you to respond here to each of my above points before doing anything further, I think this is a good start and goes a bit towards standardizing things and making the process a little bit easier. No rush, so long as the current nominees don't bug you - but I'd say a rule of thumb for patience for them should be the average length of time (from my estimation) that something sits at WP:FAC - one month. Cirt (talk) 12:40, 27 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Great work so far, thanks. You're right; it's best if I keep doing all the direct work on the special edition triple crowns. After the triple crown race wraps up I plan to implement the steeplechase on a special/trial basis because it's not actually a triple crown. I'll still do regular reviews also (but it's a relief to have help!) and in the very rare event where there's a dispute I'll make the final determination. Regarding the suggested subpages, bear in mind that there's already a transclusion to Wikipedia:Did you know/Hall of Fame. How would you resolve that across multiple pages? Durova^Charge! 19:15, 27 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • Everything transcludes back into the main User:Durova/Triple crown winner's circle. But especially if you create templates for the 3 or so more common awards, the redlinks above, it would make things easier. For example, if you like I could start clearing the backlog now at the nominations page - but I don't quite know exactly what message to give with the presentation of the award - and how to format it in a new subsection on a user's talk page. I mean, I could try doing one or two, but I'd rather they they look uniform to the way you do it. Cirt (talk) 19:22, 27 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Tell you what: for now let's keep the awards all on one page. You're welcome to write the award messages yourself or give me a report on reviews that pass and I'll write them - I plan to keep browsing the articles also, and to keep doing a share of the reviews. Let me know privately if some topic really isn't to your tastes and I'll do likewise, so we can both do justice to the nominees by concentrating on material we enjoy.

Nearly every message is unique in some way - I often throw in a compliment about the elements I enjoyed most. Triple crown winners are addressed "Your Majesty", "Your Imperial Majesty", or "Your Imperial Napoleonic Majesty" according to the award they've received. In the image caption I always include a link back to the awards page. Durova^Charge! 20:43, 27 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Okay, we'll start doing it this way. I'll do my best to follow your lead, and clear a few entries when I get a chance. Cirt (talk) 22:46, 27 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Update

Only four left to recognize at User:Durova/Triple crown winner's circle/Nominations - and I will leave those up to you. Cirt (talk) 20:22, 31 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

		The Photographer's Barnstar
		For making many excellent cleanups and rescues of old pictures that would never have otherwise been considered for FP. Keep up the good work! Clegs (talk) 15:48, 26 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you! :) Durova^Charge! 19:32, 26 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Can you please provide comment here? - Talk:Project_Chanology#Current_events_tag. Thanks, Cirt (talk) 21:52, 26 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Durova,

I see your comments on talk page for article Paul Barresi. A very abusive comment with vulgar words was put on my talk page from an IP who also put an abusive remark on the Paul Barresi article talk page in response to a remark I made about keeping the article within Wikipedia's guidelines. I also responded to this comment by putting a request/warning on the IP's talk page. A derogatory remark was made there as well by same IP.

If you look at the history of my talk page, Paul Barresi article talk page and the IP's talk page you may feel as I do that based on the word choice, abusive manner and bad spelling that this IP is indeed Paul Barresi!

Can you please take some action so myself and others will not have to put up with this vulgarity or be abused. Thank you!

Fuzzyred (talk) 05:15, 27 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for coming to me. Unfortunately I can't address the problem directly because I'm not an administrator these days. Please post your request to WP:ANI and ping me when it's up. Best wishes, Durova^Charge! 05:24, 27 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

"The most serious assertion at this RFAR is misrepresentation of sources. I have seen no actual evidence to substanitate this. " I have now provided one example to demonstrate an issue worth investigating. Please see my statement, at the bottom. Jehochman ^Talk 16:28, 27 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I still have not seen any evidence; I am unable to read deleted articles. Durova^Charge! 18:43, 27 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Priapus statuette I'm not active on Commons, so you're free to do so. Spikebrennan (talk) 22:25, 27 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

grin Durova^Charge! 22:28, 27 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Re: ongoing disruption of talkpage and ongoing AfD - please see my 2 diffs per WP:NOT#FORUM DIFF, DIFF and let me know what you think of this disruptive behavior by JustaHulk (talk · contribs) on these 2 pages. Cirt (talk) 22:55, 27 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hm, deleting another editor's posts is problematic. If there's a problem try a noticeboard thread or a request for comment? Durova^Charge! 23:22, 27 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, my mistake, that was me that deleted those posts - I had seen this done by an Admin in the past, citing WP:NOT#FORUM. Perhaps you can better explain the spirit and the application of WP:NOT#FORUM to me? Cirt (talk) 23:27, 27 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Seems fine up until the point where you tried to blank the thread. Better to just back off or call a halt to it, and wait for the page to archive. If the forum-style posting continues to be a problem you could seek assistance. Durova^Charge! 23:34, 27 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, thanks, I will not do that again. Strange, for I have seen an Admin do this in the past, maybe the Admin was wrong in doing so... Oh well. Cirt (talk) 23:35, 27 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Borderline at best, and distinctly problematic at a dispute where you're an involved party. Durova^Charge! 23:36, 27 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Most intriguing - for in the other case the Admin was definitely an "involved party" as well. That doesn't make it right, I understand your logic, and it's probably wrong in both situations. At any rate, thanks for the advice, it's definitely duly noted. Cirt (talk) 23:39, 27 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Nevermind, I left a note to El C (talk · contribs), and the link itself that I had given to WP:NOT#FORUM is sufficient. Cirt (talk) 03:50, 28 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I am REALLY surprised by this issue. I did not bother to read the rest of the newspaper article (second half and second part) because the writer clearly lacked intelligence to count the cannon balls! It is clear that the cannon balls on the road in the FIRST photograph are simply gone. The balls in the ditch on the side of the road remain undisturbed. IF the balls were brought out onto the road, would not logic suggest they came from a location closes to the road? This is aside from the consideration that the suggestion is that Fenton and his assistant moved dozens of what look like at least 9 and 12 pound balls onto the road, not a task for the faint hearted (literally). It was common practice to harvest the balls since invention of artillery, and in any case, the dead and wounded could not be collected ( and the discarded equipment, saddles, etc.) until the road could be cleared. It is unlikely that pictures of this were taken because they were (until ACW) considered in bad taste, and because collection of cannon balls was so mundane a task for the time, it probably was not considered newsworthy. The landscape photograph was however considered an absolute necessity because it could be used to create lithographs for the printed publications. Consider for example the lithographic print of the Bay of Sebastapol (Vol.V, p.448) in Elisee Reclus's English printing of the Universal Geography (J.S.Virtue & Co.,London,1877?). Photographs existed of the Bay by this time, but the technique of including them in the printed books still did not exist. Much ado about nothing in my humble opinion :o)--mrg3105mrg3105 00:32, 28 January 2008 (UTC) PS. looking at the photographs again it is clear that some cannon balls were in fact either not fired on the day, or did not come from a cannon, but a howitzer because they are semi-embedded in the soil, even in the harder compacted road surface, suggesting this either happened earlier with the ball sinking in the soil softened by the rain, or that the trajectory was not the usual flat of the cannon (they bounced several times btw).--mrg3105mrg3105 00:44, 28 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Actually the most interesting part of the series is the third article where he hires a forensics specialist. Cannonball counts and shadow analysis turn out to be not very useful because of specific conditions, but an analysis of the surrounding rocks yields compelling evidence. Durova^Charge! 02:42, 28 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I seem to have missed the first part of this conversation (and can't find it anywhere). I found Wikipedia:Picture peer review/The Valley of the Shadow of Death and this (with the link to the newspaper article). From what I remember reading elsewhere about Fenton, he did 'set-up' pictures a lot (as our article says as well). See here for a picture of him posing as a Zouave. Carcharoth (talk) 02:58, 28 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The series won me over, reluctantly. I had been trying to study the shadows, but it turns out the films of his era weren't sensitive to blue so there's no way to tell the cloud cover by looking at the sky. From the highlights on the cannonballs themselves it's clear that one was shot while the sun was shining and the other was shot under a cloud, so the lengths of the shadows aren't telling. Too many cannonballs are in different positions to gain much information just by counting them. One thing is consistent, though: six separate rocks were in different positions and all six were further downhill in the "on" position. It's really unlikely that six random nudges would push rocks uphill. Durova^Charge! 03:05, 28 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, but what about their other photos! :-) That is one of the famous ones, but the pathos of the other ones is just as good. For example, this one shows his assistant, Marcus Sparling sitting on the van they used to carry their cumbersome photographic equipment around with them. Imagine them wandering around the Crimea like that! Sad end to Sparling's story, by the way. He died of hepatitis four years later. [2] and [3] (two very different sources!) Carcharoth (talk) 03:11, 28 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Absolutely, there are other fine photos in that series. I particularly like the harbor. Go for it! Or if you'd rather bring attention to something that needs restoration, feel free to add material to the galleries at User:Durova/Landmark images. It's an open workshop. :) Durova^Charge! 03:15, 28 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Heh, I just looked - you've already been busy there. :) Durova^Charge! 03:24, 28 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I have? When? <looks confused> Carcharoth (talk) 03:31, 28 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, I will, at some point! I want a successful FPC to be part of, ahem, a certain award. I have a FAC on the boil (give it a month or so), but if that fails I'll go down the corridor to GAC and go for FPC instead. I'm saying that because I've only just realised that GAC is part of the award. I know next to nothing about GAC - I'm sadly (or maybe goodly) of the opinion that if I can get something to GAC, I might as well go the whole way to FAC. I have a few DYKs hanging around (there is no time limit, is there?) Are there any of the awards where the same article counted for DYK, GA and FA? Carcharoth (talk) 03:31, 28 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Wow. I have 5 DYKs. That's several more than I had remembered. I'd better list them somewhere before I forget! If I line up a few FACs and FPC in one go, I could try and go straight for Emperor of France! :-) Carcharoth (talk) 03:42, 28 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Teehee...say, if you'd like to team up on something, I've noticed that Wikipedia has only 17 featured sounds. If you have .ogg conversion software I've had my eye on a couple of public domain files. And you added some source links to the image workshop on Jan. 17. Durova^Charge! 10:41, 28 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the invite, but sounds might be trying to do too much. I'll stick to pictures for now, but do try and get people interested. I know Raul does stuff to do with sounds - see the Signpost article recently on that classical music museum (or something). Carcharoth (talk) 16:07, 28 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Your Featured picture candidate has been promoted Your nomination for featured picture status, Image:Capitol1846.jpg, gained a consensus of support, and has been promoted. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates. MER-C 02:54, 28 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. :) Durova^Charge! 02:57, 28 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I left a nomination at your triple crown nomination page, but since you requested a note to be left on your talk page, here you go:

• Sephiroth BCR
  • DYK: List of True Tears episodes (RA), List of FLCL episodes (RA)
  • GA: Sasuke Uchiha (GA), Sakura Haruno (GA)
  • FC: List of characters in Castlevania: Sorrow series (FLC), List of Night Wizard episodes (FLC)

Cheers, Sephiroth BCR ^(Converse) 10:51, 28 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Great effort! Durova^Charge! 11:35, 28 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

See User:Qst. He seems like he qualifies for at least one Triple Crown, and that came after his community-ban got lifted and while he was on parole. His featured contribution is portal, Portal:England, the first DYK I found on a random search through his archives was Francis George Anstey, and a random GA would be Bill and Peter's Bogus Journey. He also has 12 more GAs and 6 more DYKs. Maxim_(talk) 13:55, 28 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I've dropped him a line to see if he wants this. Thanks very much for the heads up. :) Durova^Charge! 19:35, 28 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

And I will call it wikitroll.org

I cannot believe how often that word is used to abuse people! Igor Berger (talk) 19:31, 28 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

P.S. Through centuries what has changed? It is just a Rose as by other name.

You look really disappointed. Things haven't been working out? BTW if you do want to start your own wiki it's perfectly feasible. Wikipedia makes its software available at no charge and you could import as much content as you want from this site, since it's all GDFL licensed. There are actually quite a few forking and mirror projects. Durova^Charge! 19:34, 28 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for consolation, but I am not the type to give up. Will contribute how and with what I can untill I am literaly kicked off the ship..:) There are a lot of good people on WikiPedia and that should give us hope and spirit to keep going even if we meet obstinate one's. If someone is so hard headed as to try to bully someone they must have a hidden agenda and not thinking of the project as a whole. So I will be that Igor for the time being. Thanks for the help, Igor Berger (talk) 04:16, 29 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• I have added an interesting caveat! It will be interesting to see if anyone chalanges this edit. If it is, I will move it to the article's talk page. Troll (Internet)#WikiPedia Troll Igor Berger (talk) 04:45, 29 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Wow, I really don't know how to answer that question without coming over as a little arrogant :). But yes, I wouldn't mind, whichever is easiest for you :) Qst (talk) 20:24, 28 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Your Valiant Majesty, it's going to be a delight to hand out this award. This is the piece that inspired all the rest of the triple crowns. More power to you! Durova^Charge! 20:40, 28 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Psst... I think you forgot to deliver the award to His Valiant Majesty. ;-) Maxim_(talk) 17:57, 30 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

sent--Filll (talk) 20:53, 28 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hello again,

While surfing some articles I stumbled over this, and, verifying your Mentoree's contribution history since the RfArb, also came up with this and this.

In the first two cases, he completely wipes any occurrence of the word "Palestine" from the article, even where completely justified (i.e. referring to the region before 1948, before Israel even existed), and in the first case with a very misleading summary. In the third, he gets a sourced statement and turns it completely on its head.

Tendentious editing is nothing new regarding your Mentoree, but it looks to me that since the closure of the RfArb, he hast only been looking for relatively quiet, low-profile articles in which to systematically push his POV.

As with the last time I contacted you regarding your Mentoree, I thought it might be wiser to give you a "heads up" before taking this to enforcement.

Cheers and thanks, pedro gonnet - talk - 29.01.2008 07:45

Have you spoken to him directly? Durova^Charge! 18:12, 29 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I've pinged him about this. He doesn't seem to be online right now. Durova^Charge! 19:13, 29 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

He's gone ahead and made a post in response.[4] Apparently there's a historical issue about administrative divisions of the Ottoman Empire. I had to do some research myself when I nominated a historic image for FPC: the region was known as Palestine in English, informally, but there wasn't any official Ottoman district with a corresponding name. Has there been an RFC for pre-1948 NPOV terminology? Durova^Charge! 21:26, 29 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Durova, thanks for looking into this! I think the contextual dispute is kind of moot, since the main article on Palestine (specificaly Palestine#Ottoman rule (1516 - 1917 CE)) states that although the name was not in official use, it remained in "popular and semi-official use".

I didn't want to get involved directly since I have enough aggravation with User:Jaakobou already, which is why I called on you. It doesn't look like he's abiding to the word an spirit of the RfArb -- and he should know that -- and I was hoping if he was caught "red-handed", he'd back off without a block.

Cheers and many thanks, pedro gonnet - talk - 30.01.2008 07:27

User:Durova there is a very big problem when editors calling other editors Trolls. We need to educate ourselves as to what is an Internet Troll. When I tried to add the caveat to Troll (Internet) it was deleted pointing me to a link on the top of the page to Wikipedia essay on Wikipedia:What is a troll. In my opinion one small link is not enough and the issue needs to be made more prominent following Folksonomy. Can you chime in on it Talk:Troll_(Internet)#Wikipedia_Troll. Thank you, Igor Berger (talk) 08:00, 29 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, done. Durova^Charge! 21:21, 29 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your input. I have incorporated it in the article. I have made it clear that it is not just how a few editors see the issue, but how the whole world sees the issue. Refer to talk page for additional notability references. Thank you, Igor Berger (talk) 03:26, 30 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, best wishes. Durova^Charge! 03:31, 30 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

for this you deserve a cookie.

Teehee, thanks. :) Once in a while I just can't resist a joke. Cheers, Durova^Charge! 21:16, 29 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The new parser seems to need more cookies to work though (at least, I think it is the new parser) Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 21:19, 29 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I lol'd. daveh4h 21:25, 29 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. I hope it doesn't offend anybody. The situation needed a little levity. Regards, Durova^Charge! 21:27, 29 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe it would help to explain my take on this by analogy. Someday an editor may come to Wikipedia who consistently writes good articles and featured articles about sex scandals connected to the Catholic Church. Is that POV-pushing? Not really, if the community approves each of the articles as neutral and balanced. Some Catholic editors might be unhappy, but the way to resolve that is to raise the quality of other material. There's a wikiproject whose whole purpose is to improve Wikipedia's coverage of saints' biographies. That's really not much different from my offer, except that one religion is older and more established than another. Durova^Charge! 00:00, 30 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If that's all they do, then they are a single-purpose account. People that do that are generally emotional nutcases who could never compromise on anything or follow policy when it leads to edits they don't like, and I can't think of any example otherwise. They may sometimes be forced to compromise out of the fear of being blocked, but their whole modus operandi is to skirt policy in any way that they can in order push a particular point-of-view.

For an idea of my perspective on Wikipedia, see M:Conflict-driven view of wiki, M:Factionalism, M:Wikindividualism, and WP:FAIL. Also, see my essays WP:WIARRM and WP:Zombies. If any of that makes you think I'm "anti-Wiki", there is a satirical essay at WP:Anti-Wikipedianism. ☯  Zenwhat (talk) 00:11, 30 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I noticed you cited WP:NAM at Jimbo's talk. Have a look at the history of that essay. ;) Durova^Charge! 01:15, 30 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Two English gentlemen are sitting down, having a cup of tea.

"I say, old chap. What is that there in the distance?" one of them asks, squinting his eyes.

The other replies, "Well, I don't know, old bean. Hmm. It appears to be a tiger of some sort."

A saber-toothed tiger zips over to them in a blur, leaps on top of them, knocking their teacups to the ground, clobbering both of them, ripping both to pieces.

Destruction is what trolls, vandals, and bad-faith users do to our wiki. I agree with WP:No angry mastodons and in assuming good faith, but on the other hand, you don't invite a tiger to sit down with you and drink tea. In discussions about trolls, I've even had several folks ask the absurd question, "Troll -- according to whom?"

It is true that I have a tendency to idiotically assume bad faith and be irrationally paranoid, at times, but I generally acknowledge fault when I'm wrong (see here) On the other hand, I do see that Wikipedia, in general, is very complacent about dealing with POV-pushing trolls and mobs.

Also, an essay of mine you might like better is: User:Zenwhat/Zen guide ☯  Zenwhat (talk) 04:08, 30 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Lovely. Re: this, in case you read German, Sieh, die Bäume sind. Die Häuser, die wir bewohnen, bestehen noch. Wir nur ziehen Allem vorbei vie ein luftiger Austausch. -Rainer Maria Rilke Durova^Charge! 04:18, 30 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I don't read German, but I'm good with Google, including its translator and think I know what those words say. First, I did a search and the correct German, from what I see, should read:

"Siehe, die Bäume SIND, Die Häuser, die wir bewohnen, bestehen noch. Wir nur ziehen allem vorbei, wie ein luftiger Austausce." [5]

From what I gather, it's from his poem, "Elegies from the Castle of Duino," and it says:

"Behold, there are trees, the houses we inhabit, existing still. We just move over everything, like a dizzy exchange."

19th and 20th century philosophers, artists, and scientists in the west have largely re-discovered ancient eastern concepts. ☯  Zenwhat (talk) 04:59, 30 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Stephen Mitchell has done some brilliant translations of Rilke's work. Mitchell has also studied Zen in some depth. :) Durova^Charge! 05:16, 30 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, Durova, for your fair-mindedness. I have made my final statement on the WikiNews thing over at WP:ANI and am finished tilting at that particular windmill. I will not be looking at WikiNews again if I can help it and certainly will no longer be surprised at what I see there. Thank you for you offer to create some articles. There are actually two very good articles that were AfD'ed by "another editor" about two months ago. They were quite good, represent considerable effort on the part of the author (User:Slightlyright, if I recall), and need very little work to get back up. They are in my user space as User:JustaHulk/Sandbox1 (KRC), User:JustaHulk/Sandbox2 (ARC). Please let me know what you think of them. Thanks again. --JustaHulk (talk) 03:02, 30 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

They both have the makings of pretty good articles. Do you have other sources besides Hubbard's own writings? It would be interesting to note when Hubbard introduced these concepts and how other leading Scientologists have elaborated upon them. Other Scientologist publications such as magazine articles etc. would help verify assertions about their importance within Scientology. Perhaps most importantly, some analytical treatment from outside Scientology itself would round out the draft versions. How about academic studies in comparative religion? After I read your sandbox versions I looked over the trinity article to see how it approached its topic. That's a solid B-class article and you might find it useful for comparison. Best wishes, Durova^Charge! 03:22, 30 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Durova, read over the AfDs please. Both articles were deleted because they lacked any secondary sources, and never had any since the articles were initially created. P.S. Full disclosure: I was the one who had nominated them for AfD initially, so I felt I needed to point that out. If no secondary sources can be given, we should not recreate deleted articles, we should not be in the habit of basing entire articles on Hubbard's writings or on Church of Scientology-affiliated publications, and the area in this user's userspace should be deleted if no secondary sources can be found. Cheers, Cirt (talk) 04:30, 30 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Cirt, I have a big problem swallowing these two AfDs, especially the one on ARC. ARC is so incredibly central to Scientology that your desire to AfD it is indicative of an alarming lack of knowledge on a subject that you are broadly attempting to slice through with prods and AfDs. Did you even search the term? Cirt, you are famous for your ability to find sources. Did you not even run a simple Google book search on "ARC+Scientology"? There is plenty of material to affirm their importance and I will adjust the articles to reflect 3rd-party sources but the meat of the article will remain sourced to Hubbard material because that is what the article is about, understanding an important aspect of Scientology. --JustaHulk (talk) 05:27, 30 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I apologize at the time I did not do a search on Google Books. In the future (as is the case on an ongoing WP:SCN/AFD) I will do a search for secondary sources before nominating an article for AfD. But I disagree and do not think the bulk of the article should be sourced to Hubbard. That's like writing an entire article about the Qur'an, only using the Qur'an as a source. Cirt (talk) 05:30, 30 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

We would get along a lot better if you specialized in what you knew, i.e. finding material critical of Scientology and working it into articles, and left others alone to do something else - explain Scientology so that the non-Scientologist can gain an understanding of it. That is the point of an encyclopedia, too. And some people might actually appreciate that understanding. Those two articles went a nice way along that line and only needed a bit of 3rd-party sourcing to be just fine. --JustaHulk (talk) 05:39, 30 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Um, no. No article on this project should rely primarily on a primary source. That strays close to blatant POV interpretations of that source, and WP:OR violations. Cirt (talk) 05:43, 30 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Right, this needs wider sourcing. And if they're as central to Scientology doctrine as they purport to be then secondary sources probably do exist. Durova^Charge! 04:38, 30 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

For a moment, could we set aside the particulars about which religion this is? I don't see an inherent problem with having articles about the central tenets of any significant religion. The key thing is to establish and maintain some objective distance. Wikipedia's trinity article doesn't encourage readers to become trinitarians, nor does it offer a wholly internal triniatrian perspective. If JustaHulk's sandbox versions expand beyond Hubbard's formulation to set these concepts in the context of their history within Scientology and independent academic study, then it appears to me they could both become viable articles. Durova^Charge! 05:37, 30 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sure. If they are sourced mainly to secondary sources, and not to Hubbard's writings or Church of Scientology affiliated organizations' publications. Cirt (talk) 05:39, 30 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well, would it be fair to do a survey of other B-class articles of other religious creeds, and use a rough average of their internal/external sourcing ratio as a yardstick for acceptable sourcing here? Durova^Charge! 05:44, 30 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Best to use a higher standard than "B" class articles. Shouldn't set the bar low from the get go. Cirt (talk) 05:48, 30 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

B-class is "average article". There might not be many GAs and FAs to survey. Let's say B-class and above? Durova^Charge! 05:50, 30 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I dunno, WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS... What about comparing this to policy pages instead, which emphasize use of secondary third party sources over primary, self-referential sources? Cirt (talk) 05:53, 30 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

There is a reason that WP:PSTS appears within the policy page WP:OR...... Cirt (talk) 05:57, 30 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

When writing about any religion's internal teachings, internal sources are likely to play an important role. All I propose is that we set Scientology on the same footing as other religions for the purpose of article-writing. If you're unsure of how that will work out, then one alternative would be to improve these sandbox versions and then run a content RFC before moving them into article space. Durova^Charge! 06:15, 30 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sounds like a potential idea. I'll respectfully defer to your judgment. Cirt (talk) 06:24, 30 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

A preliminary survey

• Predestination: B-class
• Prevenient grace: unrated
• Syādvāda: start-class
• Resurrection: start-class
• Afterlife: start/B-class

• GAs: Wikipedia:GA#Philosophy_and_religion
• FAs: Wikipedia:FA#Religion.2C_mysticism_and_mythology

From what I see here, it looks like there's a big gap between the level of sourcing that gets tolerated for a run-of-the-mill article and the actual quality of a GA or FA. For instance, Category:Sikh beliefs is really sketchy and basic. Ideally I'd like to see JustaHulk's sandbox pages at GA or FA level; I'd like to see all articles at that level. But I have to concede this point: with a bit of expansion and outside sourcing these would be at the same quality as comparable coverage for other religions. So first, let's get enough expansion and independent sourcing to move this into article space. Then let's see about continuing to improve them where more people can see the articles and contribute to them. Durova^Charge! 00:50, 31 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Homeopathy has been placed on article probation via a discussion at the Administrators' noticeboard. As far as I know, this is the first time such a thing has been accomplished without arbitration. Jehochman ^Talk 22:18, 30 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know if that is good or bad. I just don't know. --Filll (talk) 23:05, 30 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

User:Igorberger/Social engineering (Internet)

I think I hit a sore nerver with this one! Igor Berger (talk) 04:21, 31 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Nobody likes to be on the wrong end of that. Good essay. Durova^Charge! 19:01, 31 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you user Durova. I will ask someone to proofread it and will take it as an essay to main space. Igor Berger (talk) 19:34, 31 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

We got it proofread, and I moved it to main space. Wikipedia:Social engineering (Internet) also created a shortcut WP:SEI. I am wondering if we need to have the parenthesis around Internet. So maybe better "Wikipedia:Social engineering Internet" What do you think? Thank you, Igor Berger (talk) 05:52, 1 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Usually parentheses are only used to distinguish two pages that would otherwise occupy the same space. Durova^Charge! 06:00, 1 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I love the essay. It is perfect and we can use it when someone complains that WP:NOT#democracy. Thank you, Igor Berger (talk) 06:14, 1 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The essy is great. I am using it at WP:ANI and it works charms in preserving WP:COOL. Igor Berger (talk) 07:08, 1 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm really glad it's working for you. :) Durova^Charge! 07:16, 1 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I am glad it is working for all of us. I could have never done it if I was thinking of myself. I always think of others first when I do something. Igor Berger (talk) 07:22, 1 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The Military history WikiProject coordinator selection process is starting. We are aiming to elect nine coordinators to serve for the next six months; if you are interested in running, please sign up here by February 14! TomStar81 (Talk) 02:53, 1 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the heads up. Durova^Charge! 03:00, 1 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Durova, just wanted you to know how helpful it's been for me to run into you. I had never paid attention to DYK before, and largely due to your positive energy I've now contributed to 4 DYKs, 3 nearly on my own. Now I'd like to work on a GA. Care to give me any guidance or mentoring on how to go about it? I realize you're already dealing with me on IPCOLL, plus you're quite busy, so it's fine if you'd that I see help elsewhere. (If so, any suggestions?) Anyway, thanks again, see you around, HG | Talk 03:52, 1 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Absolutely, and congratulations! If the subject interests you, I've been working up Navajo rug from a three paragraph stub. It's solid B-class now and I'm intending to bring it to GA (kinda been distracted). Ping me if you like it, or if you find another subject that tickles your interest. Best regards, Durova^Charge! 03:57, 1 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Your Featured picture candidate has been promoted Your nomination for featured picture status, Image:Yeager supersonic flight 1947.ogg, gained a consensus of support, and has been promoted. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates. MER-C 07:22, 1 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you! :) Durova^Charge! 07:34, 1 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Durova,

Just to let you know that User:Jaakobou just did it again. What makes it all the more ridiculous is that the coordinates in the top-right corner of the page are smack in the middle of the West Bank, just east of Bethlehem.

I'm preparing a post for WP:AE, I'll link you to it as soon as its done.

Cheers and thanks, pedro gonnet - talk - 01.02.2008 08:20

Thank you for touching bases. I'll ping him asap. Durova^Charge! 08:22, 1 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

As promissed, here. Cheers, pedro gonnet - talk - 01.02.2008 09:26

Okay, I've e-mailed him. I do appreciate that you're touching bases. Best wishes, Durova^Charge! 09:28, 1 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you also for your efforts! Mentorship is never an easy thing and I have great respect for people who take such a burden upon themselves. Cheers, pedro gonnet - talk - 01.02.2008 09:30

		The Photographer's Barnstar
		For your work on restoring historic images, I award you this barnstar.-- Muhammad(talk) 08:49, 1 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! Durova^Charge! 09:19, 1 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

		The Barnstar of Diligence
		For recognizing a star in me while many other did not see it, and for your support for WP:SEI which already captured an abuser. Thank you, Igor Berger (talk) 09:13, 1 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You're too kind. That's your essay. Take pride in it. And keep up the good work. :) Durova^Charge! 09:20, 1 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, the discussion moved forward and I don't know where to answer you in this.
There is a misunderstanding. The idea I have is to go more into details to see how respect WP:RS in practice in writings :

• "bla bla bla" (ref)...(/ref) for reliable sources
• According to MrA, "bla bla bla" (ref)...(/ref) for contreversed material or analysis
• Commentators add that "bla bla bla" (ref)...(/ref) for minority allegedly biased analysis.

In all case, this is just a matter of WP:undue. Ceedjee (talk) 11:18, 1 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Basically that makes sense. I've seen various disputes where people tried to game the idea of including or excluding sources. And - no joke - completely unrelated instances have tried to declare The New York Times an unreliable source. I'd just like to make people aware of that problem while we undertake this. Durova^Charge! 11:01, 2 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Your Featured picture candidate has been promoted Your nomination for featured picture status, Image:Adm2.jpg, gained a consensus of support, and has been promoted. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates. MER-C 05:41, 2 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. :) Durova^Charge! 06:25, 2 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

User:VirtualSteve WP:canvassing for consensus of WP:MFD for WP:SEI. You know I am going on vacation for about 3 weeks in a few days, so try to defend the article how you can. I have life case of social engineering on Wikipedia that I will submit to WP:DRV if we ever have to go there. I do not want to devulge the case evidence untill need to be. Or I will bring it to WP:MFD if the guy can wait till I come back! Igor Berger (talk) 10:33, 2 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure he's canvassing. Anyway I've gone ahead with a post to the essay talk. Best wishes, Durova^Charge! 10:44, 2 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Please let's see some clarity in this discussion Durova - your an editor much worthy of respect (as I am). Standing back beyond any interest in Igor that you have previously posted - this fellow is trolling through page after page, admin after admin making out of context arguments about this page - which whilst he might be proud of it, is (being as kind as possible) completely nonsensical. And it is the silly threats and innuendo about 'life case' (?) that he spruiks whenever anyone asks him a legitimate question rather than providing a legitimate response, and the way that he proudly indicates that he is trolling the page, that is making others (not me initially) considering a placement at MfD.--VS ^talk 10:51, 2 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Igor, would you agree to cut down on the links to this page? There's a fine line with a newly created essay between being enthusiastic and going too far. Just take your time, post a link once or twice a month when it really fits in best, and people will spread the word themselves if they agree it's valuable. Steve, I do think Igor means well. Best wishes to you both, Durova^Charge! 10:58, 2 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Yes a well started compromise possibility at this stage - but I do not speak for other intentions. Certainly if Igor explains fully what the article is supposed to do on the talk page before he goes on holidays and only posts a maximum of two links per month I will leave it alone for now. My best in return to you Durova.--VS ^talk 11:01, 2 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Wikipedia has a great number of essays. Very few are read widely. Occasionally a well-intentioned effort gets misunderstood and sparks a negative reaction. Yesterday I archived a thread early over someone else's misfired idea, which could have gone over well if the person had done one or two things differently, and instead had led to some bad blood. If the issue is excessive linking I trust Igor to be reasonable. Durova^Charge! 11:10, 2 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • User Durova I already forgot about the article and will be working on WP:FLAME next as I told User:Jehochman. As far as explayining the article the article speak for itself. It is a double edge sword. When someone claims social engineering they need to uderstand what it is. The other side when someone canvassing for votes to indict an editor that is social engineering. The essay explains it all. Regards, Igor Berger (talk) 11:13, 2 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

EC again - Well that is not the only issue - the issue from others relates to the question of what the page is and means. Put simply Igor is attempting to harass other editors with this (currently nonsensical) document and by linking it everywhere he is attempting to force its being read widely. Indeed he is also posting it in such a way as to make it look like a policy or guide, and at least one person has thought he is an administrator as a result of his posts. Put even more simply (and using your talk page because he started this thread here) - if Igor places an appropriate comment that explains the essay a little bit more and that he will only list it a couple of times a month as detailed above, on the talk page at WP:SEI before he goes on holidays I certainly will leave it alone - if not I can only assume that he is not being sincere with this essay and I will take it to MfD for wider consideration, this week after I have prepared the submission.--VS ^talk 11:20, 2 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• VirtualSteve you have not been sincere with me but literaly Stalking me from one editor to another, VirtualSteve calls SEI joke page VS just leave me alone! Igor Berger (talk) 11:24, 2 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Please Igor just an answer to my legitimate question and to Durova's legitimate attempt at compromise. As for above it is a "joke" page - you are the one that put the joke alert label on the page. Please just an answer to my question so we can all get back to som serious wiki?--VS ^talk 11:27, 2 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I am not Spamming but wanted to see how the essay worked in real life. My test is finished so I have no reason to show it around as I did before. Igor Berger (talk) 11:31, 2 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

We are concluded Igor - I have just posted this response to the "essay" talk page... Okay thank you Igor - I take it that you are not going to SPAM this essay again - and I thank you for not being mendacious any further with your finally answering my specific question. As I said before I do not speak for others but if you do not SPAM the article again I will certainly leave it alone. Now we can be friends again . . . best wishes to you - trust your skiing trip will go well.--VS ^talk 11:36, 2 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Steve maybe I can come down to Australia and we can go skiing together. Never skied Down Under. Please try using WP:SEI when users complain about being picked on, it may save you time. Igor Berger (talk) 11:44, 2 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Durova - thank you for the use of your pixels :) --VS ^talk 11:36, 2 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Durova thank you, I will try to bring you some SNOW..:)

Hi Durova. I've just seen your message. So you mean that scketched of photographs made my me are not my copyright? Thanks to confirm the info. PHG (talk) 11:30, 3 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

In these instances, no you can't assert copyright. The photographs themselves are copyrighted and your sketches are derivative works of the photographs. Durova^Charge! 18:27, 3 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I am writing to you because you have had previous experience working with this article. The edits of David Shankbone on this article have been reported to COIN as seen here, [6].

--71.127.226.181 (talk) 15:14, 3 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, replied at the noticeboard. Short answer: I think you'd fare better raising this at the biographies of living persons noticeboard. Durova^Charge! 18:37, 3 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I do not remember we having so much infighting with Homeopathy and alternative medicine. Maybe we should bring John back he knew what he was doing! Igor Berger (talk) 18:52, 3 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Not my call. Durova^Charge! 18:53, 3 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The January 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) 23:42, 3 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If you look at ANI maybe 10 diffenret place they calling editors "tendentious editing". Is being WP:BOLD equal "tendentious editing" I am being blamed of this by VirtualSteve as well. here Igor Berger (talk) 04:04, 4 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Bold is good, as long as no one has a problem with it. Continuing on the same boldness after other editors object is tendentious. Durova^Charge! 04:06, 4 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

In each case I know when to draw a line, and I never over step it! But what they are not happy about that I always come to the line every time I do things. Should I just be silent when someone says no? That is not consensus! Igor Berger (talk) 04:11, 4 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That's when you talk to them. Durova^Charge! 04:12, 4 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Well they need to talk to me not watch my actions partially and come up with some conclusions! Igor Berger (talk) 04:20, 4 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Your Featured picture candidate has been promoted Your nomination for featured picture status, Image:Buffalo soldiers1.jpg, gained a consensus of support, and has been promoted. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates. MER-C 04:36, 4 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. :) Durova^Charge! 04:49, 4 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, could you enlighten me as to why you have removed the links to lyrics have been removed from many articles on Strawbs songs? Is this contrary to wiki policy? Regards Witchwooder (talk) 08:33, 4 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, some time ago Wikipedia consensus agreed to stop linking to outside sites that violate copright on song lyrics. It's a matter of legal exposure to the Foundation, if I understand correctly. Durova^Charge! 08:38, 4 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for such a swift response - is there a wiki article about this or a link to the discussion? (The only article I can find is WP:SONGS#LYRICS. I don't believe that the strawbs website is in violation of copyright. Best Witchwooder (talk) 09:22, 4 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

From Wikipedia:Copyrights#Linking to copyrighted works:

However, if you know that an external Web site is carrying a work in violation of the creator's copyright, do not link to that copy of the work. Knowingly and intentionally directing others to a site that violates copyright has been considered a form of contributory infringement in the United States (Intellectual Reserve v. Utah Lighthouse Ministry [1]). Linking to a page that illegally distributes someone else's work sheds a bad light on Wikipedia and its editors.

Many people do not realize that song lyrics and music videos are copyrightable and link to sites whose claim to legitimacy is dubious at best. I trust sites such as vh1.com to go about these things letitimately, but fansites and YouTube and Blogspot, etc. have a lot of problems in this regard. It isn't worth the copyright owners' time to go after the individuals who perpetrate those infringements, but it might be worth their time to file a suit against the WikiMedia Foundation. Durova^Charge! 09:52, 4 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I appreciate the argument but the site linked to is the official website, endorsed and contributed to by the band, which states that the lyrics are printed with copyright holder's permission. How do we decide whom to trust? Best Witchwooder (talk) 13:24, 4 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, that's different. Durova^Charge! 21:03, 4 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, fixed. Please give me the heads up if I missed anything. Durova^Charge! 21:18, 4 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks very much! Best Witchwooder (talk) 08:10, 5 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I created a page in my userspace. User:Zenwhat/Hall of Shame

Now, I want to ask you a question. Let me first preface it by saying I don't know what happened and that's why I'm asking.

Basically, I'm just curious to hear your side about this. [7]

Keep in mind: I'm not like Cade Metz or Daniel Brandt. I'd just like to know what happened. Was it a mistake? If so, how did it happen?

Even if I list it there, that doesn't mean I don't respect you less. It's just an example of some of the theoretical problems that can emerge with the way "mop and bucket" is currently handed out.

Also, I'm sorry if bringing this up bothers you. ☯  Zenwhat (talk) 08:41, 4 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I made a bad block, and reversed the action with apologies 75 minutes later as soon as I could confirm the error. It was a legitimate second account, and it came to my attention that the editor wished to avoid attention. So I added a statement to the noticeboard thread I had started and asked all further attention to focus on my own actions, rather than the individual I had blocked. The particular edit you cite was another editor's attempt to honor that. We were both acting in good faith.

As to how I made the mistake in the first place, I had attempted an experimental report that was quite out of the norm for my usual work. You'll get part of the background if you look at Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Alkivar and Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Eyrian : two administrators involuntarily desysopped, one of them sitebanned indefinitely by the Committee, and two other accounts that had operated for over half a year banned for sock/meat activity. In the Alkivar case the banned vandal JB196 played a pivotal role. JB196 has created literally hundreds of sockpuppets and both Alkivar and Burntsauce were consistently proxy editing for him. I had been trying to root out serious long term problems like that, and had been quite successful at it - much to the chagrin of the people who had been trying to game our rules, and perhaps my own success buoyed my reputation enough that Wikipedians in good standing didn't look critically enough at my work afterward.

Also worth mentioning is that I was dealing with multiple problems of offsite harassment in the weeks immediately before I made the bad block. The harassment itself doesn't faze me much - I am nearly untrollable - but the cyberstalking list was filled with untrained amateurs who were making their newbie mistakes. By the luck of the draw, every single instance where I brought a problem of my own to the attention of that list, one or more people intervened against my wishes in ways that made the problem worse. In some of those instances the intervention went deeply against my principles because I believed it placed other women at risk of harassment. Trolling itself I can take, but not being able to trust the people who were near me - that was much harder. The particular editor I blocked was in no way to blame for that. Yet under those pressures my concentration and judgement slipped.

Normally a set of errors like the ones I made wouldn't be such a big deal, especially since I was self-correcting, accepted responsibility, and basically did all I could to atone for it and make changes so it wouldn't happen again. The stars must have been aligned; and I know some of the people who had been harassing me offsite did their utmost to fan the flames. The dispute resolution system broke. I had been attempting to take a short wikibreak on the advice of someone I respect very much, and expected RFC to last the usual term (three weeks or so) that would allow enough time for evidence, questions, and responses. Instead the RFC got certified on Thanksgiving Day and became obsolete within 12 hours when RFAR opened. Normally arbitration remains in the evidence phase for at least a week before progressing to voting. My case not only went to voting in under 24 hours, but when I saw that three arbitrators had already voted and I begged for time (my evidence was barely half prepared), my request went ignored and two more arbitrators voted within the next two hours. With one-third of the full Committee going on record that no defense was possible, and directing the outcome to an immediate RFA (I was open to recall), the only dignified option was to identify the irregularities and resign.

It didn't help that another editor violated my copyright and publish the report I had written onsite, two full days after I had reversed the block with apologies. When that person posted it his edit note was "for your entertainment". I have a stubborn streak that way. Talk to me, reason with me - that could change my mind. But I dig in my heels when someone tries to tread on my rights.

I did my best to reduce the drama. After the first day on the noticeboard, when it was clear that some incredibly off-target memes were gaining traction and most of what I posted was being ignored or misquoted, I withdrew from that discussion. I didn't lash out at anyone and I accepted more damage to my reputation than I actually deserved in order to let things cool down. Since then I've revived WikiProject Textile Arts from near-extinction, written a dozen new articles for "Did you know?", collected 11 featured picture credits, and founded an image restoration workshop for historic photographs. I've learned many lessons from the last couple of monts. I hope the community learns two lessons too. One of them I've worked toward actively: I don't want another editor to get railroaded through arbitration too quickly to present a defense. For that reason I've spoken up on behalf of both Adam Cuerden and Physchim62, even though Adam had been silent when my neck was on the block and Physchim had been one of my most active critics. The other part I've waited to express because the community didn't seem to be ready for it, but that would be a different conversation. Regards, Durova^Charge! 09:41, 4 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, I see. Yeah, I don't think it's worth listing. I hate Wikipedia Review as much as I hate Wikipedia. I've been wanting to write an essay recently, titled, "Legitimate Criticism."

Because of human psychology, Wikipedia users have generally split into two factions:

• Those who have a very poor quality definition of "encyclopedic content" and are very naive about Wikipedia failure, and turn a blind eye to trolling.
• Those who have ridiculous expectations of admins, engage in conspiracy theorism, regarding the "illuminati cabal that REALLY controls Wikipedia", and tend to be too hasty in wanting troublesome users blocked.

The truth about Wikipedia is somewhere between the two. I'm not going to list it, because it appears you just made a mistake and apologized for it. With the amount of subtle trolling and the amount of harassment admins get, it's understandable why you might make mistakes like that. ☯  Zenwhat (talk) 21:03, 4 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

User:Zenwhat brought this to User:MKoltnow. The problem is old but there was an andmin involved in an edit war and purged a bot revert. There was an edit blanked out in this here. So you better look at it carefully. Only sysop can blank out an edit. Igor Berger (talk) 08:43, 4 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Why are you concerned about a month-old event? Durova^Charge! 09:56, 4 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I am conserned that User:Zenwhat brought it up. here Igor Berger (talk) 09:59, 4 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Seems to be mentioned in passing. The best thing you could do is make productive edits, so that everyone can see you're adjusting. A lot of Wikipedians made a few missteps when we were new. Durova^Charge! 10:02, 4 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, Wakarimashta! Igor Berger (talk) 10:04, 4 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I am sorry I linked to your conversation with Zenwat as a case of social engineering on Wikipedia_talk:Social_engineering_Internet VirtualStve suggested that I get your permission or strike it out. Please forgive me for not asking you first. Igor Berger (talk) 11:41, 4 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, sure. Go ahead and strike it. :) Durova^Charge! 11:42, 4 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you Igor. :)--VS ^talk 11:44, 4 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

An Arbitration case in which you commented has been opened, and is located here. Please add any evidence you may wish the Arbitrators to consider to the evidence sub-page, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Franco-Mongol alliance/Evidence. Please submit your evidence within one week, if possible. You may also contribute to the case on the workshop sub-page, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Franco-Mongol alliance/Workshop.

On behalf of the Arbitration Committee, — Rlevse • Talk • 22:15, 5 February 2008 (UTC), note User:Thatcher is the clerk, not me, I'm just opening for him. — Rlevse • Talk • 22:15, 5 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, Durova, you don't need to apologize to me. You're a great editor and I know you meant nothing by it. I had an insanely busy "real time" day and was a little short. No worries! --David Shankbone 02:59, 6 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. Believe me, I don't think you were being short at all. That IP editor's behavior really was jaw-dropping. If an issue on a topic like this ever comes up in the future, you're very welcome to refer it to me. There are fewer ways to troll a woman about this topic. Durova^Charge! 03:08, 6 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well, allow me a rant: Not once has this editor approached me about the edits I made. He raised no issues on the Michael Lucas Talk page after I made them. If you go to the Michael Lucas Talk page, I think you'll see responses to Lucas that are reasonable, indeed that the IP even agrees with and references. The edit that caused all that ire was that I changed male escort. If you click on that, it leads you to the male prostitute article. It's the same thing. Becksguy--for whatever reason--was dead on on with his analysis. The gay (not homosexual) world does not typically called gay men who are paid for sex prostitutes, but male escorts (rent boys in the UK). Hustler sometimes, although that is so 1970's. Next thing you know, that IP is all over the place. On Talk:Orthodox Judaism, COIN, ANI, BLP, my talk page...all saying the same things. I spoke to Michael Lucas on the phone, and I offered the male escort thing because I think it was merited. He told me that he had never heard of Bregman, and that the La Dolce Vita people who filed the court case say in the proceedings that they got the "Bregman" name from Wikipedia (because Lucas in court raised an objection that has never been his name). I checked the source that was in the infobox, and it did not say Bregman in the article. So, I don't know what the story is with his name, but I will find out. I mean, some of what the IP says and some of the evidence he raises is worth considering. The problem is that not once did he ever approach me or raise these issues in even rude terms, but in vile, filthy attempts to humiliate me because he thought I am friends with Lucas, or whatever. So, I'm thankful for the research this person did in their obsessive hatred of Lucas, because now I can go to the interview with some good questions that will get to the bottom of it. It's too bad the IP is more about humiliating me (and Lucas) than he is about why most of us spend a lot of time and money on building this project. Thanks for allowing the rant. --David Shankbone 03:31, 6 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Your editing work in general earns my great respect and your willingness to walk through coals over this raises that esteem. Best regards, Durova^Charge! 04:07, 6 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

To the IP editor who posted here (and who no doubt will come peeking): you have passed the point of diminishing returns. Not only has your conduct discredited yourself, it is having the effect of raising David Shankbone's standing within the Wikipedia community. We already know he's a fine editor, now he's demonstrating that he's a patient and gracious one too. Your insults are directly responsible for that. Durova^Charge! 04:59, 6 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

What's your opinion?

Vladimir Putin Putin is not included into the world list of billionaires compiled by Forbes[229] or the list of Russian billionaires compiled by the Finance magazine.[230]

^{[original research?]}

Chergles (talk) 16:15, 6 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Do you get the idea of how to do it from the model at Portal:Textile Arts/Selected picture/1, or do you want me to do a couple more from the images you laid out at Portal talk:Textile Arts? Cirt (talk) 22:26, 6 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I thought you needed better image descriptions. Apologies for not putting those in sooner; I spent a long time restoring a particular image (it's doing well on FPC now). Please go ahead and put in a couple more; I kind of based the uploads on your recommendation of 10, and added a little more. Durova^Charge! 22:31, 6 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, yea I could use a tad more text for image descriptions, ideally the blurb text should be geared towards a Wikipedia article, which would then be bolded within that blurb. I'll add a couple more. Cirt (talk) 22:33, 6 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, now there are better descriptions for most of these images. Would it help with featured portal candidacy if a significant portion of the images get featured? We're weak on the article side and I wonder whether this would help balance things in voting. Durova^Charge! 23:53, 6 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Nah, really doesn't make a difference, so long as they are really good looking pictures, and they all are. Cirt (talk) 23:55, 6 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

So what should we prioritize for portal candidacy? Is there any unaddressed problem that's likely to sink us? Durova^Charge! 23:57, 6 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, mainly not having at least 10 selections of each subsection that is of "B" quality or higher that you can add for dynamism. Who knows, perhaps by the time I get around to randomizing all the other stuff and some other minor fixes, there will be more content to select/display, or you'll have just found more stuff you didn't know existed and that was of a high enough quality. Cirt (talk) 23:59, 6 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It shouldn't be hard to get that addressed for general articles. Biographies, though - ugh... The project is just beginning to revive from near dormancy. PKM is a trooper and WillowW is a powerhouse when she turns her attention to a subject. Le Grand Roi has been great about pitching in at drives and a couple of other new members have helped out. But revving 7 more biographies from zero to sixty isn't going to be easy. Durova^Charge! 00:06, 7 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Tell you what, I'll do what I can with what you've given me on the portal's talk page, content-wise and such, and then we'll go from there. Cirt (talk) 00:09, 7 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks very much. I'm thinking where I could help. Debbie Stoller is one possibility because she's so prolific and has written some recent bestsellers. With some related material about third wave feminism and her legal disputes that might go from a stub to a B-class. I might be able to get something going for Therese de Dillmont since her Encyclopedia of Needlework remains in print after more than a century. Generally, though, it's difficult to do biographies on this subject. A lot of the major artists worked anonymously and those who didn't often get overlooked in critical appraisals. One book on craftsman design I read recently called craftsman textile work important, yet devoted less than a page to it and named none of the artists. Durova^Charge! 00:18, 7 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• 
  featured
• 
  At WP:FPC, unanimous support so far (restored).
• 
  Restored, at picture peer review.
• 
  Probably feature-worthy on historical grounds; no restoration needed.
• 
  Restored, possibly feature-worthy.
• 
  Restoration in progress, possibly feature-worthy.
• 
  Unrestored, possibly featurable after restoration.

Thank you for pulling up that picture I put on PPR. You were right, it is my first and I am still unsure of how to do everything. I once again thank you for the help.

You're very welcome. If you have any questions don't hesitate to ask. It usually takes a few submissions before a new editor gets familiar with FPC standards. Things can seem intimidating at first, but once you get used to it PPR and FPC is a very fun place to be. Cheers, Durova^Charge! 00:23, 7 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Can you fill me in on the background here? I see your name mentioned on the talk page:

Talk:Maharishi_Mahesh_Yogi#For_reference_check_and_discussion_re:_John_Lennon_addition

Thanks. Nandesuka (talk) 02:00, 7 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well, that's a quote by somebody invoking my name, with a link to another quote by somebody invoking my name, and the chain ends there. It might be possible that someone in my 25,000 edits I commented on that talk page. Right now it doesn't ring a bell. Durova^Charge! 04:36, 7 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Your Featured picture candidate has been promoted Your nomination for featured picture status, Image:Racistcampaignposter1.jpg, gained a consensus of support, and has been promoted. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates. MER-C 08:21, 7 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Your Featured picture candidate has been promoted Your nomination for featured picture status, Image:Tanks of WWI.ogg, gained a consensus of support, and has been promoted. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates. MER-C 08:21, 7 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Your Featured picture candidate has been promoted Your nomination for featured picture status, Image:Tacoma Narrows Bridge destruction.ogg, gained a consensus of support, and has been promoted. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates. MER-C 08:21, 7 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. :) Durova^Charge! 08:57, 7 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Durova, just letting you know I've sent an email (via the English Wikipedia email function) to you with details about your Working Group wiki login details. Be sure to change your password once you log in, for security reasons! If there's any problems with the login (passwords, username not working, or anything), fire me an email and I'll try and sort them out for you. Cheers, Daniel (talk) 04:01, 8 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, thank you very much. :) Durova^Charge! 04:05, 8 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Your Featured picture candidate has been promoted Your nomination for featured picture status, Image:Stonemasonry1.jpg, gained a consensus of support, and has been promoted. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates. MER-C 07:00, 8 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. :) Durova^Charge! 07:15, 8 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

On 8 February, 2008, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Textiles of Oaxaca, 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.

--BorgQueen (talk) 18:24, 8 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. :) Durova^Charge! 18:25, 8 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I recently uploaded a photo from the LoC and worked on an edit of it, trying to restore it. There's a yellowish color cast in the lower corner I don't know how to remove. Any assistance you can provide is appreciated. I've added it to your workshop page. --Imzadi1979 (talk) 21:49, 8 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, I'll have a look. Which software do you use? Durova^Charge! 22:02, 8 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The lower right corner, I take it? I'd select the area and create an adjustment layer, changing the color balance and brightness. Not too starkly, then repeat as needed until you've got the right effect. I had a similar issue getting from Image:Elderlyspinner.jpg to Image:Elderlyspinnera.jpg. Compare the shadows on the base of the spinning wheel legs and the area underneath her shoe. After about a dozen layer adjustments it looked visually correct. Or as an alternative, you might paste selections from a nearby area you think is correct and use the healing brush tool to blend the seams. Durova^Charge! 22:08, 8 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I use Photoshop CS2, but beyond simple cloning and color/contrast corrections, I'm not that proficient yet. I'm hoping that this photo has some merits as a possible FP, but that might be a little optimistic too. --Imzadi1979 (talk) 23:21, 8 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Would you like to play around with it a little bit? For the first approach, I suggest you use the polygonal lasso tool to select the area. Then go to the "Layer" menu and select "New adjustment layer". Then go for"Hue/Saturation" and make small changes to the hue. You'll want to remove that yellow cast so move the bar to the right a little bit and tap the preview box a few times before you save. Then what I'd do is select manually again, instead of creating a new layer copy, and make another new adjustment layer but this time go for "Brightness/Contrast". Wash, rinse, repeat until you've got a good result. The more I look at that the more I think it's you're best bet. And it runs up and down the full lenth of the right side of the photo. Best wishes. Durova^Charge! 05:12, 9 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Your Featured picture candidate has been promoted Your nomination for featured picture status, Image:Twain1909.jpg, gained a consensus of support, and has been promoted. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates. MER-C 04:55, 9 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. :) Durova^Charge! 07:40, 9 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Its been all set up

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Featured_picture_candidates/Arches_National_Park_Night

of course, if there are other images you'd love to 2nd as features, I'd be glad to do so.

-alwynloh, 5.15a.m CST —Preceding unsigned comment added by Alwynloh (talk • contribs) 11:15, 9 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. Although I don't think it will amount to anything good, since the image quality is awful. I have uploaded a few other images to wikimedia commons over here

http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/Alwynloh

if you think any of those are worth nominating, just let me know.

- alwynloh, 6.08p.m CST. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Alwynloh (talk • contribs) 00:08, 10 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I suggest you put up your favorites for picture peer review. It's better if you do that instead of me because I nominate so many things that my review requests don't always get feedback. Voters tend to be harsh on any blown whites, noise, or lack of sharpness. Minor Photoshop corrections are okay. Encyclopedic content is an important factor; images will be weighed in part on the basis of the informational value they add to the articles where they appear. Over on Commons the standards are pretty similar except that encyclopedic value isn't a factor. The same image can get featured on either or both projects, if it's hosted at Commons. The advantage to getting featured here is that Wikipedia's main page gets much more traffic. The advantage to getting hosted there is that your work comes to the attention of a much broader audience. I do restorations on historic images; within a month of getting featured on Commons, the descriptions for the material I've worked on have been translated into as many as 14 different languages. Durova^Charge! 00:31, 10 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I was not aware until yesterday that one can apply for more than one triple crown, so, here goes. I've left this notice here, as I still seem to be nominated at the other page, and I don't want to mess it up. Everything is the same as the last time, only now, The Principal and the Pauper is now a GA which I did some copyediting too, and Hell Is Other Robots and The City of New York vs. Homer Simpson are both featured articles which I copyedited and stuff, including addressing some FAC concerns for the former article. I'm sure there are people who are much more deserving of this than me, so don't hurry. :) Qst (talk) 14:06, 9 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Query to Durova

Durova, per what you had initially set out w/ the Crowns - does copyediting count for GAs/FAs, or didn't you have something about adding material from 10 sources/citations? Cirt (talk) 18:02, 9 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It needs to be more than just copyediting. 10 citations is roughly the difference between minor contribution and major contribution. I could be flexible if the editor contributed in some other substantial way, such as taking all the photographs in a FA that has several images. Durova^Charge! 19:40, 9 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

In that case could you take a look at this nom for Qst (talk · contribs)? Also could use your help on the other ones, I've been doing the regular initial Crowns, and leaving the others for you at the nom page. Cirt (talk) 19:41, 9 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Okay? Need to catch up with a couple of things. Thanks for keeping on top of that. Durova^Charge! 19:42, 9 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sounds good, no rush. Cirt (talk) 19:43, 9 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Mh, in that case, its okay, then. :) Qst (talk) 21:22, 9 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Durova, I disagree about copyediting being too minor. For GAs and DYKs, yes, but for FAs, I think copyediting is a very major contribution; most FACs that fail fail on 1a, the 'brilliant prose' criterion. Maxim_(talk) 14:59, 10 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Maxim, the challenge with this kind of endeavor is to make it fair enough to honor the people who put forth great effort without making it prone to gaming. What I want to avoid is having people lurk around FAC, make three or four spelling fixes, and receive the same thanks as the editor who put forth months of effort raising that stub to FAC. So I did my best to quantify the difference between major and minor contribution. This sort of distinction is necessarily imperfect and arbitrary. If you find a way to quantify great copyediting, please let me know. Durova^Charge! 00:17, 11 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You might want to edit your comment to remove the name of a vanished user. —Whig (talk) 20:11, 9 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I was doing so while you posted. Durova^Charge! 20:13, 9 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

:) —Whig (talk) 20:20, 9 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Think I should change the link to the image of the imperial triple crown jewels itself, rather than the list of winners? Durova^Charge! 20:26, 9 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You've got me on that one, since I've seen these imperial triple crown jewels mentioned but have no idea what they are about. —Whig (talk) 20:30, 9 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Minimum two successful submissions each at Did you know?, good articles, and featured content. Durova^Charge! 20:32, 9 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Never really concerned myself much with that end of things, since I'm less focused on polish and more on NPOV. Not that it isn't very important work, I'm just differently oriented in my participation. —Whig (talk) 20:35, 9 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia is a team effort. If it weren't for all the spam-fighters and stub sorters and recent changes patrollers, the place would be a mess. It's easier to quantify the value of that part of the departed editor's contribution. Maybe that will help to make an impression and show what we've lost. If we can't changed the Committee's minds or bring him back, perhaps we can persuade them to avoid repeating the mistake. Durova^Charge! 20:42, 9 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You may misapprehend me, I have no significant disagreements with the ArbCom in this case. —Whig (talk) 20:48, 9 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I hope we can agree to respectfully disagree here. You can count on me to stand up for process, regardless of the which side of the fence an editor tends to be on. See Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Agapetos angel. Best wishes, Durova^Charge! 20:57, 9 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, certainly. I know that you are in good faith and have represented other people even when you disagreed with them. In this case I had a great deal of interaction with the vanished user and it was not mainly positive. I do not want to say more about him now, however. —Whig (talk) 21:02, 9 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Fair enough. Durova^Charge! 21:08, 9 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I only want to make one other point, that these awards are very good to motivate some people, but there are also a lot of unsung, long-term editors who do work behind the scenes and don't generally seek credit. When I see a sock puppet, I generally contact an admin by e-mail and gather evidence to support it. Each time I have done this it has been independently confirmed by check-user. On-wiki drama is very unnecessary in so many cases. I would say nothing about this at all but it seems to be important you know that we are all trying to make this a better encyclopedia and that we can have our differences of opinion and approach but still be in good faith. —Whig (talk) 21:28, 9 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

(outdent) You raise a good point. If find a way to quantify other types of contributions so that an award weren't prone to gaming, please let me know. Barnstars are great, of course. I like to find innovative ways to thank people for being productive. Durova^Charge! 21:48, 9 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not too worried about it in that awards are just ways of spreading WikiLove and there's never too much of that. —Whig (talk) 21:51, 9 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

What is your opinion how this could have happened? User_talk:SlimVirgin#Just_curious_what_is_your_view_on_the_heavy_criticism_of_Wikipedia.3F Please reply at your talk page or at my talk page. Andries (talk) 15:20, 10 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

What part exactly do you want me to comment on? Durova^Charge! 00:10, 11 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Your Featured picture candidate has been promoted Your nomination for featured picture status, Image:Love or dutya.jpg, gained a consensus of support, and has been promoted. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates. MER-C 04:06, 11 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Grats, D! SirFozzie (talk) 04:34, 11 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! Durova^Charge! 05:29, 11 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well done! Happy (early) Valentine's Day! Spikebrennan (talk) 14:12, 11 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Congradulations! Your work here needs to be acknowledged by others. I'm proud of you, the picture looks great. Keep up the exclellent work. No need to rush on the email, I'm very behind right now in responding, bad me! --CrohnieGal^Talk 14:25, 11 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hm, well the idea of doing holiday FPCs is a really good one. The Buffalo Soldiers nom. had Black History Month in mind. Wish we'd thought of Chinese New Year! If you find anything suitable for St. Patrick's Day, please ping me for a restoration. Warmest regards, Durova^Charge! 17:51, 11 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Durova,

Just to let you know that the Featured Picture Image:Love or dutya.jpg is due to make an appearance as Picture of the Day on February 14, 2008. If you get a chance, you can check and improve the caption at Template:POTD/2008-02-14. I didn't realize the Buffalo Soldiers image was intended for this month too. Luckily, I had the Frederick Douglass one to open Black History Month with. howcheng {chat} 17:54, 11 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you so much; that's so sweet! I'll have a look at the caption right away. Cheers, Durova^Charge! 17:56, 11 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I never questioned Sir Fozzie's goo dfaith, or hope I didn't. I have little tolerance for persistent vandals and trolls. I just wanted clarification about a specific dispute that warrants some dispute resolution process. My concerns are simply, whaat procedures suit Wikipedia. Should I convey this directly to Sir Fozie or could you pass it on? Slrubenstein | Talk 21:54, 11 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

We've been discussing that. If you have any specific ideas, then by all means raise them. Durova^Charge! 22:38, 11 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Are either Mantan Moreland or Sammi Harris currently involved in an edit war/content dispute over an article? Slrubenstein | Talk 10:49, 12 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Your Featured picture candidate has been promoted Your nomination for featured picture status, Image:Elderlyspinnera.jpg, gained a consensus of support, and has been promoted. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates. MER-C 07:20, 12 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Your Featured picture candidate has been promoted Your nomination for featured picture status, Image:WWINavyYeoman1.jpg, gained a consensus of support, and has been promoted. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates. MER-C 07:20, 12 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you very much! :) Durova^Charge! 07:21, 12 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Love that second picture, Durova! - Alison ^❤ 08:14, 12 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The dates are right http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/Tomstoner but it was http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/Lastexit which I checked and confirmed. Fred Bauder (talk) 14:58, 12 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for clarifying that. Durova^Charge! 16:31, 12 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

People who countenanced those things say they had to because Wikipedia's dispute resolution doesn't work. That claim might hold water if this page were named Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Mantanmoreland II or Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Mantanmoreland III or Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Mantanmoreland IV.

I'd like to note, since you may not have been aware (I was not), that the timeline at User:Cla68/RfC2/Sandbox indicates that WordBomb's ban came directly on the heels of an attempted mediation. —Random832 20:01, 12 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I found out about that just a few minutes ago. In the future, if you think things get short circuited, please raise the issue through normal onsite venues. Wouldn't it be fair to say that the facts we're looking at in the histories were there five or six months ago, and everyone could have saved a lot of effort if this RFC had been held last fall? Durova^Charge! 20:10, 12 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Your Featured picture candidate has been promoted Your nomination for featured picture status, Image:MayaLinsubmission.jpg, gained a consensus of support, and has been promoted. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates. Dengero (talk) 00:22, 13 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Your Featured picture candidate has been promoted Your nomination for featured picture status, Image:J accuse.jpg, gained a consensus of support, and has been promoted. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates. Dengero (talk) 00:22, 13 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. :) Durova^Charge! 00:35, 13 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Your welcome. – Gonzo fan2007 ^{talk ♦ contribs} 04:18, 13 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Could you please look at my gallery expecially at the pic's whith the Merry Cemetery and tell me if one of those would be suited for FPC. Thanks! Mario1987 (talk) 12:50, 13 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If there's a way to go back to the Merry Cemetery on a clear day, ideally early morning or late afternoon, then please do that. Regarding the others, I suggest you check out the quality images program on Commons. You've got some beautiful sunsets and nature shots that would be hard to fit at articles, and hence hard to get featured on Wikipedia. Commons:Commons:Quality images recognizes good photography by Wikimedians regardless of subject. Which is really cool for the 257th uploader of breathtakingly beautiful sunset. ;) You've got talent. Durova^Charge! 19:57, 13 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

at the whole mantanmorland thing....trying to get the users in question to both participate at the same time. Have you emailed your suggestion also, or posted to his talk page? I would love for this to be shown one way or the other with no doubts. --Rocksanddirt (talk) 19:43, 13 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No, feel welcome to cross-post. :) Durova^Charge! 19:50, 13 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

feh. already kicked up to arbcom. --Rocksanddirt (talk) 20:51, 13 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That's the right place for this anyway. Some people have been fanning the flames this last half day, and things need to be orderly and fair. Durova^Charge! 21:05, 13 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

the challenge is the ordinarily adversarial tone of Rfar cases. That's why I would have been happier if the inevitable rfar waited a week or so. --Rocksanddirt (talk) 00:09, 14 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I would have liked that too; or ideally seen the community reach a consensus without ArbCom's intervention. It was a combustible situation when Fozzie and I started looking into it. And really, people did a very good job of keeping things focused and orderly as long as they did. There's been far too much factionalism lately; we're all Wikipedians. Durova^Charge! 00:56, 14 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm somewhat of the opinion that keeping the name out is playing "Emperor's New Clothes" with the subject, at this time.

If you feel strongly about it, I will do so, but do you believe that keeping his name out will make a difference to him? Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 02:35, 14 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This is purely based upon precedent and without bias as to the personalities or merits of the speculation. A year ago I was preparing to seek a community ban, and was asked to courtesy delete the draft report. I was free to recreate the proposal if I did so without any mention of a particular living person's name, but I was dealing with a series of proxy IP addresses of a few hundred edits each. It was well-nigh impossible to reconstruct that without ever mentioning the one biography article they all frequented, or the peculiar expertise they all shared with the subject of that biography. "Emperor's New Clothes"? Yes, but we're on WMF's nickel here. I respect that, and I ask others to follow the same example. Believe me, it isn't always easy. Durova^Charge! 02:41, 14 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I still believe that it's going to be difficult to do this without mentioning the name. However.... I have made an adjustment. Let me know if that seems to work for your concerns... Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 02:51, 14 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Durova, could you help out on this thread on my talk page? This editor dislikes that some of my photos on articles were taken at the Ahmadinejad protest at Columbia last year, but they are quite good for the concepts they illustrate. --David Shankbone 04:33, 14 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, I have explained my argument and requested another admin for help here. In this link to Jmlk17's talk page, I have explained my points. But your help would be also appreciated. --Be happy!! (talk) 04:35, 14 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Actually I noticed that's a huge file and I've cropped for the angry face. Will upload in a sec. Durova^Charge! 04:38, 14 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

My player could not open the file. But see, this is not relevant to the article on Anger. If there was a section on "Anger in politics"(there is none) and a reliable source had said that this was notable, then we could have used it as an example. --Be happy!! (talk) 04:40, 14 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Please also see my full comment here User_talk:Jmlk17#Images_with_political_content(sorry for double posting it). Thanks --Be happy!! (talk) 04:42, 14 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The problem is, Durova, that he doesn't want images from this event used on articles. It wasn't that one photo on that one article. For instance, I use a photo from it on the paging about Staring (another good one, where no good one existed). He feels unless the protest was notable for staring that it does not belong there. I tried to explain why that is not the criteria for inclusion of images to illustrate articles...but I don't think I did a good job. --David Shankbone 04:55, 14 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

David Shankbone, how many times should I repeat this: I say the image is POLITICAL. In this particular instance since it involves AhmadiNejad ==> It is political. --Be happy!! (talk) 04:57, 14 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I looked through Commons a bit to see whether there was something more suitable. There probably is, but it wasn't categorized under anger. Durova^Charge! 05:01, 14 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Previously when I was working on this article, I uploaded this image [8] which I think was relevant. --Be happy!! (talk) 05:02, 14 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Too bad the shoulder is in the way. I was looking at Image:Mrs Siddons by Joshua Reynolds.jpg and thinking of cropping the figure by her right shoulder, but the isn't large enough or good enough. Durova^Charge! 05:26, 14 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Your Featured picture candidate has been promoted Your nomination for featured picture status, Image:Russellquiltera.jpg, gained a consensus of support, and has been promoted. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates. MER-C 08:21, 14 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. :) Durova^Charge! 08:24, 14 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Please be aware of this. Bearian (talk) 20:50, 14 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]