User talk:Durova/Archive 48

The great triple crown race of 2008

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)

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

Thank you for caring

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)

		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)

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

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)

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)

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

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)

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)

2008 Triple Crown Race

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)

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

Potentially the first Valiant return triple crown winner?

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)

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)

I think I will start my own wiki

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)

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)

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)

• 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)

Re: Valiant return triple crown?

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)

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)

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

email

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

Your Mentoree, again

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)

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

He's gone ahead and made a post in response.[1] 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)

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

Wikipedia Troll

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)

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

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)

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

muchy

for this you deserve a cookie.

Martijn Hoekstra (talk) has given you a cookie! Cookies promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. Spread the WikiLove by giving someone else a cookie, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend. Happy munching!

Spread the goodness of cookies by adding {{subst:Cookie}} to their talk page with a friendly message.

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

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)

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

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

A perspective

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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." [2]

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)

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)

Thank you

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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

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)

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

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)

Something that may interest you

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)

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

What do you think of my Masterpiece

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

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

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)

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)

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

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)

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)

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

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)

Military history WikiProject coordinator election

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)

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

From DYK to GA

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)

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)

Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/First supersonic flight

Your Featured picture candidate has been promoted Your nomination for featured picture status, Image:Yeager supersonic flight 1947.ogv, 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)

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

Third strike, off to WP:AE

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)

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)

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

Barnstar

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

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

You deserve This

		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)

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)

Sources

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)

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)

Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Admiral Farragut

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)

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

WP:SEI maybe WP:MFD

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)

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)

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)

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)

• 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)
  • 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)
    • 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)

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)

• 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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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