User talk:Durova/Archive 50

Featured Photo

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)

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)

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)

Imperial Triple Crown Jewels

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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

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

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)

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)

Comment in Matthew Hoffman case

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

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

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

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)

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)

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

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)

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)

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

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)

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)

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

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)

(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)

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)

What is your opinion how this could have happened?

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)

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

Anyway, it is my opinion that controversial obscure articles that are neglected by the wider Wikipedia community will not get balanced eventually, even if dispute resolution is tried, because one of the opposing faction may get the upper hand. This happened in the case of Prem Rawat and Wikipedia received some well-deserved bad media publicity for it. It is a sad conclusion to make, but I cannot make any other conclusion. Andries (talk) 19:55, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/"Love or Duty"

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)

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

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

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

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)

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)

POTD

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)

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)

Good faith

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)

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)

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)

More featured picture candidacies

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)

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)

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

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

Tomstoner

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)

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

On dispute resolution

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)

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)

FPC

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)

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)

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

RE:Joan of Arc

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

hello

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)

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)

Wonderful Suggestion!

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)

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

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

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)

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)

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)

BLP on the RFaR

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)

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)

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)

Is this thread about whispers "W"? we're on WMF's nickel here, but how coy does one have to be around BLP? If so, we seem to be able to speak a bit more freely now, at least at Arbcom. —Newbyguesses - Talk 19:50, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

Image issue

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

Previously when I was working on this article, I uploaded this image [1] which I think was relevant. --Be happy!! (talk) 05:02, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

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)

Durova, David is going against the compromise and is adding the picture again here (together with voice) [2].

He wants to add his own image to the articles. That's fine if there are not enough historical paintings, but in any case, he should not make it political. --Be happy!! (talk) 22:51, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

That is not entirely correct. I accepted the compromise on the gesture articles, but on thge Anger the caption and the audio file are about two people angrily arguing, and cutting out the other person because she has a crumpled flier in her hand does not disqualify it. I am willing to push this issue if Aminz wants, since I have been more than accommodating over what is an invalid reason to oppose them. ("I don't like that these shots were taken at a protest against the Iranian President"). Could you imagine if this was the reasoning for all of our photos, that one viewer doesn't like the setting? I renamed the file, I removed a reference to Ahmadinejad, so if BeHappy still has an issue we can take it to the discussion page over images and decide the question there, but I feel I've bent over backward trying accommodate an editor with unrealistic demands and with reasoning that I feel certain will be rejected by the Wikipedia community. --David Shankbone 23:00, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

What would the two of you like me to do here? Durova^Charge! 23:05, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

David Shankbone is the one who is trying to add the image and he has to get consensus for it. --Be happy!! (talk) 23:08, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

And he is getting uncivil by repeatedly putting words in my mouth "I don't like that these shots were taken at a protest against the Iranian President". The point is not whose picture they are, the point is that they are political. David Shankbone stop this please. --Be happy!! (talk) 23:11, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

Okay, I'm over at Commons looking for an artistic depiction of anger that could serve as a substitute. Durova^Charge! 23:15, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

Thanks Durova. I am concerned about the quality of that article because I almost wrote the whole article from the scratch. But of course, I am completely open to any quality improvement because at some time, the article should become FA. I really appreciate your help Durova. --Be happy!! (talk) 23:19, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

The issue isn't quality, the issue is WP:IDONTLIKEIT. I renamed the file, I removed the Ahmadinejad reference in the caption, and the audio file itself doesn't even mention Iran. So, I think we need to find out what BeHappy's issue is besides WP:IDONTLIKEIT. --David Shankbone 23:41, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

---

Anger in art: I'll drop some possibilities here as I find them. Please comment below. Durova^Charge! 23:28, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

• Bernini's David
  Bernini's David

Artwork is great, but it's also abstract. We need a modern example that isn't a statute. The photo is only "political" to BeHappy - nobody else has complained about it, and if anyone looked at it they would have no idea what is even the situation aside from an argument in a crowd. --David Shankbone 23:37, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

Anger is not a modern concept. Nor is your image notable. Nor is it completely relevant to the article.

The point of the pictures are to illustrate the concept, here the bodily reaction. Nothing more. And you are the only one who is insisting in adding your own images all over the wikipedia articles. --Be happy!! (talk) 23:40, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

Images don't have "notability" requirement, so that's not an argument. Few of our images on this site (including the 3,000 of mine) are "notable". We are illustrating concepts, not "Famous examples of anger." Anger is as modern as it is old. Not only does my image illustrate well the bodily reaction and the facial expressions of anger, but it has an audio file to go along with it. You simply do not like it because it takes place at protests of Ahmadinejad speaking. This was the reason you continually raised. That's not a valid reason to remove good quality content. --David Shankbone 23:44, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

Again: "because it takes place at protests of Ahmadinejad speaking." - I will not respond to your comments anymore until you stop your incivility. --Be happy!! (talk) 23:48, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

Again: "that's not a valid reason to remove an image that illustrates an article." Please, supply a link to policy or guideline that supports you. --David Shankbone 00:01, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

I'll have to back out of this and refer it to dispute resolution. Best wishes, guys. Durova^Charge! 00:15, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

Hi Durova,

I have brought this to ANI because of the large number of articles involved [3]. Cheers, --Be happy!! (talk) 07:06, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Quilter, 1940

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)

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

What, another FP for you, Durova? *yawn* wake me up when you do something new.. *grin, Duck, RUN!* (seriously, congrats!) SirFozzie (talk) 21:22, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

Heh, for a skin-crawling experience see Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Black fly with parasite. ;) Durova^Charge! 21:51, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration#Mantanmoreland

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

Thank you. Yes, I added my own name to the case. Procedural thing, to demonstrate that a dispute exists. Durova^Charge! 20:52, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Mantanmoreland

An Arbitration case involving you 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/Mantanmoreland/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/Mantanmoreland/Workshop.

On behalf of the Arbitration Committee, — Rlevse • Talk • 22:58, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

Not quite a barnstar...

Thanks....;) I find myself increasingly frustrated with long time user/admins attitudes toward the longterm problems. I'll try to do better. --Rocksanddirt (talk) 23:37, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

Delist nom

An image nominated by you is up for delist. See here. Sorry, but that promotion was entirely inappropriate. --jjron (talk) 06:46, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the heads up. Durova^Charge! 06:47, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

Military history WikiProject coordinator election

The February 2008 Military history WikiProject coordinator election has begun. We will be selecting nine coordinators to serve for the next six months from a pool of fifteen candidates. Please vote here by February 28! --Eurocopter tigre (talk) 12:25, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

Question

Dear Durova, do you think that this could be a reappearance of Burntsauce or Eyrian? Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 05:24, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

It's certainly possible. Then again, a lot of other people hold similar views. The name has already come up at the thread so it's under consideration. Durova^Charge! 05:53, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

Okay, thank you for the reply! Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 05:55, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

Mongols

No problem, don't worry - if I had the time and patience I would be more involved, claiming expertise all over the place. But it's Wikipedia, so there is no benefit to me in pointing out that I know what I'm talking about. I do appreciate the mention though, and of course it's not just me - Aramgar, John Kenney, Ealdgyth, and presumably others all have training in history, it just doesn't seem to matter. Oh well. Adam Bishop (talk) 18:54, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

rollback

Done with pleasure. NoSeptember 19:07, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

Thank you. :) Durova^Charge! 23:02, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

Question

From looking over various posts at the AN/Mantanmoreland/Rfc, (I considered looking into this matter nearly half a year ago... DurovaCharge! 05:26, 12 February 2008) -- (I've been following this situation but am somewhat wary of getting...Whitstable 17:01, 12 February 2008) and now at Arbcom., I was wondering if you could help point me to a link or list of users blocked or banned for being a Wordbomb sock? I have seen a couple of userpages, but there is not much indication there how they came to attention for Admin action. I do not have access to deleted contributions, and I wouldn't know where to look for such in Logs or whatever, but I think (obviously), this matter needs some sort of resolution, otherwise it wouldn't have got as far as Arbcom. thanks, Newbyguesses - Talk 19:38, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

I don't have access to deleted pages either. But there are probably some editors who have pretty good information on that. Try posting a query to one of the arbitration talk pages. Durova^Charge! 23:04, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

Not a problem, thankyou for your prompt reply. small issue, FYIThis page loads real slow, i only have dial-up, sorry if i am early/late replying!&mdashNewbyguesses - Talk 23:09, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

Okay, I'll try to archive soon. Durova^Charge! 23:25, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

With help, I uncovered those (public) records. I seem to recall one of those blockings in which you were involved, (you were still an admin then) and you have posted about how it is coming up as questionable at some forum where you posted. (Was it Administrators' noticeboard/Mantanmoreland/Rfc]].) Is that part of the issues you want to revive? I just want to keep a clean slate , and knowing whom are the Puppets means I know which edits could be regarded as doubtful on talkpages I scan during this episode. What if one hadf posted to say talk:Iar (which I sometimes post to), and I posted a favourable response to some plausible thread, which turned out to be a confirmed, died-in-the-wool WBsock, would I get egg on my face? Ok, now, I have it, thanks again for your helpNewbyguesses - Talk 04:34, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

To the best of my recollection, the only block I performed that was at all related to this case was a single 24 hour block on Cla68, which I shortened on good faith. I double checked that sockpuppet category and don't see my name in any of the block logs. Many of those blocks were implemented before I became an administrator Wikipedia:Requests_for_adminship/Durova. So I'm not sure what connection you're drawing. Durova^Charge! 05:08, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

Well, I may have misspoken. I thought there was a numberUser who got blocked, but it must have been someone else who performed the aDmin. action. Um, I am not drawing any connections, I am not even mounting a preliminary!! Best (draft)Newbyguesses - Talk 07:10, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

If you find any other involvement please bring it to my attention. I don't think I've had any, but over 25,000 edits is a lot to remember. Best wishes, Durova^Charge! 07:13, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, I will do, that is not a problem. (I only have about 2,000.)thanks for the archiving, thispage still takes a million years to load. Dial-up is inferior nbgNewbyguesses - Talk 07:21, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

WikiProject Classroom Coordination

You seem to be one of the more knowledgable editors about the above project, and it's first listed member. I was wondering if you had any comments about the two new proposals on the talk page. Thank you. John Carter (talk) 01:23, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

Request for feedback

Dear Durova, as its been awhile, I thought I would ask my mentors on Wikipedia for just some quick feedback. So, if you have a quick second, I was just curious if you had any feedback regarding my most recent approach to AfDs. I participated in two today, one as a "keep" and one as a "delete". Thanks! Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 02:16, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Felbrigge Psalter

Your Featured picture candidate has been promoted Your nomination for featured picture status, Image:Felbrigge.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 08:27, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

Thank you! Durova^Charge! 18:25, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Palestinian costumes

The article Palestinian costumes you nominated as a good article has passed , see Talk:Palestinian costumes for eventual comments about the article. Well done! jackturner3 (talk) 20:39, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

Thank you. :) Durova^Charge! 23:30, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

Can you help with an explanation?

Hi Durova,

I wanted to drop by because CarolSpears (talk · contribs) tagged my comment on Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Japanese weaver with a {{citation needed}} template. When I asked her about it on her talk page, she responded that she is unsure about the use of the word 'encyclopedic' when selecting featured pictures. I've responded as best as I can, but given that you have worlds more experience at FPC, I was wondering if you wouldn't mind dropping in and adding your two cents? Thanks! --jonny-mt 04:23, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

Wow...I'm sorry about that. I assumed good faith, and it seems Carol chose to abuse that assumption. I just wanted to let you know that I asked for your comment because I felt you were best qualified to fill in any gaps in my explanation--I had no idea there was bad blood between the two of you, and I'm sorry she took the opportunity to take potshots at you. --jonny-mt 05:08, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

Please don't be sorry for assuming good faith. I hadn't realized it was getting as bad as this. Usually, featured pictures are a very friendly and laid back area. Thanks for voting and I hope you'll stick around. Best wishes, Durova^Charge! 05:45, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

the assumption of good faith

Do you need me to dislike you? I am curious what gave you the idea that I did not like you and if that should matter. I really thought that I was helping you do what you are trying to do. -- carol (talk) 06:45, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

In addition to not responding yet to my good faith gift (via BenAvling your supporter and my opposer) there seems to be a desire to take the things I do personally -- my goal with using a very clear of intent template {{citation needed}} was to make sure that this word is understood by people who use it and not some mysterious inner-English Wikipedia use of the word. It had nothing to do with you and I wonder now if that is the fact that offends you the most. It was simply the application of a template that is often applied here and it meant exactly what it is supposed to mean.

Is it a problem that I want to help you and that it is not an issue of dislike. The willingness to jump to this conclusion baffles me. -- carol (talk) 06:51, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

Carol, it's quite simple: you need to stop disrupting the featured picture candidacies I nominate. You also need to stop the incivility and personal attacks. I don't care what motivates you. Durova^Charge! 16:36, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

You are willing to go on record as saying that {{citation needed}} is disruptive. You are a strong and brave general, I must admit! Please explain who and what it disrupts -- I would be grateful for the very different POV than my own. I take your involvement here too seriously to stoop to finding the wikilink to the definition of weasel words. I admit to leaving that template ({{citation needed}}) for myself even, when something I have written to be a fact here needs verification. Here is another observation I have that might need refining by you before it grows into something no one wanted. Is everyone who supports your images in FPCs everywhere -- are they all new to the voting and do they all get your protection?

I should be interested to know other places where {{citation needed}} is a disruption or if it is just disruptive to you and your supporters. I might have misunderstood the things I have seen here and there (CFPC) and I am strong enough to admit that.

The offer to help, it is a personal attack? What is your goal then, because I honestly thought that I was helping when I suggested at the commons to just expedite the procedure for you since you have apparently won the hearts and votes of all of the minions. What would be a help to you? Should I not follow the events there? Should I not mention the ratio of your nominations compared to others? Should I not assume that you want to win something? Help me to understand what I am seeing and misunderstanding about your involvement here and there.

"GFDL success story", is this not a compliment to you? Is this inaccurate? Is that really harrassment? -- carol (talk) 23:40, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

Carol, common sense applies here. So far no one has made a formal complaint. You're better off keeping it that way. Durova^Charge! 23:59, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

Embroidary template change

What do you mean by "if there isn't an article for it then it doesn't need an outgoing link in the template"? There is an article for Shisha (embroidery). Reply on my page. Sjschen (talk) 16:50, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

Replied at user's talk. Durova^Charge! 17:39, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

I see. I'm just wondering since you linkspam removal also rid the template of the the mirror embroidery stitch I put on there. Is it not informative enough to be listed on the template? Sjschen (talk) 00:01, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

I'll double check the template. Apologies if that came out accidentally. Actually I've wanted to expand that article and have been looking to get an image for it. Thanks very much for your interest in the page; it could use some help. Best wishes, Durova^Charge! 00:02, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

Help with understanding image copyrights?

Hi Durova,

I'm sorry for not getting back to those crochet stitch images yet; I let myself get distracted again. (sheepish grin) But I'll really try to tackle them in the next few days! I'm going to use the square-bar images from my Encyclopedia of Crochet.

Right now, though, I'd like to ask for your help with understanding image rights. I have an enthusiastic new friend on Wikipedia, Mimi, who would like to upload some images of a 1940's-1950's dancer. The images are the personal property of the subject, who's loaned them to Mimi, but I suspect that the photographers who took them are not yet dead by 70 years? Anyway, I know that you've been active in uploading images from that era, and I was wondering if you could give us some guidelines. I suppose that, in a worst-case copyright scenario, she could upload them to Wikipedia with a fair-use rationale, but I think it'd be great if they could be uploaded to the Commons.

Thanks very much in advance for your help, Willow (talk) 17:45, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

About those stitch images, there's a crochet tutorial starting up on Wikibooks and they might be very helpful there. Thanks so much for your work - and no complaints. The textile arts project is working on a featured portal drive, which makes a couple of other things priority.

Regarding your copyright query, it sounds like these are photographs of a living person. Unless the owner agreed to relicense them, it would be nearly impossible to keep them even as fair use. The site has had too many problems with non-fair use (think of all the teenage boys who want pics of pretty actresses on their user pages). If the owner would consider relicensing, then have Mimi come to me and I'll help her work out the details. Best wishes, Durova^Charge! 19:15, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

Yes, I'd noticed the portal; keep up the good work! :) I thought about joining in the fun, but I've been rather pre-occupied with other things like sundials, and thought you all were doing wonderfully, so there was no pressing need. Sooner or later, I'll get back to organizing the {{knitting}} template.

I'm guessing that the (living) owner/subject would be happy to release the photographs into the public domain or under some other such license. I wasn't sure, though, how to know who retains the rights to such images; is the photographer, the subject, a newspaper? Maybe any one of them, depending on the situation? It seems rather complicated and I would be grateful for a little edification, just for my own future reference. Thank you, and I'll pass on your name along to Mimi, Willow (talk) 20:58, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

If the image was created as a work for hire paid for by the subject, then the subject owns the rights. Otherwise it would be owned by the photographer or possibly whoever hired the photographer. What I suggest doing is first figure out whoever owns the rights, then talking to them about licensing. Copyleft licensing options are an arcane topic, yet many Commons volunteers prefer CC-by-sa 3.0: if the rights owner has a website then that license allows the rights owner to open up the image for free distribution with a link back to the website with each downstream use. If that's too confusing then plain vanilla GDFL or public domain is also fine.

And regarding the featured portal drive, your help would really be appreciated if you get the chance. The thing holding us back right now is that we need at least 10 solid B-class articles for each article category to go into rotation. We need to buff up a few pages for that. Durova^Charge! 21:07, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

OK, I'll look more carefully at that; did you need me to buff up some knitting pages? I'll be happy to do that, although I also don't want to leave my friends at To Kill A Mockingbird and sundial in the lurch, either. The price of being a distractazon! :P Willow (talk) 02:28, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

It would certainly help. We need a hand. The big weakness right now is getting enough articles into rotation that are either biographies or fictions. The project has only four biographies that are even passable Portal_talk:Textile_Arts#Biographies, so we looked for an alternative and tried fiction Portal_talk:Textile_Arts#Textile_Arts_in_fiction where things might be within reach if we can find a couple more good ones and write introductions about the textile arts part of the stories. Cirt is fantastic at getting portals to featured status, and he says we need a group of 10 articles at least B-class in order to pass. Has to be either 10 fictions or 10 biographies.

Fortunately we're doing well in the other areas: we've got more than enough DYKs and plenty of excellent images (several of which are getting featured), and we've been able to buff up the main article set to a feasible level. The basic portal layout was already pretty good. So we're in the home stretch, but really hurting to complete this one area. Durova^Charge! 10:53, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

OK, I'll see what I can do; maybe Nicky Epstein could be advanced to B-class? I noticed that you promoted knitting needle to B, which seems a little generous; but I'll work on that a bit to bring it up to your optimism. :) Willow (talk) 09:59, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

Thanks very much. A change since yesterday: we definitely need biographies. That's going to be the hardest thing. Durova^Charge! 10:11, 21 February 2008 (UTC)