User talk:Durova/Archive 64

:/

So, what do you think it is this time, the grawp editor? A copy-cat? 4chan?— Dæ dαlus ^Contribs /_Improve 11:50, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

May I ask what you're referring to, please? Durova^Charge! 16:46, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, I see now. Silly little fellow. Compulsively advertises his shortcomings. Not likely to lose his virginity anytime soon. Durova^Charge! 18:14, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hey! I started this; see;

the boy with the equipment insecurities was back ^diff
(followed a long run of shite on id:wp; here, here, here, and here)
and I love this revert
which was all rather per this bit of dickery.
other shite; what he wants, and yearns for (and a psychiatrist would have even better insights into the desires implied)

Cheers, Jack Merridew 13:44, 15 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oh dear oh dear oh dear... Durova^Charge! 19:52, 19 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Mentorship

I appreciate your offer and hope that it can be implemented. I also welcome a review/audit of my article edit history. I appreciate the positive expressions in the the discussion regarding the perceived quality of my actual adits, and look forward to an opportunity to continue contributing to WP in a cooperative, rather than belligerent manner. Boodlesthecat ^Meow? 16:11, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you very much. I do hope it works out. Would you like to begin a dialog here? Durova^Charge! 16:49, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Here would be fine. Looking forward to your comments, questions, advisories, etc. Boodlesthecat ^Meow? 18:43, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Cutting to the chase: you are very lucky to have support from editors in good standing. Three blocks while arbitration is underway? It's very rare to come out of that without a siteban. Thank you very much for your courteous beginning. The top priority needs to be extending the same courtesy toward the people you're in conflict with. Here's hoping it's the start of a new beginning. Durova^Charge! 20:13, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, and again, I do very much appreciate the opportunity. Boodlesthecat ^Meow? 22:09, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It's not all my decision, but if this gets the green light let's give it our best shot. Durova^Charge! 22:22, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Mentorship request

We are also looking for a mentor for this user. Compared to some others, it should be relatively easy, and he has already expressed regret for his past actions, promised to abstain from certain topics/problems, and agreed to work with a mentor.--_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 18:32, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, posted. Durova^Charge! 20:32, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you!

Thank you so much for your comment Durova [1], I truely appreciate! Best regards PHG (talk) 01:17, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You too. I sure hope things work out for the best. Durova^Charge! 01:31, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Luv the socks

I stopped by to give a thorough look at the new review of PHG's Commons uploads and something reminded me that you once had a page on photos in need of restoration. Long story short, I ended up on your user page while hunting around and got quite a chuckle out of your sock army. Also, I'm glad to see that some of the restoration has bloomed into a full blown project. I've been learning photo restoration over the past year and have a few professional tools now, so I'll definitely be pitching in. Shell ^babelfish 02:24, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you very much, and wonderful news about the photo restoration. It's about time I did another FP drive. Ping me if you'd like to collaborate and conominate. All the best, Durova^Charge! 02:27, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

A review?

Would you mind giving a review of me? I respect your opinion (not that I don't to anyone else) and would appreciate feedback. No RfA planned, I don't want one, I would just like feedback from a respected editor like yourself. RockManQ^{Review me} 02:35, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You certainly have varied interests. I'm not a fan of the editor review format, and since that location is basically set up for potential adminship candidacies it's a bit tough to gauge what type of feedback you're seeking. Follow your heart; build an encyclopedia. Try to be a net plus. There's room at this site for all types of volunteers. Best regards, Durova^Charge! 02:42, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you very much. I'm not interested in the "sadomasochistic" torture named RfA. I only really !vote there to help people. I've seen what can happen and I wouldn't want to go through that. RockManQ^{Review me} 03:30, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, it keeps getting tougher. Didn't used to be that way. People used to say they were no big deal. Somehow they became one anyway. Doesn't matter much; this site gives ops to everybody that would be reserved for sysops most other places. So what subjects interest you? Durova^Charge! 03:36, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Doesn't matter, I'll write and do anything if required :) My primary interests, though, are WP:MILHIST, WP:CHEM, WP:WPTC, and WP:BOO. RockManQ^{Review me} 23:27, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No clerking

Hi. Please ask a neutral party to clerk my vote page. Don't do it yourself.[2] Thank you. Jehochman ^Talk 16:15, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Will do. Durova^Charge! 16:35, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. After the election is over can we talk about your concerns? Jehochman ^Talk 18:32, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not opposed to discussion. Bear in mind, though, that what matters is actions. So far your response at your user talk page was to alter my post into a borderline personal attack against me and then blank the thread. A man who calls sunlight the best disinfectant should be able to handle polite criticism better than that. Use the best disinfectant in your own house if you want people to believe you run a clean home. Durova^Charge! 18:41, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Friend, the altered caption was a good humored prank, nothing more. You posted rather strong criticism of me in the first instance in a forum where for all practical purposes I could not respond (see also: ambush). Contrast with others who expressed their concerns in advance and gave me the opportunity to respond. I wish you would have followed my personal dispute resolution process if you had such strong objections. It's all water under the bridge now. Yes, let's talk later. Jehochman ^Talk 19:07, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Was it really that much of a surprise? You knew that the WikiVoices interview volunteers had recused from posting candidate questions. You had already sought and obtained my private opinion about all the actions I cited in objection. And by putting yourself up as a candidate you invited--no, demanded--that relevant conduct be scrutinized. If others are swayed then perhaps the opinion holds merit. Would that you had listened before you leaped. Durova^Charge! 19:38, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, it was a surprise. I have no idea what's going on with WikiVoices, did not give any interviews and would have enjoyed if you had asked me a tough question so I could provide a thoughtful answer. You could have asked a question Dec 1, and then voted. I've been extremely prompt about answering everybody (except Moulton). Jehochman ^Talk 20:33, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

My real questions were asked days--weeks--months ago. As far as a year ago, when your reaction to the Zeraeph outcome was icy. Your actions last month settled any remaining doubts. Like I wrote at your talk, I miss the Jehochman I thought I used to know. When I believe you're in the right I'll still stand up for you, same as I always have. Best wishes. Durova^Charge! 20:39, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. Jehochman ^Talk 20:44, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

News Story from the Register

I am visiting your user page because I read some fairly ugly stuff about you in The Register. It seems you take your work seriously, but that the rules about NPV and the general spirit of Wikipedia is of little concern to you.

Ah, hi. Thank you for coming to me. Unfortunately that story went to print with several factual errors; I wasn't contacted for comment. A year ago I made a bad user block; no question about it. That story you read claimed it lasted three days. As you can see for yourself, I actually undid it in 75 minutes. Plus extended prompt apologies and did my best to atone for the mistake.

The 'Secret mailing list' wasn't actually secret; it was listed like any other Wikimedia Foundation mailing list. Its name was (and is) cyberstalking, and its principal purpose is exactly what that implies: dealing with serious offsite harassment that targets Wikipedia volunteers. First to emphasize: the fellow I blocked was not harassing in any way. That was my error; I take ownership of it. But the list wasn't evil. For an idea of the seriousness of the cyberstalking problem, see this P2Pnet News article. I went public with another volunteer after the situation got so bad that the FBI opened investigations. When I joined the cyberstalking list it was mainly because of a different problem: a website had been running a recent picture of my 74-year-old uncle along with his real name and a not very subtle threat to harass him in real life if I didn't stop editing Wikipedia. I've fielded other harassment situations also, and was getting it from several directions at the time I had that lapse in judgment and made the bad block. It wasn't so much the harassment that got under my skin--it was unhelpful interference from well-meaning people when I was trying to solve one of the problems. I handle trolling better than I handle disloyalty. Everyone has an Achilles' heel. That's mine.

Some people will never forgive me. I live with that. I've done my best to solve the problems related to that list, though. It turned out someone had been socking and trolling that list the whole time--stirring up confusion and exploiting people who were there to protect their families. I helped get to the bottom of that. In the past year I've contributed over 150 featured content items, become a sysop on three sister Wikimedia projects, and become an OTRS volunteer. I resigned my adminship on this project in light of the error; stepping down was the right thing to do. Someday, perhaps, I'll earn enough trust again. While I was writing this somebody blanked your question and called it trolling. It's a fair question, though. I don't hide from my mistakes. Very respectfully, Durova^Charge! 23:20, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Kudos!

Just wanted to say that this was a fabulous, calm, and (hopefully!) productive response.--Fabrictramp | talk to me 01:15, 3 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you very much. :) Durova^Charge! 01:36, 3 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Do you mind....?

Do you mind if I use the troll with shortcomings image? I thought I'd ask nicely, but if you don't want me to, I'll remove it. RockManQ^{Review me} 03:42, 3 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well, it's copyleft. You don't actually have to ask me. Please keep it uncontroversial and fun. :) Best, Durova^Charge! 03:44, 3 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Do-it-yourself mentorship?

Durova, I noticed that you are involved in mentoring from your comment concerning mentoring [3] of Boodlesthecat. This has nothing to do directly with that, although I do think I share some problems in common with him, since we both often edit controversial articles, with difficulties presented by rather intractable opposing editors. (There is a difference, in that Boodlesthecat is more knowledgable, and less abrasive, than me.) Editing in these concitions can quickly lead to an impressive block history, which in the more refined circles of WP also leads to reduced credibility.

While I am not looking for a mentor, since I tend to have a do-it-your self inclination, I would be interested in knowing if you have any general suggestions that might be helpful in easing what can easily become an ascending spiral of editorial confrontation.

Thanks. Malcolm Schosha (talk) 14:18, 3 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Almost three years ago as a new editor I was stuck in a similar spot. Trying to improve an article while interacting with a couple of very difficult people. For an unknown editor who could barely muster the courage to tug at an administrator's sleeve, that's a problem. So I started the essay Wikipedia:No angry mastodons as a reminder of the type of editor I wanted to be. Hope it helps. Durova^Charge! 18:03, 3 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Heh

Very clever. :) –Juliancolton ^Tropical ^Cyclone 20:41, 3 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. And oh dear, the fellow turns out to be a vegetarian... ;) Durova^Charge! 20:51, 3 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/PHG

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/PHG/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/PHG/Workshop.

On behalf of the Arbitration Committee, Daniel (talk) 23:06, 3 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. Durova^Charge! 23:17, 3 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi

Hi Durova. Would you happen to have answers to the following questions? Best regards PHG (talk) 18:39, 4 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Aren't French Army/Navy photograph Public Domain as in the US?

Not automatically.

Regarding the images from Randier "La Royale", would they be OK on En:Wikipedia under a pre-1923 license? If so, I am ready to delete them and transfer them to En:Wikipedia.

With more complete documentation of the source information they might be. Please include full title, publisher, page number, publication date etc. as you would for any other citation.

I double-checked, but Randier in "La Royale" doesn't give credits or references for any of his numerous photographs. What do we do in such a case?

American copyright law is tied primarily to publication date, rather than the author's lifespan. Nearly everything published before 1923 is public domain under U.S. law and the rare exceptions aren't relevant to the type of uploads you've been doing.

Is there a rule against downloading from personal homepages/blogs, even when the images are obviously Public Domain? Since it is often impossible to know the author, are these, again, acceptable on En:Wikipedia under the pre-1923 license?

Reliable sourcing is required for all citations, including images. From a personal homepage or blog, we don't know whether the original has been attributed properly or altered.Here is an example from my own blog that is not quite faithful to the original Raphael.

Thank you very much for asking these questions and best regards. Durova^Charge! 18:50, 4 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you! Let me give you an example. Following your hint I uploaded Image:Canonniere Comete (1884-1909) bf 1923.jpg on en:Wikipedia with a pre-1923 license. The photograph is from Randier, p.392. Now, I don't have an exact publishing date before Randier (Randier himself started publishing from 1961). The image was necessarily taken between 1884 and 1909, probably by the French Navy, and it is totally unlikely that it was never published until Randier. What do you recommend in this case? Do we base ourselves on the most likely assumption, or do we just delete the file?
My understanding is that Wikipedia rules are in general rather lax, and very few contributors ever go to this level of stringency: for example a user using a private webpage and a guess for Image:Gribeauval.jpg: honestly I am just surprised that I am being so harshly criticized for doing just what everybody else does around here (and in general I think I do far better than the average). Again, I don't mind following more stringent rules, but why don't the rules apply to everyone? Cheers PHG (talk) 19:29, 4 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I use common sense in regard to publication of old photographs. If an image appears to have been made professionally for publicity purposes then I don't challenge a later source that is probably a republication. Some editors may view this differently; you roll the dice there. For the most part that's relatively safe in the instances you're talking about (disclaimer: I'm a former U.S. Navy photographer so that's informed by experience I'd be hard pressed to cite).

Regarding other local uploads, we really do need more volunteers in the area. I resigned my admin bit at English Wikipedia so I don't tend to look into local uploads unless they appear at an admin noticeboard. About half a year ago I helped catch a fellow who had gotten a copyvio all the way to featured picture. Fortunately we uncovered the problem before it ran on the site's main page. About 85% of his uploads had to get deleted. It was tedious work--not just distinguishing the good from the bad but also writing up a report that other users could understand. The admin who deleted them locally was more than a bit mystified at first. So this site is behind in that regard--and I'm sorry it is. For your own part I urge you to do what I do: walk the straight and narrow. You and I are both featured content contributors; whatever we do will be noticed and imitated. Let's set the best example. Durova^Charge! 20:13, 4 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your comments Durova. Honestly, I thought it was common-sense (and know it is common practice) to upload 19th century images under the 70-year license, but I'll know better from now on :) I gather that you agree though that it is common-sense to upload such an image as Image:Canonniere Comete (1884-1909) bf 1923.jpg under the pre-1923 license on en:Wikipedia. Thank you so much. This basically will solve most possible issues with my 19th century photographs. It is comforting to have the back-up of somebody like you, as I guess it protects me a bit from being lynched again as if I was a criminal. If you wish, I would appreciate if you could soften a bit your language against me at the Arbcom case. I think I've shown a great track record for the last year, and honestly your harsh reaction to my uploads was a bit of a surprise and quite distressing. Cheers PHG (talk) 20:37, 4 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well your reaction to my report is a very pleasant surprise. As long as things get ironed out in that regard in a normal way, I'll be amending my statement to ArbCom soon. Very glad to see you receptive to feedback. Been pulled in quite a few directions lately. One pleasant surprise is this, which I might be able to draft an appeal for a high resolution version of for restoration. The German government has released 100,000 images copyleft. Imagine getting a shot of the Berlin Wall being built onto Wikipedia's main page. Best regards, Durova^Charge! 20:48, 4 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

PD

He's actually back, now. rootology (C)(T) 23:41, 4 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'll wait for confirmation on that. He linked to his 'main' user page where he was listed as sitebanned by Jimbo Wales. Now you know I've been about the most vocal critic of Charles Matthews this site has. If I get firm confirmation Peter had standing to vote on these elections I'll remove that strikethrough myself. But only if. Whoever's making that call, you get them in touch with me. Okay? Durova^Charge! 23:50, 4 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the 'star

The email I've received since posting that message has boosted my confidence that their grievances are baseless. Offsite manipulation is the sort of thing that Wikipedians should rally against. Cool Hand Luke 16:57, 5 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The star was a formality. Thank you very much for deserving it. :) Durova^Charge! 19:46, 5 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi again

Hi Durova. What line do you think we should take regarding these last images from personal pages around the Web? They are exact in their definition (appart possibly from Claude Minie, whose appearance I have no personal certainty about), and obviously pre-1923. Isn't it common sense to keep them with the proper pre-1923 license? Cheers PHG (talk) 19:19, 5 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If you could find out the original books they came from and work from that, then it would be fine. This is analogous to situations where editors try to source an old newspaper article to somebody's private homepage reposting of the article: the original source they worked from may be public domain and reliable, but we don't know whether the reproduction is faithful. Durova^Charge! 19:31, 5 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I guess that's the voice of wisdom, and I guess that, strictly speaking, you're right. It's just that these images are so obviously proper, and so obviously 19th century. So many people upload on Wikipedia without ever having this kind of rigourous sourcing requirements. I'll just delete them then (sadly). Cheers PHG (talk) 19:41, 5 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Plenty of times I've seen material that I'd love to use, but just can't prove. Or sometimes I could but it'd be too burdensome to look up. Perhaps you could get in touch with the people who run those websites and ask for their cooperation? Either they could start accounts and upload themselves, or they might provide full source information. With uncontroversial material of high encyclopedic value I'm inclined to be reasonable as long as we can point to a regular reliable source. Best, Durova^Charge! 19:46, 5 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

yup

... LessHeard vanU (talk) 00:24, 6 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you very much. Durova^Charge! 00:37, 6 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : Issue XXXIII (November 2008)

The November 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) 16:18, 6 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Solange Knowles

Hey there Durova, I worked on Solange Knowles and I think I've resolved all the issues on the review page. If I've missed anything, let me know. DiverseMentality 23:37, 6 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Wow, very swift response. I should be able to give it a second review by tomorrow. Working on an FA drive. Best wishes! Durova^Charge! 23:44, 6 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hey there Durova, hope you haven't forgotten about this. DiverseMentality 22:10, 24 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Please counsel me

Hello, I am user:Skäpperöd. You will find me on articles regarding the History of Pomerania, if you scroll through the articles in template:Pomeranian history you will most probably find me prominent in the edit history of most.

The trouble I have is with user:Molobo. I addressed some of this trouble at Moreschi's talk and also at the current Arbcom case Piotrus2. That is where I saw you inviting other users who don't know how to proceed correctly in wiki editing for mentorship. Since I never saw you everywhere else and you seem to be a respected and prolific community member, I turn to you now.

I got two questions to begin with, one about an underlying problem of mine and one about a current thread:

(1) I feel stalked and attacked by Molobo. He has been messing up my edits (eg turn a sourced sentence into "German foo claims", recently in the Polish Corridor and the Darlowo articles) and has accused me of various stuff, the worst for me being I'd misquote sources - it's mostly about how biased I am supposed to be. I had adressed that at Moreschi's talk without a response, I had adressed some at arbcom without a response, I had adressed some other at WQA without a response. I have really no idea of how to proceed with Molobo, I somehow lack the trust that it is possible to work with him on this encyclopedia. This is kind of a general, underlying problem I have.
(2) I started a thread Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard#Towns.27_websites_as_a_source_for_history at the RS noticeboard. This thread is a mess. How do I proceed to turn this thread into something useful? The thread indicates that the policy about whether or not towns' websites are RS regarding history is not clear enough. Some editors say no, some yes, some yes under certain circumstances. I therefore started another thread Wikipedia_talk:Reliable_sources#Websites_of_towns. Is that the right way to proceed? Would a survey be the right way? Are there RS-gods whose judgement is binding and who I need to ask or does the community decide "democratically" about the RS-policy?

Please write me a message also if you can't help me. Regards Skäpperöd (talk) 07:49, 7 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, it's a little past midnight in my part of the world. letting you know I've seen this, although I won't have time to dig into it tonight. Regarding issues such as misuse of sources (very weighty), could you give an example? If it's a text source in English or German you're welcome to send me a scan of the page. Best wishes, Durova^Charge! 08:13, 7 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well I can give you the links to my posts thought to draw some outside attention to my troubles, but as I said above, these posts all remain(ed) unanswered, and I do not ask you to open up everything again but rather to advise me how else I shall proceed - since the way I tried it was obviously a dead end of a dirt road.

My first post to an "outsider": User_talk:Moreschi#Molobo
Since Moreschi did not answer, I went to ANI: Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive485#Molobo_targeting_and_discrediting_Sk.C3.A4pper.C3.B6d
My second one to Moreschi: User_talk:Moreschi#Molobo_again
Evidence how Molobo messes up sourced statements to say something different: Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Piotrus_2/Evidence#Evidence_presented_by_Sk.C3.A4pper.C3.B6d
Evidence how Molobo in this arbcom makes statements not supported by the given diffs to get rid of his opponents - with that faked evidence he succeeded in having an arbitrator draw a ban proposal on another editor (Stor stark7 - before you think of cabals, I had only once interacted with him before, my aim was more to show what Molobo's "sourcing" is like and to prevent people getting banned because of this): Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Piotrus_2/Workshop#Molobo.27s_evidence

The recent RS-threads are linked above. What is bothering me in his current editing is stuff like that [4], [5], both making a RS look like some "German claim". The second diff led me to the RS thread. Note that the "dispute" about who granted the town its city rights really is none, the Swenzones were the local nobles, the margraves their overlords, they had to do that concerted anyway, but I guess Molobo was/is not aware of the area's history, just saw a German source introduced by me and a Polish website allegedly opposing this and turned a 1312 town law issue in a matter of Polish/German national interest. I meanwhile rewrote this paragraph to make the historical aspects more clear.

Thank you for having a look. I do not expect you to solve all my problems for me. I just want some outside input on how to behave, how to deal with conflicts like that and how to turn the current RS-thread into something everyone knows from what can be used as RS and what not. I'm somehow lost with all that and need some neutral feedback primarily on me, what I need to change. Regards Skäpperöd (talk) 11:30, 7 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Polish website allegedly opposing thisWhat Skappperod doesn't write to you is that this "website" is actually official position of the city authorities itself.--Molobo (talk) 13:37, 7 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed I deal with Polish-German relations. Some of Skapperod's edits include:

-Using Nazi propaganda book as source for history of Poland[6]. -Claiming that both Poland and Nazi Germany engaged in "Atrocities were committed on both sides during and after the invasion.". -Giving quotes that just aren't there in the book: [7] -naming other Wikipedians 'bandits'[8] While Skapperod pointed out me, his edits are already being criticised by a number of editors who never had connections to me : [9] [10]

The issue with Skapperod is uncritical usage of solely German source when dealing with articles concerning Polish history, no attachment to reliable sources guidelines(I just discovered he used a personal book-called circa War crimes of Allies-Terrorists attacks against Germany- as source scholary data, and will post it today if time permists on RS noticeboard), and manipulation of quotes. Additionally he believes Polish names of former German locations that contained Polish population to be "nationalist-communist POV"[11]. More examples can be given. Unfortunetly Skapperod seems unaware of Polish history nor why his edits are becoming controversial to several editors. The lack of knowledge of Polish history in the topics he deals with wouldn't be a big problem in itself, however his stance that such information is "communist-nationalist POV" and defence of extreme POV sources is something of concern to those articles. I believe Skapperod should accept more that history is not only German. --Molobo (talk) 11:07, 7 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Since Molobo appeared here, I think it is actually quite useful to get an impression of my problem.

The Nazi allegation - read about it at the arbcom evidence link above.
The "my claim" both sides committed atrocities: [12] They both did, and that is sourced, the Germans however did more, a fact also introduced by me with the respective data, read all about it at History of Pomerania (1933-1950) and Talk:History of Pomerania (1933-1950).
The nth allegation of me misquoting sources: I provided the URL at Talk:Polish Corridor.
The "Polish names are nationalist communist" allegation: I reverted his insertion of Recovered Territories ideology to the Former eastern territories of Germany article, read all about this nationalist communist post-war ideology in the rec. terr. article, and while you are at it, see Talk:Recovered Territories for my and Molobo's thoughts.
The "Allied Warcrimes" or similar stuff - I did not yet have a chance to get into this, it must have been a while ago and I do not remember that specific book right now. Maybe I used it and maybe it is a bad source. Then it needs to be fixed. Maybe everything is totally different, would be no surprise either. Update: this is the book [13].

Posts like the above throve me towards believing Molobo has targeted me and aims at discrediting me wherever he can. See it as an illustration of my problem. Skäpperöd (talk) 12:12, 7 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Skapperod-could tell us why you name other Wikipedians 'bande'?

As to the rest Durova, as you see "The "my claim" both sides committed atrocities: They both did, and that is sourced, the Germans however did more" I have yet to see the citation for this and quotes. But you might get the idea what the issue is with Skapperod-while Germany tried to exterminate Jews and Poles, made Holocaust, murdered tens of milions of people, Skapperod gave wording that Poland and Germany "both did" atrocities. This is understatement to say the least. No evidence of "Polish atrocities" was presented-the only thing Skapperod gave was supposed arest of some Germans and known German provocation. At best that would give him a thousand or so dead-and yet Poland and Germany are compared by him as both "comitting atroctities". This was unacceptable and in fact critizied by number of editors besides me. And as you see Skapperod is unwilling to accept the Polish history in territories that for some time were part of Germany-he essentiallly re-wrote the whole Recovered Territories article to portay the actuall fact of their Polish Past as "nationalist communist post-war ideology". He does not accept that they are Polish names of Poznań, Wrocław region-to him again that is nationalist communist post-war ideology. "The "Allied Warcrimes" or similar stuff " Actually it's Allied Warcrimes-Terrorist attacks on Germany. The title itselfs indicates a terrible POV, and I anybody should see it before using such book.--Molobo (talk) 12:43, 7 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oh and If you are wondering-I was notified about this thread in here[14]

--Molobo (talk) 13:38, 7 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well, this thread seemed from the beginning to be a bit tangential to my offer of mentorship to two particular editors. Skäpperöd, you've come asking for advice. My advice is as follows:

1. Use high quality sources. If an assertion reflects expert consensus then by definition it ought to be expressed by a variety of experts. So if one scholar whose reliability is prone to challenge writes something and scholars from Oxford and Yale agree, then by all means cite the Oxford and Yale professors (you wouldn't need the other fellow then). And if nobody else agrees--or the only other people who do are equally dubious--then the assertion probably fails this site's standards for inclusion. Plenty of times I've thought something is probably right but left it out because I couldn't get adequate sourcing for it, or I've had to revise a statement I'd thought was accurate when better material points in a different direction.

2. Pay particular attention to the undue weight clause of WP:NPOV. A lot of this site's disputes hinge on that clause in policy--it's one of the most important standards this site has. For instance, the article United States invasion of Panama doesn't say both sides suffered casualties; it states up front that the Panamanians had 100-1000 soldiers killed and 300-4,000 civilians killed while the U.S. had 24 killed, 325 wounded. Differences are important. If experts disagree on the extent of those differences (the Panamanian losses are hard to gauge) then one solution is to cite the low and high ends of the available figures, or else low and high with an additional notation of where the majority of experts seem to be. As editors, our role isn't to present a scenario to the site's readers so much as to give them information that they can use to draw their own conclusions.

Here's hoping that helps. Best wishes, Durova^Charge! 20:26, 7 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I just meant to go to your house, lean back a little and reflect. Sorry for the mess I caused here. Maybe you want to read this [15] and compare to what Molobo made of it above. I think I follow the guides given by you. Maybe you point out to me where the low quality sources are in my edits and what is undue? Thank you anyway even if you don't want to go into depth, I appreciate that you took your time. Skäpperöd (talk) 21:01, 8 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well, source recommendations would take a more thorough knowledge of the subject than I posseess (I have studied German and Polish history, but not this era particularly and haven't kept up with new developments). So perhaps if there's an FA writer on the subject who's not considered a partisan to the disputes. Or else see if a university professor or research librarian would offer suggestions. Best, Durova^Charge! 21:05, 8 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You have experience of this user

I am deeply concerned about the lack of respect for consensus that I see on Wikipedia talk:Sexual content by a user whose name I will not link here, and whom I believe you have mentored in the past. I have placed a comment in his talk page regarding this. While I am sure it is likely to be a waste of everyone;s effort I would appreciate advice on the next step to ask for an uninvolved admin to inspect what is taking place here and to reach an impartial verdict. I've no idea how to go about this, and would appreciate technical guidance about the correct next step. Fiddle Faddle (talk) 18:40, 7 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm pretty confident an impartial admin would view that as disruptive but not harmful. He isn't removing the 'rejected' template so whatever else he does there has minimal impact on the rest of the project. If his goal is to persuade people then he's long since passed the point of diminishing returns. Dispute resolution is already underway--you could weigh in at his conduct RFC if you want. Best wishes. Durova^Charge! 18:54, 7 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If you mean the prior and current RfC it doesn't appear directly relevant. I will weigh in happily enough, and sadly, too. I see equine necrophilia, of course, and the stench of decayed horseflesh is overpowering. I think I am really asking "What the heck does one have to do in order to make him understand?" Fiddle Faddle (talk) 19:36, 7 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

"There are some people that, if they don't know, you can't tell them." - Louis Armstrong Durova^Charge! 19:38, 7 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sadly, for all the positive value such a person may be, such lack of understanding, a militant lack, seems to me to outweigh any benefit. Fiddle Faddle (talk) 19:51, 7 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Spitsbergen photo

It can only be spelled Spitsbergen in English, Dutch, Danish, Norwegian, etc. I fixed the title, which unfortunately can't be corrected. Please do not revert my edits. Thanks. Jonas Poole (talk) 21:37, 7 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If you wish. Durova^Charge! 21:41, 7 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Would prefer a more genteel edit summary, though.[16] Durova^Charge! 21:56, 7 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Bluemarine

I don't know if it's acceptable for me to comment at Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration#Request to amend prior case: Bluemarine, but you should explicitly deny access to the article Matt Sanchez in any amendment. It may be understood, but I think it should be explicit. -- SatyrTN (talk / contribs) 22:11, 7 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Absolutely, he'd have to stay well away from that article. I'll add a few words to make that explicit. If you wish to comment at the request for amendment then by all means do so. What I hope to do is bring out the good in him without reopening the old wounds. Best regards, Durova^Charge! 22:37, 7 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

As well, I would like to know the explicit protocol to follow should these rules be broken. Who should be contacted? ANI or the ArbCom? You? Should he be warned on his talk page, or is an indefinite and immediate block warranted? --Moni3 (talk) 23:16, 7 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You're welcome to propose whatever protocol sits best with you. He stopped socking last spring when I caught him at it and got a pledge from him. I'd hold him to any pledge he makes now, including terminating the mentorship and requesting a reblock myself if problems arise. Durova^Charge! 23:31, 7 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Talk:Defeated Sanity/GA1

I done the copy-edit. Feel free to review again! =D Canniba loki 03:50, 8 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you

I appreciate the gift - I will definitely put it on my user page posthaste. I've always desired the Omni International Mall of Miami, and the image of the parking garage only makes it more enticing! :D C L — 23:21, 8 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Screamin' Jay Hawkins

Okay, I have decided to take you up on that offer, after all, it probably does behoove me to contribute to potential featured articles, and have begun to add references and content to the article. I am still looking for more. Best, --A Nobody^{My talk} 06:15, 9 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, thank you! Best, Durova^Charge! 16:31, 9 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You are welome! Sincerley, --A Nobody^{My talk} 16:34, 9 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Bluemarine

Please CC myself or another clerk, or an arbiter when you confirm Bluemarine's identity.--Tznkai (talk) 02:59, 10 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well, there's really not viable doubt about it. I've been corresponding with him since spring and he joined WikiVoices for an interview. His voice and style are the same in those interactions as on his television appearances. I'm contacting him once more to make absatively posilutely certain, but really am quite sure of it already. Durova^Charge! 03:04, 10 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thats fine, but I'd like to have that confirmation "on file" as it were if the issue comes up.--Tznkai (talk) 03:59, 10 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Bluemarine motion passed

The Committee's decision in this case and the preexisting community ban of Bluemarine (talk · contribs) are modified solely to the extent that Bluemarine is unblocked for the limited purpose of his making contributions related to increasing the accessibility of Wikipedia to users with handicapping conditions. This includes uploading encyclopedic audio files, formatting audio file templates, and captioning those audio files, as well as editing his userpage and talkpage, all under the mentorship of Durova (talk · contribs). Except as expressly provided in this motion, the ban on editing by Bluemarine remains in effect. If Bluemarine violates the terms of his limited unblock, or makes any comment reasonably regarded as harassing or a personal attack, he may be reblocked for an appropriate period of time by any uninvolved administrator. If Bluemarine complies with these conditions for a period of 60 days, a request for further modification of his ban may be submitted.

For the Arbitration Committee,
Daniel (talk) 09:54, 10 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Talk:Solange Knowles/GA1

Somehow we have done improvements on the article based on you review. Please take a look. By the way, the template on the talk page was not updated but on the GAN page says it has been put on hold. Thank you. --Efe (talk) 13:01, 10 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Just informing you about the pending review. But no rush. =) --Efe (talk) 14:30, 24 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Your opinion needed

Dear Durova, could you please offer your opinion of the Florida Catholic Newspaper picture being discussed here [17] ? The Florida Catholic Newspaper is published by the Archdiocese of Miami. I took this [18] picture of the newspaper myself and uploaded it with a release to public domain. The picture is part of the Roman Catholic Archdiocese of Miami page. NancyHeise ^talk 17:40, 10 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hello and thanks

Hi, I noticed your link to the Turkish translation of Louis-Maurice Boutet de Monvel. A lot of my featured picture restorations have been showing up with notations that they're also featured pictures at the Turkish Wikipedia. Do you have anything to do with that? If so, very flattering. And may I repay the compliment by restoring a piece of Turkish history? Best regards, Durova^Charge! 01:02, 10 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, your picture restorations are very well...I think, nothing else to do...thank you...
Restoring Turkish history...now I don't know but hope i can care n' restore for your compliments:) Best wishes!...Vikipedist (talk) 02:51, 11 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Scientology

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/Scientology/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/Scientology/Workshop.

On behalf of the Arbitration Committee, Daniel (talk) 04:20, 11 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Anonymous, pseudonymous or collective work

Hi Durova! User:Angusmclellan kindly pointed me to this which states that, under French copyright law: "if the work is anonymous, pseudonymous or collective, it is 70 years following the end of the year of publication of the work (unless the authors named themselves).". I guess that would properly cover uploads for Commons of such works as the Encyclopedie Larousse Illustree and other anonymous or collective works? What do you think? If it makes any sense, could you consider adjusting parts of your User:Durova/Problems with PHGCOM uploads at Wikimedia Commons‎ accordingly? Best regards. PHG (talk) 05:52, 11 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Suggest you post a noticeboard query regarding that. Hadn't thought of that; it might apply. See what other contributors have to say. Might be a good idea to query the French language boards where the contributors are more familiar with that reference work. Best wishes. :) Durova^Charge! 05:57, 11 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Durova! Here's the response I received from Commons: [19]. What do you think? Cheers PHG (talk) 16:33, 14 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Goldman image

Hey Duvora, thanks for the restoration on the Goldman image. The original that you did the restoration from, however, seems to be rather poor quality compared to the Library of Congress's version[20]. In particular, the edges seem to have been blurred and the highlights blown (perhaps in an effort to compensate for printing artifacts). What are your thoughts on doing a restoration from the Library of Congress's TIFF file? Kaldari (talk) 23:09, 11 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, it looks like the Library of Congress has two very different versions of that same image[21]. Kaldari (talk) 23:12, 11 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, the alternate you showed had been edited in a rather clumsy manner. Notice the harsh outline at the shoulder and hat. Best, Durova^Charge! 23:22, 11 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Unfortunately, it seems that both of those versions must have been poor reproductions from some original version that is perhaps lost now. While I was looking through the LOC photos, though, I found an even better (completely different) image, that I have attempted to restore: Image:Emma_Goldman_seated.jpg. Maybe together, we'll build up a collection of Goldman images that are even better than the LOC's collection :) Kaldari (talk) 23:53, 11 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I couldn't get better than a 2MB file from the LoC. Working with what they had... :) Durova^Charge! 23:57, 11 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Bnguyen at ANI

Hi Durova. I've reported him, if you can repost the technical details of all the images, taht would be appreciated. Thanks, YellowMonkey (bananabucket) 01:04, 12 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose

The sock they suggested that I am has never edited ANY of the pages I have at any time. This is a blatant attempt to discredit me, I stated that my ip was dynamic and the reason I made the account was to avoid being associated with the edits a month ago. Please oppose. Fru23 (talk) 01:51, 13 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If you haven't been socking then you should have nothing to fear from a checkuser request. Our checkusers know what they're looking at and are very careful. Durova^Charge! 01:54, 13 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

See

[22] thanks86.42.100.167 (talk) 04:48, 13 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Your vote and my comments

I am writing to apologise unconditionally for my comments about your oppose. This is completely uncharacteristic behaviour on my part and I owe you an explanation.

I have been quite seriously ill for the past two weeks. I developed cough/flu symptoms about 28 November. My temperature was running at 38/38.5 9 (101) for most of the first week and my blood sugar was roughly double its normal level (I'm diabetic). By last weekend, my temperature was up to 39.5 (103) and I had developed a secondary lung infection. My doctor put me on antibiotics (which I'm still on) but they are only now starting to kick in. I'm unlikely to be back at work for another week.

In the meantime, I carried on with questions (with varying degrees of coherence) and, stupidly, commented forcefully on opposes. This is absolutely out of character and you won't find anything comparable among my 20,000-ish prior edits. This was not a standard reaction to stress but an exceptional symptom of illness. In addition to losing around five kilos in two weeks, I also lost my normal resilience and good humour.

Anyway, my apologies again for sounding off. It was uncalled for. All the best, --ROGER DAVIES ^talk 09:15, 13 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, Roger. I'll strike through my comment at the talk page immediately. Durova^Charge! 17:27, 13 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Checkuser

That sock of Fru23, trying to find out how the checkuser works, is pretty funny. The banned User:Tecmobowl made similar inquiries and similar threats when they wouldn't tell him how they knew it was him when he used a sockpuppet. He be long gone now. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 22:51, 13 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Your former adminship

I was personally surprised to find that you weren't an administrator, especially coming across this; a unanimous RfA of yours. How come you gave up being an administrator? --Dylan 620 _Contribs ^Sign! 13:25, 14 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Short version? Made a bad block. I was open to recall. Lifted the block, apologized. People still weren't satisfied; I handed in the bit. Durova^Charge! 18:13, 14 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

As I've said before, I would likely support a retry and I would think having someone you actually blocked twice support you should help. Best, --A Nobody^{My talk} 18:19, 14 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I, too, would support you on Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Durova 2. There you go; you'd have 2 support !votes right off the bat. --Dylan 620 _Contribs ^Sign! 18:28, 14 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Aw, thanks very much both of you. For now let's leave the matter on a little musical entertainment. Best, Durova^Charge! 18:44, 14 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Interesting. I couldn't imagine it being much worse than if I ever ran (no plans to do so!)... Best, --A Nobody^{My talk} 19:08, 14 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note

I reverted PR on a comment and opened this action for community inspection - here. I'd appreciate your input/review as well. Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 18:22, 14 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

RfA thankspam

Thank you for your participation in my recent RfA, which failed with 61/52/7; whether you supported, opposed or remained neutral.

Special thanks go out to Wizardman and Malinaccier for nominating me, and I will try to take everyone's comments on board.

Thanks again for the trust the community has placed in me. A special Christmas song for you all can be found at the right hand side of this message!

Apologies if you don't like RfA thankspam, this message was delivered by a bot which can't tell whether you want it or not. Feel free to remove it. Dendodge Talk^Contribs, 17:24, 15 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

CSI WP:RFAR/Scientology

Hi, I am going to collect evidence for the Scientology RFAR as an independent third party. I want to point out that I am not the wiki-police nor do I have any kind of official role.

On your statement you mentioned several users from an old arbitration case that has changed usernames. Just to verify (although it is rather obvious) Is the case in question Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/COFS? Also can you tell me which users became who so that I have a better map of the accounts involved. If you could post them in the following format it would be of great help. Please also put a * after the connections that are offical (backed by a SSP or RFCU).

A (talk · contribs) -> B (talk · contribs)* -> C (talk · contribs)
D (talk · contribs) -> E (talk · contribs) -> F (talk · contribs)

I intend to draw a graph like User:White Cat/RFAR/graph to document individual users activity.

To what extent are you involved with the Scientology dispute? Have you made any significant contribution to Scientology related topics? To what extent have you used admin tools?

-- Cat ^chi? 17:26, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

COFS became Shutterbug, Justanother became Justallofthem, and Smee became Cirt. Best, Durova^Charge! 17:49, 15 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding your followup: other than nominating Rick Ross for courtesy deletion per my longstanding offer to BLP subjects who want to opt out, I don't recall editing this topic at all. The situation came to my attention through the conflict of interest noticeboard in spring 2007 after a checkuser report confirmed that several accounts were editing through official Church of Scientology servers. I care very little about Scientology or new religious movements, but I care very much about the integrity of Wikipedia. So, like a variety of other sticky disputes, I tried to work out the problem at the community level and then initiated a request for arbitration. As initiator I was formally a named party at last year's COFS arbitration. I initiated the present case also. A while after last year's case ended I began mentoring Cirt. I conominated his RFA. To the best of my recollection I didn't use administrator tools at any time in this dispute. Hope that answers your questions. Durova^Charge! 19:07, 15 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the quick answers.

At Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Cirt I am looking at an implied discussion between you and Jossi which was removed for "security reasons" care to elaborate what is going on there. Jossi believes his conduct on that RFA is the main reason why you find him unsuitable.

-- Cat ^chi? 00:28, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

With respect--because it looks like you're honestly doing your best--this question places me in a rather difficult position. It's been my long-held view that ethical decisions where good people disagree belong in the hands of the individuals who live with the consequences. This regards Cirt's privacy, not my own, and so I really must defer to him. Durova^Charge! 02:32, 16 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I see. Fair enough, I'll talk to him. The private info is probably oversighted by now. -- Cat ^chi? 07:45, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

POTD notification

Hi Durova,

Just to let you know that the Featured Picture Image:RedCrossNursen.jpg is due to make an appearance as Picture of the Day on December 18, 2008. If you get a chance, you can check and improve the caption at Template:POTD/2008-12-18. howcheng {chat} 00:02, 16 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, thanks for the heads up. I'll look. You do so well with these there's hardly ever anything to improve. (BTW I hope my newest FPC doesn't offend you as much as that infamous seagull; think it might work for April Fool's Day if it gets promoted?) Durova^Charge! 00:14, 16 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It's not a matter of me being offended ... short of goatse, I can take quite a bit. The whole thing about the Main Page, though, is that it's our front door, so-to-speak. Even if we look silly on April Fool's Day, we shouldn't look crass, IMHO. howcheng {chat} 00:41, 20 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Cheers

for the excellent comment here. Enigma ^message 04:27, 17 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you very much. :) Durova^Charge! 05:16, 17 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Merry Christmas, Durova!

If you are either a firm friend of mine, have signed my autograph book, are a member of WPTC, or are someone I simply like or admire:

Dylan 620 _Contribs ^Sign! is wishing you a Merry Christmas! This greeting (and season) promotes WikiLove and hopefully this note has made your day a little better. Spread the WikiLove by wishing another user a Merry Christmas, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past, a good friend, or just some random person. Don't eat yellow snow!

Spread the holiday cheer by adding {{subst:User:Flaming/MC2008}} to their talk page with a friendly message.

A cookie to promote WikiLove!
A glass of milk, to wash down that cookie, and to promote more WikiLove!
Don't forget to put this on top of your Christmas tree...

--Dylan 620 _Contribs ^Sign! 00:16, 18 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Aw, thank you very much! (drinks milk) MmmmmMMmmmm, cookie! :) Durova^Charge! 00:17, 18 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Glad to see you're enjoying it! I gave you the gift because you meet one or more of my criteria; I look up to you, and I guess we could have a friendship developing. :-) --Dylan 620 _Contribs ^Sign! 00:26, 18 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Aw, thanks. All the best. :) Durova^Charge! 00:33, 18 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You know what I found funny? They've added a reply to the {{cookie}} template.. it's {{munch}} I just learned that today :) SirFozzie (talk) 00:35, 18 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Too bad they don't have a reply to {{Glass of milk}}! –Juliancolton ^Happy ^Holidays 00:39, 18 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Merry Christmas! (why am I not getting any spam :P) VX!^~~~ 00:43, 18 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Stomping around with large boots!

Hi D, I tried here (VP/ACFeedback) to add another image, but I think I've just made a big huge mess of the section format. Can you look and tell me what I should have done better? Alternatively, just revert my recent edits, to which I have no great attachment in any case. Thanks! Franamax (talk) 09:55, 18 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Done. Durova^Charge! 18:37, 18 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Questionable Scientology inline citations[23]

What is your viewpoint about this one:[24](334 links)? And that one:[25](1471 links)? Shutterbug (talk) 05:51, 19 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If you wish to create a follow-up report patterned after mine then feel free to do so; I will link from my subpage to yours when you are ready. My viewpoint is that arbitration is a poor choice of timing and venue to raise these matters. These are content issues, and as such are the community's responsibility rather than the Committee's. Durova^Charge! 06:02, 19 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Mind you, I haven't brought this up at the Arbcom. But continuous use of poor references was and still is a key source for disputes over Scientology-related articles. At least for the last two years or so. Obviously it had to escalate to the Arbcom because nobody took responsibility for the problem during all this time (including me, who was surprised to learn that something like a WP:RS/N exists. So much for staying on top of policy changes). I will provide my part to this after the Holidays, hopefully broken down by article. Shutterbug (talk) 03:35, 24 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

So if it was a key source for disputes, when did you take these issues to dispute resolution or the reliable sources noticeboard? Durova^Charge! 04:03, 24 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Don't template the regulars

This Template was originally meant in good humor, good faith, but User:Dbachmann keeps changing it so it is cold sarcasm. Consensus(no one has changed it but him since you created it) is obviously against him, is there a way to fix this?— Dæ dαlus ^Contribs 10:40, 19 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I've left him a note. If it continues to be a problem let me know and I'll nominate the thing for courtesy deletion. Best, Durova^Charge! 18:21, 19 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Advice

Dear Durova,

What are your thoughts on this image? Do you think it's featurable?

Thanks,

Majorly ^talk 19:27, 19 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It's within the size requirements and historic factors account for using an engraving. Black and white engravings are a tough sell at featured picture candidacies because most of the participants are photographers. Have a look at the spectacular work by Shoemaker's Holiday: he's our engravings expert (and a tough act to follow). Your image needs restoration, which is hard to do at the low resolution you've got. Is it possible to get a better scan of the thing? I see potential. Durova^Charge! 19:37, 19 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I could scan it at a higher resolution, yes. I'll get back to you. Majorly ^talk 19:43, 19 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Try to get the scanner glass as clean as possible and use your highest DPI. Get me an uncompressed .tif if possible. The bigger the better. My current project is 51 megs; I don't call a file big if it's under 100. Best, Durova^Charge! 19:49, 19 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The best I can get is 41 MB. Should I email it to you? Majorly ^talk 20:45, 19 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Gmail won't transfer files larger than 10MB. You could post it to a hosting site and let me download, or email me for my Skype ID. 41MB sounds excellent; thank you very much. :) Durova^Charge! 20:48, 19 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Beefed up Wikiscanner discussion on IPCOLL

Saw you comments on the BLP survey and didn't realize wikiscanner couldn't get past user names. I started a discussion on this at IPCOLL talk - including new CheckUser feature - (just process page now) but nothing useful has come up yet. I've also asked at a couple of policy pages about policy on mentioning this on talk page and gotten zilch response. So thought it would be useful to have a discussion of what policy should be if it turns out to be either a really effective tool or a really crappy one that we shouldn't be using at all. CarolMooreDC (talk) 21:20, 19 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

POTD notification

Hi Durova,

Just to let you know that the Featured Picture File:Archangel reindeer3.jpg is due to make an appearance as Picture of the Day on December 25, 2008. If you get a chance, you can check and improve the caption at Template:POTD/2008-12-25. Reindeer for Christmas -- woohoo! howcheng {chat} 00:39, 20 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Aw, I hadn't even thought of that. :) You're inspiring me onto the naughty list, though. There's a Japanese print of a fisherman's wife and an octopus that I've always wanted to restore... Happy holidays.

And by the way, if I finish an architectural design for the White House, any chance of it going up in time for inauguration day? Durova^Charge! 00:50, 20 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

User:TonyTheTiger already requested File:Obama Portrait 2006 trimmed.jpg (which I didn't run in the days prior to the election) for Inauguration Day. howcheng {chat} 03:57, 20 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Good choice. :) Durova^Charge! 04:01, 20 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This pic appears not to be a FP at Commons. Perhaps it should be (or at least a VI or QI?)... what do you think? ++Lar: t/c 15:31, 21 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Image:A Wilde time 3.jpg

Your Featured picture candidate has been promoted

Your nomination for featured picture status, Image:A Wilde time 3.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. Noodle snacks (talk) 01:20, 20 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. :) Durova^Charge! 06:02, 20 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Appalled

Appalled by this User:Durova/Scientology_arbitration/Jossi_evidence. Your apologism for Cirt, seems to have no boundaries, what a shame. So don't count on me to ever share a concern with you via email. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 04:53, 21 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Jossi, as you may note from my case evidence I am by no means an apologist for the people I mentor. You've erred and I've erred, at different times and in different ways. I've stood up and taken ownership of my mistakes. Please have a good meal and sleep on the matter; it would be heartwarming to see you step forward and set things right. Best wishes, Durova^Charge! 04:58, 21 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Your questions

Some questions you had a few days ago are probably answered here. Durova^Charge! 18:33, 20 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding this, one clarification: there have been ten prior formal dispute resolution attempts between Cirt and Jossi. They're listed in the second section of my userspace evidence presentation. Regards, Durova^Charge! 05:38, 21 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That is probably true but this was sort of like a cross-examination... I have been asking people a lot of questions - of which some I knew the answers. This is to get a sense of their perspective. I am supposed to explain their edit pattern after all. -- Cat ^chi? 05:47, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

I see. Per the tenor of Jossi's comments this evening, a good meal and a night's rest may do him some good. I've posted an offer to support his withdrawal from this case, if he wishes it. Thanks for your efforts, and I hope you can appreciate now why I was reticent about answering your questions. Best regards, Durova^Charge! 05:53, 21 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Why do you want his withdrawal though? It seems like there is enough room for a separate RFAR between Jossi and Cirt... It seems like the Scientology rfar is trying to address two seperate issues. Unfortunately I still do not understand why you were reticent about answering my questions. -- Cat ^chi? 15:38, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

Well, he wanted to withdraw. I don't object as long as the relevant problems are addressed. Three reasons I was reticent about answering your questions: one is that I did need to check to make certain I didn't cross any improper lines (those weren't my secrets I had been keeping), another was that I really did hope Jossi would take the initiative to set things right himself. In a lot of ways he's been a fine Wikipedian. It's too bad this was part of the mix also. The third reason was that there was just so much material to put together. It's not the sort of thing I could explain in 25 words or less. Durova^Charge! 00:08, 22 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Image copyright, File:ShowofShows4.jpg

Hi. :) Probably due to the change in name from image -> file, DumbBot has started listing images at WP:CP, which did have the benefit of unearthing some that have been tagged a while with {{copyvio}}. I just wanted to let you know that the "copyvio" tag is only for text. I don't know if you knew that already and accidentally used the wrong one here, or if you weren't aware, but in either case it seemed like a good idea to give you a heads up. :) The plethora of image deletion tags, in case you (like me) need reference, are located at WP:GID. With this particular image, the tag of choice is probably {{Non-free reduce}}, although I'm not sure that will help at all, since Category:Non-free image size reduction request is so insanely overpopulated. I've put the tag on it, though. Otherwise, non-free images that don't meet guidelines are listed for investigation at the also back-logged WP:NFR. (Oi! Tickets back to July! We really need more image admins. :/) --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 13:32, 21 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the heads up; this definitely isn't a low resolution/scaled down image. I happened across it while doing a policy compliance sweep of music articles. Maybe I'll take some time after I catch up on a few things to work on that size reduction request category. Best regards, Durova^Charge! 17:55, 21 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

IP vandalism, personal attacks against you

Dear Durova, I have started Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#IP_vandalism.2C_personal_attacks_against_User:Durova, as it seems a number of IPs are making unconstructive edits to various pages with your username in them. Sincerely, --A Nobody^{My talk} 19:27, 21 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks very much for watching my back while I was out. Did some really fun holiday shopping today. Merry Christmas/Happy Channukah/Happy New Year. :) Durova^Charge! 23:56, 21 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You're welcome; hope you bought something nice. Sincerely, --A Nobody^{My talk} 01:10, 22 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

DRV

I have requested a review of your deletions of User talk:Smee and User talk:Smeelgova. Please see Wikipedia:Deletion_review/Log/2008_December_22. John254 19:55, 22 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the heads up. Durova^Charge! 19:59, 22 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

WikiCup notice

The 2009 WikiCup will begin on January 1, 2009. The first round will run through March 31, 2009. For more information on this tournament, read the "about" section on the main WikiCup page.

This year, we have a different system in calculating points. At User:Garden/WikiCup/Submissions, you will find information about submitting your article (and other) work to earn points. Each contestant will have their own individual subpage for submitting completed work to us.

This year, User:ST47 will also be running one of his bots to calculate mainspace edits and read your submission subpages to calculate the point values you receive based on our scoring chart.

Questions or comment? Ask at the talk page or go directly to Garden or IMatthew's talk page. Good luck and Happy Holidays! -- aye matthew ✡ and Garden. 14:14, 23 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

161 featured credits, eh?

That's a mighty impressive total. Do you have a list of your credits? --Dylan 620 _Contribs ^Sign! 01:30, 24 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

They're linked from my main user page. More in gallery format than list format. Durova^Charge! 01:47, 24 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

UM...

		The Photographer's Barnstar
		116 featured pics on this server alone? You obviously deserve this. A job well done, and keep up the good work! --Dylan 620 _Contribs ^Sign! 02:15, 24 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Aw, thank you very much. :) Durova^Charge! 02:20, 24 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oops, made a miscalculation; I counted the header image, so that's 115 featured pics on this server. Even so, that's still a massive amount, so you get to keep the barnstar. ;-) --Dylan 620 _Contribs ^Sign! 01:56, 25 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Best wishes for the holiday season

Ecoleetage (talk) wishes you peace!

Spread peace and goodwill by adding {{subst:WikiPeace}} to other's talk pages with a friendly message.

Thank you very much. :) Durova^Charge! 04:34, 24 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Merry Christmas!

		Merry Christmas!
		Christmas medley A chiptune medley to annoy Ironholds :D Problems playing this file? See media help. Durova, here's hoping you're having a wonderful Christmas, and here's also hoping that all your family and friends are well. Lets all hope that the year coming will be a good one! If we've had disputes in the past, I hold no grudges, especially at such a time as this. If you don't know I am, I apologise, feel free to remove this from your page. Come and say hi, I won't bite, I swear! It could even be good for me, you know - I'm feeling a little down at the moment with all of these snowmen giving me the cold shoulder :( — neur ho ho ho^(talk) 00:02, 25 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you! :) Durova^Charge! 22:27, 26 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Happy holidays

Thanks for making 2008 an interesting and enlightening year for me; at some point, our paths have crossed and I've found your comments amusing, helpful or thought-provoking—I'll let you guess which!

Wishing you and yours a joyous holiday season, and happiness, health and hopefulness in 2009. I trust you'll enjoy this little token, a favourite performance of Baby, it's Cold Outside, for your holiday amusement.
Best, Risker (talk) 00:36, 25 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. :) Durova^Charge! 22:28, 26 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Merry Christmas

A Nobody^{My talk} is wishing you a Merry Christmas! This greeting (and season) promotes WikiLove and hopefully this note has made your day a little better. Spread the WikiLove by wishing another user a Merry Christmas, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past, a good friend, or just some random person. Don't eat yellow snow!

Spread the holiday cheer by adding {{subst:User:Flaming/MC2008}} to their talk page with a friendly message.

--A Nobody^{My talk} 02:12, 25 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Wishing you the very best for the season. Guettarda (talk) 07:43, 25 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you all very much. :) Durova^Charge! 22:28, 26 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Indecency

Your Featured picture candidate has been promoted

Your nomination for featured picture status, File:Indecency2.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. Wronkiew (talk) 21:58, 26 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. :) Durova^Charge! 22:29, 26 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Question

I see you a lot a WP:FPC, so I wondered if you could tell me what "EV" means? I'm not quite sure, but I'll take a stab at it and go with "Emotional Value. VX!^~~~ 05:34, 27 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Encyclopedic value. Durova^Charge! 05:37, 27 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well then, I was just plain wrong :) VX!^~~~ 23:24, 27 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

A decoration for you

The Tireless Contributor Barnstar

Upon aimlessly browsing your userspace, I was struck by the sheer quantity of contributions you make to this—and other WMF—projects. For your hard work each and every day, your efforts in achieving "featured" status on Wikipedia assets of a number of different types, and your consistent warmth both here and on Skype, I award you the "Tireless Contributor Barnstar." Please accept the decoration as a small token of appreciation! (Oh, and I do maintain that you have been one of the project's most competent administrators to date. :-))

My best regards, AGK 23:18, 27 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Happy holidays!
AGK 23:20, 27 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you very much! :) Durova^Charge! 01:07, 29 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Fringe science

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/Fringe science/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/Fringe science/Workshop.

On behalf of the Arbitration Committee, Daniel (talk) 00:57, 29 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Frozen Pinecone

Thanks for the suggestion. I have expanded the description and added the picture to other pages. Cheers, ṜedMarkViolinist^{Drop me a line} 02:44, 29 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Frozen Pinecone

I have added the variety and description. Cheers, ṜedMarkViolinist^{Drop me a line} 17:33, 30 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

RE: WikiCup Questions

Sorry for the lateness in my reply here :D I'm afraid I'll have to say no to both of those as content must be nominated and promoted within the round, to keep it fair; also, it would be best to keep it to Wikipedia to avoid discrimination against those who do not edit on sister projects. Sorry. Garden. 22:26, 30 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No need for apologies, and thanks for the answers. :) Durova^Charge! 22:30, 30 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

POTD notification

POTD

Hi Durova,

Just to let you know that the Featured Picture File:Ocean currents 1943 (borderless)3.png is due to make an appearance as Picture of the Day on January 5, 2009. If you get a chance, you can check and improve the caption at Template:POTD/2009-01-05. howcheng {chat} 19:42, 31 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you very much. :) Durova^Charge! 20:07, 31 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Joan of Arc humor

In the spirit of the new year, Thomas Lawrence (c. 1820-96), long considered one of the finest Victorian clowns, wrote in his personal joke book discovered in 2007: “What’s the difference between a rowing boat and Joan of Arc? One is made of wood and the other is Maid of Orleans.” See Thomas Lawrence as quoted in Ben Schott, Schott’s Mischellany Calendar 2009 (New York: Workman Publishing, 2008), October 22. Sincerely, --A Nobody^{My talk} 20:19, 31 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Lol! Lovely, and thank you. A very fine New Year to you. Best regards, Durova^Charge! 20:21, 31 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You're welcome, take care! :) By the way, you may also enjoy this. Sincerely, --A Nobody^{My talk} 20:26, 31 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, great stuff! Durova^Charge! 04:55, 2 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You're welcome! And if you're still interested in the rock band stuff, see here. Sincerely, --A Nobody^{My talk} 04:57, 2 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

WikiCup

Delivered by neuro^(talk) for Garden and aye matthew at 20:47, 31 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Happy New Year!

Happy New Year!

Hey there, Durova! Happy new Gregorian year. All the best for the new year, both towards you and your family and friends too. I know that I am the only person lonely enough to be running this thing as the new year is ushered in, but meh, what are you going to do. I like to keep my templated messages in a satisfactorily melancholy tone. ;)

Congratulations to Coren, Wizardman, Vassyana, Carcharoth, Jayvdb, Casliber, Risker, Roger Davies, Cool Hand Luke and Rlevse, who were all appointed to the Arbitration Committee after the ArbCom elections. I am sure I am but a voice of many when I say I trust the aforementioned users to improve the committee, each in their own way, as listed within their respective election statements. Now, if you'll excuse me, I'm off to update the 2009 article, heh.

Best wishes, neuro^(talk) 00:45, 1 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You too! And aw, the cat is delightful. :) Durova^Charge! 01:29, 1 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Returning the favor

I realized I have never given you anything, as you did a few weeks back. Well, to ring in the new year, you've been given mile 27 of I-215 all part of the adopt-a-highway program. However, litter pickup is not included. Here's to '09! C L — 02:28, 1 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ooh, lovely! Thank you very much. :) And best wishes for the new year. Durova^Charge! 02:42, 1 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

White House architectural plan

I see now that the White House drawing was promoted moments before I weighed in. Congratulations! But why is the file 23 MB? Couldn't it be much smaller without significant degradation?--ragesoss (talk) 04:24, 1 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If you'd like I could offer a courtesy alternate. Durova^Charge! 04:36, 1 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It seems that larger files sizes, and far less compression, is becoming common. I have a good-enough connection that it's no great burden waiting a minute or two for a file, but many people don't. 37 MB Hokusai images and the like really are a burden for anyone who doesn't want to do offline things with them, but I also see the emotional attraction of saving every single bit information in a file, even if 80% of the data makes no difference detectable to the naked eye. Rather than courtesy files of smaller size, maybe MediaWiki should be patched so that compressed files of various downsized resolutions between 1024 and actual size are available. (Obviously this is already possible using the thumb syntax, but something user-friendly would be nice if file size growth continues to outpace internet infrastructure. Given the trends in digital cameras and online curation, such growth seems likely.) I'm off to search bugzilla for such a feature request.--ragesoss (talk) 05:12, 1 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

For the most part I'm thrilled by the change. It used to limit my selections quite a bit that captions could become illegible after I resized the material to comply with the upload limit. Considering that it may not be apparent before restoration whether downsampled text from a completed work would be legible or not (due to water damage, dirt, etc.), this is a very pleasant change of affairs. Opens up whole realms of maps and engineering diagrams that would have been hopeless or not worth the trouble. Durova^Charge! 05:16, 1 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm certainly glad that we have such a large file limit now, and some images demand lots of data. I don't know much about the technical aspects of image encoding, but I assumed that file size ought to scale with megapixels. So that Hokusai file is 5653 x 8261 = 46.7 Mpx. At 37 MB, that seems like quite a bit less compression than a typical FP photo; scanning through, it seems like typical compression levels for FPs are about 300kb per megapixel or less. In case you want to vote for the Bugzilla feature request: it's bug 2581.--ragesoss (talk) 05:49, 1 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/White House architectural plan

Your Featured picture candidate has been promoted

Your nomination for featured picture status, File:Latrobe White House cropa2.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. Wronkiew (talk) 04:27, 1 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. :) Durova^Charge! 04:37, 1 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Happy New Year

Hope 2009 is a great year for you!--MONGO 15:46, 1 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you very much, and you too! :) Durova^Charge! 18:08, 1 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Happy New Year!

Dear Durova,

Wishing you a happy new year, and very best wishes for 2009. Whether we were friends or not in the past year, I hope 2009 will be better for us both.

Kind regards,

Majorly talk 21:21, 1 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks very much, and best wishes for the new year. :) Durova^Charge! 22:32, 1 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/State Route 74 (New York – Vermont)

Hi Durova, I noticed that you were addressing (and striking) items at this FAC. Reviewers should usually be striking issues, not the nominator; per FAC instructions: "If a nominator feels that an Oppose has been addressed, they should say so after the reviewer's signature rather than striking out or splitting up the reviewer's text. Per talk page guidelines, nominators should not cap, alter, strike, break up, or add graphics to comments from other editors; replies are added below the signature on the reviewer's commentary." Thanks, Dabomb87 (talk) 02:17, 2 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, I apologize for the confusion and will unstrike promptly. Thank you for noting. Durova^Charge! 02:24, 2 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Looks like you've beaten me to it. Durova^Charge! 02:24, 2 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Happy New Year!

Dear Durova, I hope you had a wonderful New Year's Day, and that 2009 brings further success and happiness! ~ YellowMonkey (bananabucket) 04:22, 2 January 2009 (UTC) [reply]

And hoping for more offbeat articles to read. and blogposts...and photo reviews. Thanks again, YellowMonkey (bananabucket) 04:22, 2 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you very much. :) Durova^Charge! 04:39, 2 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/A Brush for the Lead and Waldorf-Astoria Hotel, original site

Your Featured picture candidates have been promoted Your nominations for featured picture status, File:Brush for the lead2.jpg and File:Waldorf-Astoria 1904-1908b.jpg, gained a consensus of support, and have been promoted. If you would like to nominate more images, please do so at Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates. Wronkiew (talk) 05:52, 2 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you very much. :) Durova^Charge! 06:07, 2 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Re:Vietnam image archives

I'm not aware of any free image archive of Vietnam. Perhaps you can browse the Vietnam category in Commons; there are many images taken by Wikipedians in Vietnam that are not being used anywhere. DHN (talk) 06:21, 2 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks; I've just located a high resolution map of Vietnam from 1890. Downloading it as I reply, so not sure yet whether it'll be suitable for restoration. Best, Durova^Charge! 06:34, 2 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Piotrus_2 renamed

Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Piotrus_2 is renamed Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Eastern European disputes by motion.

For the Arbitration Committee, - Penwhale | ^{Blast him / Follow his steps} 10:18, 2 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. :) Durova^Charge! 18:29, 2 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Lise Meitner (d.o.b.)

I'm sorry to have to drag this one up when you are busy but the article as it stands has 17 Nov in the box and 7 Nov in the text. Arguments I've read in the talk page (including your comment) suggest that 7 Nov should stand as the best documented (and the subject's own preference). As a Jewish female science maven born on the 7 Nov (not that I'm partial to that date of course) I'd like to see this discrepancy in the article sorted out upon the wieght of evidence (even if the rows may still fly).

i can't find any definitive point to revert back to with total confidence. But to recap: there is only one source for the 17 date, from the Viennese Jewish birth registry. Possible problems with this include a) it was probably hand-written according to traditional practice and b) the remaining is possibly a facsmile of that as the original may not have survived WW2 and thus may have been rendered unreliable. That is speculation but one source against several others has to be proven to be impeccable and these are just some potential issues. Anyway, the box and text should tally - I think the former should be revised based upon the evidence. You? Ta and that. Plutonium27 (talk) 21:30, 2 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Whichever we go with, obviously it ought to be the same in both locations. I recall Ruth Lewin Sime's biography (but don't have a copy handy) and a few others, and perhaps might get a source or two to sort that out. Thank you for the ping, Durova^Charge! 22:46, 2 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Btw, if you'd enable your email function I'd appreciate it. Not really urgent or important, though. Best, Durova^Charge! 22:47, 2 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for looking it over. I'll see what I can find in the sources. Sorry for the delay in replying: work, senility,lack of clue, all that...Anyway, yes, I'll enable me email soon as. Byeee Plutonium27 (talk) 06:50, 7 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Durova was inducted into The Hall of The Greats

Billy is a good friend, and he's had a big impact on photography. It's a particularly special dedication because of how much you do, and how well you do it. --David Shankbone 23:10, 2 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you so much! What a pleasant surprise. :) Durova^Charge! 23:22, 2 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This is also one of Billy's favorite shots of himself, he wrote me in an e-mail. --David Shankbone 23:46, 2 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Bethlehem Steel

Your Featured picture candidate has been promoted

Your nomination for featured picture status, File:Bethlehem Steel Pennellb.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. Noodle snacks (talk) 01:45, 3 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. :)) Durova^Charge! 02:16, 3 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

File:Okyo Dragon.jpg

Hi Durova! Happy new year! I just saw your question regarding File:Okyo Dragon.jpg. The text in the left band reads from top to bottom: 円山應挙 (="Maruyama Ōkyo") 龍之図 (="Painting of a Dragon") 彫　不詳　(="engraver: unknown") 摺堀居　(="printer: Horii"). The signature on the right says 源應挙　(="Minamoto Ōkyo", apparently an alternative name of Maruyama [26]). The rest are stamps (one black stamp in the lower left corner, which seems to be the seal of the printing workshop, and the two red seals in the lower right corner, which would be seals of the artist). Hope this helps! Best regards PHG (talk) 07:26, 3 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. Durova^Charge! 18:08, 4 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Groundless accusations by ScienceApologist

Durova - I am contacting you on the assumption that you are still mentoring ScienceApologist, and that he may take some notice of you. I would like you to look at this section of my talk page. SA first accuses me of wikistalking, simply because I contributed to three of the many AfDs that he has intiiated recently. I politely ask him to retract this baseless accusation. Instead, he adds a further unsubstantiated accusation of making personal attacks.

I feel a firm line needs to be taken with SA here. He appears to believe that the normal standards of Wikipedia behaviour do not apply to him, and that editors like myself who happen to sometimes disagree with him are not entitled to respect and civility. If I ignore this bullying, I fear that will simply reinforce this belief.

However, if SA will retract these groundless accusations and apologise to me, then the matter will be closed as far as I am concerned. I am not expecting miracles, but if you feel you have any influence over him, perhaps you can give him such advice as you see fit. Thank you for your time. Gandalf61 (talk) 17:11, 3 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, apologies for being a bit slow. My Internet service was down most of the day yesterday. I'll have a look at this. Durova^Charge! 18:10, 4 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. I look forward to hearing your conclusions. Gandalf61 (talk) 18:22, 4 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Posted. Hope they help make a bad situation a little better. Durova^Charge! 09:12, 5 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you very much for your help. I have read your post, and responded at some length on my talk page (so as to keep the relevant on-Wiki material in one place). You have done as much as you possibly could. Good luck with your mentoring work - if I could find a "barnstar of respect" then I would award it to you ! Gandalf61 (talk) 11:40, 5 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Special edition WikiProject triple crown

Hello Durova. I was wondering if I could get a "Special edition WikiProject triple crown" for this:

TheLeftorium
- DYK: Lisa the Vegetarian (RA)
- GA: Maggie Simpson (GA)
- FC: The Simpsons Game (FAC)

Cheers, TheLeft orium 22:28, 3 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Triple crown

I think I get the triple crown as follows:

DYK--Rudolf Wolters
GA--Jena Six which was a GA before being promoted to FA
FA--Albert Speer

--Wehwalt (talk) 14:11, 4 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

There are questions for you (me) would you mind taking the time?

[27] I told them that you are on top of things with mentoring SA. They want proof which I cannot supply since I assume you are doing a lot of this via outside methods. Would you mind clearing this up for me? I feel things are out of control a bit with calls again for banning SA since the arbitrators decided not to deal with it in the Cold fusion case. Now some are calling for a ban again stating that new arbs are seated and they do not have to go by what the previous case concluded. Sorry I spoke up about this. I hope you can comment there, thanks, --CrohnieGal^Talk 18:10, 4 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for touching base. My Internet was down most of the day yesterday so I'm catching up with developments (and have just finished a restoration on a portrait of George Washington Carver). Realistically, might be the end of the day before I'm caught up with the SA situation; need to run errands (California time here). Please ask people to be a little patient; I realize matters get heated quickly in wiki-time. Best regards, Durova^Charge! 19:20, 4 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Have posted something; am catching up. Thanks, Durova^Charge! 09:11, 5 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks and I will leave a message when I get a moment. I appreciate you taking the time. You are definitely correct, it does get heated fast. Have a great year and thanks again. --CrohnieGal^Talk 14:10, 5 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks I didn't notice your last comment to me in time but noticed you did comment. I think your comment was a good one and that assume good faith is needed by some. I think you are a good choice of a mentor for SA and also feel you will be able to bring more light than heat and absolutely less drama. At least this is my hopes for all of this. Have a great day and if I can help please don't hesitate. --CrohnieGal^Talk 14:28, 5 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you as always; you really do a lot of good for the project. Not sure I can live up to your hopes but will try to. :) Durova^Charge! 17:36, 5 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Your sweet thanks but I've watched you with other editors who was always being brought to boards and you managed just fine. I think you will do fine this time too. I really don't have any doubts since you are very thorough and thoughtful when you address any areas you involve yourself in. But good luck, (it doesn't hurt to have some good luck on your side! :) ) --CrohnieGal^Talk 19:59, 5 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Fetured picture history

Hi - Would you have any interest in helping populate WP:FP2005 (and WP:FP2006, WP:FP2007, and WP:FP2008 :) )? I have a tool that can parse a monthly log file and (generally reliably) figure out which images were promoted and who the nominator was, but I have mostly been figuring out the original uploader and source manually. This is fairly time consuming, and since most images have been moved to commons being able to look at deleted revisions is pretty handy (I gather you're no longer an admin, so maybe you're not the best candidate to help with this). In any event, I suspect there's not much chance figuring out the original source and uploader can be reliably automated which means maintaining WP:WBFPC will likely always require manual effort (maybe an hour a month). I'm willing to do this on an ongoing basis, and will continue plodding through the historic log files, but completing the by-year histories will take me at least weeks. If you could help that'd be great. -- Rick Block (talk) 20:25, 4 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you so much for getting into this. The last couple of days my online time has been minimal (gasp! a social life!) but I expect to return to normal hardcore geekery shortly. Since I asked you for this it's only fitting to walk the walk. :) Best wishes, Durova^Charge! 17:42, 5 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I can populate the monthly tables from the tool's raw output (I'll do this for the rest of 2005 to show you what I mean). I haven't coded it yet, but there might be a fairly reliable way to get the original uploader (i.e. read the first version of the nom file, extract the image name, and then read the upload log). This should work for any image originally uploaded to en: (even ones transferred to commons: and subsequently deleted). If there is no upload record here, the tool could even then do a query against the upload log at commons (although I've been trying to find the "home" wiki for users who've uploaded commons images). For now, the uploader is only filled in if there's text like "self-nom" in the nom file. -- Rick Block (talk) 19:50, 5 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Well, there's a challenge. I'll have to chew on this in a day or so when there's a little more time for it, since it's not quite always as simple as going with the original uploader. For example, if a historic file gets uploaded to Commons by someone who was not the original creator and who never added it to any articles on English Wikipedia, then another editor locates that in the Commons archives and places it at articles with strong captions and then writes the nomination and handles any questions or concerns that arise during candidacy, we've given credit to the nominator. Encyclopedic value (and use) is an important part of featured picture standards. I see why it's difficult to totally automate the selection. Durova^Charge! 20:09, 5 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Right. There was a case I ran into where different users uploaded the same PD-NASA image to en: and commons: (must have been under different names), and I think the nom was created by a third user. Looking at the nom file now, the links have been changed to the commons image (which happens when a dup image is removed from en:). The comments in the nom file about the en: uploader were very mysterious until I looked at the original version of the nom file (which had the original en: name). Most cases are not this involved, but certainly some are. Some I haven't been able to figure out (it looks like the database is missing upload entries - I don't know how this can happen, but it seems to). "Fully automated" doesn't seem to be in the cards. -- Rick Block (talk) 01:42, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I've added Oct-Dec tables, pretty much as output by the tool, to WP:FP2005. This what I've been starting with, and then comparing to the archived nom files. Sometimes the image name isn't exactly right (if the link goes nowhere, or goes to an image that is neither featured or former that's a pretty good clue the link is not right). Sometimes the listing was for a delist rather than a featured nom. If you pick a month and populate/correct the table and have any suggestions for for the tool please let me know. The entries that are currently populated are picked out of the text of the nom file using various (textual) cues. -- Rick Block (talk) 04:02, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Wow, thank you. Durova^Charge! 21:17, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Bye

I began editing Wikipedia some time ago anonymously. Before long, I made the plunge, signed up and really took pride in editing; it was exciting to share a part of me with the world. As of late, I've grown frustrated with administrators, and you are the personification of my disgust. The fact that people like you have found power here is enough to convince me to never edit again.

Citing: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special%3ALog&type=block&user=&page=User%3A!! http://wikipediareview.com/index.php?showtopic=14011&st=0

Agnamus (talk) 22:03, 4 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Because a non-specific attack on someone's character, from anonymous account, is the perfect example of civility and responsible behavior. Whatever. -Pete (talk)

Oh dear, I haven't known what response is appropriate for this post (if indeed any at all). Although I appreciate the defense, Pete, sarcasm is unlikely to help. Higher up on this page someone posted a similar concern in a less judgmental manner. If the person who posted this one returns, this might be informative. Durova^Charge! 20:17, 5 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Your sockpuppets

Are very cute, and I laughed very hard at some of them. Hope you have had a wonderful New Year! miranda 22:22, 4 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you very much, and same to you. :) Durova^Charge! 08:47, 5 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I have been proven right!

I remember you not believing my testimony that the Creation Seventh Day Adventist Church is a hoax. You should then find this interesting: It appears that the Creation Seventh Day Adventist Church has admitted in court to only having three members. See Case 1:06-cv-01207-JDB Document 70 Filed 06/11/2008 page 3. Doesn't that prove the central thesis in Walter McGill and the Creation Seventh Day Adventist Church Hoax is true and therefore that Creation Seventh Day Adventist Church is not notable and therefore should be deleted? --e.Shubee (talk) 21:59, 5 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

That's good news. Please cite the original court documents, rather than your private republication. Wikipedia is all about careful sourcing. Best wishes to you, Durova^Charge! 22:23, 5 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Durova, I've worked on this oversight long enough and only received thankless abuse for my efforts. I wish to leave the rest to other editors that strongly disapprove of Wikipedia being exploited to promote a senseless hoax. --e.Shubee (talk) 22:40, 5 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Well I hope I haven't abused you. You've always appeared to be sincere. A big part of the problem has been demonstrating your assertions through reliable sources. Durova^Charge! 23:21, 5 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/World War I trenches at Dead Sea

Your Featured picture candidate has been promoted

Your nomination for featured picture status, File:Turkish trenches at Dead Sea2.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. Wronkiew (talk) 02:17, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you very much. :) Durova^Charge! 02:19, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

File:Carter Panama Canal speech.ogg

Statement on the Panama Canal Treaty Signing

Problems playing this file? See media help.

Your Featured sound candidate has been promoted Your nomination for featured sound status, Image:Carter Panama Canal speech.ogg, gained a consensus of support, and has been promoted. If you would like to nominate another sound, please do so at Wikipedia:Featured sound candidates. X clamation point 04:22, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. ;) Durova^Charge! 04:25, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Camera obscura

An image created by you has been promoted to featured picture status Your image, File:Camera obscura2.jpg, was nominated on Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates, gained a consensus of support, and has been promoted. If you would like to nominate an image, please do so at Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates. Thank you for your contribution! Noodle snacks (talk) 06:10, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. :) Durova^Charge! 06:23, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Re: File:Indecency.jpg

Mmm I have restored it but I'm a bit lost by this edit to be honest! :) -- lucasbfr ^{ho ho ho} 07:25, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Oops, my bad. Here's the explanation. When I do a restoration I always upload an unrestored version for documentation purposes. Normally I upload that to Commons, although with this particular image I accidentally uploaded the unrestored version locally. So as soon as I realized the mistake I uploaded over at Commons and put a deletion request on the local version. There's seldom any need for the unrestored version of a featured picture to have a hosting locally. The restored version got featured, though. So there's a reason to host it locally: the featured star is useful if anyone considers replacing it at an article (and occasionally editors do accidentally remove featured pictures from their primary articles). Hope that explains it, and best wishes. Durova^Charge! 20:13, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hehe :) Thanks for the featured image reminded (I'll think about that case next time I do I8s). To be clear, that particular image is deletable without issue, right? -- lucasbfr ^talk 08:34, 7 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yeppers, deletable without issue. :) Durova^Charge! 16:39, 7 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

SA and AFD

It appears that you have taken on the task of mentoring SA. Here is something I considered, but rejected, adding as evidence in the current arbitration case. While I think there is an issue in this stuff, I don't think it will help the Arbitrators or be usefully submitted there. I think it would be more fruitful for his mentor to work it through.

SA's AFD nomination results, via http://toolserver.org/~sql/afd.php?user=ScienceApologist:

I use only the first 181, because as of the time of this analysis the 182nd AFD was still running and had not yet reached a conclusion.

102 were probably kept (56%)

52 were probably deleted (29%)

18 are now redirects (10%)

6 were kept but later deleted

2 were deleted but later recreated

Overall, that is a reasonable result. However, visual inspection shows that most of the deletion results are in the early nominations, and very few are in the recent nominations. For example, only 12 of his first 50 nominations were kept (24% kept) while only 5 of the last 50 nominations considered were deleted (90% kept).

His first 50 nominations took place from February 2005[28] to April 2008[29]. 50 in 38 months is an average of 1.32 per month. Of these, 38 pages were deleted or redirected - 76%.

His most recent completed 50 nominations (132-181) took place from 16 November 2008[30] to 31 December 2008[31]. 50 in 1.5 months is an average of 33.33 per month. Of these, only 9 pages were deleted or redirected - 18%.

Clearly there has been a major change in SA's usage of AFD during 2008. He is using it at least an order of magnitude more often. That change appears also to been accompanied by a major drop in the frequency with which community consensus agrees SA about deleting an article, from 76% down to 18%, roughly 1/4th as often as it did before the change.

The change is obvious upon inspection, but I can't say why the results are different now. Is SA being a lot less selective in choosing the articles to nominate? Is SA being sloppier in the nomination statements (not obviously so from spot inspection)? Has community consensus shifted radically in 2008 (I've seen no evidence of this elsewhere)? Has SA already eliminated the obvious cases (but why would this lead to the rate of nominations increasing so much)?

Hopefully you can discuss this with SA and sort out what has changed in his behavior and what if anything should change now. GRBerry 17:48, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, this is a lot to digest. Thank you for the courtesy of showing me this. I'll roll up my sleeves and dig into it soon. Durova^Charge! 20:15, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Cheers

Welcome in the New Year, Durova. I could use your help following Piotrus2 ArbCom case – with its selective findings and even more peculiar remedies. A new revert war is brewing at Anti-Jewish violence in Poland, 1944–1946 with User:M0RD00R at the center stage with his political tag-team members [32] removing well sourced, reliable info like there was no tomorrow – including my own contributions. M0RD00R was not found at fault by the ArbCom in spite of his record on highly biased, inflammatory edits. So, he probably feels free now to intensify his political interference. Please look at the recent edit history of that article. I think everything there is self-explanatory.[33] However, if I’m not correct in my assessment of what is going on there, please let me know. Neutral point of view is my only concern. --Poeticbent talk 01:37, 8 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

¡Ay, caramba! I know it would be way too much too ask from You to get involved into this mess, but still, Your input, Durova, would be indeed appreciated here [34].

On the behalf of M0RD00R's Political Tag-team Henchmen Committee for Political Interference, Sincerely M0RD00R (talk) 22:19, 8 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

BTW the question have been raised if You are an official mentor to Poeticbent?M0RD00R (talk) 23:55, 8 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Apologies for the delay in responding. I'm not sure I understand the context. Could you each fill me in with your take on the dynamics here? Durova^Charge! 18:29, 9 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

For starters, please read my reply to, what seems like a rather misguided WP:AN assault on me by this user prior to his comment from above.[35]

P.S.: I added examples of a new series of POV reverts by M0RD00R and his tag-team member User:Malik Shabazz for you to examine more closely.[36] --Poeticbent talk 19:56, 9 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

POTD notification

Hi Durova,

Just to let you know that the Featured Picture File:MaryPickford4.jpg is due to make an appearance as Picture of the Day on January 11, 2009. If you get a chance, you can check and improve the caption at Template:POTD/2009-01-11. howcheng {chat} 05:19, 8 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you very much. :) Durova^Charge! 06:39, 8 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/The Dakota, 1890

Your Featured picture candidate has been promoted

Your nomination for featured picture status, File:The Dakota 1890b.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. Wronkiew (talk) 06:36, 8 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you very much. :) Durova^Charge! 06:39, 8 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Pamukkale

Hi Durova,

Just wondering if you had an opinion about Edit 2 (processing from original file) to confirm this as the leading FPC? Thanks. Diliff | (Talk) (Contribs) 13:28, 8 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

BLP

Hi Durova, I remembered you take an interest in people who have expressed a wish to have their BLP deleted. There is a current. seemingly somewhat acrimonious case on the COIN page; perhaps it might benefit from your attention. Previous AfD: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Stuart Campbell (video game journalist). Cheers, Jayen 466 13:31, 8 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the heads up; made the offer. It's up to him to follow up now. Durova^Charge! 15:19, 8 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Troll the ancient Yuletide carol.

I couldn't resist trolling (or is it tr-lol-ling?) you. Sorry =P Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 21:04, 8 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Show me what's under your kilt, laddie. Durova^Charge! 21:08, 8 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

As you wish:

Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 21:13, 8 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Lol! :) Durova^Charge! 21:18, 8 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

[37]

I couldn't agree more with your sentiment of not making up rules as we go along, although perhaps our assessment of who is doing the making up in this instance differs. Best regards, Papa Lima Whiskey (talk) 23:45, 8 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Then maybe we don't understand each other's standards. Richard M. Thomas doesn't have his own article, but I've nominated his portrait due to its encyclopedic value at Tuskegee Airman and Military history of African Americans and the biography of the photographer. The model in this other image by the same photographer isn't even identified, but that is also a featured picture and its only placement is at the photographer's biography and the Florida spring where it was photographed. To be candid, it isn't a very good illustration of the spring. Do we disqualify it because we don't know the model or the brand of nightgown? Durova^Charge! 23:59, 8 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I don't even begin to see how this applies to the situation we're talking about. The examples you've given are actual photographs, so obviously qualify as pictures. Papa Lima Whiskey (talk) 00:34, 9 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I see the same standards for all images, and don't understand the distinction you draw between text images and non-text. Where was the bar raised for non-text images in previous discussions? Where does your standard exist in formal FA parameters? Durova^Charge! 00:38, 9 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

image copyright issues

saw your post atop WT:RFA about the evils of image copyright issues. Know little or nothing about images but would be willing to help (when I have time, which is not at this precise moment). How could I help? Ling.Nut ^{(talk—WP:3IAR)} 07:50, 9 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Plenty of areas need help. For example, WP:FAC has only one reviewer for image compliance. A second pair of eyes would really be appreciated. Durova^Charge! 08:07, 9 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Now that I can do. Anything else? Ling.Nut ^{(talk—WP:3IAR)} 08:08, 9 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The first thing that comes to mind is WP:PUI, although there are probably better priorities. Past midnight in this time zone. Brain cells going on strike... Durova^Charge! 08:11, 9 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Get some sleep. :-) Drop me a line on my talk if you ever have other (polite, anatomically and/or metaphysically possible) suggestions. G'night. Ling.Nut ^{(talk—WP:3IAR)} 08:14, 9 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

POTD notification

Hi Durova,

Just to let you know that the Featured Picture File:Italybombing4.jpg is due to make an appearance as Picture of the Day on January 12, 2009. If you get a chance, you can check and improve the caption at Template:POTD/2009-01-12. howcheng {chat} 17:46, 9 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

P.S. File:Triomphe de Marat4.jpg follows on January 13. howcheng {chat} 18:10, 9 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you as always. Have I ever given you a barnstar for all this work? It can't be easy to keep on top of POTD the way you do. Durova^Charge! 18:26, 9 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

P.S. 2: File:Cheyenne dance4.jpg is coming on January 14. As for barnstars, I've got plenty, so no need for any more. :) howcheng {chat} 21:35, 11 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Issues

I think we should start from basic WP policies like WP:NOR, and WP:SYNTH specifically. From my point of view Poeticbent has major issues understanding and following it. And it is getting quite annoying when every time we have to return to same ad nauseam discussed quite simple rules. What bothers me in this specific case I have stated on talk of relevant page [38]. If you'll have a bit of spare time to look at this issue it would be appreciated. M0RD00R (talk) 22:35, 9 January 2009 (UTC) P.S. and the Drama [39], I'm bit annoyed by it also [40] P.P.S. Moreschi pointed out that you've might be a mentor to Poeticbent, is it true. I vaguely recall during this ArbCom that you were stepping up to it, but is it now official, or is it not rather off? What current situation? Cheers. M0RD00R (talk) 23:55, 10 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : Issue XXXIV (December 2008)

The December 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) 02:43, 10 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Gothic plate armour

Your Featured picture candidate has been promoted

Your nomination for featured picture status, File:Gothic armor 2.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. Wronkiew (talk) 06:42, 10 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/American Empire

Your Featured picture candidate has been promoted

Your nomination for featured picture status, File:Puck cover2.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. Wronkiew (talk) 06:43, 10 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Caledonia, New York 1892

Your Featured picture candidate has been promoted

Your nomination for featured picture status, File:Caledonia, New York aerial2.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. Wronkiew (talk) 06:45, 10 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Social dance

Your Featured picture candidate has been promoted

Your nomination for featured picture status, File:Il Ballo2.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. Wronkiew (talk) 06:45, 10 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for all of the above. :) Durova^Charge! 16:13, 10 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Featured image

Saw your post on the WikiCup talk page, but I am not interested in barnstars. However, I would appreciate more feedback here. Since I saw it I thought this image was striking. --Moni3 (talk) 16:42, 10 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, sometimes they give a slight pass on the technicals due to historic considerations, but not as great as this would take. Your proposal is several times smaller in terms of raw data than our smallest current FP, which was a very old promotion. You might try the valued picture program for that image, and do keep searching. Only about 1 in 1000 archival images has the right specs to become a featured picture. Durova^Charge! 17:01, 10 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, well. I found one. It found me, actually. That it's not the right specs is unfortunate indeed. I don't know what the valued picture program is. --Moni3 (talk) 17:14, 10 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

New program. Wikipedia:Valued pictures. Durova^Charge! 17:23, 10 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Is this like the separate table for the bastard child at the family reunion? J/k... --Moni3 (talk) 17:31, 10 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You inspired today's blog post.[41] ;) Durova^Charge! 18:47, 10 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

YAY! You're going to make me write to the New York Pubic Library again, aren't you? Or call... again. I thought it was pulling teeth to get them to release the two images in Gittings' article in the first place. I know they're going to want to hear from me. --Moni3 (talk) 18:58, 10 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This is one reason I surf the Library of Congress website. When they get it right they really get it right. Durova^Charge! 19:17, 11 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

An FP for Darwin Day?

Durova, I don't if you take requests, but I was hoping you might keep an eye out for any potential FPs that might fit with the theme of Darwin Day. Cheers--ragesoss (talk) 19:23, 10 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Done. Please help place it at the article so I can nominate. Best wishes, Durova^Charge! 01:29, 11 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I added it to Darwin from Insectivorous plants to Worms. I suspect the editors of Charles Darwin will want to add it there as well, but I'm waiting until someone responds, at least for a day or so.--ragesoss (talk) 03:17, 11 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Encyclopedic value at articles where an image appears is an important part of featured picture candidacy, so I'll wait with you. Durova^Charge! 03:28, 11 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

April Fools Dispatch

Durova, I'm hoping to finish and run Wikipedia:FCDW/AprilFools in the Signpost around the end of January, beginning of February. Do we need to say something to encourage a submission of a POTD? Who chooses POTD? Should something be added re an April Fools image? (Last year's made no sense to me.) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:07, 11 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Howcheng selects them. I might look for something that could go. Durova^Charge! 19:09, 11 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Our benevolent POTD dictator Howcheng has rather fastidious tastes; two FPs of mine have already been rejected for April 1 consideration. So I looked around and perhaps have found a third option. Spent several hours on it already. This won't be easy; the file is nearly 100MB and over two centuries have taken their toll on it. Yet perhaps it will come out all right. You'll see the result when it's ready, if this works. Durova^Charge! 00:02, 12 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I was asking if we need to include mention in the Dispatch, to encourage submissions. Is that not necessary? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 03:10, 12 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It would certainly be sweet if you mention April 1 in the Dispatch. :) Durova^Charge! 05:18, 12 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

WikiCup Newsletter

Delivered by The Helpful One for Garden and iMatthew at 00:05, 12 January 2009 (UTC) [reply]

Response

I have no interest in commenting on your behavior, and never meant any of my recent comments to reflect on you. Please stay off my talk page if at all possible. Thank you. Jehochman ^Talk 02:58, 12 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

So be it. For months I have endeavored to avoid initiating formal dispute resolution with regard to your actions. If your user talk is unavailable to resolve problems collegially, and problems continue, then you will leave no other choice. Durova^Charge! 03:04, 12 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Don't make threats, idle or earnest. I just want to be left in peace to edit articles. If this site is going to become a major source of stress, I will find something else to do with my time. Jehochman ^Talk 04:26, 12 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

At ACE2008 you withheld criticisms until the very moment when you could cause the most harm to my campaign. Do you think that action inspires me to trust you in any way? Why would I want to hear from you ever again? I am not banning you from my talk page, but I'd feel much happier minimizing interactions. Thank you. Jehochman ^Talk 04:58, 12 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

(ec, outdent) Jehochman, a statement of intention to use proper channels could hardly be construed as a threat. You elected to cut off the informal channel of communication. Problems have arisen before, and I certainly hope that none arise again. Yet if they do then your own request leaves no other means but the formal channels. Really--and I intend this in the best of ways--it appears you've been somewhat off your game lately. Maybe a little slowing down and a greater focus on content work would be a good idea? My user talk remains open to you. If you decide to reopen yours to my use, please let me know. Best wishes, Durova^Charge! 05:05, 12 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, kids, be nice! I think you are both easily young enough to be my children, so I get to say that! Really, Durova, I just saw Jehochman make a truly helpful comment in response to you in the mediawiki spamlist talk page where you had raised the issue of newenergytimes.com, and, in fact, Jehochman's comment there, suggesting it might be useful to ask JzG, was right on. He's the one who blacklisted it, together with lenr-canr.org. Can of worms, to be sure. If the two of you ever need any informal mediation, I respect both of you, though in different ways, and I'd certainly try to help. Remember, I was *blocked* as a result of Jehochman's warning and the ensuing flap, last year. Please, as experienced users, set a good example for the rest of us. We will all benefit. --Abd (talk) 19:54, 12 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you Abd. Sometimes it is useful for people to explain their feelings. I have no problem working with Durova if our paths cross, but I am definitely not going to comment on her activities if I can avoid it because doing so would only appear to be a negative thing. Indeed, if Durova wants to address the spam blacklisting matter to JzG, I think that would be the quickest way to resolve it. I have no knowledge about this matter except that concerned parties brought it to my talk page seeking guidance. Jehochman ^Talk 20:03, 12 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Abd, the site owner had of course attempted to get an explanation from JzG before coming to me. It is quite odd that Jehochman would come over to a new thread I started twenty minutes after Jehochman expressed to me that he wished to minimize contact between us. There are certainly other people who could answer the questions and he is not a regular at the board. Now when I suggest things there's no double meaning: I suggested to Jehochman that everyone would be better off if he spent more time on content, and I was restoring a fourteenth century manuscript map of the Black Sea while both of you were posting here. At the blacklisting board I am merely fulfilling a polite request that came by email, and if I can't do that without fear of drama resulting it's known as Wikipedia:Wikihounding. Durova^Charge! 21:14, 12 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Don't assume bad faith. The matter had sailed across my talk page before you got to it.[42] There's a link to my talk page in the discussions you joined, and I ~~instigated~~ initiated the underlying arbitration case, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Cold fusion. My comment to you was purely objective and an attempt to be helpful. Of all people, I wonder why the site owner came to you for help. Jehochman ^Talk 21:47, 12 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

(ec, outdent) :::::How does it assume bad faith to point out the contradiction between two posts of yours twenty minutes apart? That sort of unsteady behavior is a chief reason why I'm so worried about you. If you wish to avoid me, then by all means do. Polite distance may be the best solution here. With respect, (Post-ec statement: it's rare that I ec with an editor at my own user talk twice in 24 hours. Can't help but come away with the impression that you're somehow very engaged, for whatever reason). Durova^Charge! 21:54, 12 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I notice that your edit added exactly 666 characters to this page. Coincidence, or something more sinister. You decide. Yes, polite distance may be a good way to proceed, but if you jump into an issue where I'm already involved, I'll respond politely as needed. Jehochman ^Talk 21:58, 12 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Not coincidence at all; I'm the Wiki Witch of the West. Now I've got a fine contract here to support you in next year's ArbCom election. All you need to do is sign in blood... ;) Durova^Charge! 22:11, 12 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Whose blood? Will mine do? Good luck, both of you. I would advise extreme caution before you decide to marry, though. Steady on, Durova, this is your talk page, thanks for making me feel welcome here, this time and others. --Abd (talk) 23:14, 12 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Jehochman 00:11, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

(unindent) Well, Jehochman, I didn't advise that, hope it works out for you!

Durova, now that we have completed the arcane ceremonies, and when you come up to speed on what happened, do you think you might be able to advise JzG (or mediate). See, it's my opinion that he abused his admin tools; he edited articles (Cold Fusion and Martin Fleischmann to remove links to lenr-canr.org and to newenergytimes.com, then he went to the local blacklist and blacklisted them, which requires the tools, it's a protected page, thus making his edits secure, not even an admin could undo them without first going to the blacklist and deleting the listings, which would itself be improper if done without discussion.

There are two separate issues here: should these sites be blacklisted is the first, but by no means is it the most serious issue, which is that an administrator made some edits and then effectively protected them with his tools. So I asked him to acknowledge that this was improper, because if he won't acknowledge that, then he, or others, might do it again. He blew this off. (I see that my comment there was a tad incoherent, but I think he got the idea, he does know what he did.) He seems to have come a bit unglued on meta, see Talk:Spam_blacklist#lenr-canr.org and especially Mike's_questions. I've seen no evidence of linkspamming. That a webmaster (librarian, he calls himself), Rothwell, with a detailed knowledge of a subject, managing a web site on the topic, sometimes comments in Talk for the article on his topic of interest and points to material available on his site, there, seems totally appropriate to me, not linkspamming, which would generally be the addition of links to articles, and not just occasionally, but profusely. The links in question weren't added by him; there is a history I've given in the meta discussion linked above. The web site isn't the source, the original paper is; the library simply hosts a copy, having -- they claim -- obtained permission from both the author and the publisher. I asked User:DGG to review this, and he's now commented several times that there isn't any apparent copyright problem. The core issue, underneath all this, is how we treat alleged fringe science, JzG using "fringe" frequently. However, Cold fusion isn't "fringe science," it's minority opinion science, there is a huge difference. Anyway, because there is an ongoing arbitration on fringe science, this affair might end up there. However, the judgment that a source is biased or unusable is an editorial judgment, and, unless there is some clear copyvio or other blatant policy violation involved, admin tools aren't to be used as they were here; and this is crucial to the Wikipedia structure. 'nuff said? --Abd (talk) 04:58, 13 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I share your concerns in that regard. Durova^Charge! 06:20, 13 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Well done!

		The WikiProject Barnstar
		For your extensive contributions to the Military history WikiProject, as evidenced by your nomination in the 2008 "Military Historian of the Year" awards, I am delighted to present you with this WikiProject Barnstar --ROGER DAVIES ^talk 03:56, 12 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you very much, Roger. :) Durova^Charge! 04:13, 12 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Cannon with gabions

Your Featured picture candidate has been promoted

Your nomination for featured picture status, File:Sixteenth Century Cannon2.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. Muhammad(talk) 06:39, 12 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. :) Durova^Charge! 16:23, 12 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/George Washington Carver

Your Featured picture candidate has been promoted

Your nomination for featured picture status, File:George Washington Carver2.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. Wronkiew (talk) 07:03, 12 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. ;) Durova^Charge! 16:24, 12 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'd love to help

with restoring images. I have photoshop, but little technical expertise. I agree, the Wiki Cup is a great motivator to improve content - I finally got my first DYK after 3+ years on wiki! It was very satisfying to see a former shortpages article on the front page. Where/how should I start? Cheers, Paxse (talk) 09:52, 12 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

There are many beautiful images of Cambodia (my favourite topic) on various French Government websites,see here for example that should be in the public domain. However, they seem to be low resolution copies - 100k or so. How could I find better quality reproductions to work with? Paxse (talk) 10:22, 12 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hi and thanks very much for your interest! What I've found with national archives and libraries is that most of them post low resolution images online. The great exception is the US Library of Congress, which can be a chancy and frustrating place to search but when they get it right they really get it right. A basic search for the word 'Cambodia' didn't yield anything useful in their photography collection, but perhaps you could try other search terms?[43] Not everything there is public domain, so if you find something that seems promising please let me know.

Basically what you want to find are good images in high resolution. Any type of image could be good, but the essential thing is that it makes you go 'wow' for some reason and could be useful in the encyclopedia. High resolution for purposes of restoration means minimum of 2MB in .tif format. 10MB and up is better; I don't consider an image large if it's under 100MB.

The other best way to get material is to scan old books. There's a wonderful guide at Commons:Help:Scanning. To keep things simple for starters, just about everything published before 1923 is public domain in the United States. Reproduction quality is usually better in mid-nineteenth century to early twentieth century books than book images are today, so old library and bookseller finds can be wonderful sources of material.

A couple of finds from odd corners of the Library of Congress site:

If a mention of the CIA doesn't creep you out, this 1997 map of the country falls under US Government public domain.[44]
This 1920s map of Phnom Penh looks interesting. You'd need to check Cambodian copyright law to see whether it's lapsed into public domain.[45]

Keep in touch. :) Durova^Charge! 17:22, 12 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm interested...

...in helping out with photo restoration. First of all, what computer programs do I need? (Preferably free). Also, if you respond here, could you leave a note on my talk, because I tend to forget sometimes to check back. Thanks, Spencer^T♦^C 22:16, 12 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Free = GIMP. Shoemaker's Holiday is our resident master of that program. Durova^Charge! 22:21, 12 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Okay. You can respond here now (I'm watching your talk, if you don't mind). I'm doing the download right now. Spencer^T♦^C 22:28, 12 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Wonderful. :) Suggest you send an email to Shoemaker's Holiday, and if you don't mind installing Skype (also free) it's easy to catch him. Skype's a great client for media transfers. Email me if you'd like my Skype ID. Best, Durova^Charge! 22:35, 12 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I don't have a headset, so skype wouldn't really help... I sent him the email. Ok, GIMP looks sorta confusing...there's 2 big boxes, a toolbox and the other that says, "Layers, channels, paths," etc. How does it work? 'Spencer^T♦^C 22:50, 12 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Skype has text chats too. It's worth trying out. :) Great for sending/receiving large files. Durova^Charge! 22:54, 12 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, thanks for the help for now...I need to go (and I'm not sure I can log in later), but thanks for your help for now. Spencer^T♦^C 22:58, 12 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Role account blocked?

It was deleted a couple months ago upon my request. Why does the Noticeboard say that User:BjrTriad is deleted? -BlueCaper (talk) 22:57, 12 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The image is still up. Would like to remove that from Commons, if you don't mind. Durova^Charge! 18:08, 13 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Spanish Civil War

Actually, I would love to. I emailed some military archives in Spain, but since I no longer live there it's hard for me to reach them. Hopefully, they will at least send me an email saying that they are unwilling to donate to Wikipedia Commons (something is better than nothing). I also recently threw out my scanner. So, what exactly are the copyright laws in Spain? JonCatalán^(Talk) 23:17, 12 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Are these photos any good?

Hi, I'm not really able to tell good photos from bad ones and I don't want to waste people's time. Do you think either of these

would have a chance as features pictures? Thanks, AxelBoldt (talk) 23:49, 12 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Possibly. Try Wikipedia:Picture peer review for more opinions. Durova^Charge! 18:06, 13 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sourcing

When sourcing the various rock song stubs, what do you make of such sources as the booklets that accompany CDs? For example, we bought my father this CD for his birthday. The 2-disc set includes a multi-page booklet written by two authors who were not members of the band who discuss all of the songs on the collection in multi-paragraph critical fashion, i.e. you get a reliable and detailed description of the songs' developments and receptions, as well as other interesting information like saying that the Holy Trinity of '60s British Rock 'N' Roll were The Beatles, The Rolling Stones, and The Who. See Matt Kent and Andy Neil, The Who: The Ultimate Collection (Santa Monica: MCA Records, 2002), 3. Sincerely, --A Nobody^{My talk} 20:58, 13 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

CD inserts usually count as self-published sources. Usable in the article about the CD, but don't establish notability (anyone with a laser printer and a CD burner can produce them, theoretically). Durova^Charge! 21:02, 13 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

In this case, it's a professional (MCA Records produced insert). Best, --A Nobody^{My talk} 21:03, 13 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

MCA is a record company, not a third-party, published source with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy. Therefore, WP:SELFPUB. Dlabtot (talk) 21:29, 13 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It does serve as a reliable primary source, but okay. Best, --A Nobody^{My talk} 21:30, 13 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Arbcom

An Arbcom case as a way of reducing drama? I nearly fell off my chair laughing! Best joke I've seen on here in month. DuncanHill (talk) 22:31, 13 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It's likely to end up there anyway, isn't it? In a situation like this, the sooner it gets there the better. You may disagree; that's my call. With respect, Durova^Charge! 22:35, 13 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Completely agree with Durova here. it's going to be.. *shivers* I like the statement Deskana put up :) SirFozzie (talk) 22:36, 13 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]