User talk:Durova

Strike-through textWelcome to my talk page. Please sign and date your entries by inserting ~~~~ at the end. I'll reply here if you post here.
Start a new talk topic.

This user is backlogged and requires the attention of experienced editors who can create more hours in a day.
Please remove this notice when the backlog is cleared.

---

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

---

Israeli-Palestinian conflict disclaimer Yes, I'm a member of Wikipedia:WikiProject Israel Palestine Collaboration and mentor to Jaakobou. That doesn't mean I'm an expert in the content dispute. Roughly I've got as much knowledge of those issues as a well-informed Jerusalem resident would have of U.S.-Mexico border relations. Well-informed by Jerusalem standards isn't the same thing as knowing this week's border crossing waits along la frontera, and vice versa. Durova^Charge! 18:59, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

---

The Community petition Newly posted to my blog.

---

A new essay: Wikipedia:Apology.

Archived talk 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53

Thank you and my apologies if I wasted your time

Just a note to thank you. It is nice to see discretionary action expeditiously undertaken that resolves misunderstandings without recourse to the nuisance of partisan bickering in formal courts or noticeboards on adjudication. You may pass on this to our mutual friend, with whom I have a tough relationship. Neither User:Gatoclass nor I availed ourselves of the usual recourses, but held our silence, independently for a week, hoping for a change of mind. Though my judgements on my page were then harsh, (and he is welcome to express himself freely on my page in remonstration, whenever, without fear of my having recourse to sanctions. We're blokes), they were so to hasten a change of mind in lieu of the facile recourse to formal denunciations, which all to easily lend themselves to gaming and wasting administrators' time, something all too frequently used by many posters in this difficult area. Best wishes then, and that is the end of it. Nishidani (talk) 14:14, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

Thank you very much for that post. It must have been terrible seeing that for days -- bad enough as it actually was, but with it seeming even worse...I really wish I had known sooner. Durova^Charge! 18:01, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

Thanks

Thanks for your kind words at ANI. I really am flattered that you think I'd be a good sysop but as I said to Fozzie I just don't feel that I have the time to give that that office deserves at the moment. Hope everything is going well at your end. Actually would you mind have a quick read of Women's rights - just to give a quick opinion on how coherent and generally readable it is--Cailil ^talk 19:37, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

Consider it a standing offer with no flattery intended. You've earned that respect. Now I'll go look at that article and see what I can say. Durova^Charge! 21:16, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

(outdent) It's hard to cover such a large topic in a single article. The page needs work. I'll bullet point this:

• What's the scope? Is this article about legal rights only, or the broader sense of the personal is the political?
• What's the organization: chonological, geographical, topical?
• However you slice it up there are big gaps. Geographically those gaps are as big as China and Latin America (and several other places). Topically those gaps include maternity leave, education rights, employment discrimination, rape laws, and domestic abuse laws. Plus (no surprise to see me raising this, I'm sure) service in the armed forces.
• Factually I'm not convinced it's entirely on target. From memory here (sorry no sources at my fingertips), I thought Blackstone's commentaries wrought a substantial change in married women's property rights under British law, and in France married women had the right to own property until Napoleon took it away, and during the Napoleonic era married women could own property under Russian law also. Even restricting this to the British example, Blackstone did accord married women certain limited property rights--which was one reason women set about acquiring fantastically expensive jewelry and silverware and table china (assets which were firmly their own and which could be liquidated if necessary). That would be a small example of the broader gender-based distinction between land ownership and portable wealth (Salic Law, etc.) that crosses many eras and cultures. I thought the first U.S. state to grant women the vote was New Jersey (briefly) in the early nineteenth century.
• In terms of general format and copyediting, summary style is the right choice. That's probably the only way to go. Lists are disparaged in articles and it's unusual to see one in the lead section. Needs a going-over for consistency and encyclopedic tone.

Durova^Charge! 22:01, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

Poke me if I forget--I think I remember some historic suffragist photos in the Library of Congress archives that might be potential featured pictures. Durova^Charge! 22:04, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the quick peer review. You should have seen it back in October[1]. Fundamentally I think the History of women's rights needs its own article and to have a summary of it placed at Women's rights. As it stands I too have concerns about some of the points in the Women's rights's history section.

Structurally my own view is that it should act as the parent page for a historical, thematic and regional description of the broader meaning of 'Women rights'. This would need thematic arrangement, I think, but I'm open to other ideas. I totally agree there is a huge systemic bias towards the Anglo-American there but that can be fixed. And BTW that list in the lede has been giving me stomach cramps since I first saw it - I'll have a look at fixing that tonight or tomorrow--Cailil ^talk 22:20, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

Good idea to put the historical aspects into a separate article. Some of the basics such as voting rights aren't entirely historical. Women didn't get the vote nationwide in Switzerland until the mid-seventies, and one canton held out until the nineties. Durova^Charge! 04:07, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

Your presence needed at User:Durova/Triple crown winner's circle/Nominations

Update

I have gone through and cleared out some stuff here, awarding users some well-deserved Crowns of varying sorts. (4) editors are left that I'd rather you look over/award instead of me. Myself and Awadewit (talk · contribs) are up for the "Alexander", which I think is a first for User:Durova/Triple crown winner's circle. Cirt (talk) 11:34, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

Oh, and it looks like people have been leaving stuff for the "Great Triple Crown Race" on your talk page, but there is also one at the noms page, and I'll leave that to you as well. Cirt (talk) 11:43, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

In keeping with your past efforts

In keeping with your past efforts, you may wish to nominate Don Murphy for deletion/merge/redirect (for a third time) as he has a Daniel Brandt level notability and trouble making probability and has asked for it to be deleted. Do we really want two years of Brandt like disruption over this? Why not move the most notable content to other articles like we did for Brandt and redirect the article to his most notable movie? There is a book written by his partner in which he figures prominently, but reviews of the book make it arguable that it could non-libelously be called fiction. If you choose to start such a deletion process, you can add my name or not as you choose. I dislike bureaucratic process and shy away from it. WAS 4.250 (talk) 16:30, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

Viridae said he thought about starting the delete process but he "frankly can't be bothered stick my neck out and arguing for someone who is frankly so nasty at every turn." WAS 4.250 (talk) 16:44, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

Heads up D. [[2]] Viridae^Talk 02:27, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

I see... Durova^Charge! 02:46, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

Responded. NonvocalScream (talk) 02:57, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

Fan-stitch cardigan

Hi Durova,

I found myself in a Talbots yesterday and their spring line has a lovely 2-button, short-sleeve cardigan done entirely in fan stitch, crocheted from the neckline down. The spacing between the fans is gradually increased as you move down the cardigan, by increasing the number of chain stitches between them. It'd be really easy to make, I think, but has an understated, elegant look. Anyway, it made me think of you. :) I'll get to those revised crochet images soon, hang on a little longer! :) Willow (talk) 14:33, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

Awesome. BTW if you ever head over to Wikibooks there's a crochet module. I've contributed to it some, adding several of my projects, and it could use the help of a right-handed crocheter. Enjoy that new cardigan! Durova^Charge! 18:49, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

thanks for being part of Wikipedia:NotTheWikipediaWeekly

all the files are now online - and thanks again for coming along for a chat... whether you were vocal, or more of a listener, your support is fantastic - and do consider hosting a skypecast of your own before too long! (I think I pressed all of three buttons this time!) - once again thanks, and I look forward to seeing you around! cheers, Privatemusings (talk) 03:18, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for having me. Durova^Charge! 03:56, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

I would like to nominate this picture as WP:FP

Charred remains of Japanese civilians after a firebombing

Thank you, Igor Berger (talk) 03:30, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

Wow...jaw-dropping. Is it possible to get more detailed information about that particular image? Durova^Charge! 03:43, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

Bombing of Tokyo in World War II There were 100,000 civilians firebombed to death, but a historian thinks it could have been much more. Igor Berger (talk) 03:52, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

Do you have more specific information on this particular photograph? Durova^Charge! 04:07, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

The only thing i know it comes from commons here Igor Berger (talk) 04:13, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

Voters will have questions. Suggest you at least get a translation of the Japanese upload notes. Durova^Charge! 04:16, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

The photographer was Ishikawa Gwangyang, who died in 1989. The photo follows the Japanese public domain copyrights, because it was taken before 1946. his story here are more pictures and they are even more jaw-dropping This link has the refered picture in the set. Igor Berger (talk) 05:21, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

Hey, please give me a heads up if you link to pictures of the World Trade Center. Durova^Charge! 07:40, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

Heads up..:) I am thinking where to go with this! I see an issue in the article itself. And the issue is bias, because there is no criticism of USA actions at all in the article. The general in charge of the bombing mission was awarded some medals by Japanese goverment, which is strange! (here) Curtis LeMay also became USA vice Chief of Staff. I have no COI here and I am not anti-American, but I try to bring NPOV to articles. I saw a few editors bring their consern on the article talk page, but it was not addressed. I am thinking of bringing this issue to Wikipedia:WikiProject_Countering_systemic_bias and requesting RfC. Can you advise? Igor Berger (talk) 09:48, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

There's no reason to raise issues at RfC. Simply find a reliable source that documents criticism of the action, and then add it to the article. As for the photo, I don't think it will be a featured photo. Featured photos are usually nominated based on their being among the "finest" photos on Wikipedia, not just the most shocking or historically significant. From a photography standpoint it's not a great picture; it's just shocking. Equazcion •✗/C • 11:49, 18 Mar 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for your quick input. I will try to add to the article, and if I have troble I will ask you to take a look. Igor Berger (talk) 11:54, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

Durova, I am sorry I brought bad memories for you. Igor Berger (talk) 12:55, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

Don Murphy

Hello, I wanted to ask if you had seen my revision, since at the deletion review for Don Murphy, you did not think he was a notable figure. I had attempted to expand the article to cement his notability, but due to a sockpuppet reverting me, the article was then protected and discussion was initiated. I just wanted to see if you were aware about the more fleshed-out revision that seemed to show that he has been covered in much detail. RTFA (talk) 03:57, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

My standard since last June has been this: when a BLP subject asks for a courtesy deletion I want to know whether any paper-and-ink encyclopedia would have an entry on this person. Mr. Murphy's main claims to notability have been public for a while, so show me one specialty encyclopedia that runs a biography on him. If not, then I support courtesy deletion upon request. Durova^Charge! 04:03, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for explaining. I doubt that Don Murphy has an encyclopedic article, considering that paper-and-ink encyclopedias are pretty limited in identifying notable figures. I really would believe that Don Murphy is not the only notable person in Hollywood who would be neglected in such a print encyclopedia. Hopefully you've taken the time to review the references that I linked at the deletion review covering him in detail -- while I don't believe that he is a household name, I think he has definitely been talked about in the media (and has even spoken about himself), establishing that he is not just a private figure who wants to be left alone. I hope you understand what I'm trying to say, but we'll agree to disagree. RTFA (talk) 04:24, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

I can see where you're coming from. The way I take these things is to use standard notability guidelines unless the person objects, and then to honor their wishes unless they're so notable that a paper-and-ink encyclopedia covers them anyway. That leads to some quirky results (lucky for Mr. Murphy he hasn't played a role in the Star Trek universe...) but mostly gets it right and at least has some measurable cutoff. Durova^Charge! 04:37, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

You wanted to be alerted when the Don Murphy DRV was complete if it resulted in the article being overturned. That result has now occurred so I am alerting you. However, given how many people in the DRV thought that he was clearly too notable to be reasonably subject to courtesy deletion, and given the previous AfDs, I feel compelled to advise you not to AfD this. JoshuaZ (talk) 01:43, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

Well it looks like you beat me to that anyways. JoshuaZ (talk) 01:45, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

Imperial Triple Crown Jewel (your msg)

Dear Durova,

Thx for your msg. informing me of the problem with one of the FA's listed in my application. I'm unclear for FA's as to whether you look at significant contribs by edit count (such as MOS fixes and added images) or solely inline cites (refs?). If the former, I had 12 edits/images on William Hillcourt between Feb. 7-26, when the article passed FAC.

But, even disqualifying William Hillcourt altogether, that still leaves me with two (2) featured articles on which I was the nom and major contributor by any criterion: Royal Blue (B&O train) and E. Urner Goodman. As such, don't 2 FA's, +2 GA's, and +2 DYK's still qualify me for the Imperial Triple Crown Jewel? JGHowes ^talk - 18:49, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the clarification. I'll take another look into that. For purposes of triple crown credit I established a somewhat arbitrary cutoff of 10 inline citations. Basically it's there to head off attempts at gaming the system, so we don't wind up with people who hang out at GAC and FAC doing minor copyedits in order to collect the goodies. Hold on a little bit while I give a second review to your nomination, and thanks for being patient. Durova^Charge! 18:57, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

Durova, thought I'd drop by again to find out if you've had an opportunity to give this a 2^nd look. I see you're very busy, so would it expedite my Triple Crown Jewel if I simply re-nom myself without the questioned article? JGHowes ^talk - 16:49, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

JGHowes (talk · contribs) - Yeah, why don't you go ahead and do that. Cirt (talk) 22:38, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

Eli Whitney "editorializing"

Regarding [3] I don't have a citation off the top of my head, but in material I've read about him, that's a pretty common sentiment. If someone wants to get out one of the dread tree sources on his life it shouldn't be that hard to find good source for that statement. At minimum, the summarizing note that the patents were heavily disputed is easily verifiable and important. JoshuaZ (talk) 04:16, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

Also, could you maybe take a look at my comment on the talk page? One of the sources we are currently using may not be reliable. JoshuaZ (talk) 04:20, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

If there were a better manner of expressing it I'd have no exception, but there's something grandiose about the tone and third person plural is not encyclopedic. I'll have a look at your note because I agree some of the things I see in that body disagree with the online sources I'm reading. Thanks for the heads up. Durova^Charge! 04:26, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

Re:Triple crown race award

Many thanks. I look forward to shooting for that Genghis Khan award (need eleven more pieces of featured content, and quite a few DYKs/GAs though :p). Cheers, Sephiroth BCR ^(Converse) 06:16, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

Oh, and I still have an existing request at WP:CROWN/NOM for the "Napoleonic" triple crown award. Just a reminder. Thanks, Sephiroth BCR ^(Converse) 06:17, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

Okay, getting to that. :) BTW did you notice I congratulated you by name at the Community Portal? Durova^Charge! 06:24, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

I didn't notice that. Thanks a bunch. =) Sephiroth BCR ^(Converse) 06:45, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

Besty Ross

I made a bunch of improvements. Hopefully, it's a good start. Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 06:40, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. Still needs a longer lead. I'll see what I can do there. Almost set to go. :) Durova^Charge! 06:51, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

You're welcome!  :) Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 07:01, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

Special edition triple crown

Thanks for the award.— Rod ^talk 07:56, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

You're welcome. I also congratulated you by name at the community portal. Well done! Durova^Charge! 07:58, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

Shy?

[4] I thought you were too shy? Well maybe I will be able to remember. Hopefully. As you can see, I suggested this back in August. And now we are trying it! That is great.--Filll (talk) 00:12, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

Heehee, it is kind of fun. Interesting to hear people's voices for a change. :) Durova^Charge! 00:15, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

When I suggested this to DGG last year, he was very negative about it. But I think it could be valuable in some cases, just like the meetups. I do have a very strange voice personally, however. It makes me cringe every time I hear it.--Filll (talk) 00:24, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

Cone Mills

Noticed you did some excellent edits to Moses H. Cone. Perhaps you would like to look over Cone Mills Corporation, a related article I recently expanded ten-fold and submitted as a possible DYK.--Doug ^talk 13:04, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

Excellent work! I hope it makes DYK. Durova^Charge! 19:10, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

Your opinion

Hi Durova. I recently read your excellent Signpost article and was inspired to attempt a restoration for myself, of a portrait of Ulysses S. Grant. The original image is public domain, from the Library of Congress, Image:UlyssesGrant.jpg, and my restoration is at Image:UlyssesGrant-restore.jpg. What do you think? I'm a complete novice at this, so any input or tips would help a lot. :) Best, Keilana|^{Parlez ici} 14:09, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

Good start! That's quite a bit of work you put in there and I can tell it was carefully done. That particular image is too small for featured picture candidacy, but I hope you'll do more. Suggest you save interim versions as something other than .jpg (the format overwrites itself and degrades). If you want more, feel free to pick up any of the gallery images from my workshop linked at the top of this page (there's plenty to choose from), and best wishes! Durova^Charge! 19:10, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

Thanks very much. I've taken an interest in American Civil War portraits, are there any you'd recommend? Also, what size should they be to be a featured picture? Thanks. Keilana|^{Parlez ici} 23:42, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

I suggest you look up Matthew Brady's work at the Library of Congress site.[5] Try to concentrate on files where the original is at least 10mb because you'll probably need to do some cropping. Colloidon glass negatives tend to be unusable at the far edges. The minimum size for featured picture candidacy is 1000px on a side, although many featured pictures are larger than that. Wikipedia/Wikimedia hosting tends to cough and sputter if you get above 10mb, so for featured work I usually crop for esthetic/encyclopedic reasons and then resize to 3000px on the long axis. Feel free to touch bases with me as you go; I've got a couple of Civil War pics in the works too right now. :) Durova^Charge! 23:50, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

I've actually been looking through their public domain archives, there are some treasures in there. I just found another Grant portrait, it's a .tif file at 16.4 megabytes, would that be large enough? (here's a link: [6]) Thanks very much for your help, restoration is strangely addictive. :) Keilana|^{Parlez ici} 00:03, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

Grant would be a tough choice because Wikipedia already has one featured portrait of him. Suggest you check Wikipedia:Featured_pictures/People and go for someone who doesn't have a featured portrait yet. Durova^Charge! 00:09, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

Ahh, useful to know. I may restore it anyways later for the historical value (or for the practice). I've been looking through the Brady collection, and found this. What do you think? Keilana|^{Parlez ici} 00:21, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

Interesting choice. At 20 megs it's definitely large enough to work with. Voters might have issues with the depth of field and sometimes people grouse about full profile. If you like it, give it a go. I think it has potential. Durova^Charge! 01:44, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

Happy First Day of Spring!

Happy First Day of Spring!

A Beautiful Cherry Tree in Spring Bloom

Theres nothing like seeing a field full of spring flowers.

Just wishing you a wonderful First Day of Spring {{subst:CURRENTYEAR}}! ~~~~

If you live in the Southern Hemisphere and are entering the season of Autumn not Spring then I wish you a happy First Day of Autumn {{subst:CURRENTYEAR}}!
To spread this message to others, add {{subst:First Day Of Spring}} to their talk page with a friendly message.

Wikipedia

Please read, important. Igor Berger (talk) 09:02, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

You

...are just way too funny for your own good. Still laughing. --David Shankbone 14:09, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

(curtsey) Thank you very much. :) Durova^Charge! 18:14, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

Don Murphy Redux

With all respect, I would have to let you know that the overwhelming consensus on that DRV was that subject was notable. Doing an AFD so soon afterwards may not be desirable, given the DRV. NonvocalScream (talk) 01:53, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

The overwhelming consensus, as I read it, was that the deletion had been out of process. Quite a few people specifically stated that their decision there had no bearing on a potential AFD. Also, for people such as myself who support a two-tiered notability standard for BLP (low bar default, high bar for courtesy deletion requests), notable may have more than one meaning. I'd certainly vote to keep Mr. Murphy's biography if he hadn't requested its deletion. Yet he has asked in very clear terms and that merits consideration. Durova^Charge! 02:12, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

Well, it might merit consideration and the community considered it. That was what AfD2 was. JoshuaZ (talk) 02:20, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

I've written up my reasons for nominating at Wikipedia talk:Articles for deletion/Don Murphy (3rd nomination). Durova^Charge! 02:32, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for doing that, Durova. Hopefully we won't have to deal with the requests for snow closures. I'm not sure which way I'm going to go on it. Cheers! -- Flyguy649 ^talk 02:35, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

Well, if it turns out to be a clearly snowball thing I'll request closure myself. I'll look into the thing after 12 hours or so and see where it's headed. Durova^Charge! 02:38, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. I had a pretty good understanding of your motivation beforehand, but again, we already considered exactly this sort of request one AfD ago. I don't see what is substantially different between now and then. As to snowballing it, I'm not sure that's a good idea although I think if you were supporting such a snowball it would be much less likely to cause drama (in general snowballing drama-intense stuff seems to create more rather than less drama). JoshuaZ (talk) 02:39, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

Well I haven't notified anyone of the nomination (apparently quite a few people were looking out for it) and the people who support deletion are likely to notice this pretty soon. Yet it takes a supermajority to change the status quo. So if the discussion doesn't change shape radically pretty soon then it won't make any sense to leave this open a full five days. In the interests of minimizing drama I'd be glad to step forward. Most editors probably know how impartial I am with these things. I wish there were a way to do this without any drama, and fully intend to do my best to keep that at a minimal baseline. Durova^Charge! 02:47, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

Just realized I hadn't addressed a concern you've stated twice, Joshua. I think it falls within the realm of reason to start a new nomination after half a year when the subject's wishes are strong. JzG didn't mention the relevant precedents in his writeup. So there's a little to this that hadn't been in the last discussion. I just wish I'd started this AFD days ago before Viridae went rouge. Looks like that's casting a long shadow over the present discussion. Durova^Charge! 02:54, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

Personally I'm quite happy with the new AfD, though I have to say I was startled at how quickly it appeared! Given the attention that the recent DRV has brought, I think it's probable that the current AfD will be as close to a definitive statement of the community's views as we're likely to get. Having said that, I do think that once the AfD closes there should be a moratorium on any further AfDs or DRVs on this subject - say six months or so. -- ChrisO (talk) 03:18, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

Half a year would be fine with me. Actually if you look a few sections up on this page I was discussing whether to write this AFD when Viridae stepped in and deleted the article. Durova^Charge! 03:24, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

So you were. Well, we'll see how it turns out. Given the views expressed on DRV, I suspect there'll be a large-to-overwhelming !vote in favour of keeping the article. -- ChrisO (talk) 03:38, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

• Durova, after reading your rationale on the talk page, I have to applaud your sense of doing the right thing. I have not looked at the talk page of BLP lately, have you considered proposing a policy change? NonvocalScream (talk) 04:16, 23 March 2008 (UTC)
  • Thank you very much. I guess it might be a good idea to propose the dead trees standard as explicit policy and let it stand or fall. With the way my last couple of courtesy AFDs have gone, I'm thinking about discontinuing that standing offer. Wish I had something better to offer, but I don't want to continue making these nominations if the community is backing away from the idea behind them. Wish I had something better to offer to resolve these situations without drama. Durova^Charge! 04:34, 23 March 2008 (UTC)
    • This AfD is educating a lot of editors about BLP concerns, and you clearly have reason to be concerned and to bring this up. There seems to be quite a few ideas on BLP policy bubbling up these days. This discussion (which started a while back and has been revived) has Doc G's and SirFozzie's ideas. I think Doc's is more likely to pass, mostly because it works within concepts and practices we already use. Looking at the DRV and AfD, it seems there's a very strong vein of support for WP covering people between your higher paper-'pedia standard and the (vague) "marginal" / "ambiguous notability" level. There's also a lot of unease, even on the Keep side about how these biography articles can be vandalized. Here are some more ideas: Do we have bots that can identify articles in Category:Living people that have words likely to be used by vandals? (That might help with more childish vandals.) Can we put on the top of BLP discussion pages a notice that subjects of articles can contact the foundation? Perhaps it could be added to the box at the top of Talk:Stephen Abas (that's all one box!). We could even put a notice saying subjects could contact the foundation at the bottom of each article page whenever the Category:Living people is added to one of those pages (similar to our stub notices). I also wonder whether there would be enough support for a Living People WikiProject or some kind of specialized vandal patrol. Well, they're ideas, anyway. Noroton (talk) 14:27, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

WP:LOTD

Congratulations! List of brain tumor patients was selected as a List of the Day for April. Let me know if you have a strong preference for a date.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTD) 07:20, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

Thanks very much. :) Durova^Charge! 16:11, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

It is a list of the day for the month of April 2008. I will assign a random date in this month.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTD) 16:19, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

Triple Crown

I would like to request the creation of a new triple crown for WP:FA, WP:FL and WP:FP creators such as myself.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTD) 17:18, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

I see your steeplechase section. I can tell you I am almost surely never going to get a sound. I do not know code well enough to do much for the Chicago Portal. I could only see myself possibly getting a topic. You may want to reduce the hurdle to three or four. or come up with something new. 4 could be the 400m hurdles and 3 could be the 110m hurdles.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTD) 07:30, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

TonyTheTiger (talk · contribs), if I could interject here, portals aren't that hard to work on to get to WP:FPORT once you get the hang of it - if you need some help with a featured portal drive for Portal:Chicago, let me know. Cirt (talk) 13:56, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

Tony, your triple crown will be ready soon. Cirt's a great collaborator with portals; he's been invaluable to the textile arts project. We supply content, he supplies code. He demands more content, we strain to provide it, he does more coding. And actually if you can convert to .ogg files there are lots of important historic recordings you could upload. Pre-1923 and U.S. Gov't public domain would be among the easiest places to start. Best wishes! Durova^Charge! 08:55, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

Cirt and I are working on Portal:Chicago. I have to figure out all my recent additions for the DYK verification. Then we have to figure out a few more wrinkles and I think it will have a good shot. I just think that with all the triple crowns you could make the standards similar for steeplechases and let some less extraordinary efforts get some type of merit with three or four. I am not so sure about .oggs because I have never used them.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTD) 22:40, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

P.S. I may get distracted from steeplechase efforts because I expect a contentious battle with my next few in the WP:FAC pipeline (Jack Kemp, Bob Chappuis, Rush Street, More Demi Moore). In addition, I have lots of work to do to clean up Barry Bonds for WP:GAC.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTD) 22:47, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:Articles for deletion/Don Murphy (3rd nomination)

There is some discussion of the moratorium there. You may wish to comment (and possibly correct me if I misinterpreted your earlier statements). JoshuaZ (talk) 20:51, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the heads up. I'll go have a look. Durova^Charge! 20:53, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

Bluemarine socks

Please add 72.83.207.187 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) to Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Bluemarine#Log_of_blocks_and_bans. Benjiboi 01:14, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

Hi, actually I'm just about certain that wasn't Matt Sanchez who trolled you. It's an AOL account and Matt isn't in North America right now. He did an interview in France the other day. I fully support the block on that IP, though. That was completely out of line. Durova^Charge! 01:31, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

I'll add that if your topic ban isn't lifted (see my post to AE) you're welcome to post concerns about the article to my user talk page. All I want is a well-sourced neutral article that complies with site policies. In the interests of full disclosure, I'll also mention that I do mentor Sanchez on Commons, mostly about unrelated image upload issues. He's expressed his concerns about the biography to me, but I do not proxy for him. And if there's anything I can do to reduce that trolling problem, please let me know how I can help. Durova^Charge! 01:37, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

I feel that topic-ban is in error so will hopefully be a non-issue but appreciate your willingness to filter my contributions. As for that IP, please add as a possible WP:MEAT if nothing else and add your assessment that it likely wasn't Sanchez himself. Sadly this may be a new trend since his other socking was dealt with. Benjiboi 03:36, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia:NotTheWikipediaWeekly

Thanks for your interest in coming and being a part of a conversation! - I'm going to host a chit chat at 00.00 UTC March 26th (which is probably tomorrow for most - it's 8.00pm east coast US) - it'd be great if you can come along, and I've created a new 'confirmed' participants section at the wiki page, which it would be great if you could pop over and sign, if you are indeed available! - I hope so, and I look forward to chatting tomorrow! best, Privatemusings (talk) 02:12, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

Justanother et al

I am removing myself from this situation, including my restrictions, as they were not the core issue. If you wish to seek my input on this in the future, as with what I attempted recently, do not bother.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 08:08, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

Just think....

...about all the sockpuppets you could conjure with this little contraption: http://www.dancingtoasters.com/html/knitmagic.html Why you'd be just like the Queen! :) Flowanda | Talk 22:54, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

Gorgeous! Durova^Charge! 04:19, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia:NotTheWikipediaWeekly

Thanks for expressing an interest in coming along to the next conversation - if you click above you'll see that we've confirmed a new date and time, and have also created a new 'confirmed participants' section (sorry about the extra hoops to jump through - but hopefully it'll help us figure out if 'everyone's here'!) - if you do happen to be free at the suggested time, that's great! - I'll create the 'room' about 30mins early, as usual, and please do pop in as soon as possible so we can iron out the inevitable technical problems in time for a prompt-ish start! thanks, and I look forward to chatting tomorrow! best, Privatemusings (talk) 22:29, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

JD Estes

I uploaded this fine US-OWI photo Image:JD Estes fsac 1a34896.jpg some time ago but could never find a good article for it. I thought it would make a good FP, but without encyclopedic value, it'll never make it (didn't pass at Commons because people were too put off by the propaganda value). If you have any ideas, that would be great. Thanks. howcheng {chat} 05:39, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

I've added it to watchstanding. He's standing pier sentry. Durova^Charge! 15:16, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

Excellent. Thanks. howcheng {chat} 23:08, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

Note the timestamp. Jehochman ^Talk 19:51, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

(rolls eyes) Durova^Charge! 20:11, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

(mimics you) Jehochman^Retreat!

The Wikipedia Trolls

http://www.fanboys-online.com/index.php?comic=134#60

I hope they do not CSD Main page..:) Maybe we should nominate Google articles for deletion! See if they like it? Igor Berger (talk) 17:53, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

Images

Dear both, here's one of the original shots (before retouching), if you have any doubts :) Cheers. PHG (talk) 21:37, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

Just FYI, your expertise might be helpful in this thread: User talk:FayssalF#User Page. --Elonka 18:46, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, I've commented. Durova^Charge! 21:20, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

Just curious, if he were scanning in photographs from postcards or museum brochures, as opposed to taking them himself, would this kind of thing show up at all in the metadata? For example, Image:AndhraPradeshRoyalHearings1stCenturyBCE.jpg struck my eye. I searched on "earrings" instead of "Hearings" and found this.[7] It seems a different image based on the flash pattern, but the level of detail and arrangement and everything else seems identical. What are your thoughts? --Elonka 04:03, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

This element is legitimate. The metadata resolves to the same camera he used for the rest of the shots. He did some cutting and pasting in Paint Shop Pro afterward, probably to get a cleaner background than the one in the display case. I suspect the original shot had glare problems. These earrings are probably permanently mounted so you'd get the same arrangement in any photograph. Durova^Charge! 04:16, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

Following up on the museum permissions issue, I've confirmed at both the Commons level and the Foundation level that PHG's uploads are a contractual issue between him and the museum that doesn't place WMF or any of its daughter projects at risk. Durova^Charge! 02:36, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : Issue XXV (March 2008)

The March 2008 issue of the Military history WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you.
This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 01:05, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

Images issue

SlimVirgin pointed out this site Icons that seems to be the origin of some images on Commons. Specifically This one, but I suspect there are others also. Any ideas on what to do? Ealdgyth - Talk 02:32, 3 April 2008 (UTC) See this page also, where it is claimed it is free for use. Image:StWilfrid.jpg. The main page of the artist though, says no commercial use. Ealdgyth - Talk 02:37, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

Ah, you're right. That's a living artist who works in historic styles. I'll delete it as copyvio right away. Please let me know if you find any others. Props to SlimVirgin on an excellent catch! Durova^Charge! 02:43, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

The second one is hosted on en:Wikipedia, not Commons, so I can't delete it. The copyright rationale is false; I can't see any reproduction permission on the owner's website. I doubt there's a site-compliant fair use rationale for using a copyrighted image of this saint - surely some public domain icon survives from the 1300 years since he lived? I'd recommend deletion. Durova^Charge! 04:27, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

Well, the RCC doesn't use icons like the Orthodox church does, so there may not be a contemporary image of him surviving. If there isn't one for the article, it'll survive the loss. Lots of medieval articles go without images, it's part of the territory. Do I need to do something about the rationale being off? Ealdgyth - Talk 21:55, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

Oops, RCC. Still, there ought to be plenty of later images that have gone into public domain? Durova^Charge! 23:27, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

NOt that I can easily find. (i'm in the States, most of the windows and statues of him are in Britain) Like I said, it's not a biggie. I didn't even add the image, honestly. Somehow I think my accountant would strangle me if I said the bills for the trip to England were because I needed a picture of a statue! Ealdgyth - Talk 23:29, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

Heh, well then I wouldn't oppose fixing the licence to a fair use claim and seeing whether that flies. Durova^Charge! 00:07, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

I suspect we can find other images, if folks would just go take pictures in cathedrals, or mark down the names of the statues/windows/etc. that they take. So, while I like the image, I'd rather not step on someone's living that way. Ealdgyth - Talk 00:16, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

A request about an image

Hi Durova, I have been bold this evening and uploaded my first image. I *think* I did everything right, even added the "local" tag, but I wonder if you would be so kind as to check my work. The image is here. Thanks in advance. Risker (talk) 04:15, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

What a flattering thing to be asked. Yes, it's lovely. A good start! The best thing would be to go ahead and port this over to Commons. Wikipedia's hosting requirements require images to be used in article space, but it'd be compliant with Commons project scope. Best regards, Durova^Charge! 04:21, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

You've got mail

No rush, thanks for your time, and sorry I can't increase the hours in a day to bring that backlog down... :P -Dureo (talk) 06:45, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

Already answered. It's an honor. :) Durova^Charge! 06:49, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

Triple Crown Backlog

Although I have a vested self-interest in speeding the process, the following offer is genuine – and of course would not extend to my own application. Is there anything I can do to help with the backlog of Triple Crown Noms? Just lemme know. – Scartol • Tok 14:12, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

SMX Long Beach

Hi,

My name is Jon Rognerud (New SEO Book Author: "Ultimate Guide to SEO" coming out April McGrawHill/Ent Press).

I was thinking of attending your session in Long Beach. I'm excited about it.

I was wondering if it would help me to position messages and updates for Wikipedia for my clients? I know the basics, but what are the guidelines? What are rules that would exclude some, and not others - while very similar? I get these questions a lot.

Hopefully I get a chance to speak with you!?

Best, Jon Rognerud http://www.jonrognerud.com —Preceding unsigned comment added by 208.54.15.64 (talk) 21:38, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

Hi, not sure what angle you have in mind, but I'd be glad to explain our site standards and policies. Durova^Charge! 21:45, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

A proposal

Hi Durova,

Could you please take a look at my proposal here [8].

I think this is important given the current waves of secular attacks on all religions. Thanks in advance.--Be happy!! (talk) 07:50, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

Re: Featured sounds

The problem with most sound files, is that the uploader did not add enough information about the source of the file to meet criterion 5. Zginder ^{(talk) (Contrib)} 12:46, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

Sigh... I guess you're right. Too bad, there. Thanks for the answer. Durova^Charge! 18:02, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

I'd like your opinion on some medical pictures

Hi if you don't mind I have some medical pictures that I think might be appropriate for Wikipedia and the Pyoderma gangrenosum. Would it be possible to send the pictures to you via email? Just a warning, these pictures are graffic and maybe too graffic for use, but to be honest, I really don't know. I just know this article could use a good picture of how nasty this can be. If you wouldn't mind, would you respond on my talk page about this so that I don't miss it? Thanks Durova, I appreciate you listening, --CrohnieGal^Talk 12:49, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

I'd be honored. Heading over to your talk page now to repeat the same. Durova^Charge! 16:04, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

Wonderful, thanks, I'll get them together as attachments and send them to you. Please expect an email from me, Crohnie, which will contain attachments. I like to fore warn people that emails will have attachments so they are aware and expect it. If you feel like playing with them to make them more Wiki usuable please do not hesitate. I don't mind at all if you find you think they are acceptable to go ahead and put them up where they are needed. I don't know how to plus I just want to help so I don't care who gets the credit or anything. Thanks Durova, I hope you like them. --CrohnieGal^Talk 12:06, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

Email sent! --CrohnieGal^Talk 12:19, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

Commons ping

Not sure of the etiquette here, but you have a message from me at Commons. Carcharoth (talk) 15:36, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

Replied. :) Durova^Charge! 18:01, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

a NotTheWikipediaWeekly message

Hi folks,

I've confirmed a time for the next conversation on Tuesday night, US time, (Wednesday, 02.30 UTC). Huge apologies that this isn't going to be good for Euro folk, and I know Anthony and Peter will likely be unable to attend therefore. It's possible we need a bit of a wiki effort at the project page to better organise and plan conversations - and I'd also like to encourage all interested folks to watchlist that page for updates / changes etc. which will probably be a smoother way of staying in touch than many talk page messages (though it's great that more people are expressing interest in participating...). With that in mind, if you'd like to reply to this message, please do so at my talk page, and I'll respond as soon as I can.

If you are able to attend at the given time, please do head over to Wikipedia:NotTheWikipediaWeekly#Confirmed_Participants and sign up - this is a great help in making sure everyone is around. We generally chat for about 10 minutes before 'going live' and the whole process takes about an hour, and I very much look forward to chatting to all!

best, Privatemusings (talk) 00:56, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

Correct count

Right now:

• you=28694
• Me=28114

So you still have a slight lead.--Filll (talk) 00:31, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

Eek! (edit, edit) ;) Durova^Charge! 01:04, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

Do you guys edit in your sleep too..:) Igor Berger (talk) 01:06, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

We dream in text. Durova^Charge! 01:07, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

We need to integrate Wikipedia with Twitter, than we can really rack up! Igor Berger (talk) 01:43, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

Boatswain's mate

Hello, I'm a member of the Milhist Project and I mostly copyedit, but I've noticed that this article seems to belong as a sub-article to the US Coastguard rather than as a stand-alone. The title has been around for centuries and this article coopts it to one time/place. I think the content should be copied to a new article for "Coast Guard ranks" or something like that and the title deleted until someone wants to write about the concept more generally.LuckyThracian (Talk) 08:08, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

Why so? It's as much a Navy occupation as a Coast Guard occupation and BM isn't a rank per se; it's what they call a rate. Other rates get their own articles (List of United States Navy ratings) and boatswain's mate is one of the oldest ones. What this particular article needs is expansion and balance. Durova^Charge! 17:25, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, I forgot that Bosun and Bosun's mate are the derived forms. When I remembered and searched them I found the article Boatswain. Now it makes sense. LuckyThracian (Talk) 04:10, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

Triple Crown request.

Hello Durova, you awarded me a triple crown last year, and I've since met the requirements for the Imperial triple crown, I believe. FAs: Rise and Fall: Civilizations at War, Age of Mythology, BioShock, Cannon; GAs: Risk (game), Age of Empires III, Eugenio Espejo; DYKs: Close Combat: A Bridge Too Far, History of timekeeping devices in Egypt. I've still not been able to figure out how long it will take to get the Genghis Khan edition conquest of the wiki world triple crown... · AndonicO ^Hail! 18:17, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

Ooh, I'll need to go do some updating. When I started the Alexander the Great edition I thought it'd take longer than it did to get any recipients. So now...who knows? Once somebody gets Genghis Khan I'll dangle just one more carrot: the only way to go bigger is to resort to mythology. So the last triple crown ever will be for 100/100/100. At that point, in some sort of parody of Greek legend, the editor eats Jimbo Wales for dinner and takes over Wikipedia. We've had editors get well over 100 DYKs and one editor has over 100 FPs, so it might actually be feasible. Durova^Charge! 18:40, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

FPs and DYKs are much easier to get than FAs (unfortunately), so it'll take a while, don't worry. In the meantime, I'll try to find an appropriate Greek myth. ;) · AndonicO ^Hail! 20:09, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

Any type of featured content counts toward a triple crown. Durova^Charge! 20:43, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

Ah, I see. Maybe I should take more pictures then (only have one FP... not nearly as impressive as Fir). · AndonicO ^Hail! 01:39, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

File:Goya-Saturnus.png

I'm thinking of Photoshopping Goya's Saturn Devouring His Son so it looks like a submarine sandwich with Jimbo's head on a bed of lettuce.

(outdent) That'd work. And if you have the stuff for it Wikipedia could really use more featured sounds. You've got my mental gears turning about the 100/100/100 award. Durova^Charge! 02:20, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

I'll try to find free use classical music, I'm sure there's quite a bit of it. I think you've nailed the 100/100/100 award; my photoshopping skills are abysmal, else I'd offer to help. How about "Greek mythology/Cronus edition eat Jimbo for breakfast and take over wikipedia triple crown," as the name (though perhaps that's too long)? · AndonicO ^Hail! 14:44, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

Thanks

Looks good. Finally someone realized that manipulating images is not encyclopedic. Nikkul (talk) 07:06, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

User:Jaakobou and WP:BRD

Hi Durova!

Is User:Jaakobou still your mentoree? After making a number of somewhat WP:BOLD edits to the article Avigdor Lieberman, two other editors and I reverted and engaged him on the article talk page. The discussion is still underway, yet User:Jaakobou insists on repeatedly injecting his contested version into the article, accusing the other editors and myself of tag-team edit-warring.

This is obviously not the way WP:BRD works, and I have tried many times to explain this to User:Jaakobou. The last attempt ended here, in rather bad form.

Could you have a word with him, i.e. explaining to him how WP:BRD works, before I take this to WP:AE?

Cheers and many thanks, pedro gonnet - talk - 11.04.2008 13:19

I've inserted a completely different version, a huge compromise which included addition for the English translations from the Hebrew sourfce. Please apply the "discussion" part of BRD, rather than repeatedly try to cite it against me. Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 13:50, 11 April 2008 (UTC) more context, 13:53, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

Oh, and did I mention he has stalking issues? Anyway, I would be very glad if you could have a word with him. Cheers and thanks, pedro gonnet - talk - 11.04.2008 13:57

Whew, how about a cold glass of water and a walk around the block on both sides? I'm pouring my morning coffee here and I'll be glad to talk. Durova^Charge! 16:13, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

Image issue

[I quoted PageantUpdater with a message she left on User:HowCheng's page:]
I know you're busy but could you please take a look at something quickly? There is a dispute about the lead (infobox) image at Susie Castillo. The alternatives are a low-res headshot that is face on, and a hi-quality hi-res version that is a long photo and not such a good photo of her face. My argument is that the smaller image should be in the infobox, because regardless of quality issues, the proportions of image itself and the angle of the face are more suitable. I argue that "I disagree with your reasoning, and highest quality needs to be the lead. Also, for someone who is a beauty pageant contestant, full body works better anyway". We're not going to get anywhere with this and I would appreciate another opinion, perhaps at the article talk page? Thanks. --David Shankbone 14:44, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

Done. I hope it helps. Durova^Charge! 19:19, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

NTWW

Do you know whether it's possible to listen live? Dorftrottel (harass) 18:28, April 11, 2008

Yes; if you prefer to listen you could join the chat and remain at listening status. You'd need Skype for that. Durova^Charge! 19:11, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

Great! I have Skype, but how do I join? Or would someone invite me? Dorftrottel (canvass) 19:39, April 11, 2008

We'll post a link at the NTWW page. Suggest you e-mail me as a backup; due to the Skype traffic at this hour we may need to go to a backup plan. Durova^Charge! 19:53, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

Y Sent. Dorftrottel (criticise) 20:14, April 11, 2008

Wikiproject you may be interested in

Dear Durova, you may want to join this project. Considering your work on the cultural depictions of Joan of Arc article, I think you would be an asset to this project. Best, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 18:33, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

I'd articulate that support for different reasons from the ones given, but sure. Not certain how much time I'll have to work on it. Basically agreed, though. Maybe sometime I'll write an essay about why. Durova^Charge! 16:26, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

Great! I'd be happy to see such an essay and possibly add it to my list. Best, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 19:41, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

Adam JWC and camera lenses and metadata

Re the ANI thread on same, whilst generally agreeing that there is cause for concern, I was also concerned at misinformation (not intentional) - it is fairly simple to point out any number of possibilities for metadata inconsistencies or absence, from "What Lightroom export options are used", to "Where data is embedded, be it EXIF or IPTC", to "What format is used for export or import into Photoshop, be it TIF, RAW, JPG, and status of import filters in ACR (Adobe Camera Raw)" through "What options are used for Export from Photoshop, be it Save As, Save For Web, format used, Web Save metadata options" - not at all conclusive, and quite possibly inconsistent, given the ad hoc and inconsistencies of human nature.

Further, a quick check on Google revealed several after market lens adapters and extenders for the Fuji S5700, including a wide angle fisheye lens (which you had said did not exist for his camera). Further, though I will apply a due grain of salt here, as history review has not turned it up again, I had found (not necessarily for his model) an aftermarket adapter that claimed to allow use of all Canon EF lenses (though even if it does exist, I have my doubts as to its effectiveness).

I added these points to the ANI thread, and wanted to flag them with you, not as criticism, but in the spirit of informing. Achromatic (talk) 18:57, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

Why are you raising this days after I accepted Adam's explanation about the metadata? Under the circumstances it was perfectly reasonable to question that - he had actually threatened to perpetrate wholesale copyright violations of another photographer's work. I raised several points, asked for an explanation there, and accepted this portion as soon as he provided a reasonable answer. Most of the remaining questions are still unresolved, and it's a little bit frustrating to see the others languish while people return to the part that's already wrapped up. How about the Bin Laden issue? Durova^Charge! 19:10, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

Because the points I made are still valid, and I don't want to see possibly incorrect conclusions being drawn in other cases on the basis of flawed hypotheses. As I specifically qualified re this case, "agreeing that there is cause for concern". It doesn't make my points any less valid - I didn't realize there was a temporal limitation on responses, or issues raised thereon. Achromatic (talk) 04:23, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

Well, I've posted twice to that thread that discussed it. So that shouldn't be a problem in the future, and if it becomes one please ping me. I think Adam might turn out all right after all. Durova^Charge! 05:32, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

Your mentoree, again

Do you think you could discourage him from posting notes on talk pages warning other editors, even those he has disagreements with, against editing in places where he doesn't want them. Especially when he does it in response to an initial offer to collaborate on improving and expanding an article. Accusations of "not being neutral" are also a bit wide of the mark, which has long been Jaakobou-speak for "disagrees with me".

And while you're there, you might want to encourage him to respond a bit more positively when another editor - ie me - very politely (at first) points out to him that he has introduced a couple of minor errors into an article, and also says that he will leave it up to Jaakobou to put right rather than reverting his input. He spent most of the next twenty four hours fighting over content on other articles, rather than spending two minutes to correct those basic and uncontroversial errors. Thanks --Nickhh (talk) 15:04, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

And since I started, can something also be done about constant accusations (this wasn't the first) of tag-team editing against three independent editors who just happen, of course, to broadly disagree with a lot of his edits. As well as his behaviour in removing third party comments from a MedCab page. --Nickhh (talk) 15:21, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

Dear Nickhh,

1. I apologize if my suggestion that us involved editors leave the decision on keeping/merging the article to less involved editors seemed to you as a warning, I assure you that was not my intention. I do however still believe (see reason (1), (2)) that you might not be the most neutral person to approach this descision of how to pursue a possible merge (or keep).
2. As I've noted you before, if I've missed some gross error, you can correct it.

With respect, Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 15:35, 12 April 2008 (UTC) added diff. 15:51, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

1) Then why didn't you write "We should probably let someone more neutral handle this ..", instead of "You should .."?

2) I'd have thought my professed interest in preventing Wikipedia from being used as a forum for bashing a particular ethnic or national group was evidence of my neutrality, not the opposite. Unless they deserve bashing?

--Nickhh (talk) 15:45, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

Dear Nickhh,

I apologized for my error-ed phrasing, though I think it was fairly clear when reading the entire thread.

Content-wise, I think that the events should be written as they were reported, without over-emphasis or minimizing.

With respect, Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 15:57, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

Looks like this played out while I was sleeping (GMT-7). Is this worked out now? Durova^Charge! 16:23, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

Well these specific issues are more or less done with now, but these things seem to keep happening. --Nickhh (talk) 09:13, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

I really wish I had a magic bullet for that. Thanks for bringing it to my attention. I guess we'll have to take this one day at a time. Durova^Charge! 18:08, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

Sorry but instead of merely being "not neutral", editors who disagree with Jaakobou now have a "conflict of interest", apparently, and are being warned off participating in debates about merging or deleting one of Jaakobou's favourite pages here, because they have a view different from him as to what to do with it and as to whether the subject matter needs a whole separate wiki-page devoted to it. Because I have a view, I am apparently not allowed to express it - especially because it does not accord with his. I'm all for content disagreement and even robust debate, but this is something else, and is a direct repetition of the behaviour referred to above. I'm only coming here again in order to hold off going to WP:AE. --Nickhh (talk) 20:03, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

Nick, some editors have a different definition of COI than mine. I do not agree that a strong opinion constitutes a conflict of interest. As a separate matter, I think it's often a good idea to recognize areas where one cannot be neutral and recuse oneself from them. My choices are stated at User:Durova/Recusal. You, Jaakobou, and others each make your own choices there. Durova^Charge! 20:20, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

Well the COI guideline here relies on pretty much the standard definition in the wider world - that is, someone having a personal, professional or financial etc interest. As the article is related to the I-P conflict, arguably Jaakobou is far nearer to COI than I am, given our respective nationalities. Plus the views at issue here are not about taking "sides" over the fundamentals of the conflict (even if Jaakobou has me down as a fanatical pro-Palestinian, whatever that means anyway), but about what I think of the notability of specific material and the value of one specific page. It would be an odd conclusion which says that I shouldn't make my opinion known when that issue is being discussed. And beyond that rather academic point, the reason I bought it here is because of Jaakobou's behaviour in trying to order me off a discussion page - for the second time in three days. --Nickhh (talk) 20:34, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

Nickhh,

I've never once pegged you down as a "fanatical pro-Palestinian" and now would be a good time to present a diff if you have one. Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 21:02, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

Apologies, I was using a bit of dramatic licence there. However as the diffs above show, you frequently claim I am "not neutral" or even have "conflict of interest", and I am assuming you don't have me down as a fanatical "pro-Israeli" editor. Actually the reality of course is more subtle than that - I am a partisan of neither "side" and have no stake whatsoever in the underlying conflict. However, as an outside observer, when I see blatant attempts to push a point of view into articles and use Wikipedia as some kind of advocacy site, I react against it. And given that English wikipedia is mostly edited by Westerners, the greater amount of any bias here often tends to favour a broadly Israeli perspective, even if you don't see that from where you're sitting. --Nickhh (talk) 08:05, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia:WikiProject_Durova

Fascinating

Our anoited queen, the saver of Wikipedia!

Please sign bellow if you are interested in joining the project!

1. Would not miss it for the World. Igor Berger (talk) 16:37, 12 April 2008 (UTC)
2. Sign me up.--Filll (talk) 16:59, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

Lol, thanks for the chuckle. :) Durova^Charge! 16:58, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

DYK

On 13 April, 2008, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Bli Sodot, which you recently nominated. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

Congrats, --Gatoclass (talk) 14:38, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

Thanks! Durova^Charge! 18:04, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

Nice Chatting with you!

Anthøny has smiled at you! Smiles promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. Spread the WikiLove by smiling at someone else, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend. Cheers, and happy editing!
Smile at others by adding {{subst:Smile}} to their talk page with a friendly message.

Hope you'll be on Skype another night soon—it was fun ;) Regards, Anthøny 15:04, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, it was good. :) Durova^Charge! 18:04, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

I see you're online now. Come on Skype :) We need a conversation starter. Also, I got Martha Logan to B class. Have a look at it. :) Steve Crossin (talk) (anon talk) 18:09, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

Can someone give me a smile? The only thing I am getting are dirty socks..:( Igor Berger (talk) 19:06, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

Cool, but I actually have some stuff to do this afternoon out in the real world. Remember that? Psst: try a search for my blog on Blogspot; I've just posted. ;) Durova^Charge! 19:38, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

DYK, I wokr for Mossad Igor Berger (talk) 20:35, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

If you're back soon, we're having a conference ;) Anthøny 22:45, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

Yes, I'm me. Durova^Charge! 16:26, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

Responses or lack of

I was reading this and noticed the lack of response to that (and to my section below). There was also little response to this. I was wondering if the Tango-MONGO drama had the effect of sucking the light out of other debates and turning it into heat over there? I'm also a bit disappointed with the slow-moving nature of Commons, with little response to my post here. Similarly here. Is that par for the course on Commons? Carcharoth (talk) 21:04, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

Yes, sometimes that happens. Particularly with the drama-of-the-week effect (sigh). Apologies that I haven't been more active this month so far. Everyone needs a mini-breather sometimes. Durova^Charge! 05:26, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

My interview

I trust it is coming along and will appear? I am getting a few responses but it wouldn't hurt to get some more publicity for the User:Filll/AGF Challenge and get a few more willing to try the exercises.--Filll (talk) 18:30, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

Wow thanks. I almost look rational in that interview.

--Filll (talk) 22:04, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

Hehee. :) Thanks for the interview! Durova^Charge! 22:06, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

I think I may have misunderstood you

Hi Durova - I just caught your self revert here and it was only then that I realised you might not have caught the link to my brief analysis in the section above. I am sorry if I was misunderstanding your request for further information as being more information than that analysis. In an ideal world, I would have written up a full-scale investigative report; however, with a computer that was freezing on me every half hour and a six–inch stack of RL work sitting on my desk I had to be realistic in what I could accomplish. My Arbcom submission is already well over the usual 500 words and I am not convinced that the case will be accepted there, so I hope you understand my hesitation in focusing on a diff-by-diff description of each of the blocks at this point. If anyone knows the frustration of developing evidence without knowing what Arbcom really wants, it's probably you. As I've mentioned in Tango's RfC, I have doubts that the forum as it is designed is all that helpful in resolving issues when it comes to patterns of behaviour as opposed to specific incidents; your mileage may vary, however, and I would never suggest that others stop participating if they believe there is an opportunity for a good outcome. Again, I'm sorry that I misunderstood you. Best, Risker (talk) 04:09, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

Thank you. I've also amended my statement at RFAR and changed my userpage. Durova^Charge! 04:47, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

What an evocative photograph. I remember those days only too well; for those of you who have been personally affected by 9/11, this situation must tear at those barely-healed wounds. Risker (talk) 04:53, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

Thank you. Back on 9/11 I got in touch with my cousin, who had just found out his father was still alive, and the two of us made a telephone tree together so that everyone in the family would get the news without any duplicate phone calls, because we wanted to be careful not to tie up the lines. The lines did indeed get a lot of use that day: millions of people who had nothing much at stake were talking. Durova^Charge! 06:18, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

A study to test sock puppetry

Durova, perhaps you might be interested in Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/Fredrick day (2nd), which I filed because some IP evidence tended to implicate what would be a good hand account -- no problems or known associations with a blocked user, and I had loaded all edits of involved users into a spreadsheet to study the time sequence, which I found unmistakably associating the accounts, in spite of some probable effort to conceal it (such as occasional ping-ponging of two accounts, possibly with two computers). Thinking you might have some experience with this, would you mind looking at Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/Fredrick day (2nd)/Evidence, which is a wikified version of my spreadsheet? If I've made some dreadful error, the sooner an innocent editor could be exonerated. On the other hand .... I also have ideas about how to improve the method, which I'd prefer to discuss off-wiki. May I email you?--Abd (talk) 04:40, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

Yes. Durova^Charge! 04:46, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

That essay

I get the feeling I kind of hijacked the Wikipedia:Apology essay. If I took it in the wrong direction, please let me know, and I will put my version under a different title. Carcharoth (talk) 10:44, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

It isn't my own namespace. Thanks for the links and the pic. Not sure either of us nailed the right tone yet; we'll try to get there. Durova^Charge! 16:01, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

SSP

Thoughts?[9] --Elonka 23:54, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

What's disruptive about wikilinking? Durova^Charge! 00:05, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

It looks to me like a secondary account that was "built" for a year or so, and then handed off to someone else. The topic areas of interest received a dramatic change within the last day, as well as the frequency of editing. It's also interesting that the controller of the account removed the "Romanian" babel boxes from its userpage. And the areas of editing definitely had nothing to do with Romania. In particular, look at the article creator on the 15:13 edit. --Elonka 00:22, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

I think that has more to do with Gypsies, who aren't necessarily Romanian. Anyway, if the account isn't disruptive there isn't much to be said. Or has it edited during PHG's blocks? I'm dubious... Durova^Charge! 02:05, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

Giovanni33

I think you are familiar with this user. If you feel like it, maybe you would look at User talk:Giovanni33 and follow the trail to see if I have done the right thing. Jehochman ^Talk 02:07, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

Looks like it's already handled. Durova^Charge! 19:53, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

A little something

SNOODThis user is a snood model

--Filll (talk) 23:51, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

Aw, cute! Durova^Charge! 23:52, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

Rollback please

Since you have this ability, Dragon has been completely trashed--mrg3105 (comms) ♠♥♦♣ 00:26, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

Done. Although you could just do the same thing in one extra step. :) Durova^Charge! 00:33, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

Woohooo...speedy rollback! What do you mean by "you could just do the same thing in one extra step"?

Just curious, do you have a hussar uniform hanging in the closet? ;o)--mrg3105 (comms) ♠♥♦♣ 00:47, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

Modeling in the snood.

Well, you could go to a recent historical version of the article and save that with a reverting vandalism summary. And I don't have a hussar uniform, but I do own another period costume. Durova^Charge! 02:59, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

Kloster Wienhausen

Ok, the basic translation is done. Dorftrottel (bait) 02:19, April 18, 2008

Wunderbar! Ich lese gerade aus. Danke sehr. :) Durova^Charge! 03:00, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

I've added a section on literature which I found via Google book et.al. All that's left now is adding inline citations and some more language tweaks. Dorftrottel (harass) 15:58, April 19, 2008

• Durova, User:Franamax has made some suggestions at Talk:Kloster Wienhausen. Dorftrottel (ask) 08:08, April 21, 2008

Runhardt Sander

Hi Durova - I'd like to ask you to take a look at this article, which is now on AfD. Coppertwig and I had been keeping an eye on for a little bit, but it just didn't feel quite right, and finally Coppertwig put it on PROD. The tag was removed so off to AfD we went. We noted that the German Wikipedia had deleted an article on this man, apparently because of original research and lack of notability. As best I can figure, this English version has more sources, but since neither of us is able to read German, we can't really venture to guess if they are supporting the statements in the article. If I remember correctly, you're conversant in German, and I wonder if you might be able to give the references a once-over from a more informed point of view. Thanks. Risker (talk) 03:18, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

You've done the right thing. Although I suppose you could have reached this decision without reading German. This is almost entirely dependent upon primary sources. I've voiced my opinion at the AFD. Durova^Charge! 05:36, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for your input, Durova; it's reassuring to know my gut instinct was correct. Risker (talk) 12:37, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

Converting and editing audio files

Hey Durova, I saw your message here about editing the NTWW audio and converting to ogg. I think this should be pretty easy if you use something like Audacity. You probably have already found some type of program, but in case you haven't, that is a good one to use. Take care, daveh4h 03:40, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

Thank you very much. Durova^Charge! 03:46, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

The great triple crown race of 2008

Hi Durova,

Wouldn't I also qualify for this award, based on:

• • DYK: Towson United Methodist Church Created 9 January, ran on main page 14 January
  • GA: Hampton National Historic Site Revisions 10 January-11 February, promoted 11 February
  • FC: E. Urner Goodman Revisions 15 January-1 February, promoted 2 February

JGHowes ^talk - 11:04, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

Hm, I'll give this a look. Maybe we can swing this for you. Durova^Charge! 20:05, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

That's very appreciated, would it help if I threw in a Cessna 310 ride? JGHowes ^talk - 20:26, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

Arbitration case

An arbitration case has been filed involving you: Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration#User:Benjiboi:_appeal_of_topic_ban_on_Matt_Sanchez. Banjeboi 13:04, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

Josh

Through your various comments, you have seen that he used socks abusively to double-vote on Brandt DRVs, right? Lawrence Cohen § t/e 17:38, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

He disputes that and claims that his computer was hacked, and has been gathering evidence to mount an appeal. Although normally I've assumed ArbCom's conclusion is correct until proven otherwise, since the Mantanmoreland case I'm more apt to reserve judgement. Durova^Charge! 17:45, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

My information is that he ran into some terrible hacking trouble a while back. --Filll (talk) 17:49, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

Re

Sorry, yes, and I reposted it...! No, the point was to demonstrate that the usual pains we take and good faith we assume and so on cannot deal with this sort of thing, in response to MastCell's "no problem, carry on" statement. (We can consider asking for volunteers to mentor one Jaakobou, but not fifty colluding ones.) I'm sorry if it startled you. --Relata refero (disp.) 07:03, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for the clarification. Text can be a frustrating medium. To Jaakobou's credit, he sought out mentorship without any prompting. Does it seem to you like the editors who ask for mentors on their own do better than the ones who have to be led to it? Durova^Charge! 07:34, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

Jaakobou RfC

Please see Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Jaakobou. <eleland/talkedits> 20:19, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for letting me know. I wish I had better solutions. Durova^Charge! 15:10, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

Portal:Textile Arts

A portal with which you were recently involved has become featured. You may view eventual comments at the discussion page. Well done. Regards, Rudget 13:38, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

Thank you! :) Durova^Charge! 15:27, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

Durova, thank you for your tireless drive to make this happen. - PKM (talk) 03:06, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

¿Qué Pasa?

Inquiring minds want to know.--Filll (talk) 16:26, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

Heh, I've just e-mailed you. Please log on Skype. Durova^Charge! 17:18, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

Award

If I had the skill and knowledge to make good awards or barnstars I'd have to give you one for your /Dark Side page on wikisleuthing and such. Its sadly very rampant. You deserve a Kicking Ass Barnstar. Hooper (talk) 04:56, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

Thank you very much. :) Durova^Charge! 06:38, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

DYK

On 25 April, 2008, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Kloster Wienhausen, which you created or substantially expanded. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

--Wizardman 05:52, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

Thank you. :) Durova^Charge! 06:45, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/African-American soldiers

Your Featured picture candidate has been promoted Your nomination for featured picture status, Image:DutchGapb.jpg, gained a consensus of support, and has been promoted. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates. jjron (talk) 07:37, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

At last! Thought it was time to get this thing closed. --jjron (talk) 07:37, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

Thank you very much; it was looking like a permanent fixture on FPC. Of course now I'll have to go finish another restoration to replace it... :) Durova^Charge! 08:01, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/The Trumpet Calls

Your Featured picture candidate has been promoted Your nomination for featured picture status, Image:Trumpetcallsa.jpg, gained a consensus of support, and has been promoted. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates. jjron (talk) 09:03, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

And another one - yep, better get something else up there! Pretty appropriate to put this through on ANZAC Day though.

BTW, two things about this. I replaced another version of this in the Norman Lindsay article - see Image:Lindsay trumpet calls.jpg (I'm guessing you probably weren't aware that Lindsay was a noted Australian artist). While doing so I noticed the colour balance was considerably different, I'd say your version has far more reds in it. To me the colours in the other version looked a bit more realistic for images from this time. Any ideas? The other version also had a bit of extra information on the image page that perhaps would be worth adding to yours.

Second thing, I recommended to Howcheng that this be kept as POTD for ANZAC Day next year, unfortunately we just missed this year (I know this is a long way off). See here. You may like to go and drop him a note as well if you agree or disagree with this. Cheers, --jjron (talk) 09:03, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

Thank you. I'll defer to the Australians about any date that works best for them. :) Durova^Charge! 09:38, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

Plants

Be kind to plants.--Filll (talk) 23:41, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

Dear oh dear oh dear...it's real. Durova^Charge! 03:10, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

I found this one and suggested it to Filll, & in in turn suggested it to you. and like you, I did not believe it until I went to the official links. I don't trust myself to do it with the solemnity it deserves. DGG (talk) 03:35, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

Improper grounds

Durova, on what grounds do you have the authority to restrict my contributions without it going through Arbcom? It would seem that process is most important, especially seeing as how there are two and only two people who get to decide if a comment/oppose/support is accepted in deciding the outcome of an FAC: Raul and Sandy. I believe that your comments may be biased towards Awadewit and ignore the process of the FAC. I have not violated any Wikipedia policy, and if I have violated procedure at the FAC, then it is for Raul and Sandy to decide. I take this matter very seriously, and the fact that this is resulting from an editor unwilling to produce more citations is almost laughable. Ottava Rima (talk) 04:35, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

The community has been doing topic bans for over a year without ArbCom. Your suspicions that my comments might be biased ought to be tempered by this site's assume good faith policy. I intend this for the best interests of the site only, and with no malice. Durova^Charge! 04:39, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

"Don't blame her for this thread, please. I urged her to initiate it." That is enough grounds to suggest a potential bias. You told her to perform the action, therefore, you probably back her up in such a case. I have no stated that you do this with malice, but I do state that there is no grounds for this, unless you are willing to posit that I have violated a Wikipedia policy. My "incivil" comments resulted in the agreement that I should not use such things, as the community has interpreted them to be "rude". However, there is nothing in the FAC which says I am not to posit such opinions, and opinions can only be judged by Raul and Sandy, whose authority you are currently usurping. Ottava Rima (talk) 04:52, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Wikilawyering - you need to read this...now, not later. Doc Tropics 04:57, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

If I meant to do anything improper, I would have concealed that fact rather than disclosing it immediately. It's quite simple from my perspective: Awadewit is one of this site's most prolific contributors of featured content. I am concerned that your unusual interpretations of FA standards place undue burden upon her and others, and that this situation has reached the point where it is in danger of both reducing FA writers' productivity and damaging the morale of our most productive editors. Regarding civility, I let the block log speak for itself. Since you place this much esteem in SandyGeorgia and Raul654, I'll go ahead and offer them both links to the ANI thread; I agree their input would be valuable. Durova^Charge! 04:58, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

I am not saying that you have abused your authority. You have not actually used your authority, so there cannot be an abuse. However, I must object - how can it put an "undue burden". If she thinks it is non-applicable, she can ignore it, and if Sandy agrees, she will too. But please explain how adding a few "ref name=" templates to show that some of the important details are referred through the next citation is a "burden". Now, regarding civility and my block log, I have been blocked for 3RR. Not for civility concerns. I have always taken the utmost care to speak in an objective, scientific, and fair manner without using insults, slurs, or anything else that would be disrespectful to the character of the other. I do not cuss, nor do I enjoy vulgarity. I do not believe in describing anyone's level of intelligence or anything close. I believe that everyone here is equal, regardless of what they have contribute, or what their status may be. The interesting thing is that I had a conversation with Kim Bruning yesterday and you came up. It is a strange coincidence that this would happen, with you, involved, today. But she will sure get a good laugh (most likely at my expense, as usual). Ottava Rima (talk) 05:08, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

Though having said what I have just said (below and at ANI), once again I urge Ottava: here as elsewhere your way of dealing with disagreement really does not help your cause. --jbmurray (talk|contribs) 05:20, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

I was born without a soul and I never learned how to laugh, so I tend to be loathable, especially when clouded behind the cold bleakness of this ever oppressive text. Ottava Rima (talk) 05:24, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

I agree that something doesn't look good here, and have left a note to that effect at ANI. And I say this as someone who has had problems with Ottava's style of engagement (as I have also repeatedly detailed at ANI). Some clarification might be in order. --jbmurray (talk|contribs) 05:17, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

I really don't think that my participation in this discussion is the kind of thing that merits minute examination. For what it's worth, I have respected Awadewit's contributions for months; she is one of only two editors who have earned the most competitive triple crown award: Alexander the Great edition. Other than that, my interaction with her is limited to the following: she is conducting an academic survey of Wikipedia editors and I am one of the respondants to her survey. She joined yesterday's Not the Wikipedia Weekly Skypecast recording, and returned to Skype today to ask for advice about how to handle this problem. I looked over the situation independently and reached my own conclusion about it. I really don't know her very well at all. And now this is three detailed responses, which I think is quite enough. Durova^Charge! 05:26, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

I, too, have nothing but the highest respect for Awadewit. That's not at issue for me. I, too, have problems with the way in which Ottava sometimes conducts him or herself at FAC. But I remain a little surprised at your role here. --jbmurray (talk|contribs) 05:31, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

Durova, I could never have hard feelings towards you. Plus, now I have a great story for Kim Bruning to make fun of me even more over. I am sure she will be surprised that I didn't get banned over this. However, I believe that she is surprised every day that I am not banned. Everything I say and do seems to surprise her. :) Ottava Rima (talk) 06:26, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

I didn't know you knew Kim Bruning? Anyway, if he makes any joke over this I'll throw something else at him one more time (I've got one on him that I'm milking for all it's worth). Best wishes, and I hope things go better upon your return. Durova^Charge! 06:40, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

Eastern Gray Squirrel

It is not an edit war. The image name uses 'grey' so if you change it to 'gray' the thumb code will render the iamge link dead and the image will not show. Do you understand? UNI^|SOUTH 15:22, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

Unisouth, check the last two years' history on the page. And I'm an admin on Commons; I fixed the image title as soon as you brought it to my attention, which you might have done without all caps and a premature 3RR alert. Do you understand? Durova^Charge! 15:31, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

Therefore there was no need to message me in the first place! Do you not understand? Also replying on your own user talk pages means I might have not replyed again if I didn't look on my Watchlist by chance. UNI^|SOUTH 15:34, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

Well, apparently I don't; exclamation points and angry responses mystify me in this context. I'd been watching the page for two years, saw the humorous side of things, and hoped that we'd both be able to chuckle at ourselves a little bit. Durova^Charge! 16:00, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

Well in my view all issues need to be taken seriously. Thankfully this issue has been sorted so thank you very much for your co-operation, hopefully we both understand now. UNI^|SOUTH 16:07, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

Durova's DYK advice

Hi there Durova, whilst putting the finishing touches to the DYK Signpost dispatch it has been pointed out that your DYK advice says the articles need to be 2000 characters. The official DYK advice disagrees and says it is 1500. Would you mind if I amended it to the "official" number to remove the discrepancy. I say this as we don't want people reading it to get confused. Thanks and best regards. Woody (talk) 22:14, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

Ah, right. They upped that for a little while. Time to fix it back. Durova^Charge! 22:34, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for fixing that. According to the DYK page history it seems to be changed quite regularly depending on backlogs. Thanks again. Regards Woody (talk) 22:39, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

Thanks there. I try to keep it up to date, but I don't get onto DYK quite every week. I try, though. :) Best wishes, Durova^Charge! 04:17, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

Robert F. Kennedy assassination - clarification

Hi Durova. I massively reduced the content of the conspiracy theories section during my rewrite the other day, and attempted to included sources to balance these sections back to the majority viewpoint. Can I just clarify: do you think there is a problem with the section as it stands, or are you just concerned that there is a tendency for this section to become massively full of wild fringe theories? Fritzpoll (talk) 09:22, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

Well, what percentage of the leading experts suppose that alternative theories hold water? Right now the space in the article is about evenly split between conventional and alternative. Unless this is really an open debate with no firm expert consensus, which I doubt is the case, then per WP:UNDUE the alternative stuff is still getting way too much weight. Durova^Charge! 09:37, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

Yes, I think what is actually lacking is sufficient content about the event itself. I will reduce the content again in the CIA involvement section, since yours is essentially the second concern I've seen, but ultimately, more information in the Event section or in the perpetrator section will probably balance this article out. I hope you won't object, but I'm going to put a copy of this discussion on the article talk page so it is more visible Fritzpoll (talk) 09:48, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

Thank you. Durova^Charge! 17:48, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

Thank you!

Warm and soft

Thank you for all your recent advice! I appreciate your willingness to help me out! Awadewit (talk) 16:56, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

It's about doing the right thing. I'd do this for anyone who deserved it as much as you do. Keep creating more featured content; your work is fantastic. Durova^Charge! 17:50, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

JDAM tagging

Hey, I see you tagged the JDAM article, that I added a significant amount of material to, as sounding like an advert. I have to say that you are probably 75% correct, considering that the source for most of the material were USAF, Boeing, and other industry press releases. Overall the article has a good start IMHO. I appreciate you tagging the articel, why don't you help clean it up to make it Wiki worthy? Thanks. Andrew (talk) 00:40, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

If I had enough expertise in that particular subject I would have done so. Thanks for commenting; I'll give it another look. Not sure if I'll have any more to offer than what I've already posted to the talk page. Durova^Charge! 00:48, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

Napoleon

Main page: User:Blnguyen/Top

Hi there Durova. I'm applying.... how shameless....

• Template:FA Ian Thorpe - Australian swimmer, first person to win six gold medals at one World Championships, first person to win 11 world titles, first swimmer to be world swimmer of the year four times
• Template:FA Harbhajan Singh - Indian off spinner, the first Indian to take a hat trick in Test cricket
• Template:FA Pham Ngoc Thao - Colonel in the Army of the Republic of Vietnam who was actually a communist spy.
• Template:FA Charlie Macartney - An Australian cricketer of the early 20th century, inductee of the Australian Cricket Hall of Fame
• Template:FA Arrest and assassination of Ngo Dinh Diem - The arrest of the first President of South Vietnam in 1963 after a coup and his subsequent assassination
• Template:FA Thich Quang Duc - Vietnamese Mahayana Buddhist monk who self-immolated to protest discrimination against Buddhists by the Catholic regime of Ngo Dinh Diem
• Template:FA Arthur Morris - An Australian cricketer of the 1940s and 1950s, inductee of the Australian Cricket Hall of Fame, Australian Cricket Board Team of the Century and member of the Invincibles
• Template:FA 1960 South Vietnamese coup attempt - A failed coup attempt by ARVN paratroopers against Ngo Dinh Diem
• Template:FA 1962 South Vietnamese Presidential Palace bombing - A failed assassination attempt by two Vietnam Air Force officers against Ngo Dinh Diem
• Template:FA Ernie Toshack - left arm fast bowler of the Invincibles
• Template:FA Ian Craig - Australia's youngest ever Test cricketer and captain
• Template:FA State of Vietnam referendum, 1955 - A fraudulent referendum in which Ngo Dinh Diem proclaimed himself the President of the newly-created Republic of Vietnam, after gaining 133% of the vote in Saigon
• Template:FA Nguyen Ngoc Tho - Vice President of South Vietnam under Ngo Dinh Diem. Served as Prime Minister under the junta of Duong Van Minh.
• Template:FA Double Seven Day scuffle - An attack by the secret police of South Vietnam against a group of American journalists.
• Template:FA Don Tallon - Wicketkeeper of the Invincibles

GA:Irfan Pathan, Stan McCabe , Dinesh Karthik, Murali Kartik, Bill Woodfull, Jack Fingleton, Bill Johnston (cricketer), Norm O'Neill, Neil Harvey, Kaundinya, Ngo Dinh Can, Hue Vesak shootings, Alan Davidson (cricketer), Brian Booth, Bill Brown (cricketer), Jack Marsh, Ray Lindwall, Ian Meckiff

DYK:Irfan Pathan, Stan McCabe , Dinesh Karthik, Murali Kartik, Bill Woodfull, Jack Fingleton, Bill Johnston (cricketer), Julien Wiener, Neil Harvey, Kaundinya, Ngo Dinh Can, Hue Vesak shootings, Alan Davidson (cricketer), Xa Loi Pagoda, Bill Brown (cricketer), Jack Marsh, Ray Lindwall, Ian Meckiff among others (I was lazy so I just listed the same GAs that were also DYKs, but there are many others). Blnguyen (bananabucket) 03:34, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

ah ha ! Just came over here to check on this, per this week's Dispatch (goes out soon): WP:FCDW/April 28, 2008. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 13:41, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

Great :-) Had I realized before, I would have put the DYK off 'til another date, since we like to feature individual achievements. I got caught by surprise on that one, since I didn't really know what they were! SandyGeorgia (Talk) 03:14, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

Community petition link

Above seems to be broken.--Filll (talk) 12:46, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

Advice?

205.56.145.36 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is blocked for vandalism to various military articles, for example USS Chosin (CG-65). But looking at that article's history, you also see vandalism by 205.56.145.34 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), separately blocked for vandalism.

Both IP's talk pages say they are registered to... Navy Network Information Center. I sense the need to tread carefully here. I don't think it should necessarily go to ANI. What do you advise?

Yes, this would be an embarrassment. Whether you alert ANI is your own decision. I've found that in situations like this a little polite feedback often solves the problem. I could give them a heads up. Durova^Charge! 03:06, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

If in your opinion a quiet email (for example) would be most productive, I'd appreciate that. I know you have experience dealing with these situations. SHEFFIELDSTEEL^TALK 15:04, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

Thank you. Durova^Charge! 16:26, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

Idea

Dear Durova. That's a beautiful story. I also appreciate the sentiment behind the suggestion, but I don't use Skype or any other messaging/chat programs since they slow down my computer (it's ancient) and as a general rule, I don't meet with other Wiki editors in person. When you are a minority that is viewed as a "fifth column" despite your citizenship, in a state that has no qualms about locking people up to protect its "national security", you tend to kind of value your anonymity, as you might imagine.

Please do note, I harbour no resentment towards Jaakobou. I decided to "unilaterally disengage" (so to speak) and stop editing at pages he edits at for a while to allow for a cool down period after that last encounter we had on AE. I think it's unfortunate that he has again stirred up a hornet's nest with his latest poking and prodding, and that he would do better to take some distance of his own from the editors he seems to find so offensive. Anyway, I appreciate your efforts to find a resolution here and can commit to pursuing whatever on-wiki remedies you think would help. Warm regards, Tiamut^talk 06:47, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

Thank you very much for that candid reply. I don't have a magic solution for the wiki dilemma, much less the real life one, but I'm committed to trying. I don't think every editor in Serbia or Croatia crossed the border to shake hands. Some of them did, and apparently that was enough. Best wishes to you. Durova^Charge! 06:59, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

While there is no physical border between Jaakobou and I (remember, we both live inside Israel), you are certainly correct in noticing that there is some kind of obstruction inhibiting our ability reach out to one another. I appreciate your good wishes and good faith and remain hopeful that an on-wiki shaking of hands and even good hearted back-slapping will one day be possible. Tiamut^talk 07:24, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

Hi Durova. your ideas sounds interesting. I have read some information about it on others' talk pages. please keep me posted on this as things go on. thanks. --Steve, Sm8900 (talk) 15:40, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

Reply by Nishidani to note on his page

That's not a bad idea, Durova. I'm the sort of bloke who jumps planes to meet people - I once flew from Tokyo to Toronto merely to honour an undertaking to have a cup of tea with a person on a certain date 5 years after the promise was made - but hates telephones. The only function of a telephone line at my age is to have an internet connection (and of course to call an ambulance if my ticker plays up, which it probably will shortly if these endless recriminations of kindergarten-level bitching don't end!). I hope some of the younger people in here think it over. I don't have Skype. Still, I hope you and a few other admins haven't taken the extensive, and for my part wholly frank, outlining of deeper problems surrounding these conflicts too badly. I have seized on that particular suit with some recklessness in order to talk, indirectly, to Jaakobou and about him, before other editors he is in constant conflict with, and before some admins or ex-admins, in the confidence that when a problem is recurrent, it is wise, as in all forms of negotiations, to drop the extreme niceties of formal etiquette and get things off one's chest. This is my form of telephoning. Just one more ruling, punishment, victory or defeat is not going to help. I don't know if you are familiar with the role Omar Sharif plays in James Clavell's 1969 film, The Last Valley, but the message was: when tit-for-tat warring and defence is the problem, deciding for one side is not going to solve the problem, but only feed the inertial momentum of attrition. One must use a higher logic, expect tensions, but see a way round the reciprocal logic of aggression and defence that lies at the heart of this darkness. The point is true of the conflict whose history we are editing, as it is true of the editing-conflicts that mirror these realities. Etiquette is essential, (but not the prerequisite, as the rules often suggest to harassed administrators, since that is too often a lip-service formality belied by a certain cold ambition to 'win'). Rather a change in the logic of aggressive pushing of a unilateral vision, by whomever, is the key.

I don't think our mutual aquaintence has yet the slightest idea of the impact both his treatment of Tiamut, who is a very fine, precise and accommodating editor indeed, and his general outburst on the Islamic-culture of violence responsible for all the woes of Israel, had on many people here. The former spoke of a cast of mind I have documented on Nickhh's page, the latter of a fixed mindset that has absolutely no ear for the 'Other'. One doesn't lose one's wariness with others by a change in their formal tone, but when one observes a change in outlook, from self-assured personal conviction to attentive listening to others who cannot understand you. If he checks my record, he will see that I do work well with many other editors 'on his side', some with strong Zionist commitments, and have devoted quite a lot of effort to improving pages on the great thinkers and scholars from his particular tradition. Hardly evidence then that I have some animus for his country, as opposed to the very strong interests I have in human rights and justice, for which Jewish thinkers and activists have long been in the forefront. Thirdly, writing these dossiers did him great harm. Whatever our differences, the rest of 'us' (I presume) hail from a cultural and historical context where profiling and dossiers are regarded with extreme reserve, as abuses one associates with the degradation of civil society by authoritarian power-mongers. I think had I pursued, in formal arbitration, the way he got off that 3RR rap by contacting User:Swatjester offline, it would have shown him in a very poor light and the administrator as well. It certainly worries other editors that he, who complains much of minor transgressions of procedural formalities, lives a charmed life, by now notorious, when he himself has infringed them, whereas others, less enamoured of litigiousness, usually take a hard rap. Administrators, caught up in endless cases, can't be expected to note what editors on a page see. They will tell you, 'take it up in a formal complaint'. But a lot of us dislike complaining. I didn't pursue the case because I hate whingeing, and I should think that he would do well to renounce this kind of administrative option himself, except when some serious, I mean, serious abuse of wiki editing procedures occurs that damages the growth of the pages he is working on. These finicky recourses to 'the law' are fascinating - they read like new episodes in Kafka's The Trial, where recourse to justice is constant, and nothing but the weirdest outcomes result. Ultimately, it all sounds to many like political gaming. He must be tough to edit with the intensity he does. If he learnt to wear a tough hide as well (and listen closely to what others argue for - they are not irrational) things would run improve notably. I have no illusions, this place ranks among the hardest to edit, and the pages are, both sides concur, shamefully riven with textual politicking (compare any article with the Encyclopedia Britannica) but every now and then, surprises do occur, and the world changes. Like it or not, these articles have to be written so that a rationally-minded Israeli and Palestinian would not take exception to them. That is the rule he, like the rest of us, must keep ever-present when editing. Take this also as a public email to Jaakobou, in lieu of a Skype monologue! p.s. Serbians and Croats have their own countries, share a common language, more or less, share a similar religion, and often, can offload their differences on the third group in the area, which happens to be Muslim (and unfortunately they don't drink as often as the former!). Still, point taken. Best regards, apologies for long-windedness and take it easy Nishidani (talk) 07:50, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

Yes, thank you. I was reading this on your talk page while you cross posted. Durova^Charge! 07:57, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

NYB

I agree with the barnstar of Peace in the above case. I was wondering whether you, who have substantially more military experience than I do, think that the Purple Barnstar might also be merited for this estimable colleague who fell as a result of our ongoing battle against stupidity. John Carter (talk) 20:50, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

A couple of people tried to give me one. Maybe it would be different for Brad; I don't know. I served in a war. My grandfather served in an earlier war and got a purple heart--and I wouldn't want to cheapen his sacrifice by accepting an award patterned after it. Sticks and stones may break my bones...nothing on Wikipedia comes close. Durova^Charge! 02:11, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

an idea ...

Hi, here's a thought that might do some good. Today I was chatting with an editor from Serbia. Mentioned the Serbian-Croatian ethnic disputes on en:Wiki and he surprised me by telling me the Serbian and Croatian Wikipedias actually get along pretty well. Basically what happened was some guys packed into a car, drove to Zagreb, and shook some hands. Then some other guys packed into another car, drove to Belgrade, and shook some hands. Once they saw that they were all pretty normal people, things calmed down a lot.

Maybe there's a way we can replicate that. Would you be willing to try a voice chat on Skype? I've noticed that when Wikipedia editors get into a conference call, with voices instead of just text, it's easier to find common ground. Wishing you well, DurovaCharge! 06:28, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

I think that's an excellent idea, actually. Unfortunately, my schedule is insane, so I am pretty much only available on weekends. Time zone coordination might also be an issue -- I'm in CE(S)T, local time in Germany, which will be much closer to the time for any users actually in the Balkans as are any users who might be in the states. These are just details, though, I guess -- I laud the idea itself. - Revolving Bugbear 22:52, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

That might work, actually. Would Saturday be good for you? Danke sehr für diese Antwort. Ich möchte es versuchen. Durova^Charge! 03:29, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

Podcasting for luddites

This site has free telephone conferencing. It's a long-distance call in the US, but otherwise there's no charge. All the reviews online seem to be good, and that it's not a scam (it appears to be promotional for the company's other services). Here's a podcast that uses this service (the service includes a recording function). This could be a way for NotTheWikipediaWeekly to tap into some of the great mass of people who are not on Skype. I wonder if it would be difficult to hook people on the telephone conference and Skype together on air at the same time...--Pharos (talk) 01:18, 30 April 2008 (UTC)--Pharos (talk) 01:18, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

Sounds really interesting; thank you for the link. :) Durova^Charge! 03:25, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

I think we could dial in to this service from a Skype conference call, linking the Skype group together with a dial-in group on regular POTS (plain old telephone service) for people who did not want to give their phone number out.--Filll (talk) 13:03, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

AGFC=99

Only one more to go before triple digits on the User:Filll/AGF Challenge!--Filll (talk) 13:00, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

'Grats! Durova^Charge! 15:28, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

Re: An idea worth trying?

Hi, here's a thought that might do some good with the Israeli-Palesinian dispute on AE. Today I was chatting with an editor from Serbia. Mentioned the Serbian-Croatian ethnic disputes on en:Wiki and he surprised me by telling me the Serbian and Croatian Wikipedias actually get along pretty well. Basically what happened was some guys packed into a car, drove to Zagreb, and shook some hands. Then some other guys packed into another car, drove to Belgrade, and shook some hands. Once they saw that they were all pretty normal people, things calmed down a lot.

Maybe there's a way we can replicate that. Would you be willing to try a voice chat on Skype? I've noticed that when Wikipedia editors get into a conference call, with voices instead of just text, it's easier to find common ground. Wishing you well, Durova^Charge! 06:33, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

I am very open to the idea and find it very interesting. I congratulate the Serbian and Croatian Wikipedians for such a big step - though it took only a few steps. I am thinking of proposing it at Wikipedia:IPCOLL and Wikipedia:SLR as well. -- FayssalF - ^{Wiki me up®} 06:58, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

Well, let's see how far it goes. I can't say that everyone in this dispute welcomes the idea. Thank you, though. Would you like to meet me on Skype as a preliminary? Durova^Charge! 07:03, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

Picture request

Hi Durova. Have you seen Talk:Learned Hand#Cleaning up the picture? Would you be interested, and would you have the time, to clean up Image:Judge Learned Hand 1924-12-02.jpg? Carcharoth (talk) 08:34, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

Abner Doubleday, before...working on getting to after.

Hm, I could do a few things to that one but it won't work miracles. It's got a very shallow depth of field so that his shoulder is the only thing in sharp focus, not his face. Wouldn't be too tough a job to do the things that can be done, though. Is this urgent? I'd like to finish a toughie first. I've been on this for days. Durova^Charge! 08:42, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

I did a quick look at yours. It's been downsampled from the original Library of Congress file, and hasn't been handled particularly well. It's not worthwhile to try to fix the .jpg artifacting on the current Commons file, but I might download the original 63 meg file. Don't expect miracles: it's got composition problems and lighting problems on top of the focus issue. I might be able to do a selective sharpen on that face. Will give this a look-see, but it's actually more work than I expected at first. Durova^Charge! 09:35, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

The LoC have other Learned Hand pictures, but only one other one from the Bain collection (ie. the others are not free). Doesn't need to be featured pic standard, just featured article pic standard, if that makes sense! :-) No rush. It will probably take a while before the article goes to FAC. Carcharoth (talk) 10:09, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

OK. Try this one and this one. Probably no better (the first one is another scan of the same negative, the second one is a different picture). Would be nice to have both, but if you only have time for one, no problem. Carcharoth (talk) 10:17, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

Heh, I'm getting stretched pretty thin with so many hands pulling on my sleeve. Still not done with lil' Abner, but you're next. :) Durova^Charge! 04:44, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

Gah, I just realized what this is for. I'll be right on it. Unfortunately this is the only archival image that's at high enough resolution to work on. Will do my best. Durova^Charge! 17:00, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

FYI

I have made a proposal re Jaakobou here --NSH001 (talk) 17:07, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

NTWW 12

See this discussion: [10]--Filll (talk) 14:51, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

Shnaim Ohazin

On 2 May, 2008, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Shnaim Ohazin, which you recently nominated. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

--BorgQueen (talk) 17:09, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

Thank you. :) Durova^Charge! 19:46, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : Issue XXVI (April 2008)

The April 2008 issue of the Military history WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you.
This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 00:41, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

restructuring petition

Thanks for the heads up. I didn't get your message until after it went to press. I'll keep my eye on that an the mailing list discussion for a possible follow-up story.--ragesoss (talk) 14:23, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. Actually I'm not a frequent poster to the Foundation mailing list - once every week or two is about it. Not the Wikipedia Weekly had a discussion about that in our latest segment (episode 13) and we'd like to invite a guest for follow-up. Regards, Durova^Charge! 14:27, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

Holy cow, don't you sleep?--Filll (talk) 14:37, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

Moo? Durova^Charge! 14:51, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

New Project

Myself and several other editors have been compiling a list of very active editors who would likely be available to help new editors in the event they have questions or concerns. As the list grew and the table became more detailed, it was determined that the best way to complete the table was to ask each potential candidate to fill in their own information, if they so desire. This list is sorted geographically in order to provide a better estimate as to whether the listed editor is likely to be active.

If you consider yourself a very active Wikipedian who is willing to help newcomers, please either complete your information in the table or add your entry. If you do not want to be on the list, either remove your name or just disregard this message and your entry will be removed within 48 hours. The table can be found at User:Useight/Highly Active, as it has yet to have been moved into the Wikipedia namespace. Thank you for your help. Useight (talk) 17:19, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

Gah, I barely have time to keep up with the requests I already get. Thank you very much for thinking of me; it's very flattering. I just don't think I can commit to it. Durova^Charge! 17:39, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

Photos of Learned Hand

Added to article

• 
  At Harvard
• 
  circa 1910

Used for referencing

• 
  Hasty Pudding Club
• 
  Phi Beta Kappa
• 
  Same, cropped

Question about missing information

A bot seems to think that an image I uploaded is missing information. Could you look it over and let me know what the problem is? I can't see it. Thanks! Awadewit (talk) 00:40, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

Yes, I've fixed it for you. You typed "public domain" in the description, which is fine and dandy from one sensible human to another, but the bot saw that you didn't use a little selection box at the bottom of the upload page and--silly program that it is--it put a nasty looking tag on the picture and scolded you. These are well-meaning programs that exist to spot copyvios, which are serious problems, but unfortunately they also swat at serious contributors, especially new ones. They scold me too when I'm tired or distracted. Sometime when we're both on Skype I'll step you through it. Not hard at all to get right, once someone points it out to you. Maybe it'd be worth nudging the developers to make the interface more user friendly. Durova^Charge! 03:16, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

Oh, I didn't even think to check that. I just kept reading the fields over and over again. Thanks so much! Awadewit (talk) 04:03, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

Invitation to WikiProject 24!

Hi there, Durova! I would like to invite you to WikiProject 24, the WikiProject related to all 24 articles. I have seen that you have been helping out on a 24 article, so thought you might like to join the WikiProject. If you would like to join, then please click here and add yourself to our list of participants. Thanks and have a nice day! The Helpful One ^(Review) 13:10, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

Copyedit

Hi, Durova. Sorry if I'm bugging you, but I have a quick question. I currently have an FAC at Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/2006 Atlantic hurricane season, and a user recommended that I get the article copyedited. I was told that you are good at copyediting, so I was wondering if you could take a look at it and see if you can give it a quick copyedit. Thanks in advance, and if you need anything done just tell me. Juliancolton ^{Tropical Cyclone} 22:41, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

Sorry about the delay, I'll be over there right quick. :) Durova^Charge! 02:05, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

A request

Durova's thirteenth law: Editor X has a strong ideology and comes to Wikipedia to promote it, sidestepping various policies along the way. Editors Y and Z object, so Editor X presumes Y and Z are conspirators for the opposing ideology. When Y and Z point to X's policy violations, X wikilawyers to accuse Y and Z of similar policy violations. Run any ideology through that grinder and it produces the same sausage. - from User:Raul654/Raul's laws, added by me on 5 April 2007.[11] Durova^Charge! 02:37, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

Durova, you are doing "it" again. Forget my "uncivil" comment, will you please. You know what my issue with you is - it is your springing to the "defense" of Cirt at every opportunity and smearing me in the process. I want you to stop that. Please stop changing the subject. I want mediation on that. I want you to stop springing to the "defense" of Cirt at every opportunity and smearing me in the process. There is something here to mediate. Are you agreeable or not to mediation? --Justallofthem (talk) 03:01, 6 May 2008 (UTC)