User talk:Durova/Archive 71

DYK for Uncle Tom

On April 24, 2009, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Uncle Tom, 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.

Chamal ^talk 08:00, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

Thank you. Durova^Charge! 17:47, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

FPC

MER-C seems to have forgotten to notify co-nominators again, so, from my talk page:

Your Featured picture candidate has been promoted Your nomination for featured picture status, File:B'nai B'rith membership certificate 1876.jpg, gained a consensus of support, and has been promoted. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates. MER-C 02:54, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 19:15, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

Thank you. Durova^Charge! 19:25, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

Hmmm

		The 50 DYK Medal
		Looks like I have the pleasure of awarding you this medal Durova. :) Great work, and I know you will exceed this soon enough. The main page is calling. ;) Synergy 21:43, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

Thank you! :) Durova^Charge! 22:37, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

Congratulations. Jehochman ^Talk 00:05, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

Thank you. Durova^Charge! 00:06, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Abd and JzG

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

On behalf of the Arbitration Committee, Hersfold ^(t/a/c) 02:10, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for the notice. Durova^Charge! 02:12, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

Borobudur

Gunung Kawi

re: [1]

Nah, I believe I noticed Borobudur pop-up on my watchlist. fyi, I got busy and lost the other thread... Cheers, Jack Merridew 16:09, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

Ah, that's cool. Btw Jack, I've stumbled upon a couple of older FAs that really don't seem up to snuff. Do you ever have a look at that sort of thing? I left a message on the talk page, might FAR them if no response. Durova^Charge! 16:11, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

I can see how FAs could degrade; anybody editing, and all. I'm not sure where you message is, but I'll have a look-see if you leave a link here. It'll be tomorrow, as I'm hours way-ahead of you.

You have any idea just how many temples there are here? One per family compound; three per neighborhood. There are 14 neighborhoods in my small town.

Cheers, Jack Merridew 16:21, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

Kammerlader and Krag-Jørgensen. Both list-heavy, citation-short 2005 promotions that appear to have been abandoned. Krag-Jørgensen contained several citations to what appear to be a Norwegian collector's Geocities page and another non-notable homepage. Very surprising for an FA, and the other one has been tagged for lack of citations for nearly two years. I figure I'll give a reasonable time for the original editor to respond (he's not quite completely inactive). Thoughts? Durova^Charge! 16:25, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

Standards were far lower back then. I know nothing about rifles, extra-nothing about Norwegian ones. Have they needed them since The Moon Is Down? I'll take a peek tomorrow.

Seen this: Mother Temple of Besakih? Just one sentence. It's by far the biggest deal temple on Bali. I've not gone because it's also the biggest tourist trap.

Cheers, Jack Merridew 16:39, 25 April 2009 (UTC) (+Goodnight)

Yep, back in 2005 that probably was the best this site had. So much to do... Durova^Charge! 16:41, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

Really gotta go, but just noticed a new user helping out: Special:Contributions/Mara Lover. Cheers, Jack Merridew 16:51, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

WikiCup Newsletter XIV

Delivered for the WikiCup by  ROBOTIC GARDEN  at 14:26, 26 April 2009 (UTC). To report errors see the talk page.

Evidence

Is there any new evidence for the JzG case, or will it just be a summary of what's already been presented elsewhere? To answer your question, I proceed to the workshop because I've already seen the stuff that's been presented to date. I don't need to see it presented again. Jehochman ^Talk 23:29, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

My general request to arbitrators has been to wait one week for evidence before moving to a proposed decision. There's no particular reason why things should be different here. You requested this case at your convenience. It may not be equally convenient to other parties. Durova^Charge! 23:35, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

Fair enough. I am not in any rush. I did not think my proposals would elicit so many responses! Normally people pretty much ignore my amateurish workshop proposals. Jehochman ^Talk 23:37, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

POTD notification

POTD

Hi Durova,

Just to let you know that the Featured Picture File:Ijazah3.jpg is due to make an appearance as Picture of the Day on April 28, 2009. If you get a chance, you can check and improve the caption at Template:POTD/2009-04-28. howcheng {chat} 03:43, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

Beautiful caption, I wouldn't change a thing. Thanks! Durova^Charge! 03:44, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

Abd and JzG

Hi. I answered to your talkpage message, I think we basically agree, though I feel that the evidence I present hooks into a different part of the situation. Also, I believe that I recused to 'decide' on the de-blacklisting request, but that to me does not mean that I am not allowed to expand on the issues involved if I believe that those issues were fully presented in the case.

I am a bit troubled by your "The one alteration I actually encouraged has not been made: removal of the ambiguous suggestion that I share Abd's content POV.". I do not see where I make that ambiguous suggestion. If I do so, could you please point me how I do that, as I have no reason to suggest that. I have also responded to your sentence where you suggest I have altered evidence, I hope there that you meant that I altered the representation of the evidence, there is for me no way I can alter evidence, that is in the diffs. I don't want us to go into dispute over these things, and I'd rather remove the response as it is not part of the case. --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 10:30, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

P.S. I will be really away for the approx. next two days, may not respond quickly to other concerns and remarks or be able to adapt evidence. --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 12:04, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

Fair enough: I hadn't seen your query to the talk page when I wrote that. Will amend. Durova^Charge! 16:12, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

POTD notification

POTD

Hi Durova,

Just to let you know that the Featured Picture File:Red Jacket 2.jpg is due to make an appearance as Picture of the Day on April 29, 2009. If you get a chance, you can check and improve the caption at Template:POTD/2009-04-29. howcheng {chat} 23:10, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

Thank you, looks fine. Durova^Charge! 23:15, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/A Midsummer Night's Dream

Your Featured picture candidate has been promoted Your nomination for featured picture status, File:Midsummer Night's Dream Henry Fuseli2.jpg, gained a consensus of support, and has been promoted. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates. MER-C 11:56, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

Thank you. Durova^Charge! 15:16, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

B'nai B'rith membership certificate

I don't know if you saw, but this has passed on commons. I shoved it into the POTY queue for the first day of Rosh Hashanah, 19 September, since Shavuot was already filled. Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 12:16, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

In other news, kind of annoyed at FPC: The stupidity of opposing the Grant image for using a Victorian format, combined with having to practically beg people to review any literature-related FPCs are starting to annoy me. Thinking of taking a long break. Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 12:18, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

Didn't pass, probably because this had recently been promoted.

One of the things I discovered long ago is that FPC reviewers like variety. The provenance on the image at right is incredible: embroidered by Elizabeth I herself in her youth as a gift for Queen Catherine Parr. But it didn't pass FPC because reviewers didn't want too many embroidered book covers. Wikipedia has exactly one embroidered book cover FP, which had recently passed when this was nominated. I fail to see the logic is assigning a quota system to prevent more than one example of a medium from getting promoted (could you imagine if people tried that with oil paintings? with digital photography?) but there's the way them folks thinks. Change it up. Ultimately it is a good thing to learn more styles and media. Durova^Charge! 15:13, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

WP:NOR

I note that you reverted Bob's removal of a paragraph at WP:NOR (saying that it was a long standing concept in the policy). Please note that Bob had discussed the reasoning behind his edit on the NOR talk page. While you are absolutely within your rights to object and revert, please do him the courtesy of explaining why you reverted on the talk page. Blueboar (talk) 15:34, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

I see you already have... thanks. Blueboar (talk) 15:36, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

It's a concept that's been very useful for years, when interacting with difficult newcomers. Durova^Charge! 15:46, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

Image restoration request

Hi! I stumbled upon File:Nagasakibomb.jpg, which was featured in August 2007, and includes a number of scratches and dust particles. I'm sure WP:GL could handle it, but given that you have such expertise in this sort of restoration, and it's already featured, I thought I'd ask if you could please clean it up. Thanks!--HereToHelp ^{(talk to me)} 19:21, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

Actually the graphics lab doesn't do restorations. Can't make any promises when I'd get around to it, but thanks for the pointer. Durova^Charge! 00:48, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

Krag-Jørgensen

The main issue is time, and the fact that just ain't much in the way of good references available. I have laid my hands on a copy of a book on US Krags and hope to be able to use that for referencing that section, but Real Life is keeping me busy. WegianWarrior (talk) 22:55, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the reply. At least the article isn't being abandoned. Good luck with the improvements. :) Durova^Charge! 00:47, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Richmond, Virginia, 1865

Your Featured picture candidate has been promoted Your nomination for featured picture status, File:Richmond Virginia damage2.jpg, gained a consensus of support, and has been promoted. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates. MER-C 11:26, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

Thank you. Durova^Charge! 14:19, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

Removal of geocities pages

You are doing this prematurely. You have no idea what plans Yahoo has for these pages. They are unlikely to be trashed. Please stop this campaign. ► RATEL ◄ 15:10, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

So we should keep contributory copyright infringement and unreliable citations? Please explain what you think I should change. Durova^Charge! 15:12, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

How do you know that copyright is infringed and that that site's extracts are not there with permission? ► RATEL ◄ 15:17, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

The burden rests with people who host copyrighted material and link to it, to demonstrate that they're compliant. I've been removing contributory copyright infringement links to YouTube and lyrics sites for ages. Geocities is not a sanctuary from the law. Durova^Charge! 15:23, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

Where in the rules or guidelines are ELs stated to be under this deletion caveat? You seem so sure of it that you must be able to point me to the paragraph with ease. ► RATEL ◄ 15:26, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

WP:LINKVIO Durova^Charge! 15:28, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

Ok, thought you might post that. The site uses extracts of books, not "lyrics of many popular songs without permission from their copyright holders". So this is not an open-and-shut case. Let me ask you something: If I can contact the owner of that site and ask them to clarify copyright, and they state —on the site— that copyright permission was given, will that satisfy you? ► RATEL ◄ 15:34, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

Absolutely, that'd be fine. Apologies if my tone seems abrupt. It's a thankless task. After enough interactions with people who just don't care, one gets a little jaded. It once even went to arbitration when negative information was being sourced to copyvio/unreliable hostings at a BLP. Best wishes, Durova^Charge! 15:39, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

Ok, thanks, let me see what I can do. I think I can deduce an email address. Give me a couple of days. BTW, no offence taken. I hope we don't lose all geocities sites, since many are unique. I expect Yahoo will sell them to another provider, even if only for the ad revenue they bring. ► RATEL ◄ 15:43, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

It'd be a shame to lose them all. Some of those links are the official sites of museums in the developing world, which apparently have to operate on a limited budget. Durova^Charge! 15:45, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

File:Graculaindica.jpg

Could you list this image at WP:PUF? It would look more credible if you listed it since it's on a blacklisted domain. Blueboy96 22:12, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

Sure, a bit later on. Durova^Charge! 22:19, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

Arb Enforcement

Apologies, Durova. I can't say that I was entirely unaware of the mentorship; it just hadn't occured to me. -- Levine2112 ^discuss 03:31, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

You're human. We all are. Durova^Charge! 04:31, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

Special edition triple crowns

Hi, I noticed you special edition section and wanted to ask about a group of editors that have contributed to the WikiProject Video games. Some have contributed to several video game related articles, and I picked the ones below somewhat arbitrarily. They may have a different article that they may favor more.

• Kung Fu Man
  • DYK: Rufus (Street Fighter)
  • GA: Reptile (Mortal Kombat)
  • FC: Alleyway

• David Fuchs
  • DYK: Grudge Warriors
  • GA: Halo 3
  • FC: Golden Sun

• AndonicO
  • DYK: Close Combat: A Bridge Too Far
  • GA: Age of Empires III
  • FC: BioShock

• Jappalang
  • DYK: Conan (2007 video game)
  • GA: Space Hulk (video game)
  • FC: Giants: Citizen Kabuto

• Sephiroth BCR
  • DYK: Castlevania: Aria of Sorrow
  • GA: Soma Cruz
  • FC: Castlevania: Dawn of Sorrow

• Gary King
  • DYK: Nintendo DSi
  • GA: Guitar Hero III: Legends of Rock
  • FC: Call of Duty 4: Modern Warfare

• Deckiller was awarded a regular triple crown for the below articles, but has significantly contributed in improving numerous video game articles to GA and FA. For example, he pushed Characters of Final Fantasy VIII through GA and FA. Not sure if he would still count or not?
  • DYK: World of Final Fantasy VIII
  • GA: Tom Brady
  • FC: Battle of Dien Bien Phu

Do they meet to criteria to start a VG project section? (Guyinblack25 ^talk 19:26, 1 May 2009 (UTC))

Yes, you have enough for a project crown. The question is whether Deckiller supplied at least ten inline citations to the version of Characters of Final Fantasy VII that passed GAC and FAC. If so, he'd be included in the award. Durova^Charge! 02:51, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

The edit history shows his contributions. Prior to his contributions, the article was in very poor shape. A few weeks later, the article was well written and sourced. Dates of the work done to the article corresponds to the GAN and FAC dates in the article history on Talk:Characters of Final Fantasy VIII. He was also the one who nominated the article in both instances. (Guyinblack25 ^talk 03:45, 2 May 2009 (UTC))

I'm sure the nomination was very good. Key question here is how many of those citations this editor added. It may be an arbitrary threshold to use that as the metric and set it at ten, but it's the most fair and verifiable thing I could do to draw a threshold between minor and major contributors. Durova^Charge! 05:11, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

Here are two example edit differences [2][3] that show some of the his rewrites and sourcing; all the intermediate revisions between the differences are Deckiller's. So basically, almost all the citations in this version were added by him. (Guyinblack25 ^talk 17:30, 2 May 2009 (UTC))

DYK for José Sabogal

On May 2, 2009, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article José Sabogal, 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.

Shubinator (talk) 00:54, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

Thank you. :) Durova^Charge! 02:56, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

USRD TC

This is just a ping to see if the USRD special edition TC has ever been designed. It was last mentioned in October at WT:USRD, and that discussion was archived in archive #14. Imzadi1979 (talk) 06:39, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

Oh dear me. Apologies! (trouts self). Yes, of course. Do you have a request for the logo? Durova^Charge! 06:19, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

Nothing concrete came of it... There were a few suggestions, all along the lines of making it look like a road sign of some kind. Imzadi1979 (talk) 07:24, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

Image help

I've been suggested to you, as someone who might be able to help out with this... Do you think you could spare a minute to glance at it? Thanks in advance/no hard feelings!! ╟─TreasuryTag►contribs─╢ 15:20, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

It's a reasonably good scan of a cheap color printing method that really doesn't hold up at high resolution. If you want to get a better file version, the thing to do really would be to search for an older book source. Preferably mid-nineteenth century through about the 1920s, when production standards were higher (they hadn't yet figured out how to do it cheaply). Generally I shy away from coats of arms because local laws unrelated to copyright may attach to them. Legally and policy-wise these things have no protection here at en:wiki if the copyright has expired, but this is an international project so at rare moments someone shows up from another country who's very sensitive and takes offense. Culturally that's quite a surprise to an Ignorant Yank like myself, but I don't actually want to give offense and have learned to tread lightly. If other editors can provide a better source copy and give assurance that it wouldn't offend anyone's civic or family pride, I'd be glad to help out. Please provide a TIFF file 10MB or larger from a clean scanner. If that's feasible then talk to me and we'll work out the details. Durova^Charge! 15:52, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

Hmm, I'll look into getting a better source copy then, thanks. ╟─TreasuryTag►contribs─╢ 16:26, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

Images at Commons

I found several images at Commons but wasn't sure the correct way of dealing with them. The first two (File:AFClogo.jpg and File:AFC blue logo.jpg) are logos so I assume they are speedy deletes. File:AFC arieal.JPG, File:AFCGrade1.jpg and File:AFC TD.jpg are to be found at http://www.alfalaah.org.za/?pg=117 while File:AFC JGym.jpg is at http://www.alfalaah.org.za/?pg=112a&resp=learner. However, the images at Commons are better quality than the ones on the Al Falaah website. This leads me to think that User talk:Abdulmirza has taken or has access to the originals. I was unsure if the images should be tagged as speedy, regular deletion or some other process. There was another, File:AFC Lab.jpg, that I couldn't see on the Al Falaah site. Cheers. Enter CambridgeBayWeather, waits for audience applause, not a sausage 17:29, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

Have you communicated with the uploader? Durova^Charge! 17:47, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

I got called away just after I left this note. I just left them a message now. Thanks. Enter CambridgeBayWeather, waits for audience applause, not a sausage 22:18, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

Email

You have mail that relates to the permalink you just made. Risker (talk) 01:29, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

Thank you. Could you point me to the policy or guideline statement onsite that states featured articles are exempt from templating? If I've missed a clause somewhere I'll gladly retract. Durova^Charge! 02:21, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

== POTD notification ==

POTD

Hi Durova,

Just to let you know that the Featured Picture File:Beethoven opus 101 manuscript.jpg is due to make an appearance as Picture of the Day on May 4, 2009. If you get a chance, you can check and improve the caption at Template:POTD/2009-05-04. The audio files are included too, but I'm not sure how I'm going to get those on the Main Page yet. howcheng {chat} 02:31, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

On September 11 last year we ran an audio file George W. Bush's address of 9/11/2001. Perhaps borrow the formatting from there? Durova^Charge! 02:37, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

I know, but that was just one; this a group of three files. I'll probably forgo the big "play" button. howcheng {chat} 02:58, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

There's a group audio file template; Shoemaker's Holiday constructed it I think. He's been very talented about that sort of thing. Durova^Charge! 04:47, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

I think I made it look OK (see Template:POTD protected/2009-05-04). Also, File:Searching for bodies, Galveston 1900.ogg will be POTD on September 8, 2009 (anniversary of the hurricane's landfall). howcheng {chat} 04:57, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

Another one: File:Gerald Ford hearing2.jpg will be going on June 17 (anniversary of the Watergate burglaries). I would have done it on the anniversary of the pardon itself, but that was on September 8, same day as the Galveston hurricane, so oh well. howcheng {chat} 05:44, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

Hm. I've done Nixon's resignation speech. Featured sound nominations often go slowly, but would you like me to search for Ford's announcement of the pardon? Durova^Charge! 06:17, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

If you think you can get it promoted in time, sure. howcheng {chat} 07:19, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

It should be doable. I'll have to push people to vote again (Don't worry, I won't canvass, just point large groups of people at Featured sounds), but... Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 08:09, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

Congratulations!

Your Featured picture candidate has been promoted Your nomination for featured picture status, File:Salem witch2.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. ~ ωαdεstεr16«talkstalk» 18:34, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

Your Featured picture candidate has been promoted Your nomination for featured picture status, File:Borobudur lantern slide2.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. ~ ωαdεstεr16«talkstalk» 18:34, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

Thank you. :) Durova^Charge! 15:36, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

WikiCup Newsletter XV

Delivered for the WikiCup by  ROBOTIC GARDEN  at 08:33, 4 May 2009 (UTC). To report errors see the talk page.

DYK for Amalia Mesa-Bains

On May 5, 2009, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Amalia Mesa-Bains, 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.

Nice one. Paxse (talk) 14:32, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

Thank you very much. :) Durova^Charge! 15:04, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

Ismail Shammout's Where to ....JPG

Dear Durova, you are an image expert, so I think you can answer my question. I've started the bio of Ismail Shammout, a Palestinian artist, who painted Where to ..?. SlimVirgin uploaded File:Ismail Shammout's Where to ....JPG. The image is copyrighted and unlicensed. If I use the image in the bio, does it qualifies as fair use under U.S. copyright law? Have a nice day! AdjustShift (talk) 15:17, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

You should be able to use it in the artist's biography if you write a separate fair use rationale at the image hosting page for the biography. Durova^Charge! 15:21, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

Thanks. :-) AdjustShift (talk) 15:24, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : Issue XXXVIII (April 2009)

The April 2009 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) 22:55, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

commons:User:Cecil

Durova, can you have a word with this fellow? He deleted one of the archival versions of an FP, and when I complained, he got very, very rude. If we're going to maintain proper restoration archives, random deletions of the files are going to be a major problem.

Either that, or use your contacts to get the coders off their arses so that they'll finally support decent-sized PNGs. Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 16:38, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

Which file did he delete? Durova^Charge! 17:29, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

... I meant to do this on commons, which is where he did it, but, anyway: commons:File:Ulysses_S._Grant_from_West_Point_to_Appomattox.png. The lossless version of a Commons FP, no less. Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 18:55, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

I've commented at that editor's user talk. We really ought to start a writeup of best practices for image editing. Would you like to begin a draft? Durova^Charge! 19:58, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

I've agreed to do a signpost series on it. Would you care to join me after the first one (The first one is on finding and scanning images, which I believe is not exactly your thing, though if you wanted to suggest non-LoC sites for the list...)? Probably easier to work from there Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 22:44, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

FPC

Thought I'd try this once more (though I still say that it's demeaning to have to literally beg to get people to review literature FPCs). However, do you think it's alright not to show the original scan on the FPC when the changes are so minor (since I was able to scan a good-quality copy myself) that I don't think they'd be at all noticable at thumbnail, save the minor levels adjustment? Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 18:58, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

Basically if the changes are so minor they don't deserve a separate filename (.2 degree rotation, remove half a dozen dirt specks) then there's no need for documentation beyond a few words at the upload file. But it really does make a difference with museum negotiations to uphold best practices: you and I set the standard in that regard since we've been prolific for a long time. So I err on the conservative side. Long experience with digital editing of any sort has been that most people hate to document their work. One really has to walk the straight and narrow in order to maintain credibility when asking others to do it right. Durova^Charge! 20:03, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

Heh. Actually, that's a pretty accurate description of what I did, except the levels adjustment (and, had I done that when scanning (I tuern auto-levels off as I find it gives sub-par results), not even that). Maybe more like a dozen specks. Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 20:47, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

Please join

Please join the arbitration against me. All negative comments are welcome at Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration under my name. Regards, —Mattisse (Talk) 20:36, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

Oddity in FP

Pink?

Durova, I hate to be a pain, but does this look a bit pink to you, or is it just my monitor (LCD displays can be a little angle-dependant). Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 22:41, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

En:wiki's background is slightly blue. That affects color perception. Durova^Charge! 23:25, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

I know this is almost a month old, but viewing this image on a white background using a colour calibrated (using an x-rite i1) PVA panel (a Dell Ultrasharp 2408wfp to be precise) this image does indeed have a pink hue. The centre of the largish cloud (the bit that should have been the whitest) just to the right of the left hand mast shows a colour of #f8f2f6 when sampled in PS CS3. Whether that relates to the original 30mb file I don't know as I only used the 800px sample version. Just thought you may like to know :) --WebHamster 17:15, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

DYK for Rigoberto Torres

On May 6, 2009, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Rigoberto Torres, 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.

rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 23:26, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

Thank you very much. :) Durova^Charge! 23:27, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

An issue extending to Commons

In these two edits, 64.124.12.253 (talk · contribs) uses two images uploaded to Commons by commons:User:KPAsucxs to effectively defame two unidentified young women. The provenance of the images is...obviously questionable, at best. I've no experience handling this sort of thing on Commons; could you help? Maralia (talk) 02:11, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

By the caption of one of the images, I'd say 64.124... = KPAsucxs per WP:DUCK... —Ed 17 ^{(Talk / Contribs)} 02:20, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

The second photograph is an obvious personality rights violation. Since the first was not taken outdoors, it's a bit less straightforward to act upon. I've got an idea though: the useful encyclopedic element there is a waterfall. Maybe I'll do a little editing and recaptioning. Durova^Charge! 02:26, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

No recent uploads by that account remaining at Commons. If someone would like to report this as en:wiki vandalism you may. My sysop rights only help us with half of this problem. Durova^Charge! 02:36, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

Thanks very much for handling the Commons end; I've a pounding headache and couldn't face the thought of digging around there for warnings and deletion templates and such. Have warned the enwiki account; will keep an eye on it. Appreciate the help. Incidentally, I am the one bugging Shoemaker's Holiday about a Signpost series on image editing, so I may be pestering you again soon :) Maralia (talk) 03:09, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

Congratulations!

Your Featured picture candidate has been promoted Your nomination for featured picture status, File:Under the horse chestnut tree2.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. ~ ωαdεstεr16«talkstalk» 03:07, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

Thank you. :) Durova^Charge! 03:12, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

POTD notification

POTD

Hi Durova,

Just to let you know that the Featured Picture File:Shooting Captured Insurgents - Spanish-American War.ogv is due to make an appearance as Picture of the Day on May 9, 2009. If you get a chance, you can check and improve the caption at Template:POTD/2009-05-09. I noticed that there was a Featured Sound from the same article, so I threw that in there as well, although that music file really could use more context in the article. howcheng {chat} 03:41, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

Thank you. Made a small fix. Durova^Charge! 04:26, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

Judea and Samaria/Proposed decision

Hi Duvora,

I noticed your comments on this case. I am not sure that you understand that arbcom has given the users who initiated this case the item at the very top of their wish list: sanctions of Jayjg.

I have been restricted from making further comments on this case, but my own view is that years of blocks and bans have done nothing to improve the difficulties of editing I/P articles, and this will likewise accomplish nothing good. Also, since WP:NPOV assumes that a balanced result will eventually work out from discussions between editors with differing POVs, sanctions like this only further encourage editors to disguise the process. Because some conflict is inevitable when editors really do have strongly held, and opposing, POVs, it seems better to allow some friction. Arbcom is making an effort to have things look harmonious when they really are not harmonious. That will only further encourage and reward those users who dissemble most effectively. Malcolm Schosha (talk) 12:02, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

Incredibly lame pun

See WT:WikiCup =P Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 12:35, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

Grockl

I know you've withdrawn the proposal but shouldn't the part dealing the other Grockl (talk · contribs · logs) SPA still stand? It's obvious that user has an issue with WP:OWN and WP:SPA. - ALLST✰R▼^echo _{wuz here @} 20:24, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

Oh, absolutely. I've only withdrawn the part about the newly registered IP editor. Think we should follow up to remind the community that there's still a POV pushing SPA to deal with? Durova^Charge! 20:37, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

Yes, because the way it looks now, it's as if it's been closed and we've moved on. - ALLST✰R▼^echo _{wuz here @} 21:04, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

Ok, will do. Durova^Charge! 21:04, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

Please see User talk:Steve Crossin#Mentor. Thanks. - ALLST✰R▼^echo _{wuz here @} 10:41, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

Hello Durova. I thought it best to ask for your opinion, in regards to the above thread, as i've had a somewhat checkered past. What are your thoughts on me mentoring this user? Steve Crossin ^Talk/_{Help us mediate!} 10:49, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

I guess I should explain my reasoning here, for Durova, as I realize Steve's past would cause some to question why I did it. I asked Steve to do this because of his past and how he's learned a great deal from it. I think it's a good idea that someone who's "been there", can help out another user who is making a good faith effort at becoming an asset to the Wiki. - ALLST✰R▼^echo _{wuz here @} 10:57, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

Very flattered you both ask me. Really, it's between Steve and the prospective mentoree. Basically I'd just ask that he be adequately informed about your past. Namely that your content work is good enough that you've earned a triple crown for it (he might not understand fully what that is but the name kinda conveys the idea), and that you've been a mediator. For unrelated reasons you also had a serious misstep and were sitebanned in all but name for half a year. So you could be the perfect mentor for a person like this because you know how to make a comeback or else maybe he'd want someone with a cleaner slate. If he's cool with that, then thumbs up from this end. Best, Durova^Charge! 17:02, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

Re: AN thread

Re your message: Thanks. I left my opinion on the copycat/IP account, but I haven't quite formed my opinion on the other yet. -- Gogo Dodo (talk) 02:54, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

Jaakobou

I'm sorry I didn't contact you! I wasn't sure whether you were still his mentor; then I got involved in writing that proposal, and I forgot to check or drop you a note anyway. My apologies. Obviously, your opinion would be very valuable. SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 18:03, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

Thank you very much for the followup. You understand the content side of this far better than I do. I'd be glad to engage in a three way conversation about any element that needs revision. BLP as priority of course. Durova^Charge! 18:18, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

Suspected sockpuppet

I suspect user:Gwinndeith to be someones sock. At Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Molobo, user:Sciurinae says he has definite proof that Gwinndeith is a sock of user:Molobo, but wants an impartial admin to have his evidence reviewed confidentially. Weren't you the one who did the sleuthing? If you are interested, please contact Sciurinae and have a look. Thank you, Skäpperöd (talk) 19:36, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, Durova. You have new messages at MediaWiki_talk:Bad_image_list.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

╟─TreasuryTag►contribs─╢ 20:37, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

Replied, thanks. Durova^Charge! 20:45, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

POTD notification

POTD

Hi Durova,

Just to let you know that the Featured Picture File:Segregation 1938b.jpg is due to make an appearance as Picture of the Day on May 12, 2009. If you get a chance, you can check and improve the caption at Template:POTD/2009-05-12. I'm not altogether happy with this one. I didn't want to use racial segregation as the bolded article because there's another FP in there, but even though it's the only photo in state racism, I'm not sure it's a great fit. Personally I think File:DurbanSign1989.jpg probably works better in that article, as it shows a government sign. howcheng {chat} 04:27, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

Thank you. :) Durova^Charge! 04:30, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

Congratulations!

Your Featured picture candidate has been promoted Your nomination for featured picture status, File:Stocking factory2.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. ~ ωαdεstεr16«talkstalk» 06:33, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

Note: please feel free to rename this; I was unsure what to go with... ~ ωαdεstεr16_«talk^stalk» 06:33, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

It's fine, thank you. Technically this is Hamlet's FP. He's very interested in the general topic of hosiery and will keep an eye out for more images of sock history. Durova^Charge! 15:02, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

Special wikiproject triple crown

I believe WP:ELEM qualifies for such a crown since user:Mav, user:Cryptic C62, user:Itub, user:Stone and me have all have had an FA and a GA within the scope of the project and each of us have had at least one DYK. Nergaal (talk) 01:57, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

bump. Nergaal (talk) 02:05, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

Re: RFAR

Yes, it was; new requests should be going to one of the subpages rather than the main page, and protecting it seems like a decent way of minimizing the number of editors mistakenly pasting things onto it. If you have a better idea, of course, please don't hesitate to suggest it. Kirill ^[talk] [pf] 05:41, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

Could be off-putting, especially for people who don't know the ropes. Durova^Charge! 05:43, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

True, but I don't think the protection is as big of an issue as the generally confusing format of the page(s) in and of itself. I'm considering setting up preload templates for the requests, so that we can have a simple entry form at the top of the page; do you know if preloads can be done on a section edit, or only on a page edit? Kirill ^[talk] [pf] 05:45, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

I mean, follow the instructions to create a new case request. If you don't have sysop rights the link takes you to a section you can't edit. A clever way to cut down on new cases, but other than that... Ooh, pretty little bubbling brook along this path. Could it be a trout stream? Durova^Charge! 05:47, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

Which link is this? The one in the box at the top of WP:RFAR#Requests for arbitration points to a (freely editable) subpage, not the main page; is there another link that I didn't change? Kirill ^[talk] [pf] 05:50, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

Start from the pretty pink box at the top of the page on a non-sysop account, and follow the instructions. One has to then intuit that the header title is a link to a new editable page. Essentially keeps the uninitiated from requesting cases. And if there's an overriding need for this innovation it escapes me. Isn't page management what you have clerks for? Could that be a flash of rainbow-colored fish beneath the water? Durova^Charge! 05:52, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

I just followed the instructions in the pink box with no problems ([4]), although, as I've said, the mess of text is admittedly confusing. Are we looking at the same instructions? I'm following the ones with the big, bold "Click here to edit this page's arbitration request section" link in them. Kirill ^[talk] [pf] 05:58, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

There's no clear instruction at the destination location stating that the header title points to an editable page. And again, why? The process is bureaucratic enough already. Is there some pressing need for which clerks are unsatisfactory? Durova^Charge! 06:02, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

But I'm not talking about the header title (which is, of course, a very subtle and obscure thing); I'm talking about the explicit link in the instructions. I expect that most of the "uninitiated" will follow the written instructions, not look around for other edit links.

As for why, it's mainly to make our watchlists more useful. Kirill ^[talk] [pf] 06:04, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

Well, if I'm the only one who's scratching their chin then let it be. See if others speak up. I'm wary of innovations that make matters marginally more convenient for the arbitrators at the expense of community accessibility, especially for our less experienced users. Durova^Charge! 06:07, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

I'm well aware of the potential problems with changing the page structure; but I think we're (slowly) moving towards something that'll be easier to use than the traditional one-page approach, even if we're not quite there yet. Kirill ^[talk] [pf] 06:12, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

Easier for whom, Kirill? Durova^Charge! 06:13, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

People making (and commenting on) requests, primarily, and the arbitrators and clerks as a secondary objective. I'd like to think that we can come up with something that doesn't make anyone want to pull their hair out. Kirill ^[talk] [pf] 06:15, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

If it's for the benefit of the people making and commenting upon requests, then how many of them supported the change? Or were they even consulted? The mediators aren't especially pleased that ArbCom's content RfC went live without prior consultation, or even notification. Durova^Charge! 06:19, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

Brilliant naïve comment

I want to apologise for thinking anything could really be that simple when I made my little comment re plagiarism. It goes back to one of my earliest edits: nothing gets done on Wikipedia without a good old-fashioned 100kb debate. Still, I guess it's better than the Milgramesque cult of personality certain sources portray it as. Recognizance (talk) 06:15, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

Is there a reference I should be catching here? I don't edit that article... Durova^Charge! 06:20, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

You had said my comment at Wikipedia talk:Plagiarism was "brilliant" and I responded that I was glad to see something was getting done without a 100kb debate. I'm just saying it was more naïve than brilliant. Recognizance (talk) 06:30, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

Ah, right. Well, it's amazing how obstructionist a few individuals can get. Durova^Charge! 06:31, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

Raquel Forner

Hello! Your submission of Raquel Forner at the Did You Know nominations page has been reviewed, and there still are some issues that may need to be clarified. Please review the comment(s) underneath your nomination's entry and respond there as soon as possible. Thank you for contributing to Did You Know! Paxse (talk) 12:05, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

Thanks, got it. :) Durova^Charge! 00:39, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

POTD notification

POTD

Hi Durova,

Just to let you know that the Featured Picture File:Yellowstone 1871b.jpg is due to make an appearance as Picture of the Day on May 15, 2009. If you get a chance, you can check and improve the caption at Template:POTD/2009-05-15. howcheng {chat} 04:14, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

Perfect caption, thanks very much! Durova^Charge! 14:01, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Mattisse

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

On behalf of the Arbitration Committee, [[Sam Korn]] ^(smoddy) 08:25, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Wool spinning

Your Featured picture candidate has been promoted Your nomination for featured picture status, File:Ramallah spinner2.jpg, gained a consensus of support, and has been promoted. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates. MER-C 10:33, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

Thank you. :) Durova^Charge! 13:55, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

Wiki query

Dear Durova, I wonder if I might have your advice on the following Wiki image-related matter. Suppose the copyright owners of a topographic map were to upload a low resolution image of their map to Wikimedia Commons, naturally under some free license (say CC-BY-SA-3.0 and GFDL). Would that affect their copyright on the map itself, and if yes, in what way? Particularly, would it then be legal for anyone to publish ans sell a version of the map that otherwise would have been a violation of copyright? Best, Apcbg (talk) 11:34, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

Actually that's the approach the Bundesarchiv has taken. When they donated 800,000 low resolution images to Commons half a year ago, they put the low resolution versions under copyleft license while retaining full copyright to the full resolution images. If you know another organization that is considering a substantial donation under similar license structure I'd love to put you in touch with the people who organized the Bundesarchiv donation. Warmest wishes, Durova^Charge! 21:01, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

Many thanks for your prompt and kind response. It’s nothing of that scale, just a single item like I wrote; namely, the 2008 topographic map quoted e.g. in the article Smith Island (South Shetland Islands). The Bundesarchiv case seems to differ in that the original photos are kept with them. One is neither at liberty to make high resolution scans in the archive, nor could one produce high resolution images from the low resolution ones they have released. In the case of a map though, one might conceivably take a hard copy of the published map, then copy, print and sell it, claiming that to be a legitimate ‘derivative work’ based on the low resolution image uploaded in the Commons. Would that be legal? Do you think some of the Commons admins might know more about such copyright aspects pertaining specifically to map images? Best, Apcbg (talk) 08:18, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

You could ask; I'm not certain who would. Might be the sort of issue you'd want a professional legal opinion on. Durova^Charge! 15:19, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

Sincere thanks, I'll think about it. Best, Apcbg (talk) 15:24, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

Mail you've got

In real life, you get mail. On Wikipedia, mail gets you. Cheers, Dlohcierekim 04:06, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

Received and replied. Durova^Charge! 04:28, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

Apology

Olive branch

Durova, I think I may have been somewhat under-appreciative of your long-term good-faith efforts the other day, and reckon I owe you a bit of an apology. It is herewith offered. Jayen466 22:06, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

Olive branches are good, thank you. Durova^Charge! 22:09, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

The olive branch comes from the Noah's Ark story. It was delivered to Noah by a dove. So presumably the user who gives you an olive branch is acting as the dove. And if the olive branch is denied, the dove becomes a pigeon. :) Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 22:41, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

Re: Comment

I think you might be speaking from experience. :) And I would say that's part of the reason my RfA was defeated. Which is why I've started making the point that I can be just as effective a vandal-hunter without being an admin. Maybe more effective, because no one can ever say I abused my (non-existent) admin authority. :) I do have rollback, but I use it very cautiously - typically against obvious vandalism from drive-by IP's and redlink users. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 22:39, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

The tools are overrated in importance anyway. It isn't hard to get a block, page protection, etc. done whenever it's actually needed. Walking away from the tools had three enormous advantages:

1. No longer getting resented as an authority figure.
2. The perfect excuse to shuffle off endless requests for assistance. I was wronged! Can you unblock me and waste the next two weeks detangling my dispute? No, sorry. Not an admin anymore. Try the unblock request template.
3. Not being obligated to act as a representative of anything other than myself.

Of the three, the first is most important. Because a substantial amount of offsite harassment had its roots in that. Took a while for that to subside. Even opened an FBI case half a year after walking away from the bit: threats of death, rape, and disfigurement are the thanks a lady gets for halting a vote stacking sockfarm at the biographies of gay porn stars. That silliness didn't actually frighten me, of course, but am not the sort of person to let someone get away with low behavior. Of course not every admin sees that; it depends on whether one takes on the ugly stuff or not. Best regards, Durova^Charge! 22:55, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

Conversely, when an editor is a little too eager to become an admin, I get suspicious. My assumption is they want to be an admin so they can block anybody they disagree with. RfA's hopefully nip that in the bud, but a few of them sneak through. I see an admin's job, if done properly, as being thankless work. At least with editing and non-admin-based vandal hunting, there's some feeling of satisfaction. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 23:43, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

Being a little too eager for it is definitely a problem. But I tend to be a pushover at RfA. The few times I see a nomination I'd really want to oppose, I tend to notice it after it's already snowballed. Durova^Charge! 23:52, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

Archival of Kittybrewster topic ban AN thread

Re: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard&diff=prev&oldid=289894979.

Durova,

AN is precisely the venue Kittybrewster ought to use to appeal his topic ban. An appeal would be filed with the Committee against the additional restrictions they "topped up" the community-placed topic ban with, but otherwise, the venue was quite correct. I would understand an archival of the thread on the basis of it wouldn't go anywhere, but I don't appreciate your closing the thread with the summary you used after my, Tiptoety, and KnightLago commenting that it's in the correct venue. Furthermore, arbitrator Vassyana confirmed this morning—over clerks-l, which is annoyingly a private mailing list—that any appeal of the topic ban would be directed through AN.

AGK 19:02, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

I disagree. After ArbCom endorsed the community ban it became an arbitration sanction. ArbCom may overturn community sanctions, but not vice versa. Durova^Charge! 21:03, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

Well then, in light of Risker's statement there's a new wrinkle. That's the first time I've seen an arbitrator making such an assertion. Durova^Charge! 21:04, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

Well, it's not all that common that the community comes up with a resolution that only needs endorsement, and a bit of supplementation by ArbCom. A few years ago, the community would not have been able to have resolved this situation as far is it has; I think it's a sign of growth and increasing maturity that the Committee only had to address a few points. Risker (talk) 21:19, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

The community had discussed the matter ad nauseum, that means everyone was sick of it. If Durova had not closed it, within a couple of hours I would have done. Durova's close was the least contraversial, and as such was a good move - no matter what anyone says! Giano (talk) 21:28, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

I agreed with the close, just not the reason. Risker (talk) 23:36, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

(ec) There have also been occasional community-based efforts to overturn arbitration decisions. For example, the near-lifting of Poetlister's ban at an admin board in summer 2007. It runs the risk of turning ugly if the scope isn't carefully defined: when I reminded the participants that Poetlister had been banned by ArbCom (in May of that year) and it was up to ArbCom to do a review, Sarah accused me of making a preemptive threat to wheel war. You'll probably agree that leaving that decision clearly in the Committee's hands was the better thing to do. Durova^Charge! 21:30, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

Indeed. I seem to remember some in the community wanting to ban Mantanmoreland after the Arbcom case. Seems ultimately that opinion was correct. The topic ban was not put into place by Arbcom, although certainly supported by the Committee. Poetlister, on the other hand, was banned by the Committee, a ban that was conditionally rescinded by ArbCom in part because of the good work done on other projects, and ultimately reinstated by ArbCom. I wouldn't want to consider Poetlister a precedent-setting case, since one of the main considerations was work on other WMF projects; otherwise, we'd have to refuse to take such efforts into account when reviewing unblock/unban requests. That would be most unfortunate. Risker (talk) 23:36, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

My understanding has been that the community can supplement arbitration rulings, but not detract from them. Here's the crux of it: there have been a few instances where the community has sitebanned while arbitration is ongoing. If the Committee subsequently sitebans under its own steam, then it would appear by your reasoning that the community could then undo ArbCom's ban. Potentially, that opens the process to gaming by disruptive cliques who hold mini-discussions to community ban someone under imminent danger of arbitration banning, in order to use the local process as a loophole and lift the ban shortly afterward. A more likely scenario is the community getting confused and lifting a well-placed arbitration ban because community members aren't fully aware of the circumstances. Bear in mind that was what nearly happened with Poetlister. Durova^Charge! 23:45, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

• Giano: you misunderstand my qualm. I objected to the closure of the appeal on the basis that it was filed at the incorrect forum, despite the fact I, and other editors, had argued that it was; but, I otherwise did agree that the closure was justified—as the appeal was going nowhere. At no point did I seek to have the closure overturned; I simply wanted to make my displeasure known. AGK 08:38, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

I am not commenting on this any more, I am sick to the back teeth of endlessly discussing Kittybrewster, he needs to shut up and keep his head down for a few months, then the rest of us may feel more kindly disposed. Giano (talk) 08:56, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

Very well; my original comment was directed at Durova, but it's largely a moot issue now. AGK 09:31, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

Evidence at Mattisse Arbitration case

Hi Durova.

I've noticed that the evidence that you've submitted to this case is currently in the region of 2,500 words long. You're probably aware that there is a requirement that evidence be kept to around 1,000 words. I understand that part of the reason for the length of your statement is that you have quoted extensively rather than simply pointing to diffs, but nonetheless it would, I am sure, be appreciated if you could attempt to shorten it. If you feel it is necessary to present evidence of this kind of length, you could do so in a subpage of your user page and link there from your main statement.

Thanks, [[Sam Korn]] ^(smoddy) 18:27, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

You have a point. It surprised me as much as anyone that it came out to that length, especially since my interaction with Mattisse has not been very extensive. The dilemma is that a lot of the problem is context-driven. In January when Mattisse offered to withdraw from FA processes at her third RfC and other participants there expressed skepticism, I thought AGF, please. Then when she returned to FA processes the same people rolled their cyber-eyes as she explained that she had been invited back, I thought AGF, please again. It would have taken a lot of text and diffs to have demonstrated that it was pattern behavior. If we're sticklers for word count then it never becomes possible to set forth the context in sufficient detail. And Mattisse does make so much good contributions that she receives a steady stream of good faith support from people who haven't seen the problematic side firsthand. What do you suggest is the best solution to that? A substantial part of my evidence is quoted material. I could replace the quotes with diffs (which would render it harder to read) or move to a subpage in user space. Whichever you prefer. Durova^Charge! 19:58, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

I do understand that your evidence seeks to give context to the dispute -- it's obviously germane and necessary. I would suggest that, in order to get closer to the word-limit (you recently added what I think was an additional 800 words!) you might place the version currently on the evidence page in your userspace and provide an abbreviated version on the evidence page, with a link to the detailed version if members of the Committee wish to use that. [[Sam Korn]] ^(smoddy) 20:12, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

Ok, will do promptly. Durova^Charge! 20:17, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

Mattisse proposals

Hate to tell you this, but, technically, you aren't a party in this arbitration. You might want to move your comments to the "Others" sections. I don't know how persnickety the ArbCom gets, but if they do get rather picky, it might not be taken very well that you placed yourself in the wrong section. John Carter (talk) 20:51, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

Good point; will fix promptly. Durova^Charge! 20:55, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

Timing

Wikipedia:Featured_picture_candidates/Suttungr: When would be a good time to take this live? Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 00:41, 16 May 2009 (UTC)

I don't know what you mean to suggest, but a link is broken there. Durova^Charge! 01:09, 16 May 2009 (UTC)

Response

Acknowledged, I will be more careful next time. Apologies, Otisjimmy1 (talk) 03:09, 16 May 2009 (UTC)

Thank you. :) Durova^Charge! 03:11, 16 May 2009 (UTC)

Hiya Durova!

We over at MILHIST are discussing the project Triple Crown again; would you be able to weigh in here? Thanks and cheers, —Ed (Talk • Contribs) 06:38, 16 May 2009 (UTC)

Poke... —Ed (Talk • Contribs) 03:12, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

Commons

I've rang your bell over on Commons. - ALLST✰R▼^echo _{wuz here @} 07:03, 16 May 2009 (UTC)

Laying it on the line

Requesting the ban of someone for basically raising valid points regarding an article hardly strikes me as being moderate. And, as others have already said elsewhere, I'm in the process of trying to find the quote today, there is at least some reason to think that the extremists may already have the upper hand in this case. Certainly, the first two RfCs were so fundamentally flawed that I personally find it hard to believe that anyone would consider them evidence of anything but what they were, persecution of Mattisse. And, I suppose, one real demonstration of good faith is to apologize for actions which may have been, well, excessive. In fact, I think that is among the most basic such steps. I wonder how many of them I've seen? John Carter (talk) 14:26, 16 May 2009 (UTC)

The proposal is not a ban. Please slow down, take first things first, and look this over when you have time for it. Durova^Charge! 15:13, 16 May 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia:WikiProject User Rehab

I'd really appreciate your input here to get this thing started right. -- Brangifer (talk) 21:40, 16 May 2009 (UTC)

A wonderful idea; an exhausting undertaking. Durova^Charge! 21:44, 16 May 2009 (UTC)

I agree on both counts! This would be a labor of love for those who participate. We use inordinately huge amounts of energy on fighting vandalism and various forms of disruption, but how much effort do we use to rehabilitate the few editors who are worth saving? It should be used only for those who wish to return and who unequivocally desire to submit to the community's norms. SA would be a good first case. I see this as a viable option for reentry, instead of vanishing, returning as a sock, or only editing as an IP, which are the methods now being used. -- Brangifer (talk) 21:50, 16 May 2009 (UTC)

Have a look at Wikipedia:Standard offer. Durova^Charge! 21:53, 16 May 2009 (UTC)

Good. I have added it to the See also section. -- Brangifer (talk) 22:01, 16 May 2009 (UTC)

I have proposed this project here. Where else should it be announced to help get more attention and get this up and going? We need more editors to help this off its feet. -- Brangifer (talk) 22:03, 16 May 2009 (UTC)

Well to be frank I have other existing commitments and have been de-escalating my involvement in this area. Not accepting any new mentorships, for instance. So while I support your initiative it wouldn't be realistic to make extensive promises. Durova^Charge! 22:06, 16 May 2009 (UTC)

DYK for Raquel Forner

On May 16, 2009, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Raquel Forner, 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.

Orlady (talk) 23:22, 16 May 2009 (UTC)

Thoughtful response

There you go; I suppose I would have got much the same at one of the more familiar venues but, with the exception of RfAR, would it have provided such food for thought? Thinking about it, though, I would agree that I extend greater faith toward the unloved than the established order - but that is both my nature in life and also a balance against the majority whose bias' work the other way. Something to bear in mind, anyway. LessHeard vanU (talk) 01:52, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

You may or may not have kept track, but the principal 'reward' I got for stepping forward with that offer to share evidence was the sustained wrath of the entire Poetlister sockfarm. For over a year I was his number two target after SlimVirgin. He never seemed to go after the men who blew the whistle. In light of the Taxwoman impersonation, that arguably constitutes a pattern of gender bias attacks. You lent your good name to the man who created those smear campaigns, and even after other people got to the bottom of it there was no instance I could locate at all of you visibly stepping back from the mistake, or expressing regrets toward the honest whistleblowers who paid the price during Poetlister's comeback. Think of the other young ladies whose photographs were abused, and who aren't at liberty to share their opinions. Imagine one of them were your daughter. Would you endorse the administratorship of a person who acted as you have? Durova^Charge! 02:06, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, I found it hard to accept that I had been duped by the person behind a myriad of accounts - or not so much to accept, but to acknowledge the fact. I have made my feelings known elsewhere, but it isn't a place I guess you would feel happy to trawl through. There is, to be blunt in return, also a matter of timescale; before your Road to Damascus event you were someone whose pursuit of "evil doers" - and sometimes even their definition - did seem to be driven by agenda's and processes that I was uncomfortable with. Since then your appreciation for the need for transparency has been commendable - but this was not the case with Poetguy. You were, in my opinion, in those days something of a totem of how unaccountable some people were (and are, even now) to the general editorship in the manner and method of the work you conducted. Now, obviously, this is as much my problem as it is as I percieved it yours, but it did not dispose me toward sympathy toward your sensitivities where I was not aware of you extending same toward those in your own sights.

Could I endorse the adminship of someone who had once acted in what I perceived to be contrary to good conduct and due consideration to the real situation? Well, of course I could because I have (or at least would do if permitted) but then I have had the benefit of seeing a major change of heart and conduct, whereas perhaps you haven't in my case. Perhaps another failing (or part of the same failing) of my part. LessHeard vanU (talk) 03:14, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

The impulse to defend underdogs is commendable when it's undertaken responsibly. It takes research and a willingness to look at both sides with an open mind, as well as followup. You've been a fine administrator with the easy stuff: obvious vandalism, etc. Yet when a difficult discussion arises you're one of the signatures I'd rather not see because the input is often unhelpful: it usually amounts to superficial support of whoever seems to be the underdog, sometimes followed by a reluctant acquiescence that perhaps the people who'd been hard at work for weeks or months might not have lost their senses. But what happens afterward? Where are you then? I made one twelve hour block while Mantanmoreland had me taken in, and afterward when that appeared to have been a mistake spent months sharing the techniques I had developed with Poetlister in order to set things right with the naked short selling dispute. Show me one occasion where you've walked that walk and I'll switch to support. Durova^Charge! 03:39, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

Another thing first - rereading your !vote I am not certain you meant to go in the neutral section, I don't see any reasons which temper the oppose language to place it there. If it was your intent, though, then that is fine.

To the comments above; I often take the underdog's position because I believe I am testing the findings in a public forum - it may be that the concerns have already been addressed and found wanting, or it may be something that hadn't been considered. Where are the limits to AGF? If I am to assume that the investigators have been diligent and fairminded in their task - and I do - then it behoves someone to pick at the arguments (not the facts relied upon) just to ensure that it can be seen that the case is sound. It isn't part of the remit of a senior contributor, in my view, to make things easy on the process side (as a minimal content contributor, I do see part of the admin role is to make it easy for content writers) but to make sure that process serves the intended purpose. The Mantanmoreland matter was a case in point - I was very much part of the faction that were certain that the evidence pointed toward long term socking with the purpose of creating bias within a raft of articles and I was very vocal in my frustration at ArbCom not taking what seemed incontrovertible evidence at face value. Those who opposed or questioned the findings were generally painted as co-conspirators or having some other ulterior motive for their position. However, ArbCom were not minded to proceed in the manner the majority thought most appropriate. They gave measured responses which left open the possibility that Mantanmoreland was not the POV SPA it was claimed. When, after the case concluded, MM was found to be socking in exactly the manner that had been evidenced earlier the ArbCom acted swiftly and comprehensively. Well, although I do not have the gravitas of ArbCom and not even a hint of the experience and diligence they apply to their cases, it seems it isn't an inappropriate method of conducting oneself.

Last, I am not seeking to change your !vote - you proceed as you see fit; I don't have to agree with it to recognise your right to your views, it is after all exactly that which I am defending myself of above. But if you want examples, I would suggest the editor Mattisse, and the subject of Freemansonry. I have a Barnstar from Mattisse from the time I assisted her in a dispute she was having with another editor over some architectural articles yet within a year I was involved in an ArbCom case on behalf another editor who was in much the same situation with Mattisse over some psychological articles - and yet currently I have declined to take part in the Mattisse ArbCom (I don't know if it has been accepted, even) because I am far too conflicted to able to participate appropriately, plus Mattisse and I have an understanding that we do not involve ourselves with each other. As regards Freemasonry, I participated in the rash of AfD's for the article Jahbulon arguing that the Freemasons views regarding the "misconceptions" over the historical use of the phrase/concept was not grounds for the deletion of the article - that the controversy of itself made the subject notable. No matter that I stood against those pro Freemasonry editors in that matter, quite possibly informed by my distaste for the secret society, I now appear to be the admin of choice when those same editors require the services of a sysop - and I do my best within my understanding of policy for them. I don't know, reading back, if these are the examples that would provide you with reason enough to change your mind - and I don't even know if it would be for the best if you did. LessHeard vanU (talk) 10:10, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

• Ottava Rima has very kindly provided a link to my commenting upon the Poetlister situation while at Wikipedia Review - it is in his question #3 in his Question to the Candidate (No.15). The entire WR thread gives better overview of my opinion regarding the Poetguy affair, but it is very large (this was unlikely to be OR's purpose in posting it, BTW). In keeping with my ideal of accountability, you are a focal point of a WR comment that OR links at #7. My post was to see if this was part of a pattern or not, but never having a definitive response I did not take it up with you. I can do now, if you wish. LessHeard vanU (talk) 11:56, 23 May 2009 (UTC) Edit comment - it isn't this thread where I commented at length on Poetguy, on checking it is in the "Members Only" restricted section. In which case this gives only a taster of my viewpoint. LessHeard vanU (talk) 12:09, 23 May 2009 (UTC)
  • Not particularly. The world doesn't revolve around Wikipedia Review. What you do there you're answerable for there. What you do here you're answerable for here. Normally WR members wish to retain that distinction? I haven't the slightest interest in a Jahbulon AfD, and declined to answer because the segue is beyond comprehension: I was talking about a fellow who--if reports are correct--is now being dealt with by the law. That's an entirely different plane of discussion. The less said about the impression this leaves, the better. Durova^Charge! 16:19, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Double entendre

Your Featured picture candidate has been promoted Your nomination for featured picture status, File:Let alone2.jpg, gained a consensus of support, and has been promoted. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates. MER-C 03:57, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

Thank you. :) Durova^Charge! 03:58, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

DYK for Hector Hyppolite

On May 17, 2009, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Hector Hyppolite, 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.

Royalbroil 05:07, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

Thank you. :) Durova^Charge! 05:09, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

POTD notification

POTD

Hi Durova,

Just to let you know that the Featured Picture File:Cedar Key 1884b small.jpg is due to make an appearance as Picture of the Day on May 19, 2009. If you get a chance, you can check and improve the caption at Template:POTD/2009-05-19. howcheng {chat} 07:40, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

Very good caption, thanks. Durova^Charge! 16:26, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

Sorry

I am one of the editors who support SA being allowed to edit the Optics article. I never thought to talk to you first never mind to SA. To me it's just common sense to allow him to edi the article as stated by the many editors who spoke up for it. Please except my apology, also please let SA know that I for one didn't realize I should have spoken to either of you first before giving my opinion on this which I now realize I should have. Thanks in advance, --CrohnieGal^Talk 12:05, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

Thank you very much; that's very decent of you. Durova^Charge! 16:26, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

I checked that you had already posted in the thread, Durova, before I commented. I figured you would take care of notifying SA.

I've started a thread at Talk:Optics#Request to port article from Wikisource, and have also invited Moonriddengirl to comment on copyright issues. Just trying to be helpful, hope I didn't overdo it. ☺Coppertwig (talk) 23:04, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

Durova, I've now made a more specific proposal here involving transwikiing the material in several steps. Since step 1 is to find out whether you approve of the proposed procedure, I would appreciate it if you would comment in that thread. ☺Coppertwig (talk) 14:15, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

And I've just set up a few polls at Talk:Optics. Hope that's OK with you. ☺Coppertwig (talk) 00:49, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

You might want to ask Anthony Appleyard for advice or assistance. I believe he's an expert on merging page histories. ☺Coppertwig (talk) 01:41, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

FPC

Wikipedia:Featured_picture_candidates/The_Punishment_of_Loki - Have a read of Banaticus' comment - I think he makes a good point that we should probably take to heart when setting up restored/unrestored pairs. Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 16:40, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

The template is boneheaded; we've known that a long time. Durova^Charge! 16:42, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

Matt Sanchez Twitter postings regarding his Wikipedia article

Pointed out here by an anonymous IP. I moved it to a lower place in the thread so it could be easily seen and responded to without interrupting the year-old thread.

1. I get dragged kicking and screaming into some kinds of technology. I have not yet familiarized myself with Twitter, or know if it can be used as a reliable source.
2. If the anon IP is accurate, that Sanchez has posted this on Twitter, it suggests he is encouraging others to edit his article in his favor.
3. Before I ring some kind of freakout bell, I'd like to get some input on Twitter and read how old his post was about his article. If it has been since his return to Wikipedia, that is cause for concern. --Moni3 (talk) 16:49, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the heads up. I'll be out at the movies for a couple of hours. Matt didn't inform me of Twittering. Will look into it upon return. Durova^Charge! 16:55, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

Matt says there's nothing to it. Here's the link to his Twitter.[5] Durova^Charge! 04:56, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

Was the above comment meant for some place else? lol - ALLST✰R▼^echo _{wuz here @} 04:59, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

Yes, quite so. Thanks for the heads up. ;) Fielding multiple windows atm. [moving] Durova^Charge! 05:02, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

Request

Would you be willing to help me with a little work from a German source? It's for Ero e Leandro, a minor work of Handel's which was only published a decade ago. I recently acquired the only major source I lacked for discussion of the work, so I believe that it should be relatively easy to push it up to GA or FA if you're willing to help with the German. Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 17:43, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

Can't make a firm time commitment. A bit behind atm. Durova^Charge! 00:24, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

The piece is in Italian. Durova^Charge! 15:23, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

DYK for Edouard Duval-Carrié

On May 17, 2009, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Edouard Duval-Carrié, 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.

Royalbroil 22:28, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

Thank you. :) Durova^Charge! 00:28, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

Electroide

Hi,

You responded to the message I left on the administrators' noticeboard yesterday in regards to User:Electroide, so I wanted to share this with you, just in case you didn't see my reply on the noticeboard entry, which is now archived. Thanks, —BMRR (talk) 00:50, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

Hi, thanks very much for the link. :) Durova^Charge! 00:52, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

WikiProject User Rehab

Would you be interested in joining this project? We need more editors who share a burden for rescuing promising editors who have gotten into serious trouble because of behavioral issues. IF (a fundamental condition!) they are interested in reforming and adapting to our standards of conduct, and are also willing to abide by our policies and guidelines, rather than constantly subverting them, we can offer to help them return to Wikipedia as constructive editors. Right now many if not most users who have been banned are still active here, but they are here as socks or anonymous IPs who may or may not be constructive. We should offer them a proper way to return. If you think this is a good idea, please join us. -- Brangifer (talk) 04:24, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

Matt Sanchez

As you're his mentor, according to the last action at the Arbcom page, see Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Banned user editing. Thanks. - ALLST✰R▼^echo _{wuz here @} 04:58, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for the heads up. Durova^Charge! 05:16, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

I've declined an unblock request as it's not the way to request things in his case, and it clears him from the category. --Stephen 06:08, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

Right, thanks. Pursuing this at the admin boards. Apologies for that; too many balls in the air tonight. Durova^Charge! 06:29, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

Lies, every bit of it. He better have proof (he doesn't because it's all lies). I missed that edit and you undone it. Luckily I found it. - ALLST✰R▼^echo _{wuz here @} 12:05, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

Scuro ANI discussion

I plan to archive this thread soon seeing that the circular discussion won't cease. Being that the involved parties have stated that they believe another go at mediation would be a waste of time, I am hopeful you will still assist in drafting. Thanks for you insight and help in this issue. Nja²⁴⁷ 07:36, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

Thank you, D, for your arbitration notice. It is scary - I've not been involved there before. Shouldn't the present AN/I discussion be listed under "Confirmation that other steps in dispute resolution have been tried"? Now I'll go read up. - Hordaland (talk) 23:59, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

AN/I isn't actually dispute resolution. That's why it isn't listed. There's a stable link to the ANI thread in the first line of my statement, though. Sometimes it helps when an uninvolved party initiates the request; that makes it easier to start on neutral terms. I'll be around to answer questions if you (or any other named party) have them. A few basic suggestions: whatever you assert, back it up with evidence. If you've made a few mistakes, step up and take ownership of them. A calm, dry, just-the-facts-ma'am approach usually fared much better than overstatement. It helps to review a few past cases and follow the best examples. Best wishes all, Durova^Charge! 00:15, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

WikiCup Newsletter XVI

Delivered for the WikiCup by  ROBOTIC GARDEN  at 09:09, 18 May 2009 (UTC). To report errors see the talk page.

Lazy Virtues: Teaching Writing in the Age of Wikipedia, by Robert E. Cummings

I see you're listed as a reviewer of this, at the review desk. I've bought the book, but haven't been particularly motivated to read it; would you be interested in doing a joint review? -- John Broughton (♫♫) 16:35, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

Maison Bonfils

Maison Bonfils was the business of Felix Bonfils (d. 1885); Marie Cabanis (d. 1918) and Adrien Bonfils (d. 1928) were additional photographers. [6] So shouldn't File:Sphinx partially excavated2.jpg be eligable for commons? Thegreenj 00:15, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

If there's a better source than Answers.com, sure. Durova^Charge! 00:17, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

Princeton? Berkeley? Thegreenj 00:02, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

In any case, it fulfills both US and Egyptian copyright requirements (publication before 1923 and before 1984, respectively), so it's almost certainly ok for commons. Thegreenj 00:12, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

It was not published in Egypt; the studio was operated by French people in Lebanon and sold to a French audience, so Egyptian law is irrelevant. The question is where publication occurred (very possibly France) and whether the life plus 70 rule applies. For an image that could have been shot as late as 1899 and unproven authorship, that's not cut and dried. I'd definitely prefer to move it to Commons, but we can't cut corners on documentation. Sometimes this type of situation is frustrating. Durova^Charge! 00:22, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

Hmmm... yeah, it's a pity it can't be made available on Commons. There aren't really any great internet sources for this. FWIW, there seems to be an 1872 and an 1876 catalogue of Bonfils images. Not sure it's worth trying to track them down simply for possible information, though. Thegreenj 00:51, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

Joan of Arc

Sorry about that one. I've been misfiring a lot lately. Also, I really don't see the point in keeping it around. The bout of vandalism ended three years ago, and the subpage remains untouched. What purpose does it serve now? Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Many otters • One bat • One hammer)} 19:19, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

Not a problem; none of us are perfect. :) It serves two purposes. One is that sometimes people come to me with concerns that they may have met other sneaky vandals who've flown below the radar a long time. The Joan of Arc vandal report is a model for them to follow in terms of documenting that type of problem so the administrators can act upon it. Also, as stated at MfD, the fellow who was sitebanned as the Joan of Arc vandal still operates a pseudo-scholarly website that gets a very high Google ranking. Periodically at the Joan of Arc article talk page a new editor comes up who doesn't realize it's an unreliable source, and wants to use it as a reference in the article. Keeping this report in user space is one of the best ways to demonstrate why that fellow's site isn't reliable. Durova^Charge! 19:26, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

dishonest

While I understand your intention to made the Arb case about overall behaviour on the ADHD page, it hasn't born fruit. It is dishonest to continue to title the Arb request ADHD. It should have my name on it. No one has talked about other issues, and other parties involved in the request recognize this. (ie- Overall, I think the title of this arbitration request is a little off. It is not really “ADHD”, but rather “Scuro and the Question of Disruptive Editing.” Thank you for your time, J Readings). Please change the title.--scuro (talk) 10:21, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

I'll ask the clerks and arbitrators to consider your request, if that's what you'd like. Durova^Charge! 15:14, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

Question about PD

Authors still have a moral right to credit, even after copyright has expired.

Hi, Durova, since you seem to be very knowledgeable of historical costume (per your FP activity) and copyright laws, I seek your advice. I've been working on creating/editing traditional Korean clothing related articles from Korean sources because there are not much accessible English sources. While translating terms to English ones, I've been getting surprised more and more at the current status quo of fashion or textile-related articles. They are too poorly written nor even articles on basic terms do not seem to exist. (eg. gored skirt, shirring). So I wonder if I find books in Public Domain from Google books, can I directly copy and paste contents from such books to needed articles without paraphrasing? I don't have enough knowledge to write things on tricky and sophisticated fashion terms in English because I have little knowledge of the subject However, I'm wondering that is allowed on Wiki as long as I mention where the source come from. I want to use the book, Clothing for Women; Selection, Design, Construction By Laura Irene Baldt--Caspian blue 15:36, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

Well, a book published in 1916 is no longer subject to copyright. But it would still be plagiarism to present another author's works as your own. So you're free to use the images and free to quote, but please do use quotation marks for directly copied passages. Durova^Charge! 16:00, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for the advice. I forgot to consider about plagiarism. However if I use "inline citation" for every paragraph, everyone would know that the content is not mine and I'm just a carrier of valuable contents? Besides, if I use "quotation box" for every sentence of contents, would not that look disorganized? Since the whole content of the book can be copied to Wikisource, so if I put some template showing a message like "The content of the article is based on XX's book", is my intended copying-and-pasting still disallowed?--Caspian blue 16:29, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

Well, the source wasn't written as an encyclopedia was it? Probably it'll need some rewriting to get an encyclopedic tone. Durova^Charge! 16:46, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

For example, any sentence like Now look at Fig. 80, showing... should be modified as you point out, but most of the book is written like an encyclopedia as it is.--Caspian blue 16:53, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

You know who might be a really good person to ask about this? Try Awadewit perhaps. Or Ottava Rima. They both do a lot of checking at DYK, so when it comes to attribution of new articles they'd be good people to ask in advance. Durova^Charge! 16:56, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for the suggestion and time.--Caspian blue 17:02, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

By the way, the sentence in red on the book cover should like "Insert your name if you want to be accused of "plagiarism? The current mark can mislead readers. (sorry if you are not the editor of the derivative image)--Caspian blue 17:06, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

I am the editor of the derivative image. It's difficult to get much more red text into that space and keep it visible, so captioning has always been used to explain the rest. This gets a lot of laughter in agreement; it seems to convey the point pretty well. Best wishes with your new articles! Durova^Charge! 17:24, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

ADHD arb

I wish to note that your recent addition to your statement at Arb continues to put forward that links to prior DR weren't provided at ANI and that you had to dig them up. As noted in my statement at Arb, the WQA was linked to in the first paragraph of the ANI thread, and user:Literaturegeek had provided links to the RfC and the MedCab on 14 May at 11.01pm. Though, it was said at 7.43 pm on 16 May by you "After two days of requesting the background I finally dug it up myself". I realise it would have been preferred for those links to also have been in the opening paragraph, however it's not exactly correct to say that they weren't provided prior to your action. Nja²⁴⁷ 07:16, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

Please correct me if this is mistaken: the only link in your opening statement was the wikiquette alert, which an impartial third party who found no evidence of incivility and closed as a content dispute. I actually didn't see your link to the Medcab case (it would have been helpful to have provided it when I requested it, if it was already there). That leaves a second mediation and two RfCs which I did have to go looking for, and that's the majority of the dispute resolution that occurred. Durova^Charge! 15:17, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

Image restoration

Hi, I saw the message that you had left on Patlichty's talkpage User_talk:Patlichty about image restoration. Am I right to assume that the restoration was done digitally? I'm very interested in how this was done, could you point me to some schools/resources where I can get professional training in this field? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Cmyk (talk • contribs) 15:57, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

Hi, thank you very much for your interest; it's flattering. Yes the work was done digitally. I use Photoshop, although some of the other Wikipedians use GIMP (a free open source program). So far I don't know of any schools that train in this formally. But if you'd like to pick up the skills three are a few resources at Wikimedia Foundation sites. If you have Skype I'd be glad to give pointers directly. Email me for my Skype ID. Best regards, Durova^Charge! 16:53, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

Pardon me

Hi Durova. Pardon me for intruding on your talk page when there are so many activities within WP that you're attempting to attend to. I come here for 2 reasons really: 1.) You seem to be well informed on the FT and plagiarism issues; and, I'm hoping my question won't get lost in the crowds of various "board threads". 2.) I have the distinct impression that you always take great pains to give any and all editors a fair hearing. My question is one of those "What did she know, and when did she know it?" things.

• Could you please tell me when the most recent edit that FlyingToaster made which violated our Plagiarism (now) guideline occurred?

I ask because I was one of the plebs that supported FT in her recent RfA, and I'm hoping that my vetting and support were not conspicuously erroneous. If the last transgression happened months ago, then I'm a bit more confident that my support was justifiable. I hope this is the case, and I thank you for your time. — Ched :  ?  16:05, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

Excellent question. I'm not totally certain on this. What I did was work from Soxred's tool and the printout it gave on her article creations. At the top of the list is Kang Won Yong, which she created on 18 May. The first paragraph of the Wikipedia article includes the words "pioneer of the ecumenical movement in Korea, and an advocate for peace and reconciliation in the Korean peninsula." The cited source includes the text "a pioneer of the ecumenical movement in Korea and a tireless advocate for peace and reconciliation in the Korean peninsula."[7] This was an example I pointed out to her when we talked as something that really ought to have been in quotation marks. She and I spoke on the nineteenth, so that's probably the most recent instance (or pretty close to it). Durova^Charge! 16:43, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

Thank you so much for taking the time to research these things Durova, I do appreciate it. If you're speaking with her again in the near future (I believe she may be taking a short wiki-break), would you please pass along my best wishes. I'm sure this has been stressful and uncomfortable for her - and I do think that she's a wonderful person, at least that's been the impression I've had when I've interacted with her on a few occasions. Following up on that particular post a bit: If I were to read such an article, and document the wiki-article with something such as: Won Yong spent much of his time working for peace and reconciliation within Korea, and was one of the original founders of the "ecumenical movement". Would that be acceptable, as long as the cite to the corresponding source where I gathered that understanding, was provided? I just want to make sure that I'm going about my work here in the proper manner too. Thanks, and my Best to you and yours. — Ched :  ?  17:21, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

That seems fine. Express the source's idea with distinctly different word choice and phrasing, and put exact borrowings within quotation marks. Durova^Charge! 18:38, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

Thank you

Hello Durova. I just wanted to thank you for being so kind and personally helpful to me over the last few days. Your first instinct was to lend a hand rather than point a finger, which I deeply respect. People like you are what make the project beautiful. FlyingToaster 18:55, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for a graceful response to a difficult situation. Durova^Charge! 20:28, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/ADHD

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

On behalf of the Arbitration Committee, —— nixeagle^{email me} 20:53, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

POTD notification

POTD

Hi Durova,

Just to let you know that the Featured Picture File:Langechildren2.jpg is due to make an appearance as Picture of the Day on May 24, 2009. If you get a chance, you can check and improve the caption at Template:POTD/2009-05-24. howcheng {chat} 06:34, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

.svg and Inkscape

Hi, Durova. I have a question regarding Inkscape. I'm creating a map and when I save it I'm getting 4 different .svg formats to save in. Plain SVG, Inkscape SVG, Compressed Plain SVG and Compressed Inkscape SVG.

I saved it as a Plain SVG, but when I tried to close Inkscape I got the following message:

The file "Map" was saved with a format (SVG Output) that may cause data loss!
Do you want to save this file as an Inkscape SVG?

Do you know which of the two versions, Plain or Inkscape SVG, is the right format for uploading to Wikipedia?

Thanks, Matthewedwards :  Chat  07:25, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

Hello, Durova

Hi Durova -

Since you and I seem to have different opinions (both working toward the same result - full inclusion of Bluemarine into our community in a healthy and positive way) I wanted to let you know that I appreciate the role you have taken, although I occasionally disagree with you. I usually think it goes unsaid, but perhaps it is important to say - that your work with him has been spectacular. You are an effective and strong advocate for him, and I salute you for it. I hope you understand that I believe my role is to advocate for myself and others who were so badly hurt by him. I hope you know that we are as passionate in our defense as you are in yours.

I don't have a proposed solution. It's not for lack of trying. I just think it's too early. There are too many things still sending up red flags. If I believed Matt had disappeared, served his time, not tried any funny business, etc, I can almost promise you that I'd be leading the charge to have him reinstated. I do not believe those things, so I'm not leading the charge. I'd like to be, though.

What can we do in order to come to some sort of peaceful, and justice-filled (for all parties) compromise to get Matt back to normality? How can I help with that?

I come in peace, as one who has - as of late - been on the opposite side of the issue from you. If you think it would help for me to talk to him directly, a la' Truth and Reconciliation in the South African style, I stand ready to gather folks who can address his issues with him in an affirming fashion. He doesn't need to be judged. The time for judging is over. At this point, relationships must be healed. Tell me how I can help with that. - Philippe 10:06, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

Thank you very much. If it's possible to express warm and heartfelt gratitude with a reservation, there's one to be made: mentorship is not advocacy. But if you'd like to help normalize matters, that's a very welcome impulse. I'd like to find out what's happening with this socking allegation. He's been impersonated before, so keeping an open mind there. Haven't checked into that in about a day. If SPI hasn't been filed already, would you enter it please? Thanks very much. Durova^Charge! 15:22, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

FPC

As you may have seen, I'm not going to participate in en-wiki FPC until some actual hard rules are in place there. I will continue restoration, I may comment, but I refuse to nominate anything. The stress and necessity of dealing with those people is not worth it. Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 16:41, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

Sometimes stepping back is the best option. I kind of smile to think how many FP-worthy uploads I've done to Commons and never nominated there. ;) Best, Durova^Charge! 16:44, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, Durova. You have new messages at CUTKD's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

C.U.T.K.D ^{T | C} 21:28, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

Let's keep this on the noticeboard, please. Durova^Charge! 21:39, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

POTD notification

POTD

Hi Durova,

Just to let you know that the Featured Picture File:Yorktown artillery2.jpg is due to make an appearance as Picture of the Day on May 25, 2009. If you get a chance, you can check and improve the caption at Template:POTD/2009-05-25. Since Memorial Day was originally for the Civil War, I thought this to be appropriate. howcheng {chat} 23:50, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

Optics

Hi, Durova. Unfortunately, the ANI thread Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive193#Requesting full protection of Optics was archived before anyone got around to answer my question, but since you seem to be knowledgeable about the underlying issues, could you enlighten me? Thanks,  Sandstein  06:28, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

Never mind, I found the RfAr at [8]. Sorry!  Sandstein  06:30, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

WikiCup Newsletter XVII

Delivered for the WikiCup by The Helpful Bot at 19:59, 23 May 2009 (UTC). To report errors leave at message here.

Optics article

Hi, Durova! I guess maybe I should have notified you about the discussion I've just been having with Moonriddengirl, and possibly I should have notified you about my change of vote here. Sorry about that! Maybe I forgot. I tried to notify you about a few things recently, in the thread #Sorry above, but I'm not sure whether you saw those messages! I figured you might be busy (which could explain why you didn't reply) and wasn't sure whether I should start a new thread here. I would also like to encourage you to keep editors at Talk:Optics informed of significant plans and progress you're making, to avoid duplication of effort. Maybe I've been a bit over-enthusiastic about some aspects of this: sorry about that. ☺Coppertwig (talk) 01:57, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

Moonriddengirl says "GFDL infringements are generally easy to repair just by noting the date that material was incorporated in a null edit summary" [9]. May I suggest that you or SA carry out such null edits to provide explicit attribution (i.e. a link along with a statement that the material came from there, and the date it was added as suggested by Moonriddengirl, rather than just a link) in the page history (rather than just in the article, which might get edited such that the attribution might be lost) for any material copied from Wikipedia articles. (See Moonriddengirl's comments in the thread on her talk page). Or I might do so, if provided with a list of pages and date-times. ☺Coppertwig (talk) 02:27, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

This is a rather difficult matter, so please be understanding. We chose this article as a good candidate for an improvement drive because it's good solid basic science and inherently uncontroversial. Plus the article was in real need of improvement and had seen very little attention in a long time. Unfortunately SA himself is a hot button: people have strong opinions about him, both positive and negative. So our plan to import the article has had a number of setbacks including two arbitration enforcement requests, most of which could have been avoided if at least the people who liked his work had been more cooperative. People charge off enthusiastically on his behalf, SA and I are the last to learn, and it's done in a manner that causes backlash which I'm left to clean up and which slows down the actual FA drive. So no apologies necessary; would just like to move forward calmly and cooperatively to deliver the best article possible to the site's readers. Hardly anyone who reads the page knows or cares about the personalities who made it; they care what they want is good information about optics. :) Durova^Charge! 03:04, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

Ah, thanks for replying. I would appreciate it if you would tell me whether you had seen my messages in the thread above (the "Sorry" thread) around the time I posted them; I'm not sure whether I was succeeding in communicating with you. Re your message on my talk: if you want to carry out some of your planning privately, that's quite fine. However, just because it has to be off-wiki so SA can be involved doesn't necessarily mean editors from Talk:Optics have to be excluded. You could carry on (some of) the planning in a public venue such as Wikisource userspace, and put a link to it at Talk:Optics; or you could post information at Talk:Optics from time to time so people know what you're doing. Earlier you said something about a team of editors, and I didn't know whether you meant the people discussing things at Talk:Optics. Now I think you didn't mean that; but I hadn't heard anything at that time about any other team. If you do make plans without letting people know what those plans are, you shouldn't be too surprised if others take the initiative and go off in other directions that might not necessarily be compatible with your plans.

Whether the readers care about attribution is not the point. Proper GFDL attribution is policy. ☺Coppertwig (talk) 13:51, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

Right; sorry. I didn't much know what to say because during the same time there was a simultaneous push at one of the arbcom talk boards that had started up without anyone informing either SA or myself (took about a day to hear back from him and confirm whether he knew; he didn't) and then almost immediately as that closed someone tried to do a GFDL-violating port. The same individual had done the first port (the one that led to an AE thread) and was being very difficult about it. Had to request full protection of the article; feared yet another AE thread would occur otherwise. Suffice it to say that it's hard to do all the positive planning that's possible while I'm running around like a chicken with her head cut off. At any rate the support for the arbcom thread seemed to demonstrate a very strong consensus to get the article ported (I could hardly even stop it from steamrolling when I tried; how's that for consensus?) So wasn't certain what beyond that would be served by joining your poll. Mainly I was concerned that if I appeared to support it in any way at all, someone would jump the gun again. Maybe it would be GFDL compliant, but what's the next step? We also needed permission to proxy edit continued improvements, so porting without that permission in place would shut the primary contributor out of the drive. Strong feelings on both sides have made this a political minefield, much more so than I anticipated when we began. Durova^Charge! 16:23, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

Oh, I get it! Similarly to when I removed the request to wait: I probably inadvertently contributed to the steamroll by doing so, and afterwards figured maybe I should have handled that differently somehow. I guess you were hesitant to say almost anything lest it contribute to the rush! Thanks for explaining. ☺Coppertwig (talk) 16:46, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

Yes, and thanks for being good spirited about it all. Much appreciated. :) Durova^Charge! 18:45, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

Matt

See Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Bluemarine/Archive. While I don't agree that there's no editing evidence, based on edits like this which are most certainly Matt's style and this one being on a userpage of someone he's had an issue with in the past, as a result of the checkuser, I have placed CSD tags on all but one of the IP addresses asking their talk pages to be deleted since they were created by StephenLaurie (talk · contribs) only to tag them as socks of Matt. Now we should look into StephenLaurie being a sock, as well as proceed on what to do about Matt's community ban. - ALLST✰R▼^echo _{wuz here @} 19:14, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

The problem is that the impersonator does imitate Matt's style. So stylistic similarities aren't enough to go by. And heck, I've been misled by those appearances too; remember the time last year that it turned out Matt was in France during an AOL vandalism impersonation? Some of that impersonation even crept into his biography for a while. So what can we do to set this right? Matt's no Boy Scout, but nobody deserves to get targeted that way. Where's the golden mean here? Durova^Charge! 19:48, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

Let's deal with the StephenLaurie sock and get that out of the way. I'm not sure how to even present evidence on that user. There's really none other than all the tagging of IP pages as being a Bluemarine sock.. is that enough? - ALLST✰R▼^echo _{wuz here @} 20:35, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

Seems fair. I don't know what to do about StephenLaurie. If it looks like COI, perhaps send to WP:COIN? Durova^Charge! 21:13, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

ThankSpam

My RfA Thank you for participating in my "RecFA", which passed with a final tally of 153/39/22. There were issues raised regarding my adminship that I intend to cogitate upon, but I am grateful for the very many supportive comments I received and for the efforts of certain editors (Ceoil, Noroton and Lar especially) in responding to some issues. I wish to note how humbled I was when I read Buster7's support comment, although a fair majority gave me great pleasure. I would also note those whose opposes or neutral were based in process concerns and who otherwise commented kindly in regard to my record. I recognise that the process itself was unusual, and the format was generally considered questionable - and I accept that I was mistaken in my perception of how it would be received - but I am particularly grateful for those whose opposes and neutrals were based in perceptions of how I was not performing to the standards expected of an administrator. As much as the support I received, those comments are hopefully going to allow me to be a better contributor to the project. Thank you. Very much. LessHeard vanU (talk) 21:49, 24 May 2009 (UTC) ~~~~~

Well, back to the office it is...

Congratulations, and best wishes with it. Durova^Charge! 22:02, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

Admin abuses and personal attacks

I appreciate your advice. We have a blatant case of violation of Wikipedia policy by a clique of admins in an Arbitration. I get blocked for standing up for my rights and then libeled. I have been damaged in the public and I want remedy.--Fahrenheit451 (talk) 03:34, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

Yet there are appropriate channels. If one ignores them, then that makes it easier for those who are already skeptical to pigeonhole an individual as a troublemaker. Ultimately that makes it harder to achieve your goal of modifying the wording. Less gunboat diplomacy, more persuasion and charm. Note to self: follow this advice more often. Durova^Charge! 03:48, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Fringe science amended

The following motion was carried 9 to 0 (with 2 recusals and 1 abstention) further to this request to amend the Fringe science arbitration case:

• 1) Kaldari, Sceptre, and Durova are granted permission to act as proxies for ScienceApologist by making edits to the optics article, its talk page, and any process pages directly related to the optics featured article drive.

The remedy has been entered onto the arbitration case page, at #Further motion following Request for Amendment (May 2009).

For the Arbitration Committee,
AGK 14:17, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

Thank you. It's a pleasure. Durova^Charge! 15:52, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

Congratulations!

Your Featured picture candidate has been promoted Your nomination for featured picture status, File:Sphinx partially excavated2.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. wadester16 | Talk→ 18:45, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

Inline citations in Kansas-Nebraska Act

Please see Massachusetts#References, Herbert Hoover#Notes, Nasa#References, George Washington#Notes, Paris Hilton#References. Thirty-five inline refs is nothing special. - Denimadept (talk) 20:24, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

Nothing special, but not really so bad that the whole article needs to be tagged at the top of the page. Seems out of the norm, although perhaps tagging an unreferenced section would be appropriate. Durova^Charge! 20:29, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

Okay, understood. - Denimadept (talk) 20:55, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

Jackie Robinson monument photo

Once upon a time you requested a photo of the Jackie Robinson memorial outside the Pasadena, California city hall. I uploaded an image File:Jackie_robinson_memorial_pasadena.jpeg, but the fair use rationale is being challenged here: Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Jackie Robinson/archive2. Your opinion would be welcome. I don't know enough about the current application of the fair use criteria to judge either way (and the argument against seems pretty solid to me), but I thought you should have a chance to speak up for keeping the photo. Thanks. --Amble (talk) 22:57, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

Thank you very much for that; it looks great. The criticism is valid but can be fixed. There have been enough buildings, etc. dedicated to Robinson to justify a section about memorials. Should have a sentence or two there about the Pasadena statue. The context isn't entirely clear from the photo and caption alone. The large scale isn't fully visible, nor the fact that it's opposite the main entrance to City Hall on the south side of the circle. A few words about the date when it was erected, and the artist (the commission etc.). Quite an honor to get memorialized that way in a city that's had more than its share of famous residents. Best wishes, Durova^Charge! 02:48, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the input. I've fleshed out the section and moved the commentary to immediate proximity with the image, if you want to take another look. I'd like to keep the image in the article, but there's been some opposition.BillTunell (talk) 18:01, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

Ah great, will do. Durova^Charge! 18:04, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

Made a couple of minor changes. Looks like the use of the image should be justifiable now. Durova^Charge! 18:08, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

Thanks! --Amble (talk) 02:48, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

Thanks once again for your input/improvements. It looks like the Jackie Robinson FAC will fail due to non-free image concerns, but not so much because of the Pasadena sculpture issue, which is currently still in the article. BillTunell (talk) 18:53, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

You're famous!

Hi, Durova. Just stumbled across this and its subpage, User:KoshVorlon/WierdWiki/Durova. I'm not 100% sure what to do with it (is it an attack page; does it have any purpose?) but I thought I'd let you take the decision, if that's OK... ╟─TreasuryTag►hemicycle─╢ 07:48, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

I don't hide from my mistakes. ;) Durova^Charge! 16:33, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

Fair enough, just thought I ought to check it out with you! ╟─TreasuryTag►hemicycle─╢ 16:54, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

I didn't think editors were allowed to make mistakes. Clarification please?

But seriously, kudos to Durova for being willing to tackle challenging situations including offering herself up for the abuse that mentoring challenging editors entails. I've come to expect occasional mistakes from other editors as they appear to be mostly human. ChildofMidnight (talk) 17:34, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

Thank you very much; you're very kind. :) Durova^Charge! 17:56, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

What? She went after a person that was doing good, and that was her charge to ban him. Then the secret mailing list comes out. Talk about paranoid about the wiki review. Its like stalin's government runs wikipedia. 70.248.189.186 (talk) 18:41, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

Okay, suppose you were me: make a mistake in good faith, admit it as soon as you realize it was wrong, do all you can to set it right, and step down. Continue doing good work in other areas. Short of building a time machine to prevent a mistake in the first place, what would you do that I haven't? Durova^Charge! 18:50, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

Congratulations!

Your Featured picture candidate has been promoted Your nomination for featured picture status, File:USS West Virginia2.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. wadester16 | Talk→ 18:57, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

Be more careful

Please be more careful when you're blindly reverting. Just because an IP address removes a large portion of text, doesn't mean that they're vandalizing. Obama's economic policies has nothing to do with Carlos Santana, and the editor with the IP address did the right thing. [10] is the edit.

Heads up.--68.248.238.82 (talk) 00:43, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

She appears to have reverted herself already... —Ed (Talk • Contribs) 00:44, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, accidental. I realized that half a second after hitting the button. Durova^Charge! 00:46, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

Ah, did it twice. Just be careful, not all IP address editors are out to vandalize ;) --68.248.238.82 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 00:53, 27 May 2009 (UTC).

Sorry about that. When an IP removes 13K from an article without edit summary it's almost always vandalism. This is a good counterexample to keep in mind. :) Durova^Charge! 00:58, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

WikiCup newsletter XVII.V

This is just a quick reminder that the round ends this Friday, May 29, 2009. I wanted to let you guys know the current standings. If you are very close, but not close enough, work as hard as possible these next two days. Pool leaders are listed as usual, and under the 10 wildcards, are competitors that are still fighting for a spot. Also, if you currently have any un-reviewed GAN's up and you'd like them to be reviewed and counted for this round, you must place them on the appropriate thread of the WikiCup talk page.

Pool A

1. Shoemaker's Holiday (647)

Pool B

1. ThinkBlue (247)

Pool C

1. Theleftorium (455)

Pool D

1. Candlewicke (539)

Pool E

1. Durova (479)

Pool F

1. Sasata (961)

Current Wildcards

1. Useight (393)
2. Scorpion0422 (372)
3. Rlevse (329)
4. Wrestlinglover (307)
5. Paxse (285)
6. Ottava Rima (248)
7. Mitchazenia (226)
8. Juliancolton (181)
9. the_ed17 (179)
10. J Milburn (168)
11. Bedford (156)
12. Gary King (147)
13. 97198 (142)
14. Ceranthor (111)
15. Tinucherian (106)
16. Matthewedwards (98)

 GARDEN ,  iMatthew :  Chat  , and The Helpful One The Helpful Bot 00:47, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

POTD notification

POTD

Hi Durova,

Just to let you know that the Featured Picture File:Mount Rushmore2.jpg is due to make an appearance as Picture of the Day on August 10, 2009. If you get a chance, you can check and improve the caption at Template:POTD/2009-08-10. howcheng {chat} 06:53, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

Aw shucks, couldn't we save it for next April Fool's? My inner twelve-year-old still loves the inadvertent placement of the workmen below the nostril. Durova^Charge! 17:36, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

DreamGuy

Hi, were you mentoring DG at one time, and are you still? thanks - KillerChihuahua^?!? 17:33, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

I was? (blinks, confused) Durova^Charge! 17:35, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

Heh, I guess not. Ok, sorry to trouble you. KillerChihuahua^?!? 17:36, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

No apologies needed, and best wishes. Durova^Charge! 17:40, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

WT:FPC

Wadester grabbed a statement I had made but thought better of and deleted almost immediately, and pasted it back into the talk page. I had not intended for that statement to be up, and suspect that his restoring it in a manner which made it appear I had intended it to remain up is in gross violation of WP:TALK. Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 19:55, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

This is very disappointing. Durova^Charge! 19:58, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

Requesting your input WT:VG's article guidelines

WT:WikiProject Video games/Article guidelines#COPYVIO implications We would like to know if there are any copyright violation impacts for removing a logo by cropping an image for a box to put on the infobox.陣内_Jinnai 20:35, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

Triple crown question

If you qualify for the Imperial crown jewels (2 FC, GA, DYK), do you need to re-nom for 3 each and 4 each even though they are the same award? Or do you just add them to the winner's circle? How does that work? Thanks. KV5 (Talk • Phils) 11:47, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

Triple crowns are cumulative. There's no separate award for 3 of each or 4 of each, though, so most people wait until they qualify for the next award. Durova^Charge! 15:01, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

OK, so if I would manage to get a 3rd GA (my second one hopefully coming soon *fingers crossed*), I would just consider myself at 3, then 4 and so on? It's the GAs that take a while; I've accumulated a lot of featured content and DYKs already. Then there's a re-nom at 5. KV5 (Talk • Phils) 19:34, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

Well, people don't usually self-add. We like to screen that stuff. Just collect and renominate at 5. :) Durova^Charge! 19:57, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

Got it. Thanks! KV5 (Talk • Phils) 21:26, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

Re: Barnstar

Hehe, thanks! I appreciate it. :) –Juliancolton | ^Talk 19:08, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

Just giving credit where it's due. :) Looking forward to your next FA. Durova^Charge! 19:10, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Scientology

This arbitration case has been closed and the final decision is available at the link above. The following editors are subjected to bans/topic-bans/restrictions as listed below :

• Banned : John254 (talk · contribs) (Community Ban), Justallofthem (talk · contribs)
• Topic-banned : CSI LA (talk · contribs), Grrrilla (talk · contribs), Makoshack (talk · contribs), Proximodiz (talk · contribs), Su-Jada (talk · contribs), TaborG (talk · contribs), Jack Russell Terrier (talk · contribs), Jpierreg (talk · contribs), Maureen D (talk · contribs), OngoingHow (talk · contribs), Seelltey (talk · contribs), Tturrisi (talk · contribs), Voxpopulis (talk · contribs), AndroidCat (talk · contribs), Antaeus Feldspar (talk · contribs), Anynobody (talk · contribs), Derflipper (talk · contribs), Fahrenheit451 (talk · contribs), Misou (talk · contribs), Orsini (talk · contribs), Shrampes (talk · contribs), Shutterbug (talk · contribs), Steve Dufour (talk · contribs), Tilman (talk · contribs), The Legendary Shadow! (talk · contribs), Touretzky (talk · contribs)
• To contact the Committee : Arnielerma*, Karin Spaink*, StephenAKent*, Timbowles*, Tory Christman*, Hkhenson*, Rick Alan Ross (talk · contribs)
• Other restrictions :
  • Jossi (talk · contribs) gave up his status as an administrator in the face of controversy concerning his administrator actions during an arbitration case, he may not be automatically re-granted adminship. However, he is free to seek readminship, should he choose to do so, at any time by a request for adminship at Requests for adminship.
  • ChrisO (talk · contribs) is to abide to a binding voluntary restriction that within the Scientology topic (i) he limits his edits to directly improving articles to meet GA and FA criteria, using reliable sources; (ii) he makes no edits of whatever nature to biographies of living people; and (iii) he refrains from sysop action of whatever nature.
  • Jayen466 (talk · contribs) is topic-banned from articles about Rick Ross, broadly defined.

#Editors marked in * have since contacted the Committee.

Any editor who is subject to remedies in this proceeding, or who wishes to edit from an open proxy, is restricted to a single current or future account to edit Scientology-related topics and may not contribute to the topic as anonymous IP editors. Editors topic banned by remedies in this proceeding are prohibited (i) from editing articles related to Scientology or Scientologists, broadly defined, as well as the respective article talk pages and (ii) from participating in any Wikipedia process relating to those articles. Editors topic banned above may apply to have the topic ban lifted after demonstrating their commitment to the goals of Wikipedia and their ability to work constructively with other editors. Applications will be considered no earlier than six months after the close of this case, and additional reviews will be done no more frequently than every six months thereafter.

Any uninvolved administrator may, on his or her own discretion, ban any editor from editing within the Scientology topic. Prior to topic banning the editor, the administrator will leave a message on the editor's talk page, linking to this paragraph, warning the editor that a topic ban is contemplated and outlining the behaviours for which it is contemplated. If the editor fails to heed the warning, the editor may be topic banned, initially, for three months, then with additional topic bans increasing in duration to a maximum of one year. Any editor who, in the judgment of an uninvolved administrator, is (i) focused primarily on Scientology or Scientologists and (ii) clearly engaged in promoting an identifiable agenda may be topic-banned for up to one year.

All IP addresses owned or operated by the Church of Scientology and its associates, broadly interpreted, are to be blocked as if they were open proxies. Any current or future editor who, after this decision is announced, makes substantial edits to any Scientology-related articles or discussions on any page is directed to edit on these from only a single user account, which shall be the user's sole or main account, unless the user has previously sought and obtained permission from the Arbitration Committee to operate a legitimate second account. They shall edit in accordance to Wikipedia policies and refrain from advocacy, to disclose on the relevant talk pages any circumstances (but not including personal identifying information) that constitute or may reasonably be perceived as constituting a conflict of interest with respect to that page, and not through a proxy configuration.

- For the Arbitration Committee, Mailer Diablo 01:31, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

Liya Kebede

This photograph by Christopher Peterson is of Liya Kebede entering Bryant Park, New York City during the Mercedes-Benz Fashion Week show on September 9, 2007.

There's no issue to get involved in here, I just wanted your opinion about this picture. It was the lead on this article, and I uploaded one I was kind of proud of that I had overlooked in 2008. 9 x out of 10 I try to find a place for the previous lead. This one I didn't. It also had this caption. That aside, how appropriate on a BLP is this stalker-paparazzi "feel" and um--the--er--"headlights" that are so prominent? I'm not saying it's a BLP violation - but doesn't it seem a little unenyclopedic for a BLP? Or am I being uptight? Should I place it? -->David Shankbone 02:20, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

A headshot is usually best for lead image, and the one at the article now is reasonably flattering. It has a more appropriate aspect ratio than the Bryant Park photo; doesn't push down the infobox so far on the page. That said, the Peterson Photo is also quite good photographically. More suitable for lower on the page, though. Durova^Charge! 17:22, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

User:Durova/Scientology arbitration/Jossi evidence

Hi Durova.

Be advised that, as an extension of Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Scientology/Evidence, I've applied a {{Courtesy blank}}ing to your evidence for the Scientology case. My primary rationale for doing so is this; naturally, we don't want a case that's receiving the media attention that this one is to be appearing so openly.

The Committee directed me to blank the case pages, but naturally, pages in your userspace are your call. You are, as always, free to revert me.

Respectfully,

AGK 17:15, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

Wow, that blog doesn't even turn up that high for a search on my own name. Sure, courtesy blanking is fine. The search engines don't crawl user subpages anyway, do they? Durova^Charge! 17:19, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

Oh gosh, they do crawl it. Good call. Durova^Charge! 17:26, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

Thanks. :)

Yes, the nasty search engines do like to crawl our subpages. >< It's a nightmare in situations like this.

AGK 17:35, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

How in heck did they rank my stuff so high? whistles in hopes that Jehochman would reply Durova^Charge! 17:39, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

I suppose because "arbitration" and/or "scientology" appears so often in it? wishes Jehochman would come in and overshadow this lame answer. AGK 17:42, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

Google has an algorithm called QDF, query demands freshness. Blog posts tend to rank especially well for a short time when they look like news. Additionally, your post may have acquired several high power links. If you register your site with Google Webmaster Tools or Yahoo! Site Explorer, you'll be able to view a list of pages that link to your site (as well as other, useful diagnostic info for increasing your site's visibility). Jehochman ^Talk 17:47, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

(ec, to AGK) But I don't think I've ever blogged about Scientology before? Even this time, that was tangential. Devoted far more electrons to the fact that two admins who hadn't edited the topic in 1.5 to 2 years were getting sanctioned, than over what the topic was. ArbCom could be handing out topic bans for 1.5 year old edits to green beans and that objection would be the same. Durova^Charge! 17:49, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

Jehochman, thanks. Actually all I've ever done with that blog is put it onto WMF aggregators and enable a default Blogger option. It's mainly written for an audience of fellow editors, so a result like this seemed really unlikely. Thanks for the suggestions, but considering how awkward this is do I want to increase its visibility? Durova^Charge! 17:52, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

May be of interest to you

This may reflect your idea. Jehochman ^Talk 17:23, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

Good suggestion, thank you. :) Durova^Charge! 17:27, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

One more to look at: [11] Jehochman ^Talk 17:41, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

Thanks, will look. and dangit, I'd intended to finish readying an article for GAN this morning. Durova^Charge! 17:53, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

Dead tree standard

All right, I'll bite. Though I'm posting here instead of on Blogger because Blogger doesn't have a watchlist (that I know of).

After reading your post, a few questions came to mind.

In the Digital Age, more and more encyclopedias are moving their content to the Web. Some of the smaller ones (I imagine) have begun putting content solely on the Web as it's cheaper, easier to update, etc. A literal interpretation of the "dead tree standard" suggests that information from a reputable encyclopedia that hasn't physically been printed would fail the criterion. Do you agree? Do you disagree? Is there wiggle room?

The second question that came into my mind was one of practicality and feasibility. Assuming that all biographies must be found in an encyclopedia, doesn't that require making publicly-available lists for every non-Web-based encyclopedia? Doesn't that introduce new legal issues if we publish copyrighted lists like that (where the lists required creative input)? And we have to evaluate books for their acceptability as encyclopedias. Does a Who's Who count? Some of those aren't very reputable businesses....

And of course all of this relies nearly entirely on the idea that all publishers / authors are unbiased in their selections. Are most of them? How many really small encyclopedias exist and have they been sampled for various things like selection criteria, etc.?

Any comments, views, etc. on the issue would certainly be interesting to me. (Or, if there are links to other discussions that you have, those will also work. :-) --MZMcBride (talk) 19:00, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

Agreed that when a reliable publisher publishes on the Web in lieu of in paper, that's just as good. WP:RS, basically. 'Dead trees standard' was the shortest way I could summarize the usual manifestation of the concept. If you think up a more accurate catchphrase, please share it.

And actually I don't assume that all biographies must be found in an encyclopedia. That'd just be our threshold for courtesy deletion. We could keep on writing biographies by the current notability standards.

Think of 'dead trees' like a store return policy: if you keep the receipt and bring come back within 30 days you can return a shirt, but you don't ordinarily have to wait 30 days to take a shirt home. Durova^Charge! 19:12, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

Huh. Fascinating. So a subject requests deletion and the onus is on the editors to either find a reliable encyclopedia entry or the article gets deleted. Does that sound about right? And if so, what do you see as the biggest obstacles to putting such a policy in place on this project? --MZMcBride (talk) 19:19, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

That's basically it. The biggest obstacle is philosophical. Some people firmly believe that biography subjects should have no say at all. Some say there ought to be one single inflexible standard. But the problem has been that 'borderline notability' and 'questionable notability' are endlessly debatable. Biography subjects want a simple answer, and it's both fair and straightforward to answer something like 'We're sorry, Chef Quigley, but you're already in the Encyclopedia of Twenty-First Century Cuisine. So we're just following their lead.' Reasonable? Durova^Charge! 19:30, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

If it were made explicitly clear that it only applied when the subject themselves requested deletion, would something like this be feasible? Has it been discussed in a wide forum previously? If not, why? If so, got links? :-) Seems like something that could possibly fit nicely inside WP:BLP.... --MZMcBride (talk) 21:06, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

I don't think it's been quite formally proposed. For a while Daniel Brandt was trying to compel it, and I just don't like strongarm tactics. If you know what I mean? But an increasing number of people seem to think it'd be a good idea. Worth working into the policy/guideline structure somewhere. You've got a good eye for that; although today there are a couple of proposals for it. One at the deletion policy. Durova^Charge! 21:20, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

(unindent) Okay. A few more points I want to discuss.

Let's say you have the president of a big Internet corporation. Are people who are notable in the 21st century covered in encyclopedias? Let's say the president of Mozilla or something similar. Or, looking at other parts of the world, are specialty encyclopedias as common for people from Zimbabwe, South Africa, India, China, Tibet, etc.?

Looking at another angle, let's say for the sake of argument that we have 5,000 non-notable biographies of living people. The people who generally request deletion of their biographies are people whose biographies generally contain negative content. If these non-notable people got their negative biographies deleted while the non-negative (and subsequently non-requested) biographies stay, suddenly we'd be left with pretty crap content overall, no?

More and more I'm thinking that "dead trees" isn't necessarily what's needed. What's needed is more stringent notability guidelines. Though your idea for simplification and making the guidelines easy to explain seems very spot-on.

Your thoughts? --MZMcBride (talk) 01:58, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

It's not necessarily the negative biographies that get deletion requests. One I did about a year and a half ago was for a perfectly respectable fellow who owned a business. He was notable for two things: having started a relatively successful business and for having proposed to his wife at a professional sporting event (one of those proposals that gets into the news). Nothing particularly negative there. When he first found out someone had created a biography about him he was kind of flattered. Then it became a bit burdensome to check it every week (because it probably wasn't on many watchlists--he wasn't all that famous) and after a few months he started to worry: his business was in a service industry and there was always the chance that one of his competitors might vandalize it strategically when he was competing for a contract. That kind of thing might actually tip the balance in a potential client's decision, and the result could hit his bottom line in a meaningful way. As in having to lay off good employees. He decided it just wasn't worth it. And he is the best person to weigh that balance. Not you, not me, not abstract suppositions. I take a very dim light of the sort of paternalism that glosses over those real world concerns and dismisses the good judgment of people who are, after all, a lot more successful in life than most Wikipedians--and then walks away to leave them with the fallout. You and I won't have to look anyone's employees in the eye and hand out pink slips. Durova^Charge! 03:10, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

WikiCup Newsletter XVIII

Delivered for the WikiCup by The Helpful Bot at 14:31, 31 May 2009 (UTC). To report errors leave at message here.

Starbucks and The Onion

I can see why you'd remove "New Starbucks Opens In Rest Room Of Existing Starbucks", but I added that phrase not only because it neatly captures a popular image of Starbucks, but also because it has been quoted by the LA Times, Newsweek, Boston Globe, CNN Money, Chicago Tribune, BusinessWeek and others. http://news.google.co.uk/archivesearch?um=1&ned=uk&hl=en&q=%22New+Starbucks+Opens+In+Rest+Room+Of+Existing+Starbucks%22&cf=all As such, it is a notable satire of saturation marketing. Fences and windows (talk) 02:50, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

Doré

Thoughts on how I should handle an original scan too big to upload? Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 10:11, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

Don't upload in uncompressed format, upload a compressed copy, bug the devs. ;) Durova^Charge! 15:42, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for coming out

Hi Durova, You were next on my list of people to contact when I got your message. I don't care much for blanket RfA thankspam and prefer to write personally to each person who took the time to actively participate. I do thank you for your participation, your input and your kind words following my withdrawal. Should I decide to attempt a(n) RfA in the future I look forward to your support and help. Because you never outright said I was in violation of the guideline WP:Plagiarism, I felt it was not appropriate to bring up the guideline's infancy as a defense (and it would not change the fact that I had not adequately rewritten the content anyway). I see that its guideline status is under dispute, which I feel is appropriate based on the ambiguous language in its definition. At a minimum (in my opinion) the phrases adequate credit, proper attribution and insufficiently adapted into original language (which is no longer part of the definition) nead clear definitions similar to the way that the general notability guidelines define significant coverage, reliable sources, independent of the subject, and presumed. I am bringing this up here as you were the editor who promoted the proposal to guideline as you mentioned in your opposition statement, and I felt it appropriate to tell you personally. Take care, happy editing and I will see you around. --kelapstick (talk) 17:32, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

At RfA I mentioned that it was only the third time I'd ever opposed a candidate. What I didn't mention then was that I later conominated one of the others, and offered to admin coach the second one (he retired instead). You seem in nearly every respect like an excellent candidate for admin; please keep in touch. It would be a pleasure to help you get the mop when you're a little more ready. Durova^Charge! 17:45, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

Seeking help in presenting thoughts clearly

I write to ask for prospective help. In a sense, I'm only interested laying the foundation for the future. Perhaps this may be construed as taking steps to avert problems might be mitigated by a timely comment or suggestion ...?

ArbCom remedy

Voting is underway at Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Tang Dynasty/Proposed decision. In part because of "Evidence presented by Caspian blue", the locus of dispute was modified and "evidence in the case has expanded to include other disputes in which Tenmei has been involved." You will be surprised to learn that Durova has anything at all to do with this so-called "evidence" at "Tenmei's wikihounding and trolling". I don't think this timeless prose is worth struggling to read, but I mention this to explain a bit more of the reasons why I'm reaching out to you specifically.

ArbCom findings of fact included:

• 3.2.2 Tenmei and dispute resolution. "... many of Tenmei's talkpage posts and submissions during this arbitration case have been very difficult for other editors to understand, to the point that experienced participants in dispute resolution have had difficulty in following them, despite what we accept as Tenmei's good-faith best efforts to assist us in resolving the case."

ArbCom remedies included:

• 3.3.2 Tenmei and dispute resolution: "Should Tenmei become involved in any further disputes with other editors, whether concerning the content of articles (beyond ordinary day-to-day editing issues) or more formal dispute resolution procedures, he shall seek the assistance of a volunteer mentor or adviser to work with him in maximizing the value of his presentation by assisting him with formulating it in a clear and civil fashion."

• 3.3.3 Editors advised: "Editors who encounter difficulties in communicating with others on-wiki are advised to seek help from others in presenting their thoughts clearly, particularly when disputes arise or when dispute resolution is sought."

It is clear that ArbCom anticipates future difficulties; and I guess I need to do the same. Arguably, my previous postings on your talk page are congruent with exactly the sort of thing ArbCom wants me to do in future; and I'm willing to invest in learning about how to disagree without being disagreeable.

If you want to discuss this off-wiki, feel free to contact me at tenmei1781@gmail.com. -- Tenmei (talk) 17:21, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

Gee, I hadn't paid any attention to that case at all. Any of the named parties are welcome to contact me. Not sure what I can do to make a bad situation better, but will try to get up to speed. Durova^Charge! 19:51, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

Please understand that I was asking for nothing today nor for anything specific in the foreseeable future. Rather, I was trying to figure out how to make something constructive and useful from an experience which was largely unsatisfactory.

Bonsai: Japanese white pine

Looking forward, this seemed like a potentially useful step in a constructive direction. Also, since your name was amongst those featured prominently by Caspian blue, the poetic alchemy involved in turning dross into something valuable became an attractive idea. --Tenmei (talk) 20:11, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

Well I'm hardly the person to ask about the Tang Dynasty--adore its poetry (the little bit of it that trickles through translation). Best wishes moving forward. Durova^Charge! 20:14, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

Thanks. Please accept this small token of appreciation -- a fine example of bonsai. --Tenmei (talk) 00:09, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

Great work!

		The Original Barnstar
		Thank you, for going above and beyond by going with me through the 450 edits of that IP to locate and delete that sneaky citation vandalism. Without you, the college student who tries to use Wikipedia for one of its greatest purposes – looking up useful journals and reference books – would be in a lot of trouble. Truly, you deserve this. NW (Talk) (How am I doing?) 03:54, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

		The Anti-Vandalism Barnstar
		Seconded. Until It Sleeps 04:10, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

		The Anti-Vandalism Barnstar
		Thirded. Benders Game 04:17, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

Aw, thanks very much guys. :) Durova^Charge! 04:12, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

Blush. Durova^Charge! 04:19, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

Wrong advice?

Hi Durova - I was hoping that you could check the copyright advice I gave a new user here. I'm concerned that my initial understanding of "free for editorial use only" may have been inaccurate, or perhaps not explained fully enough. If you get a chance, could you please take a look? I would hate to have screwed this up, especially since I was trying to smooth things over after a couple of earlier run-ins. Plus I'd just like to know for myself. Thanks, Kafka Liz (talk) 00:28, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

It'd need a regular nonfree use rationale. A statement of permission for reuse is not the same as a copyleft license. Durova^Charge! 03:41, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

That's what I thought, but I may not have emphasised it strongly enough. Thanks, Kafka Liz (talk) 09:55, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

Audio

I don't know: Honestly, I've only seen this happen with you, and, without seeing in detail what you're doing, couldn't even begin to speculate as to why. Can you give me the link? I'll sort it out. Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 16:13, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

Here goes.[12] We haven't had an FS for George H.W. Bush yet, and it's arguably his most important speech. As an alternate I also converted his remarks upon signing the Americans with Disabilities Act. It picks up the same problems with conversion, although not so severe. Durova^Charge! 16:18, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

I'm sorry, I didn't get this in time, because you responded on your page, and I'm now unable to do anything for about two weeks. Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 21:39, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

Featured picture question

Hello, I'm reviewing your GA candidate Jean Desbouvrie. In perusing your user page I noted that you're expert with images. This is an area of WP that I am absolutely ignorant about. I'd love to start adding feature images to my (very small) repetoire of featured content, but I am neither a graphic artist nor a very proficient photographer. Is my quest hopeless? Can you point me towards any materials or give me suggestions on how I can become active in the restoration of old photos, which seems to be a pet project of yours? I'm particularly interested in Olympic Games images to help augment the articles I am working on for that project. Your help would be genuinely appreciated. H1nkles (talk) 20:07, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

Hm, probably your best bet would be looking through archives. In particular try for material that falls under US Government public domain. Sometimes the US Armed Forces sends military photographers to cover events. No idea whether any of those were at recent Olympics (perhaps the Atlanta games?) Otherwise, general military and science subjects are often available in good copy on government websites. Does that general direction interest you? Durova^Charge! 20:32, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

Certainly, does one then run the image through photoshop to sharpen and "touch up"? I'm not sure if that is kosher or not. I also noticed your link to the Commons site with several images that need work. That might be a good place to practice, if that is allowed. Again being so new and inexperienced at this I don't want to break anything or step on someone's toes. I'd like to start with images that are already uploaded before venturing out into uploading my own. Sorry I'm a bit of a chicken. H1nkles (talk) 20:45, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

Ah, well those are set up as beginner restoration jobs. Feel free to apply Photoshop or Gimp to them (it's what they need). With regard to the government archival material, often new material doesn't need much (if any) work. But a good close-up look always helps. Let me know when you find something you like. Best wishes! Durova^Charge! 21:10, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

Thank you kindly for your advice, I'll get to work! H1nkles (talk) 21:17, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

Sigh...

...can you help me out with this one? It was certainly a G12 previously, but...  Frank  |  talk  00:44, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

Twinkle auto-posted to his talk page before I could de-toggle. As soon as I filled in the URL it completed the nom. and notified him. Will follow up. Durova^Charge! 00:51, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

In reply to your question about Twinkle and unblocking, not that I am aware of. I changed the terms of his block with a note here explaining why and another at the ongoing administrators' thread (as well as at Quadell's userpage). Another administrator blocked him again to protect the talk page, but he removed that stipulation on Frank's request. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 01:18, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

There, that is. I was going to reply to you at Allstarecho's talk page, but had an edit conflict and obviously he finds my input inflammatory so I decided to do it here. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 01:21, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

I wish there were a better answer to this. Sometimes trying to help a problem only worsens it. Thanks very much for your good spirits. Let's see if we can iron this out. Durova^Charge! 01:26, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

Oh, thank you. Your input (and assistance with cleanup!) have been much appreciated. I'm very sorry to see this going the way it is, particularly since my previous impression of this contributor had always been good. I myself don't believe people are irredeemable; I've personally mentored several contributors who have offended on multiple articles and some of them are actually now helping watch out for problems (one after having been indef blocked). But that requires willing collaboration and an ability to recognize the problem, and you can't force that. :/ --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 01:35, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

But gah, seeing this come out of an initial effort with your project is pretty scary. He's careening from an indef to a siteban. We've seen the trajectory. If he's pegged us as enemies, is there any way to stop the course? Durova^Charge! 01:37, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

I'm not that familiar with his temperament, but I'm afraid not. Fortunately, the project has had a few successes, but it's really been set up just at the right time. User:Dcoetzee only made his contribution surveyor program accessible to it about a week ago (I lose track). And while we've been getting good response from people who saw the matter at ANI (like you, for example), some of our "regulars" have already been plugging away. I wish we didn't have the work to do. We seem to pop up multiple-article issues every couple of days. I think this one was probably unavoidable...at least on Wikipedia's part. Frank had been talking to him about it for a week before I came on the scene and had even brought in another administrator, but he just didn't want to hear it. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 01:53, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

Another sigh...

Maybe you are correct and I cannot see why this would be such a big deal if there is no reason for it to be. The discussion now seems to have descended into an argument over penises. Perhaps I have not paid the matter enough attention, could you explain on my talk page or even just copy and paste the points that are most problematic and I will be all the wiser hopefully. :-) --candle•wicke 01:03, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

Sure thing. There's a developing drama that seems to have worsened because of my imperfect understanding of the Twinkle interface. An editor has been indefinitely blocked. So if you don't mind, will return to your question as soon as that's handled? Durova^Charge! 01:25, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

Never even noticed, too busy getting the Peru crisis ready for ITN. :-) Anyway, I see your point but I think FP and VP both have different intentions and that maybe the damage is being done by those who say an FPC should be sent to VPC. I don't think VP was set up to deliberately undermine the good work of FPC. --candle•wicke 02:31, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

But VP seems to celebrate the use of an image in multiple articles and in ways that enhance those articles. FP seems to be primarily about beauty... which strikes me as a bit vain... I was also under the impression that only those images which would never make FP could be VPs... but perhaps I am incorrect... --candle•wicke 03:18, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

That does sound bad and I sympathise with that. If only there was a way of making it more rigid to prevent these types of clashes betwen the two... --candle•wicke 03:35, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

Thank you

Thank you very much for your time at AE today.--Jacurek (talk) 22:52, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

You're welcome. May I suggest something to minimize problems in the future? At highly contested subjects it might be better not to use the rollback tool. Consider enabling Twinkle, which has more sophisticated rollback and rollback-like options. There's a particularly good feature called 'restore' that is just about as easy as rollback except it opens a popup window to write an edit summary. Very convenient, and avoids misunderstandings. Here's hoping things cool down. Durova^Charge! 23:02, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for the advice, I think I will use Twinkle and rollback only in a very clear case of vandalism. Thanks again.

Regards--Jacurek (talk) 01:01, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

ani & SH

Once more, the principal voice of reason. I'm not longer willing to keep checking more than once a day or so, and so I seem to have missed out until after I was no longer needed, at least immediately. DGG (talk) 01:34, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for your concern. Really there wasn't much opportunity to intervene. There's been tension at featured pictures, but wasn't aware he was also dealing with a deletion issue. Shoemaker's Holiday and I cross paths a lot at media processes but our article writing rarely intersects. Thank you very much for your support. I do hope he'll have a change of heart. There have been times when I've tweaked on an etching for four hours without any satisfactory result, and then he would fix the problem in ten minutes. One has to be good at that sort of work to realize how superlative his skills are and what a loss this retirement means. Durova^Charge! 01:43, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

Point of order

When you post to any ANI threads about me, please declare that you have a history of personal conflict with me. It is not fair that you present yourself as unbiased when you are not. Jehochman ^Talk 11:04, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

Over several years on this website it's pretty much inevitable that people will find themselves on the opposite side of the fence sometimes. Although I've been one of the most proactive people about that type of disclosure, this request seems excessive: if everybody dragged around the past like luggage our boards would read like a soap opera. So let's take this as a benchmark: you and I have both been in conflict with Elonka. When you post to the same ANI threads, do you disclose your history of conflict with her? Durova^Charge! 14:59, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

Of late I completely avoid her whenever possible, or else focus on the issue and refrain from commenting on her. Of course making disclosures is clumsy, and I'd really rather just get along with you.

This matter of Sam Blacketer is spilling over to multiple pages and seems like it is inevitably heading to arbitration. I'm pulling my thumbs out of the dyke, and whatever happens will have to be dealt with by other people. You commenting on me, or me commenting on you is probably not very helpful in the scheme of things. The Boothroyd article had some very serious socking. I am not quite sure about all the accounts, but several are quite obvious. A private checkuser request is pending. Jehochman ^Talk 15:57, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for replying. The Wikipedian norm is to comment on the behavior, not the person. As you know, I had participated at the DRV. Had also discussed the matter at the wikpedia-en-I mailing list before the thread opened. So this was the natural course of two paths crossing, not an attempt to single you out. Was surprised to discover that you had continued handling this pretty much alone for so long without seeking the community's help.

When you unblocked WebHamster you stated that you dislike controversial blocks. A week later you threatened blocks in an edit note at JoshuaZ's user space--wouldn't it have been wiser to have opened up an admin board request for assistance, if not long before? There were plenty of admin eyes at DRV, yet you continued to follow up pretty much alone until a complaint arose against you. Those of us who aren't able to read deleted edits couldn't evaluate the requesting editor's userspace draft. When one suspects disruptive sockpuppetry but can't name a sockmaster, it's better to be proactive about bringing more eyes onto the matter. Especially in this type of situation.

There's a danger that someone might accuse you of preferential treatment for having speedied that biography, especially in light of your extensive followup. Something I didn't mention at the boards was your proposal to change the speedy deletion criteria for BLP. Hadn't really connected the dots until last night, but the timing happened oddly close to your speedy of Boothroyd's biography. When you notified me about that it really would have been helpful to have added and I just recently used this rationale to speedy the BLP of a Wikipedia arbitrator who's stepping down under controversial circumstances and getting reported in the news. So I went over to the discussion you had started, not realizing there was any other pertinent factor than my recent blog post. Half a month later I have to follow up--otherwise our friendly local conspiracy theorists may use it as inspiration for fiction. Durova^Charge! 16:56, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

I am surprised at the amount of rabid deletionist - inclusionist warfare on Wikipedia. I generally avoid WP:AfD unless it crosses with an issue of harassment. There is harassment going on against David Boothroyd, and though I don't much like his online persona, I will stand up for him as much as anybody else. At this point I won't use sysop tools, but that's no matter at all. Stongest tool is my brain. It's lovely how everybody second guesses my judgment, but the fact is that different people will come to different conclusions about what to do, and we all learn from experience. A substantial number of editors, administrators, and an arbitrator supported my action. I was not out on a limb doing something crazy. Other's may vehemently disagree. That's fine, but at some point people need to just calm down and write articles. Jehochman ^Talk 19:23, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

It's good to see you stepping away now. That doesn't satisfy most of the concerns expressed above. The principal issue is not whether you stood up for David Boothroyd as much as anybody else, but more than. And made choices that risk backfiring upon David, upon this website, and upon me personally--without ever fully informing people about your intentions and actions until other parties raised questions. Durova^Charge! 19:43, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

I am pretty assertive about standing up for anybody who looks like they are getting bullied. Take a look at the way I defended Cirt, for an example. Cirt wasn't my favorite editor either, though we've become more friendly over time. Jehochman ^Talk 19:48, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

Some of us just want to see you express a conciliatory tone that you should have followed process. This case was not a gray area, and we don't handle BLP problems by wholesale deletion of an article. You don't seem to want to admit that you didn't handle this optimally, which lends to frustration with your actions. Deleting an article is not a small thing, particularly when it was kept by consensus. Letting it stand for an hour and a half before closing the AFD and then deleting, and doing so twice, with no indication that this was problematic is at the heart of my irritation with you (over this one topic, nothing else). -->David Shankbone 19:54, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

Thank you, David. I am sorry to be so thick headed. If we were to rewind this situation, knowing what I know now, I'd let the AfD run, use some sort of protection to prevent problem edits, and we'd probably get to the same point with a whole lot less drama. Jehochman ^Talk 20:01, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

Thank you. That's all I wanted to hear, although on ANI I wanted to raise a larger issue about the overuse of WP:SNOW closures. I'm bowing out of this issue now as I don't particularly care if David Boothroyd has an article or not. I just want us to heed our governance. -->David Shankbone 20:15, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

Per request

I've sent you an e-mail. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.132.241.17 (talk) 15:26, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

Titan arum

Did you see this, due to bloom at the Huntington in the next 5 days. I am poised to get over there and capture it for Wikiposterity. Mfield (Oi!) 19:26, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

Oh my goodness! I love that place. Started two articles inspired by The Huntington: Shakespeare garden and Pinkie (Lawrence painting). Can't wait to see the results of your visit. Durova^Charge! 20:32, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

Maybe we should be glad we don't have the technology for Featured Smells just yet. Some off-wiki pics from previous visits here Mfield (Oi!) 20:47, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

Gorgeous. Especially love the bonsai. :) Durova^Charge! 20:53, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

Thank you

You do a lot of good things. I am going out for WP:TEA. Jehochman ^Talk 22:11, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

No need for thanks. And if that ever happens again when I'm not reading a page, please ping me. Durova^Charge! 22:18, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

If you want to help Wikipedia (and me) feel free to leave advice on my talk page. I'd really rather that you and I not square off against each other. That means I will not comment on your behavior at all (other than speaking directly to you on your talk page about my concerns) and I'd like you to take the same approach toward me. If your concerns are not satisfied by talking to me, please express them to any community member you choose who does not have an obvious history of conflict with me and let them follow up. You've done many things to help me and I feel grateful for them, but you've also done some things that upset me. I think it will be best for Wikipedia if we can defuse the conflict between us. Jehochman ^Talk 03:28, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for the consent to use your user talk page again. That should make it easier to resolve issues. Regarding the rest, Cla68 once went on record to a reporter commenting directly about me in a story I disliked very much, yet he and I both accept that on-wiki we're here to discuss the encyclopedia and its operations. That approach has been very useful and productive; there's a mutual respect that develops. It would be a helpful gesture if you withdrew a few conjectures of a personal nature that you made at Jimbo's user talk and ANI regarding me yesterday. Durova^Charge! 15:07, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

Based on your explanations, I have modified my comments. Jehochman ^Talk 15:36, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

Thank you very much. :) Durova^Charge! 15:41, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

IMDB not reliable?

I see you've deleted references containing imdb and cited WP:RS in your edit summaries. I've used imdb for music/film/tv shows and was unaware of its categorisation as unreliable for cast/crew/soundtrack/award wins. A quick look at Wikipedia:Citing IMDb indicated to me that ambiguity exists on wikipedia about its reliability in different areas, the article itself failed to attain consensus. I agree with the Inappropriate uses section and have no problem adhering to its tenets. However I have used it for Wikipedia:Citing IMDb#Disputed uses and would like to know whether these uses are now considered to be inappropriate too. If so, has the use of IMDB in these murky areas been determined more emphatically elsewhere? Should wikipedia editors totally avoid IMDb as a reference?Shaidar cuebiyar (talk) 11:48, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

Well, if you'd like to reinstate those references I won't debate you or stop you. There was a time when I had a featured list which had to be de-featured because other editors subsequently decided that IMDB was completely unallowable. Durova^Charge! 14:52, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

I had a similar experience getting an article up to GA, the reviewer accepted IMDB for film/cast/crew information but (correctly) didn't accept its biographic information. I have used IMDb with more caution since then but I was worried that I had missed some more recent decision as to its reliability status in the disputed areas indicated.

I may reinstate the IMDB references you deleted but first I'll check to see if said information can be supported by a less disputed WP:RS. Thanks for your heads-up.Shaidar cuebiyar (talk) 20:33, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

A misled argument?

This argument (all VPs → FP) recently started popping up. Our disagreements aside, I don't believe you started this process for this argument to be made. Maybe something should be said about how this isn't realistic and not an option? wadester16 20:19, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

Well, the deletion discussion can't really achieve that end. So much else has gotten lost in the shuffle that it probably isn't worth discussing there. But if somehow someone tries to upgrade VPs as an outcome of the discussion I'll revert that myself. Fair enough? Durova^Charge! 20:37, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

It doesn't matter either way. I don't think somebody would defect and go off and do that. Just pointing that out; I found it a bit scary, in all honesty. wadester16 20:41, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

Human sacrifice, dogs and cats living together... mass hysteria!

Up is down, eh? It's a weird evening when I'm lead defense council for the AC all of a sudden. And you just cracked me up with that. rootology (C)(T) 03:11, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

(shrug) Durova^Charge! 03:17, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

You have been nominated for membership of the Established Editors Association

The Established editors association will be a kind of union of who have made substantial and enduring contributions to the encyclopedia for a period of time (say, two years or more). The proposed articles of association are here - suggestions welcome.

If you wish to be elected, please notify me here. If you know of someone else who may be eligible, please nominate them here

Discussion is here.Peter Damian (talk) 10:21, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

Thanks but no thanks. If I ever violate Wikipedia's civility policies I encourage the admins to deal with it just like anyone else. Skill in Photoshop isn't a license to be rude. ;) Durova^Charge! 17:06, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

Bollocks! I knew I had it wrong :P All that learning for nowt! How about expertise in Premiere Pro? Does that entitle me to be rude? ;) --WebHamster 17:10, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

Maybe if you're very skilled in GIMP. It's open source, after all. Now if you'll excuse me am uploading a restoration on the original artist's sketch for the frontispiece of a Mark Twain novel. It's in support of the Connecticut featured portal drive so you can guess which one that is. :) Also am surrounded a stack of library books about Irving Berlin; there's a GA drive I should get back to. Assistance welcomed. :) Durova^Charge! 17:15, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

A Connecticut Yankee in King Arthur's Court? Jehochman ^Talk 20:47, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

(whistles innocently) Durova^Charge! 20:48, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

I don't mean to be overly critical Durova, but I think you may need to get your monitor and/or scanner calibrated. I've just looked at the above Connecticut Yankee image in Photoshop and it has a very slight pink tinge to it (most prominent to both side edges). This is the second image of yours I've seen with that tinge. The first was an image I referred to way up your talk page. As you are a perfectionist I just thought I'd mention it. For example at position X:93, Y:1517 (pixels) the colour is #f6f1ee which is too far away from the shade of white it should be. I'm also wondering why you aren't using a colour space, is this a requirement for images uploaded to WP? I also don't understand why you are using colour format for a greyscale image? Is this also a requirement? --WebHamster 12:01, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

For your reference and for comparison purposes, I've uploaded a derivative version that's been desaturated and histogram corrected for contrast. --WebHamster 12:17, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

And here's the "Trolling for bluefish" images for comparison. --WebHamster 14:01, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

• 
  Your version
• 
  My version
• 
  Your version
• 
  My version

Quite so, thank you. Durova^Charge! 16:29, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

Actually I made a booboo, I used the jpg version of the Connecticut Yankee for the colour correction thereby reducing the quality by recompressing it. I've downloaded the uncompressed TIF and when I get a chance later I'll update my file with the colour corrected version. --WebHamster 17:03, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

Checkuser is not for fishing.

Thanks. :) Btw would you like to take a stab at another? This was a monster to adjust yesterday. :) Durova^Charge! 17:15, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

I actually had a look at that one earlier and didn't see any real problem, other than a slight brown stain on its right cheek and arm which would be a real bitch to get rid of. Unless one used a feathered layer mask with an adjustment layer to reduce the colour in that section. The rest of it looked fine to my eyes. I'm on my laptop at the mo' though, which isn't calibrated. --WebHamster 17:31, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

WikiCup Newsletter XIX and XX

Delivered by The Helpful Bot at 21:56, 13 June 2009 (UTC) for the WikiCup. To report errors, please leave a message on the talk page.

COI abuse in several articles on transsexualism

Hey. Clueless li'l ol' me has just been made aware that there are apparently a suite of articles related to transsexualism that are being constructed by someone very close to the researchers that are subjects of the articles and cited in them.

Transsexualism is not my forte, but after being asked to review the perennial bad penny article of Homosexual transsexual, I spoke my piece that it is poorly written basically gibberish that says nothing, and the topic is probably not an actual concept, but part of a theory espoused by three researchers whose overall theory is also included in this suite of questionable topics: Blanchard, Bailey, and Lawrence theory. Some members of WP:LGBT seem to know who this is, but I don't. Read the WP:LGBT thread about it here.

I read the lead and first section of Homosexual transsexual. The sources I could get hold of use this term only in passing, and never seem to define or address the concept as a whole. The citations seem misattributed and the entire article appears to be an example of undue weight. So I've never gotten involved in ferreting out this kind of abuse. Any tips on how to go about it? --Moni3 (talk) 22:49, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

Have you considered reporting this at the conflict of interest noticeboard? Durova^Charge! 23:12, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

I'm apparently coming in late to the party. WP:LGBT editors who have dealt with the perpetrator(s) before don't seem to be enthused to name who they are or much else. There have been apparently 2 mediation cabal cases involved. I don't know if they are about editors or articles. I don't think this is within the limited scope of the COI noticeboard. It's going to take someone to read every source used in these articles and argue every sentence about how the sources are being misused to prove something the sources don't actually say. I found out about this a couple nights ago, and I'm honestly anticipating this taking a year or so and going to ArbCom. I am hoping that can be avoided with preparation and going through whatever proper channels there are. --Moni3 (talk) 23:26, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

Ouch, that certainly sounds like a serious problem. If this is basically a coatrack though--not a concept outside three researchers' claims--then it ought to be possible to address the matter on that level. At one point Wikipedia had a GA--subsequently deleted--that was basically one researcher's pet psychological theory. Durova^Charge! 00:16, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

Content noticeboard

Hi Durova. I like your x-admin box.

I have no idea if it's widely known, but I wanted to mention the creation of Wikipedia:Content noticeboard, in case you hadn't noticed it's creation. I think JulianCotton and Iridescent are the ones who made it happen. ChildofMidnight (talk) 03:35, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the heads up. Not sure what to think of that one. Will watchlist. Durova^Charge! 03:39, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

A wikipedia milestone.

I have been blanked! thanks D. (Off2riorob (talk) 19:13, 14 June 2009 (UTC))

Heh, eventually happens to all of us. :) Durova^Charge! 19:15, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

Titan Globe

Kaldari has proposed a replacement image. Please consider updating your !vote. wadester16 04:50, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

Considered it to the tune of a barnstar at his user page two days ago. Had any further action been necessary, it would have been taken then. Durova^Charge! 04:57, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

Fair enough. Just an FYI to all !voters who hadn't seemed to acknowledge the replacement option in the nom. wadester16 06:27, 15 June 2009 (UTC)