Hi Durova. I got rid of the tongue in cheek intro as you suggested. Just posted a list of potential low tension articles. I can come up w/more candidates, well - maybe, if you tell me what you might be looking for. Thanks. HG | Talk 08:49, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
Greetings again. Haven't got much response on the polling for a low (or high) tension article. Still, there seems to be a budding interest in Israeli-Palestinian conflict. I wrote you a note on the IPCOLL Talk. Maybe we could set it up in some way, where a few of us try to resolve the live dispute -- yet encourage other project members to drop by and do low-tension improvements? Just an idea. Pls respond on the project Talk page when you have a chance. Be well, HG | Talk 23:16, 27 January 2008 (UTC)
jc37 has requested some help on a recurrent issue, and with your previous involvement with the problem, I was hoping you might help him out. If you didn't have anything to do with this, then my apologies. Oc t ane [ improve me 21.01.08 0854 (UTC)
Your
Featured picture candidate has been promoted Your nomination for
featured picture status,
Image:SanFrancisco1851a.jpg, gained a consensus of support, and has been promoted. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at
Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates.
jjron (
talk)
16:35, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
|
Nice edit job too, but you only get one of these; I've credited your edits on the FP page though. -- jjron ( talk) 16:35, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
Hey, just wanted to say thanks for all the work you've been doing on the WW2 FPCs. I really like what you have been submitting. Keep up the good work! Clegs ( talk) 18:06, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
Oh wow...just remembered this. Here goes;
Dihydrogen Monoxide ( party) 03:16, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
-- BorgQueen ( talk) 13:53, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
I have given a peer review for Portal:Textile Arts. I laid out five key points, using examples from five currently Featured Portals. Hope that helps, Cirt ( talk) 23:33, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
I think you have made a wise decision in respect of this. I also suspect that Jimbo's reaction was instinctual rather than reasoned; it's hard to fault anyone for being insulted when they've been called arsehole and worse - and I am quite sure that plenty worse has been said there. What I find saddest of all is that the problems seem to bubble up mostly in the admins channel, where one might expect a higher degree of decorum. Although heaven only knows why. Well, we can continue to avoid IRC together. Risker ( talk) 07:32, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
Hey, just curious if you're not awarding triple crowns at the moment, as I've had a request present for about a week and a half. By all means, I'm not faulting you, I'm simply curious as to whether there's a reason or extenuating circumstances. Cheers, Sephiroth BCR ( Converse) 07:49, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
-- BorgQueen ( talk) 15:50, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
As per your original answer to a question that wasn't posed to you. El_C 07:53, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
Your
Featured picture candidate has been promoted Your nomination for
featured picture status,
Image:AlfredPalmerM3tank1942b.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
03:41, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
|
Your
Featured picture candidate has been promoted Your nomination for
featured picture status,
Image:Waldenburg1945edit.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
03:41, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
|
Congrats! I'll keep my eyes open for any other possible candidates. BrokenSphere Msg me 06:31, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
Hi Durova,
Are you still mentoring User:Jaakobou? If so, you might want to to have a look at some of the recent discussions he's started (if not for WP:AGF, I'd assume he's picking fights) on Talk:Israeli-Palestinian conflict, namely here and here.
I was going to wait for one more discussion to take it to WP:AE for an opinion, but I thought maybe I should give you a heads-up first.
Cheers, pedro gonnet - talk - 25.01.2008 07:52
Being as perplexed as you, I'm having a hard time trying to imagine what sort of weird scenario would have to exist for this situation to arise as it has, assuming good faith of the arbcomm members involved. I started with a list of about a dozen scenarios. Upon carefully considering all of them, these are the situations where I believe I am assuming the greatest possible amount of good faith:
This is me assuming the greatest amount of good faith that I can find with as much bending-over-backwards as I can muster. In each of these situations, I'm assuming that arbcomm members are acting with the best of intentions, but in each of these scenarios I'm still left with a poor evaluation of the arbcomm members in question. If 1 is the explanation then we probably should get rid of the arbcomm members in question since they are either too overworked to be able to make reasonable decisions or they simply don't understand what's going on. If 2 is the explanation then there should at least be some indication that this is going on. An appeal to WP:OFFICE could be made or an arbcomm member could mention e-mails or the like that indicate to the community that there are issues that could not have been addressed by the RfC. Assuming this is the case, then there has been a dramatic misstep on the part of arbcomm members and they owe the community an explanation at the very least. Having not provided one in a timely fashion seems almost inexcusable. If 3 is the explanation then arbcomm has inappropriately expanded its mandate and deserves censure. Is there any other explanation I'm missing here? Because I'm really trying very hard to assume good faith and this is all I can come up with.
ScienceApologist ( talk) 09:35, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
I noticed no one had posted a follow-up to Alison's note at David's talk page. It's possible he hasn't logged on since the AN thread heated up. Probably we've all been surprised occasionally to see a flareup after we took a day off. Let's assume good faith. I've urged him to drop by the noticeboard as soon as he's back online. Durova Charge! 07:01, 26 January 2008 (UTC)
Sure, what would I have to do? First off, instead of combing through your talk page, I think it would be easier if all of the requests were in one subpage somewhere. (Could be your own user space, or project space, but either way it'd be easier if they were in one location.) Cirt ( talk) 15:08, 26 January 2008 (UTC)
Tell you what: for now let's keep the awards all on one page. You're welcome to write the award messages yourself or give me a report on reviews that pass and I'll write them - I plan to keep browsing the articles also, and to keep doing a share of the reviews. Let me know privately if some topic really isn't to your tastes and I'll do likewise, so we can both do justice to the nominees by concentrating on material we enjoy.
Nearly every message is unique in some way - I often throw in a compliment about the elements I enjoyed most. Triple crown winners are addressed "Your Majesty", "Your Imperial Majesty", or "Your Imperial Napoleonic Majesty" according to the award they've received. In the image caption I always include a link back to the awards page. Durova Charge! 20:43, 27 January 2008 (UTC)
Only four left to recognize at User:Durova/Triple crown winner's circle/Nominations - and I will leave those up to you. Cirt ( talk) 20:22, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
The Photographer's Barnstar | ||
For making many excellent cleanups and rescues of old pictures that would never have otherwise been considered for FP. Keep up the good work! Clegs ( talk) 15:48, 26 January 2008 (UTC) |
Can you please provide comment here? - Talk:Project_Chanology#Current_events_tag. Thanks, Cirt ( talk) 21:52, 26 January 2008 (UTC)
Dear Durova,
I see your comments on talk page for article Paul Barresi. A very abusive comment with vulgar words was put on my talk page from an IP who also put an abusive remark on the Paul Barresi article talk page in response to a remark I made about keeping the article within Wikipedia's guidelines. I also responded to this comment by putting a request/warning on the IP's talk page. A derogatory remark was made there as well by same IP.
If you look at the history of my talk page, Paul Barresi article talk page and the IP's talk page you may feel as I do that based on the word choice, abusive manner and bad spelling that this IP is indeed Paul Barresi!
Can you please take some action so myself and others will not have to put up with this vulgarity or be abused. Thank you!
Fuzzyred ( talk) 05:15, 27 January 2008 (UTC)
"The most serious assertion at this RFAR is misrepresentation of sources. I have seen no actual evidence to substanitate this. " I have now provided one example to demonstrate an issue worth investigating. Please see my statement, at the bottom. Jehochman Talk 16:28, 27 January 2008 (UTC)
Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Priapus statuette I'm not active on Commons, so you're free to do so. Spikebrennan ( talk) 22:25, 27 January 2008 (UTC)
Re: ongoing disruption of talkpage and ongoing AfD - please see my 2 diffs per WP:NOT#FORUM DIFF, DIFF and let me know what you think of this disruptive behavior by JustaHulk ( talk · contribs) on these 2 pages. Cirt ( talk) 22:55, 27 January 2008 (UTC)
I am REALLY surprised by this issue. I did not bother to read the rest of the newspaper article (second half and second part) because the writer clearly lacked intelligence to count the cannon balls! It is clear that the cannon balls on the road in the FIRST photograph are simply gone. The balls in the ditch on the side of the road remain undisturbed. IF the balls were brought out onto the road, would not logic suggest they came from a location closes to the road? This is aside from the consideration that the suggestion is that Fenton and his assistant moved dozens of what look like at least 9 and 12 pound balls onto the road, not a task for the faint hearted (literally). It was common practice to harvest the balls since invention of artillery, and in any case, the dead and wounded could not be collected ( and the discarded equipment, saddles, etc.) until the road could be cleared. It is unlikely that pictures of this were taken because they were (until ACW) considered in bad taste, and because collection of cannon balls was so mundane a task for the time, it probably was not considered newsworthy. The landscape photograph was however considered an absolute necessity because it could be used to create lithographs for the printed publications. Consider for example the lithographic print of the Bay of Sebastapol (Vol.V, p.448) in Elisee Reclus's English printing of the Universal Geography (J.S.Virtue & Co.,London,1877?). Photographs existed of the Bay by this time, but the technique of including them in the printed books still did not exist. Much ado about nothing in my humble opinion :o)-- mrg3105 mrg3105 00:32, 28 January 2008 (UTC) PS. looking at the photographs again it is clear that some cannon balls were in fact either not fired on the day, or did not come from a cannon, but a howitzer because they are semi-embedded in the soil, even in the harder compacted road surface, suggesting this either happened earlier with the ball sinking in the soil softened by the rain, or that the trajectory was not the usual flat of the cannon (they bounced several times btw).-- mrg3105 mrg3105 00:44, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
Your
Featured picture candidate has been promoted Your nomination for
featured picture status,
Image:Capitol1846.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, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
|
Hi Durova. I got rid of the tongue in cheek intro as you suggested. Just posted a list of potential low tension articles. I can come up w/more candidates, well - maybe, if you tell me what you might be looking for. Thanks. HG | Talk 08:49, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
Greetings again. Haven't got much response on the polling for a low (or high) tension article. Still, there seems to be a budding interest in Israeli-Palestinian conflict. I wrote you a note on the IPCOLL Talk. Maybe we could set it up in some way, where a few of us try to resolve the live dispute -- yet encourage other project members to drop by and do low-tension improvements? Just an idea. Pls respond on the project Talk page when you have a chance. Be well, HG | Talk 23:16, 27 January 2008 (UTC)
jc37 has requested some help on a recurrent issue, and with your previous involvement with the problem, I was hoping you might help him out. If you didn't have anything to do with this, then my apologies. Oc t ane [ improve me 21.01.08 0854 (UTC)
Your
Featured picture candidate has been promoted Your nomination for
featured picture status,
Image:SanFrancisco1851a.jpg, gained a consensus of support, and has been promoted. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at
Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates.
jjron (
talk)
16:35, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
|
Nice edit job too, but you only get one of these; I've credited your edits on the FP page though. -- jjron ( talk) 16:35, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
Hey, just wanted to say thanks for all the work you've been doing on the WW2 FPCs. I really like what you have been submitting. Keep up the good work! Clegs ( talk) 18:06, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
Oh wow...just remembered this. Here goes;
Dihydrogen Monoxide ( party) 03:16, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
-- BorgQueen ( talk) 13:53, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
I have given a peer review for Portal:Textile Arts. I laid out five key points, using examples from five currently Featured Portals. Hope that helps, Cirt ( talk) 23:33, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
I think you have made a wise decision in respect of this. I also suspect that Jimbo's reaction was instinctual rather than reasoned; it's hard to fault anyone for being insulted when they've been called arsehole and worse - and I am quite sure that plenty worse has been said there. What I find saddest of all is that the problems seem to bubble up mostly in the admins channel, where one might expect a higher degree of decorum. Although heaven only knows why. Well, we can continue to avoid IRC together. Risker ( talk) 07:32, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
Hey, just curious if you're not awarding triple crowns at the moment, as I've had a request present for about a week and a half. By all means, I'm not faulting you, I'm simply curious as to whether there's a reason or extenuating circumstances. Cheers, Sephiroth BCR ( Converse) 07:49, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
-- BorgQueen ( talk) 15:50, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
As per your original answer to a question that wasn't posed to you. El_C 07:53, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
Your
Featured picture candidate has been promoted Your nomination for
featured picture status,
Image:AlfredPalmerM3tank1942b.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
03:41, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
|
Your
Featured picture candidate has been promoted Your nomination for
featured picture status,
Image:Waldenburg1945edit.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
03:41, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
|
Congrats! I'll keep my eyes open for any other possible candidates. BrokenSphere Msg me 06:31, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
Hi Durova,
Are you still mentoring User:Jaakobou? If so, you might want to to have a look at some of the recent discussions he's started (if not for WP:AGF, I'd assume he's picking fights) on Talk:Israeli-Palestinian conflict, namely here and here.
I was going to wait for one more discussion to take it to WP:AE for an opinion, but I thought maybe I should give you a heads-up first.
Cheers, pedro gonnet - talk - 25.01.2008 07:52
Being as perplexed as you, I'm having a hard time trying to imagine what sort of weird scenario would have to exist for this situation to arise as it has, assuming good faith of the arbcomm members involved. I started with a list of about a dozen scenarios. Upon carefully considering all of them, these are the situations where I believe I am assuming the greatest possible amount of good faith:
This is me assuming the greatest amount of good faith that I can find with as much bending-over-backwards as I can muster. In each of these situations, I'm assuming that arbcomm members are acting with the best of intentions, but in each of these scenarios I'm still left with a poor evaluation of the arbcomm members in question. If 1 is the explanation then we probably should get rid of the arbcomm members in question since they are either too overworked to be able to make reasonable decisions or they simply don't understand what's going on. If 2 is the explanation then there should at least be some indication that this is going on. An appeal to WP:OFFICE could be made or an arbcomm member could mention e-mails or the like that indicate to the community that there are issues that could not have been addressed by the RfC. Assuming this is the case, then there has been a dramatic misstep on the part of arbcomm members and they owe the community an explanation at the very least. Having not provided one in a timely fashion seems almost inexcusable. If 3 is the explanation then arbcomm has inappropriately expanded its mandate and deserves censure. Is there any other explanation I'm missing here? Because I'm really trying very hard to assume good faith and this is all I can come up with.
ScienceApologist ( talk) 09:35, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
I noticed no one had posted a follow-up to Alison's note at David's talk page. It's possible he hasn't logged on since the AN thread heated up. Probably we've all been surprised occasionally to see a flareup after we took a day off. Let's assume good faith. I've urged him to drop by the noticeboard as soon as he's back online. Durova Charge! 07:01, 26 January 2008 (UTC)
Sure, what would I have to do? First off, instead of combing through your talk page, I think it would be easier if all of the requests were in one subpage somewhere. (Could be your own user space, or project space, but either way it'd be easier if they were in one location.) Cirt ( talk) 15:08, 26 January 2008 (UTC)
Tell you what: for now let's keep the awards all on one page. You're welcome to write the award messages yourself or give me a report on reviews that pass and I'll write them - I plan to keep browsing the articles also, and to keep doing a share of the reviews. Let me know privately if some topic really isn't to your tastes and I'll do likewise, so we can both do justice to the nominees by concentrating on material we enjoy.
Nearly every message is unique in some way - I often throw in a compliment about the elements I enjoyed most. Triple crown winners are addressed "Your Majesty", "Your Imperial Majesty", or "Your Imperial Napoleonic Majesty" according to the award they've received. In the image caption I always include a link back to the awards page. Durova Charge! 20:43, 27 January 2008 (UTC)
Only four left to recognize at User:Durova/Triple crown winner's circle/Nominations - and I will leave those up to you. Cirt ( talk) 20:22, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
The Photographer's Barnstar | ||
For making many excellent cleanups and rescues of old pictures that would never have otherwise been considered for FP. Keep up the good work! Clegs ( talk) 15:48, 26 January 2008 (UTC) |
Can you please provide comment here? - Talk:Project_Chanology#Current_events_tag. Thanks, Cirt ( talk) 21:52, 26 January 2008 (UTC)
Dear Durova,
I see your comments on talk page for article Paul Barresi. A very abusive comment with vulgar words was put on my talk page from an IP who also put an abusive remark on the Paul Barresi article talk page in response to a remark I made about keeping the article within Wikipedia's guidelines. I also responded to this comment by putting a request/warning on the IP's talk page. A derogatory remark was made there as well by same IP.
If you look at the history of my talk page, Paul Barresi article talk page and the IP's talk page you may feel as I do that based on the word choice, abusive manner and bad spelling that this IP is indeed Paul Barresi!
Can you please take some action so myself and others will not have to put up with this vulgarity or be abused. Thank you!
Fuzzyred ( talk) 05:15, 27 January 2008 (UTC)
"The most serious assertion at this RFAR is misrepresentation of sources. I have seen no actual evidence to substanitate this. " I have now provided one example to demonstrate an issue worth investigating. Please see my statement, at the bottom. Jehochman Talk 16:28, 27 January 2008 (UTC)
Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Priapus statuette I'm not active on Commons, so you're free to do so. Spikebrennan ( talk) 22:25, 27 January 2008 (UTC)
Re: ongoing disruption of talkpage and ongoing AfD - please see my 2 diffs per WP:NOT#FORUM DIFF, DIFF and let me know what you think of this disruptive behavior by JustaHulk ( talk · contribs) on these 2 pages. Cirt ( talk) 22:55, 27 January 2008 (UTC)
I am REALLY surprised by this issue. I did not bother to read the rest of the newspaper article (second half and second part) because the writer clearly lacked intelligence to count the cannon balls! It is clear that the cannon balls on the road in the FIRST photograph are simply gone. The balls in the ditch on the side of the road remain undisturbed. IF the balls were brought out onto the road, would not logic suggest they came from a location closes to the road? This is aside from the consideration that the suggestion is that Fenton and his assistant moved dozens of what look like at least 9 and 12 pound balls onto the road, not a task for the faint hearted (literally). It was common practice to harvest the balls since invention of artillery, and in any case, the dead and wounded could not be collected ( and the discarded equipment, saddles, etc.) until the road could be cleared. It is unlikely that pictures of this were taken because they were (until ACW) considered in bad taste, and because collection of cannon balls was so mundane a task for the time, it probably was not considered newsworthy. The landscape photograph was however considered an absolute necessity because it could be used to create lithographs for the printed publications. Consider for example the lithographic print of the Bay of Sebastapol (Vol.V, p.448) in Elisee Reclus's English printing of the Universal Geography (J.S.Virtue & Co.,London,1877?). Photographs existed of the Bay by this time, but the technique of including them in the printed books still did not exist. Much ado about nothing in my humble opinion :o)-- mrg3105 mrg3105 00:32, 28 January 2008 (UTC) PS. looking at the photographs again it is clear that some cannon balls were in fact either not fired on the day, or did not come from a cannon, but a howitzer because they are semi-embedded in the soil, even in the harder compacted road surface, suggesting this either happened earlier with the ball sinking in the soil softened by the rain, or that the trajectory was not the usual flat of the cannon (they bounced several times btw).-- mrg3105 mrg3105 00:44, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
Your
Featured picture candidate has been promoted Your nomination for
featured picture status,
Image:Capitol1846.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, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
|