This page is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Thank you for your assistance. Sincerely, CNichols 03:46, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for you comment! What is the duration of the nomination period?

It's five days, I think. Regards, Durova 00:21, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

I've added a few references to scientific discoveries and the people who carried out these experiments. Is this a good start? Do you know of any other scientists or experiments I should integrate into the article?

I'm afraid this subject is quite outside my expertise, so I couldn't suggest specifics. What paradigm existed before these discoveries and how readily was the new finding accepted? Durova 21:10, 4 March 2006 (UTC)

These are relatively new discoveries and hence the history is limited. I'm not convinced that this will become a featured article now. I think what I'll do is rewrite the photosynthesis article which has much more diverse and interesting history. Do believe this article was a good attempt and a promosing start though?-- Miller 21:45, 4 March 2006 (UTC)

Yes, so much so that I'm interrupting my new article in progress Siege of Compiègne to give it good article status. If the nomination doesn't make it this time you can always try again. Keep up the good work. BTW, care to look at my FAC Joan of Arc? Cheers, Durova 21:48, 4 March 2006 (UTC)

I’ve given you a barnstar for your fantastic work and non stop encouragement. As soon as I’ve finished the photosynthesis rehash I’ll get back in touch with you. The photosynthesis article is a real mess at the present time, and is in greater need of a cleanup than my bedroom! Thanks again for all your hard work. Miller 22:45, 4 March 2006 (UTC)

Blush - thank you! Durova 22:49, 4 March 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for uploading Image:CUMB.jpg. The image page currently doesn't specify who created the image, so the copyright status is therefore unclear. If you have not created the image yourself then you need to argue that we have the right to use the image on Wikipedia (see copyright tagging below). If you have not created the image yourself then you should also specify where you found it, i.e., in most cases link to the website where you got it, and the terms of use for content from that page.

If the image also doesn't have a copyright tag then you must also add one. If you created/took the picture then you can use {{ GFDL}} to release it under the GFDL. If you believe the image qualifies as fair use, please read fair use, and then use a tag such as {{ Non-free fair use in|article name}} or one of the other tags listed at Wikipedia:Image copyright tags#Fair_use. See Wikipedia:Image copyright tags for the full list of copyright tags that you can use.

If you have uploaded other images, please check that you have specified their source and copyright tagged them, too. You can find a list of image pages you have edited by clicking on the " my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that any unsourced and untagged images will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions, feel free to contact me. -- Carnildo 09:57, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

I received a note about this last week and wrote to the organization to request a new image with an undisputed license. Feel free to delete this one. As I stated before when I apologized, I must have been very tired to have overlooked this. Thank you for your attention. Durova 10:21, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for your notice, but unfortunately I've never done peer reviews before. I looked through the article, it seems fine to me. I see that you put a lot of work into the subject. If you ask me, I would vote for it to be promoted to the featured status. -- Ghirla | talk 14:48, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

Durova, would you kindly look over Jonathan Sarfati again? I'm sorry to trouble you, but I've reverted three times after FeloneousMonk is vandalising the article by making major deletions without discussing them in talk. Guettarda, who has been making false accusations against me (evidence they are false here; accusations abound there and in Talk on the article), has stepped in an rolled back this vandalism. Can you please review? I can't get any help from RfC or RfM, as no one is responding. Thanks agapetos_angel 05:53, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

Thanks Durova for your impartial eye. I know that they weren't on those sites for several reasons, none of which was related to existence of the articles. The person asserting that AiG is mistaken/lying/puffing cv is the one to supply evidence to the contrary, but I'll give a look again. It won't grind to a halt, but it's sad when people are not consistent by doing the very thing they complain about/accuse others of doing, especially when they are admin who are supposed to represent what is right about the community. agapetos_angel 07:21, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

We're all human. I know it's hard when an edit war heats up, especially being in the minority. I'm no expert on human behavior. Something clicked at Answers in Genesis. That doesn't happen very often. The best thing I can recommend is patience and politeness. And edit on a full stomach. Best wishes, Durova 07:39, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

That is exactly what I did (LOL). I went and had a meal, and when I came back, I immediately found the cites from a different website that resolved verfiablity. The mediation that you suggested has been denied, reason that both have not agreed to mediation. I am at a loss for how to resolve that particular problem. I know that there are thousands (millions?) of articles, but I picked some that interested me that needed work (and on topics I was familiar) and the AiG and Sarfati ones sparked something in me. I have been very disappointed, and will continue to plug away because I hate bullying (especially to push one POV on another with nastiness), and even more so by people who should know better and as I said, have the responsiblity to represent the community properly and with dignity. Thanks again, and I'll leave you be now :) agapetos_angel 13:11, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia has a review process for abuse of administrator privileges. I suggest walking the straight and narrow if you use that, in order to maintain credibility. My impression is that a lot of the cases that come there are sour grapes. Durova 17:11, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

Hi Durova, thanks for your message. I've perused what you've pointed me to & agree you've put in good faith effort to correct the article. Nevertheless, I still think the problems with the cat article are not severe enought to warrant FARCing. Regards, Mikker ^... 20:53, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

Did you know? has been updated. A fact from the article Isabelle Romée, which you recently created, has been featured in that section on the Main Page. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the "Did you know?" talk page.

-- Gurubrahma 17:00, 13 February 2006 (UTC)

Greetings, editor! Your name appears on Wikipedia:List of non-admins with high edit counts. If you have not done so lately, please take a look at that page and check your listing to be sure that following the particulars are correct:

1. If you are an admin, please remove your name from the list.
2. If you are currently interested in being considered for adminship, please be sure your name is in bold; if you are opposed to being considered for adminship, please cross out your name (but do not delete it, as it will automatically be re-added in the next page update).
3. Please check to see if you are in the right category for classification by number of edits.

Thank you, and have a wiki wiki day! BD2412 T 05:14, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

4375 edits as of today, still too low to move to the next category. I might consider adminship sometime down the road, so I'll leave things as they are. Thank you for the reminder. Durova 20:01, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

Hi, Here is a vote related to Western Sahara. Neutrality of WP is dying, please save it! Daryou 07:49, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

Hi. You voted in support of Alex Bakharev his previous RfA, and I just wanted to let you know that there's a second one at Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Alex Bakharev 2. -- Khoikhoi 03:11, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/User_talk:86.10.231.219

Whether it has merit is another matter, but ... Midgley 20:27, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

Dear Durova! Thanks for the comment on Copernicus. It favors the solution "no nationality in the lead" if I understood you right. As pointed out Copernicus is in the recent literatur most often not explicitely identified with a nationality, see E. Rosen, O. Gingerich or J. Hamel. At least Gingerich can be seen as an authority in this field and also the others are hardly influenced by any kind of nationalism. You allready mentioned that it is a difficult task to handle the nationality question in case of East-Prussia and the article shoul reflect that. -- Dagox 10:51, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

Thank you for your response. Yes, I suppose I agree with your summary. Nationalism as we understand it today was not an active concept in that region during the fifteenth century. Durova 10:57, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

Hi, I notice in your submission for FAC you say that Joan of Arc is one of the most frequently visited Wikipedia pages. Where do you find that list, please? I'd like to see what other articles are there. Thanks, Johntex\ ^talk 01:36, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

Joan of Arc is at 2292, right between List of dog breeds and Characters in Atlas Shrugged. This dates from October 2005. User:Dcoetzee/List_of_Wikipedia_articles_with_at_least_1000_hits When I double checked I was surprised to realize that this is a user page. The official site links to it from Wikipedia:Most visited articles. Cheers, Durova 08:27, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

I have been paying close attention to the Joan of Arc page and certainly have noticed your quality work there. In fact, it has inspired me to attempt to raise an article - Highland games - to good article status!

I expect to be getting back to some of the Joan of Arc related pages - paticularly the books pages - in the very near future and extending them.

JFPerry 02:25, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

Thank you, and tell me when I should congratulate you on Highland games. Durova 02:42, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the vote of confidence! If the Highland Games article is ready for good article status within the next 6 months, I'll be happy. Remember, I spent longer revising the Siege of Orleans article than Joan did in raising the siege even though it wasn't near as much work. LOL! And, in response to your note on my talk page, yes, I will add some comments at FAC voting. Very nice ones, also. JFPerry 03:00, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

Oh dear...now I've realized that it's taken me longer to raise Joan of Arc from a cleanup flag to an FAC than it took Joan of Arc to raise the siege of Orleans and crown the king. Durova 03:28, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

I just voted support for featuring Joan of Arc on front page. Also left a comment about Meung and Patay. One more thing here (from the very first paragraph) - it states that "Charles VII's coronation at Rheims . . . settled (em mine) the disputed succession". Maybe rephrase that, esp as it is in the first paragraph. Is it not true that several years more fighting occurred (Paris was only taken in 1437, for example). So maybe not completely settled

Also, it might have been nice to see a date (year) or two in that intro material. Say, "In the spring of 1429, the uncrowned King Charles VII sent her to the. siege at Orleans . . ." JFPerry 21:38, 5 March 2006 (UTC)

Addendum to the above: Under Career, it says that Joan "made the journey through hostile Burgundian territory in male disguise." Should that not perhaps be "male attire". It seems to imply some type of what we today would call "passing" behavior.

This seems to have been the only occasion where her dressing in men's clothes amounted to a genuine disguise. Her aims were well known to the Burgundians: before she cut her hair and stopped wearing a dress she had asked the duke of Lorraine to change his allegiance to Charles VII and supply troops. Immediately prior to the journey she cut her hair and dressed as a page. Her companions from the journey later testified that they traveled at night to avoid enemy patrols. Durova 00:45, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

Regarding the assault on Les Tourelles: the article states that the English "abandoned the remaining wooden structures" (you'll have to read it in context) etc. They didn't, did they? After the bridge tower fell, the English were still entrenched in the forts west and north of the town, which they only abandoned the next day. And did she really pull the arrow from her own shoulder?

According to Lucie-Smith, the English withdrew from those other outposts on the night of May 6-7 and concentrated at the Tourelles. It doesn't seem like a major point of contention and his analysis makes sense: having lost both St. Loup and the Augustins, the city was no longer encircled so the wisest tactical move for the English would be to concentrate at their strongest point. Have you seen the reconstruction of the Tourelles in the museum at Orléans? And yes, she did pull a very deep arrow wound out with her own hands. The rehabilitation trial witnesses agree on that point so I'm not sure why deVries overlooks it. Durova 00:45, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

I proofread the article from a March 3 printout and found numerous typos and other small corrections, but by the time I got to them just today, you had spotted most of them. That's about it for any suggestions I have. Good job. JFPerry 00:07, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

And thank you for all your editing and thoughtful criticism. It really helps. Durova 00:47, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

Great essay! I intend to add some text (on the Talk page to start) re the utility of restating opposing positions, and how (in this environment) it has to be done with extreme diffidence. The system's running a bit slow on edits just now, so I'll wait. Hope you like it.-- TJ 17:30, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

Thank you very much. I was beginning to wonder whether anyone had read it. I'm glad you think it's worthwhile. Looking forward to your contribution. Cheers, Durova 17:46, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

First partial cut.-- TJ 14:15, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

Are you sure it posted? I don't see the change. BTW - if you're interested - try a peek at my other mainspace page Wikipedia:Talk page highlights. It's humor. Regards, Durova 19:45, 4 March 2006 (UTC)

Thank you for your assistance in this unfortunate matter! Rklawton 19:55, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

NP. I stumbled on your vandalism report when I was checking on another user. In a weird way it's fascinating to see what this editor has been up to. Good on you for catching it! Durova 19:57, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

Peroutka is known as political journalist and historian of Czech lands. Joan of Arc is hardly his magnum opus, IMHO.

Btw, trying to read Mark Twains work about her, it didn't feel as his greatest work. Pavel Vozenilek 00:57, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

Thank you, that's about what it seemed but I wasn't sure. Twain's novel about Joan of Arc is his most uncharacteristic work - none of the sarcastic humor that usually makes me love his style. That said, he thought it was his finest novel and I believe he spent three years researching for accuracy. Regards, Durova 01:12, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

Hello, I presume it was you who left this message on my talk page. If so, I'm sorry to say that I have little interest in Soviet history in general and WWII in particular, so I couldn't be very helpful. On the other hand, I'm sure that Fisenko, Smapm, KNewman, or Mikkalai will be ready to help. Let me know if you need anything else. -- Ghirla ^-трёп- 14:17, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

My connection's been dropping sometimes while I write. Sorry, should have double checked whether I was still logged. Thanks for the heads up. Best wishes. Durova 14:26, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

Vaughan gives a rather lengthy account of the events surronding John's death (pp. 266–286, most of which is analysis of various documents and witness accounts). The general jist of his argument is that the murder involved the dauphin directly:

"Contemporary documents leave little doubt that the dauphin, who later became King Charles VII of France, was one of the murderers, and that several of his closest advisers, notably Jehan Louvet and Tanguy du Chastel, were his accomplices. Suppose John had been murdered more or less inadvertently. In these circumstances, perhaps, Charles VII would have done his best to protect the supposed assassins from opprobrium or punishment. But in what conceivable circumstances can he be imagined heaping them with rewards and favours, unless they were his accomplices in a premeditated crime? Yet this is exactly what he did." (283)

He relies primarily on a number of depositions (many of them, admittedly, made by persons on the Burgundian side), including those of Jehan Seguinat (John's secretary), Archambaud de Foix, Guillaume de Vienne, etc. If you're interested, I can try to summarize some of these for you.

Having re-read the passage in the article, of course, I've realized that this may very well be what you meant; but the use of "Armagnac partisans" is somewhat confusing here (c.f. partisan (military)). — Kirill Lok s hin 05:07, 4 March 2006 (UTC)

I'm glad you come to the article with that depth of knowledge. You're seeing something of the challenges that this subject presents. Quite frankly I sidestepped that debate and worded the section in terms that remained equally valid for either interpretation. Charles's rank and his guarantee of safety made him responsible for the breach, whether or not he was an actual conspirator, and he bore the consequences of that responsibility. The aftermath is what matters to the background about about Joan of Arc. Durova 05:40, 4 March 2006 (UTC)

Fair enough. I think that the use of "partisans" might best be changed to something less confusing—"supporters" or "vassals" perhaps?—but you're correct in that this is really an issue for a different article. (There's a certain tendency on my part to try and fit all of the relevant history into a single article, which probably isn't the best approach to take with a biography of an entirely different person; this is one of the reasons I prefer to work on more narrative articles.) — Kirill Lok s hin 05:55, 4 March 2006 (UTC)

That might work. I'll sleep on it. Cheers, Durova 05:57, 4 March 2006 (UTC)

Thinking it over, both of the alternate terms carry connotations that these men acted under Charles's orders. Thanks for bringing this up. I'll keep searching for a better phrase. BTW have I earned your support on the FAC? Durova 10:31, 4 March 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, I have no problems supporting; as I said, these are rather minor quibbles, and aren't really indicative of any problem with the article as a whole. — Kirill Lok s hin 16:52, 4 March 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for all your help. Durova 17:24, 4 March 2006 (UTC)

Did you see his contributions? short list on February 14. I know he's making useful edits now but before all he was doing was POV pushing by sending editors messages on their user page. I sent him many messages saying not to spam users on their user page. After the first warning, what did he do? He spammed another user on their user page. After another warning, he did it again. If a user blatently disregards warnings like that he deserved to be blocked, and he did. User:Nlu blocked for "Persistent spamming". User:Thue blocked him again saying: "Among other things, read your talk page and stop posting messages on userpages instead of talk pages. Also read WP:NPOV". He wasn't always the nice IP who sent you that message. The only reason I left him the last message was because I was keeping an eye on him making sure he didn't leave anymore messages on user pages.

(Note:When I left the IP messages before my user name was SWD316 posted above my new warning as Moe Epsilon; I changed user names since then)

Moe ε 16:07, 5 March 2006 (UTC)

I thought my message made it clear that I did bear in mind his previous actions. This kind of improved behavior deserves encouragement, not reproach. His contributions to List of notable brain tumor patients were legitimate and very welcome. Wikipedia's list on the subject is the largest of its kind on the Internet. Brain tumors rival leukemia as the leading form of childhood cancer. It's good to find anyone who helps put a human face on this illness. Durova 16:24, 5 March 2006 (UTC)

Aye, that's why I said above "I know he's making useful edits now". But as it stands his previous actions of spamming and POV pushing should not be encouraged. Moe ε 16:36, 5 March 2006 (UTC)

Unfortunately this may have scared the editor away from doing more to help the list. I agree there were minor formatting problems, but every one of this editor's changes checked out factually. It isn't easy to find an editor for this subject: many people are scared of it and the research is tedious. Please bear this conversation in mind the next time you encounter a similar situation: apply more carrot and less stick. Durova 17:03, 5 March 2006 (UTC)

Are you implying that his spamming should have been allowed? His edits to articles were fine but his understanding of the policies is what we have a misunderstanding about. Besides, I don't think he ever could have been "scared off" by last message because he left on the 15th and I sent him the message on the 18th after he already left. Moe ε 17:28, 5 March 2006 (UTC)

I am saying that Wikipedia:Assume good faith bears relevance. I am saying I would rather have had his post moved to my talk page or even left on my user page instead of deleted. This is someone I really would have liked to work with. I don't know whether your post scared this person away. We may never know that now. I see some editors who are clearly trolls. There appears to have been a window of opportunity with this one and that opportunity was lost. The unrelentingly punitive tone of responses at this talk page went too far. I'd love to see more of that diligence applied toward people who are only here to game the system, not toward someone who helps me expand a featured list I created. Please rethink your priorities and act with more encouragement when a bad editor starts to turn the corner. Durova 17:45, 5 March 2006 (UTC)

I've taken the liberty of moving it to Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Middle Ages task force; military history is sort of implicit in the name, and it matches the Napoleonic Era one more closely. Hope you don't mind too much.

Great idea, by the way! Hopefully we can get some of the topical experts here ( Adam Bishop and so forth) to join up. — Kirill Lok s hin 02:04, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

NP, I wasn't sure whether to call it that myself. Thank you for the encouragement. Cheers, Durova 02:07, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

Hello, Durova. Just saw your edits at Wikipedia:Selected anniversaries/June 20. Would you mind reviewing Wikipedia:Selected anniversaries/September 20 and Flavius Aëtius, please ? Thanks. -- PFHLai 06:09, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

Interesting. I've checked 3 other encyclopedias and none give an exact date. [1] lends support to June. 4 other sources including Gibbon give only the year. If you keep either date then June is probably better, but now that I've had a good look at the matter it might be better to de-list them both. BTW I had to make another change today where your list had a mistaken date for Joan of Arc and the Siege of Orleans. Now your index is missing an image for April 29 (the siege ended May 8). Perhaps more of these older dates need confirmation. Durova 06:38, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

"After Merman was diagnosed with brain cancer in 1983, she collapsed and died several weeks following the surgery at the age of 76 in 1984; she had been planning to go to Los Angeles to appear at the Oscars that year. On Februaury 20th, 1984, Ethel's son, Robert Levitt Jr. held his mothers ashes as he rode down Broadway. He passed the Imperial, the Broadway and the Majestic theatres where Ethel had performed all her life. Then, a minute before curtain up, all the marquees dimmed their lights in rememberence to the greatest star, Ms. Merman."

Therefore she may not have actually died from the brain cancer, which may have been effectively treated, although I know, and I know you know how devastating glioblastomas are, e.g. Lee Atwater; nonetheless she collapsed at home weeks following the surgery and died of cardiac arrest. Cardiac arrest simply means the heart stops beating; everyone does of that; I'm not an expert or informed enough to say she died of a "heart attack", but look at the case of Marjorie "Mo" Mowlam; she had been treated surgically and there was no public indication that the cancer returned; however she tripped and died of a head injury. Was the original brain tumor to blame?? Who knows??

Anyway I cited the source on the List page.

Rms125a@hotmail.com

Thanks for chasing that down. All the info looks good. I converted that to a footnote to give the table a clean presentation. Keep up the good work! Cheers, Durova 06:43, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

Great work, fantastic article. Truly amazing. -- Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 09:34, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

Blush Thank you. I'm glad the hard work shows. Durova 09:36, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

Shazaam! Congratulations on Joan of Arc's featuring! -- Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 08:03, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

It is so nice that someone who actually knows history (I don't know history) is checking up on these things. Thank you, Durova.
I fixed up the March 13 template and the St. Nicephorus article. Will continue with the rest later. -- PFHLai 14:43, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

August checked out cleanly. I haven't reviewed the rest of the year. And I should emphasize that this kind of scan only finds the most obvious mistakes. I spotted Joan of Arc because I'm the principal editor on that article, but the level of survey I'm performing now is something anybody could do. BTW I like the cookie. :) Durova 23:52, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

Hi there, I noticed this comment on WP:FAC. I think it's an awesome idea to get the most visited articles up to featured status. To that end, where can I find a list of most visited articles? Thanks, Hydriotaphia 16:34, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

You're the second editor to ask about that. My full answer is higher up on this page. Here's the link: User:Dcoetzee/List_of_Wikipedia_articles_with_at_least_1000_hits. Also, yesterday I counted that 42 different language editions of Wikipedia have an article about Joan of Arc but none of them are featured. This makes me think I should get in touch with Project Echo. Durova 17:15, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

Check this out: User:Durova/List of most needed featured articles. Durova 19:30, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

Exactly how does my statement "assume bad faith"? Creationists writing about other creationists, because they're creationists, is "bad faith", how? Are you asking me to assume that AA does have a desire to document the top eleven NZ chess players, absent any such behaviour or expressed desire to do so? Or, "overlook Mr. Sarfati's former championship" -- which I'd in fact argued to include (while cutting down on non-notable trivia like club captaincy)?

And, were you planning on informing me at any point of these characterisations of my contributions? Alai 22:59, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

The way those questions are phrased leads me to doubt any explanation will convey my points to you. Here's an attempt:

• You begin my asking me to explain a position I never advocated. Wikipedia:No angry mastodons I wasn't addressing anyone's views about creationism. Rather, I was addressing your strong implication that the discussion of Mr. Sarfati's chess career served as a pretext to promote a creationist agenda. That presumption of ulterior motive is bad faith.
• A profile of someone who achieves a certain level of success, in chess or any other competitive endeavor, normally includes follow-up information. The high point of the career establishes notability and subsequent achievements of lesser importance become relevant in that context. Wikipedia doesn't have a biography on everyone who every carried the Olympic torch, but it does mention that Muhammad Ali lit the flame at the 1996 Summer Olympics. It's as false a comparison to stack Mr. Sarfati up against a chess club captain who was never any more than a chess club captain or to class his current ranking as #12 in New Zealand with some other player who peaked at #11, as it would be to rate Muhammad Ali's importance to boxing by his loss to Leon Spinks. Durova 23:40, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

Regarding informing you of the quote, I wasn't aware that this was expected. I was mentioned several times when the case opened (although, to be fair, not by you) without being informed that my name had arisen in an arbitration case. As I stated when I first posted to talk on the case, I am unfamiliar with arbitrations, so I followed the same precedent I observed. Durova 02:19, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

After edit conflict -- including with myself. (D'oh.)

The way your reply is phrased leads me to wonder... but never mind, this could end up as an infinite regression. Shall we just say, the inferences you draw from my statement are not the ones I recognise as my intent, or as their actual implication, so you making a corresponding complaint seems somewhat ironic. (You also don't address my question about notification at all.)

My statement was about a) JS's actual notability being predominantly in the area of Creationism, rather than chess (and certain versions of the article veering away from this reality); and b) the motivation of that editor (indeed, every editor, at least to that point) to be writing about him at all. That's pretty clearly related to his significance as a creationist, and not some interest in writing about about chess more generally. An implication of a "pretext to promote a creationist agenda" does not appear to correlate with what I said at all. (What I had in mind was more, increasing similarity to dust-jacket prose, and AA being reluctsnt to acknowledge this about his relative notabilities.)

Your "false comparison" is likewise, nothing like any I was making. JS is very notable as a Creationist, being a bucketload-selling author on such topics, as well as an internet celeb, which certainly merits an article, which in turn requires some discussion of his prowess -- and distinctly lesser notability -- as a chess player. He's not so notable as a chess player that he would ordinarily have an article purely on him as such, and I see no reason to include every possible fact about him as a chess player, out of proportion to actual notability.

At any rate, if your evidence on the RFAr page stands as is, I shall feel compelled to respond to dispute your assertions about my comment. I was rather hoping to keep out of the whole mess, personally, going as it largely does to "does privacy policy completely trump autobiography concerns", about which I have opinions, but little direct involvement. I'd like to ask you to withdraw them, or at least, to rephrase. Alai 02:32, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

Thank you for the explanation about notification. Perhaps you were simply using me to illustrate a large point, but by my reading, it was in effect stating to the arbitaration committee that I'd breached a basic wikipedia guidelines, which is surely perilously close to making me a party to the case. Alai 02:39, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

I think I can illuminate part of this with a different perspective. I grew up in a chess playing family (where I'm about the weakest of the bunch) that was good friends with, among other people, Diane Savereide. She was U.S. women's champion during the mid-70s to mid-80s. In the States she was just another woman with an odd hobby. In Eastern Europe she was famous. People literally recognized her face on the street and stopped in broken English to ask for her autograph. That's the lens through which I view Mr. Sarfati's chess career. I find it quite plausible that people would search for him purely as a chess player, especially chess enthusiasts who speak English as a second language and haven't seen his books.

Respecting your request to refactor, I have a concern. These points are subtle so bear with me. Your original question of AA would have taken a different tone if you had challenged her about biographies of other past New Zealand chess champions rather than the other current top 12 players. You made that comparison again in your top post to my page although I think I'd already explained its shortcomings twice: once at article talk, again at RfA. So I found a third way to express that idea. Your response links the discussion of his chess career with creationism, an association I hadn't made. Indeed, your first post to my page exhibits a similar pattern: "Creationists writing about other creationists, because they're creationists, is 'bad faith', how?" Do you see how the sleight of word raises my concerns?

It is - if we're naming ironies - the kind of logical elusion I would expect from a creationist rather than a fellow evolutionist. It lends weight to the concern I did not express at RfA: that various efforts to shorten the discussion of his chess career or to obfuscate it by using only the full French name for FIDE have the appearance of POV - that these are efforts to downplay Mr. Sarfati's intellect, which (if supplied in full) might bolster some readers' faith in his writings about creationism. I'm doing my best to suppose that you're unfamiliar with the culture of chess and that you genuinely believe discussions of it to be mere smokescreens - that's the best face I can put on the situation and please correct me if there's a better one - but that doesn't inspire my confidence. You would have earned more of my confidence if you had asked why I take the discussion of chess seriously or why I'm sticking my neck out for people whose politics I oppose. Instead I find phrases such as, "veering away from reality." Do you appoint yourself the arbiter of reality? A person can be sincere without being honest and that, to be candid, is the impression I get from this dialogue. Please set me straight if I'm mistaken. Durova 04:26, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

Rather than reply to this in detail just yet as I'm rather exhausted, and much of the above is opening up further debate rather than closing anything off, let us see if we can establish at least a modicum of "consensus reality": I'd estimate that JS is one of the ten most notable creationists; he's something like the three-thousandth-and-somethingth most notable chess player. Does that sound about right to you? (Let's set aside for the moment which is the larger/"more important" topic, Creationism or chess.) Alai 06:27, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

I haven't ranked creationists for notability, but that community would tout any adherent with a scientific Ph.D. We can't seem to see eye to eye about the chess. A former national champion of a minor country is more notable than an equally good player from a more competitive setting. And 3000 people haven't tied Boris Spassky. Durova 07:22, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

Well, I am trying to adjust my eyeline here, at least temporarily... Certainly they indeed do, but there's clearly more to his C-ist notability than that. Yes, he's somewhat more notable on the basis of his former championship, but not orders of magnitude. I certainly hope 3000 people haven't tied Spassky, but if you aggregate the number of half-points dropped by all similarly (formerly) strong or notable players, or even only of ex-world-champs, I'm pretty sure you're thereabouts, if not well over. If you were compiling a list of "100 chess biographies", would JS be on it? 1000, even?

Do you at least agree that, on the basis on Wikipedia's coverage of Creationism, it would be very surprising if JS were omitted? And likewise, on the basis of Wikipedia's coverage of chess, it would be very surprising if JS were included, on the basis of his chess notability alone? Alai 18:31, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

No bones about his prominence as a creationist. List of notable chess players Durova 18:48, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

Are you suggesting that's anything other than "list of chess players we happen to have articles on"? Or that he's more notable than the various IMs, other ex-NZ champs, etc, who're not on that list? Or better yet: could you give me some actual assessment of your own of his relative notability as a chess player, if you disagree with mine? Alai 19:39, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

You asked if he would be on a list so I located a list. He's on it in two different sections, both under the heading of people known for their chess careers and under the heading of well-known people who play chess. As far as I know, that page wasn't edited by the users who disputed the Jonathan Sarfati article. I'm more involved in military history at Wikipedia and need to tend the task force I started, so let's wrap this up. I'm sorry if you feel I dragged you into a dispute. Based on our conversation I won't do that again or raise your name on the subject again unless you choose to post to the RfA. I'm going to leave what I've already written. No hard feelings. Durova 20:00, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

"Punctuation belongs inside quotation marks "this way," "not this way"."

Did you know? has been updated. A fact from the article Siege of Compiègne, which you recently created, has been featured in that section on the Main Page. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the "Did you know?" talk page.

-- Gurubrahma 04:16, 9 March 2006 (UTC)