I believe User:Pastordavid, with 1 FA, 4 GA, and now at least 1 DYK for Pennsylvania Ministerium qualifies for the triple crown, considering all of these articles fall within the broader "Christianity" field. Also, there are few other people I think are in general more deserving of recognition of any kind than this editor. John Carter 15:46, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
Perhaps you may want to review his indef-block status? Seems to be creating a splash over in AFD. User talk:Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles. Gamer83 17:47, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
Dear Durova,
I tried to participate in a few AfDs to show that I could do so without creating other accounts and in a manner that shows I have read the article and discussions. Instead, I've made efforts to improve the articles under consideration and have discussed civily with the other editors. Now, one editor accuses me of being disruptive on your talk page, because I apparently disagreed with his nomination of an article. I tried, after this unblock, to come back as a "changed" editor by working more to improve articles and showing that I can participate in those discussions in a good manner and I disagree with the gamer guy so, it's a "stir"? As for my talk page, one editor notified me that they nominated an article I created for deletion, I replied politely. And I responded cordially with the only other person to post something on my page as well.
Anyway, this is just frustrating, because I really wanted to show you that I can be a valid contributer and yet I still have to contend with an attack by someone.
Also, I did put the adopt tag on my user page, but I have not yet heard from someone to adopt me.
I really believe in Wikipedia overall and want to contribute. You mentioned asking if I would be willing to work on investigations. If doing so will help keep me out of trouble, then YES, please let me know what I can do.
And if someone would please adopt me as a Wikipedia mentor, I would greatly appreciate it!
Thanks for your time and consideration.
Sincerely, -- Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles Tally-ho! 18:13, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
Sorry about adding so much text to your talk page, but anyway, do you like the little "tally-ho!" I added to my signature? It is inspired by your "charge," but because I like hound dogs . . . -- Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles Tally-ho! 18:47, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
Durova, JzG is attacking again. I am not involved at all, though due to my contentious history with JzG, I had his user page on my watch list, so I happened to come across it. Now, I understand he's disillousiouned and all that, but is that any excuse for telling another user to "fuck off" and calling him a "whining twat"? I am considering opening an RFC or Arb case against him, because I'm frankly sick of the double standard that's applied whenever JzG goes on a rampage. What do you think? Attacks like these, even when directed at apparently contentious users, are poison to this project, and it really bothers me to see it happen over and over again... ATren 22:11, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
I meant to leave a note about this earlier, sorry for the delay, but ATren's original post was reverted by someone earlier. [3] Anynobody 05:39, 12 July 2007 (UTC)
For the record, ATren isn't much better in the way he treats us Wikipedians. Just look at the C++ discussion logs to see how violently he attacks people whose opinions differ from his own, as well as how many times he would edit the C++ article in a single day to make sure his opinion, however flawed, would be the one to remain on the page. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.231.229.158 ( talk • contribs)
:Uh, I wasn't commenting on who was right or wrong just that someone deleted his post in case
Durova didn't notice the summary in the history section. Were you trying to start a new thread, or a subheading to
ATren's section?
Anynobody 05:40, 14 July 2007 (UTC)
I'm not involved except for the revert I was explaining. I've moved my comment back to it's intended section and crossed out my last post here (Since Durova is now aware of this thread I'll leave it to her capable discretion.) Anynobody 00:45, 15 July 2007 (UTC)
I welcome the heads up about the deleted post to my user talk page. No need to strikethrough that statement, but the good faith gesture is appreciated. And to clarify for anyone else who drops by, I often recommend mentorship and sometimes do informal short-term mentoring, but I almost never tell someone I'd like to be your mentor unless we're discussing admin coaching. This was an unusual situation with a long history and it's completely unrelated to the current COFS arbitration case, so let's simplify things for everyone my keeping these matters separate. Durova Charge! 09:41, 15 July 2007 (UTC)
You have mail.-- Chaser - T 04:19, 12 July 2007 (UTC)
I seem to have stepped on a bit of a land mine when I got involved with an ongoing and long term edit conflict over articles involving Ireland and Northern Ireland related articles. One thing that I suggested in the latest conflict is that all parties be put on a collective 1RR and that they be held to a higher state of WP:CIVIL then is normal. Would this fall under the aegis of WP:CEM, or not? I tend to think not, because it involves more than 2 editors (probably more like 5-6 a side), but it might be useful to try to keep the conflicts from breaking out, over and over and over and.. well you get the point. SirFozzie 18:37, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
There is one thing about the case that puzzles me, and was going to make a motion but thought I'd get your thoughts first.
Given the nature of this particular issue, would it not make more sense to re-open/phrase the case to include all the accounts editing from the CoS IPs? By itself, the COFS account hasn't been a big problem. However, when looked at as a part of the others, their teamwork and focus are what cause the bigger problem.
I had hoped someone would notice that even a POV-editor like Justanother edits some other pages regularly, whereas the IP editors don't edit enough to make more than a dent in their Scientology dominated lists of most edited articles. Anynobody 02:34, 18 July 2007 (UTC)
Difficulty understanding the process has caused me to throw away the research I had done, however I found examples fairly easily by looking at the history pages of a few Scientology related articles. I'm also concerned that I may be inadvertently angering jpgordon and pointing out that the case is "off course" could make things worse by making it seem as if I'm having a tantrum or other childish response to the changes made to my evidence. Despite what Justanother and Lsi john have been saying the arbcom knows you are neutral and the idea seems more likely to pass if I shut up. (I get the impression even you thought/think I'm after Scientologists, which I'm not but irregardless outside observers know you are not.) Anynobody 03:29, 18 July 2007 (UTC)
I appreciate the feedback, and agree with your assessment of the postings on noticeboards in the past. You'll notice I haven't done so nearly as much as I had a couple of months ago, I had assumed bringing issues to the attention of a wider audience would be helpful. It did show me how things generally work here though, so it wasn't totally wasted time.
I wish you'd be a bit clearer though, I promise not to respond poorly, but sometimes you are too general in your concerns. For example, the back and forth, it was happening on my talk page. As a courtesy I make it a point to try to answer everyone that posts, I even reply to bots (or rather, the users that follow up on them). Furthermore he tried to make it into a WP:AGF issue, I doubt his efforts were sincere but I could have been wrong, I'd rather respond all day long to a troll than ignore a slim chance of coming to an understanding. (Personally I think he went on as long as he did to dissuade those who would follow up from reading it all, for example I doubt you did because if I were in your position I wouldn't either. On the surface it probably just looks like two editors who can't get along by the volume of posts, and I'm not implying bad faith by doubting you read it all. As I said, I wouldn't if I were you either.)
Lastly the subject of mentorship, I've never been blocked and the only on going problem I have to deal with have become problems you are now dealing with too: [4]. If I had been in that conversation, I'd of let it go (since it's not my talk page). You've been editing here so long you have the credibility to engage in prolonged discussions without impact to your reputation. Anynobody 06:34, 18 July 2007 (UTC)
Almost forgot, do I have to show evidence that the arbcom is NOT about Scientology? I thought it was assumed that groups/people/etc. aren't singled out for special treatment. Given the nature of some editors involved, it seems like a good idea to remind everyone of that. Anynobody 06:38, 18 July 2007 (UTC)
I can honestly appreciate why it might seem like I'm mudslinging too sometimes. If you look at my mud though, I'm either pointing to a past occurrence of similar behavior or making a very strongly worded warning/description about particularly bad behavior. Since things are so transparent here I strive to back up what I am saying lest someone come along later and point out something I'd rather they didn't. Which is why I ask for proof or an explanation of some kind, since I am trying and am aware of my imperfection I can't correct mistakes I don't know about. (By that I mean not just the existence of a mistake, but why it was one so I won't do it again.) Anynobody 08:22, 19 July 2007 (UTC)
<< Well that's good, Durova, because I haven't written you off yet either (smile). Thanks for speaking your mind clearly, though. That is a plus. Too often, in my experience, you seem to want to speak in generalities but I can tell you that such generalities rarely are a satisfying answer.
A bit about me. Couple things that I do not do; I don't attack unless attacked first (and yes, I feel that presenting a deliberately one-sided view of me in an influential forum constitutes an attack). I don't try to "psychoanalyze" my fellow editors (that is Anynobody's bailiwick) although I might point out what I think is the motive for an attack if I can point at something that others might well agree is a motive; I don't think you can ignore motivation entirely, I try not to overdo it. I don't carry on attacking someone after they have stopped attacking me and I am more than willing to make peace.
What I do? I accord admins here a whole lot more AGF than I accord others and I usually assume for as long as possible that they are taking actions based on their understanding of the situation and their desire to serve the project, not out of any ill-will. I have the utmost respect for the
WP:PILLARS that this project stands on, perhaps even to a
naive level of respect (and will
defend them even against their alleged "creator"), because I think that the basic policies of this project are all that separates it from the
Urban Dictionary or
YTMND. I strive to be utterly transparent in my actions and intentions here.
Listen please, Durova, I have walked through fire here on this site to still be standing and I have asbestos soles and a dead eye when it comes to firing hot coals back at attackers. I do not apologize for that. I do not apologize for that but I know that I can come on as a bit of a shock for people that have not experienced the Scientology-series, The Master's Series of Tendencious and Dangerous Editing. I like to make the analogy that I learned to play
b-ball in a
prison yard but now I am in mixed company; many of my prison "buddies" are here but so are a lot more people that never played anything more aggressive than 3rd-grade gym. When someone acts like they want to play "prison ball" with me then I respond in kind. Sometimes that is not what they really want to play at all and it was all a misunderstanding, they just came on to strong. Or perhaps I did. You can do as you please and judge me as you please. I have already resolved some time ago to address some issues in my own dealings with others here. Other than that, I am simply here to edit the encyclopedia and encourage and help other Scientologists to do the same. If you have a problem with the latter then feel free to address it at the arbitration. I think that you can address that without trying to make me out the "bad guy". --
Justanother 18:41, 19 July 2007 (UTC)
Dear Durova,
What do you make of something like this as an investigative tool? Useful, sexist, other, etc.?
Sincerely,
-- Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles Tally-ho! 03:00, 18 July 2007 (UTC)
Congradulations! Your SEO Tips & Tactics From A Wikipedia Insider article received a rave review - "one of the most interesting and best written articles I have seen in a while," reports Durova fan Ross Dunn in Stepforth.com. [1]
Perhaps there is a Durova article in the near future? -- Jreferee ( Talk) 04:46, 18 July 2007 (UTC)
Activities at Wikipedia are transparent, yet many individuals who have a professional reputation to protect behave as if their actions were guarded by an opacity the site does not possess. -- Durova July 2007 [5]
I need a little help on where to get help on this. user:EdRooney keeps adding a bogus finale to this article claiming it is in an 85 issue of the Chicago Sun Times. The finale was actually called WebTrek and this has been cited in numerous online articles and on the page itself. user keeps reverting all removals. What to do? Also, can we keep the discussion here or at the webster page? I reverted under an ip and now made an account to make things easier. Transplanted suburbanite 14:43, 18 July 2007 (UTC)
FYI, I transcluded User:Durova/Triple crown winner's circle into Wikipedia:Did you know/Hall of Fame. Also, I moved the Triple crown winner's circle information at Template_talk:Did_you_know#See_also to Wikipedia:Did_you_know#Recognition. -- Jreferee ( Talk) 13:30, 19 July 2007 (UTC)
Would you care to comment on whether User:NCdave is engaged in disruptive editing at Steven Milloy? Sometimes it's hard to tell where to draw the line between sticking to one's principles and plain contrariness. Thanks. Raymond Arritt 01:29, 20 July 2007 (UTC)
Journalists, critics and religious groups worldwide have often referred to the organization as a
cult. ( Behar, Richard (
1991-05-06).
"The Thriving Cult of Greed and Power".
Time Magazine. p. C1. Retrieved 2007-07-16. {{
cite news}}
: Check date values in: |date=
(
help); More than one of |author=
and |last=
specified (
help) )
When I tried to the above statement, I was immediately reverted by User:RookZERO. In my opinion, the editing climate at that article is awful. Go ahead, try to make any trivial edit and see what happens. What do we do about this? That reference is a scary read. Jehochman Talk 02:32, 20 July 2007 (UTC)
I saw your message on Wikipedia talk:Admin coaching/Requests and I'm intrigued. I'm already an admin but I'm interested in knowing what techniques you have for forensic Wikiing. (I made up the phrase. It is almost certainly a neologism.)
Would you be so kind as to take me on as a student?
-- Richard 17:28, 20 July 2007 (UTC)
Last month, you dealt at length with User:Bus stop, regarding some POV and tendentious editing. after weeks, he accepted the 'adoption' of Fred Bauder. However, Talk:Who_is_a_Jew?#Ethnicity.3F, is the first of five consecutive sections in which he continues to promote his own POV, without really acknowledging the numerous other editors there. I contacted Fred Bauder, [6] and he replied to Bus stop User_talk:Bus_stop#Ethnic, warning him from the course of action. This has not dissuaded Bus stop. He is unlikely stop, so I am asking you to intervene,, as you were significantly involved in his previous situation. Thank you. ThuranX 19:06, 23 July 2007 (UTC)
All right, I've opened a WP:AN thread myself. Durova Charge! 01:11, 24 July 2007 (UTC)
Hi Durova,
I was wondering if you could bring your judgment to bear on a contentious situation, at Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2007 July 19#Historic transportation in Oregon. In my view, the original CfD discussion - which is pretty much indistinguishable from the discussion here - was nothing like consensus, and the closing admin mistakenly allowed his own opinion to guide his decision. I'm tired of arguing about it, and want to get back to creating content…hopefully with some assurance that my work won't be undone for petty reasons. Any assistance in moving this to resolution would be much appreciated… - Pete 07:25, 24 July 2007 (UTC)
Your List of notable brain tumor patients has been renamed to List of brain tumor patients by User:Cerejota.
As you know, the issue of whether "notable" should appear in the title has been mentioned on several people-lists. Today, someone posted on Talk:List of polio survivors#Name change? asking for the word notable. When I wrote the section in [[ WP:MEDMOS#Notable cases, I made sure I accommodated your views on the name.
You might like to comment on the polio page. If you accept that "notable" should be dropped (and I'm not pushing that position at all), should MEDMOS be changed? Colin° Talk 08:18, 24 July 2007 (UTC)
Given this edit, you might consider to change it to Durova Charge (after careful consideration of the situation, weighting of all other possibilities, and sleeping a night over it)! ;-). Best wishes, -- Stephan Schulz 15:05, 24 July 2007 (UTC)
The Mighty Defender of the Wiki Barnstar | ||
After seeing and reading SEO Tips & Tactics From A Wikipedia Insider (found via the Signpost), I am awed at a contribution that will serve to educate professionals to aid Wikipedia rather than harm it. As such, I feel that you deserve this Defender of the Wiki barnstar. :) Thank you. Nihiltres( t. l) 21:02, 24 July 2007 (UTC) |
I just read your comments on the Wikipedia:Suspected_sock_puppets/Hardouin page. I realise that the case is long and complicated: to understand it completely, you'd have to read through (and compare) months of edits/reverts/discussion. The base of all this is that most of these articles have remained practically unchanged since their rewriting by the same author; most all reverts indicated, by various sockpuppets, have been ad litteram reversions to the same's former version, always only hours after corrections have been made. This, in taking into account the relative inactivity of the concerned articles, is too much to chalk up to coincidence.
Another particularity of the "reverted-to" writ ithat Wiki is the only "factual" place on the web that many of the "facts" within can be found. Aside from the fact that this has a bad reflection on Wiki as a source, one can consider the eventuality of seeing texts being reverted ad litteram to such an "original" form.
I can't expect you to peruse the entire page history of all concerned articles (nor do the research to fathom the changes made therein), but please do not be too hasty in your conclusions. Thanks. THEPROMENADER 22:16, 24 July 2007 (UTC)
Hi. After a minor fan speculation edit revert on Captain America, seen here [7], I left the following on the page of the brand new editor, User:ServantOfTheBear. Here is that welcome, [8]. While my edit summary was curt, I tried to make my welcome informal, short, and simple. However ,I recieved an E-mail today, which reads as follows:
Please do not ever contact me. You make me very uncomfortable. I do not and will not talk to strangers. Any further messages will be interpreted as a threat. I have forwarded a copy of this letter to Wikipedia. Thank You
I'd be glad to forward the email to you if desired. I wished to bring this to admin attention immediately, though. That single revert, and welcome, comprises the entirity of my interactions with the editor, and I want to get out in front of this asap. Thank you. ThuranX 05:00, 25 July 2007 (UTC)
Hi there. The sockpuppet case I had mentioned via email has been resolved - see here - as User:Oldwindybear maintained his innocence but agreed to leave and resign the sysop bit. If you want to see a model example of what every suspected sockpuppet report would look like in an ideal world, take a look at this (you may have done so already). Extremely impressive. MastCell Talk 17:37, 25 July 2007 (UTC)
See this edit: [9]. Best, -- Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles Tally-ho! 22:18, 25 July 2007 (UTC)
Hi there Durova. First off, please don't take any of what follows as a personal attack - I recognise your longterm contribution to Wikipedia and congratulate you on that. In regards to your listing of The_Null_Device on WP:RFCU, I can tell you the outcome long before they can;
For a little bit of background - we (myself, The_Null_Device, JohnMc, EvanC, DoctorJBeam, others) are all users of Railpage (the site) and are interested in maintaining the article on Wikipedia. Tezza1 is a 'personality' from the Usenet group aus.rail, and is a very vocal detractor to the Railpage site. Myself, and the rest of the article contributors are continually frustrated by Tezza1's unwillingness to compromise, reach consensus, follow procedure, or be civil. You'll notice there is an RFC open for Tezza1 that details some of this. I notice from your tone in the RFCU that you've somehow gotten the idea that Tezza is the underdog, and we're the disruptive ones, however I assure you that if you read the talk page, and check the history of the article - you'll find that it's simply not the case. The reality is that Tezza1 is attracting sockpuppets from aus.rail to vandalize the article, and is attempting to make the process of article improvement as difficult as possible for the rest of us for the simple fact that he was once ejected from the site for breach of site policy. You can see that the sockpuppets by and large agree with him, and are intent on wasting wikipedian's time - why else would Tezza1 list the article for Speedy Deletion straight after it was last unprotected after the third AfD, and when that was reverted by an impartial party, sockpuppets immediately turned up to carry on his work? I hope that you will take that I have said into consideration, and I trust that this will be backed up by the results of the RFCU when it comes through. All the best. 59.167.77.190 05:28, 26 July 2007 (UTC)
Yes, the dispute is all about a short sentence in the little top right conner stating the site being "commercial", I base these beliefs because the subject the article is about is a privately owned corporation [15], the organization is clearly not a transparent non profit community organisaton as defined by the Australian Government [16] and yet asks for donations. A non-informed person (the man off the street) may be misled thinking the organization is a non profit based entity after reading the article. We have no evidence apart for users comments that the site is not commercial, and according to encyclopedic standards we have to assume that it is based on documentary evidence [17] [18]. I have argued my case on the talk page, requesting other users to prove otherwise with hard evidence of its non profit status. To this date they have not.I have even tried to reach some middle ground [19] by posting "Commercial? Yes, free membership, voluntary payment for service" - what is wrong with that?.
I'm starting to think to let them go adding vanity, someone else will object.
As for sock-puppets, I couldn't care less about what they do, but I do have to wonder why user 59.167.77.190 is so passionate and vigorous in his debate, and is yet to register as a user. Tezza1 11:00, 26 July 2007 (UTC)
I did make a comment on the 23rd of July about COI. "but I was hoping some common sense would prevail and the persons concerned would own up and disclose their COI. There is nothing wrong editing an article if you have a COI - the most recent Wiki Editor pls note!!! But please read the guidelines" [20]. Aside from the "commercial" dispute, up until the editing "flood" which occurred on the 23rd July, there has been relative peace in the Railpage article. The user "the null device" has been noticeably absent in posting up until the 23rd of July [21]. I could be wrong, but I believe the recent flood of edits may have been some sort of organized blocking strategy after my request for Peer review, and comments by user Evan_C like this don't help [22].
I've had some support [23] [24], and this article has attracted other administrators attention with the placement of tags over questionable content as well well [25] [26]. I've also noticed if you look closely at users comments when the article has been listed for deletion, some too have concerns over article content [27], [28].
I'm a relatively new user here, and I have made mistakes along the way. But I'm starting to think my objective view (right or wrong), has been a useless exercise, I'm going to let these guys have their way from now on. My post to Brad Partick, was for him just to provide an opinion on the article content as I believe his comments [29] seemed to ring true here. I have no real objection, to the existence of an Railpage article if it meets the guidelines for inclusion here, only its content. Recent edits mentioning, "biggest", "best or largest", weak referencing, organizations, hosting companies, and individuals involved in the operation, I believe have no place in the article. I feel if a large multinational fast food chain had written an article in the same manner as what the Railpage article is turning into, editors and administrators would be jumping on it like a ton of bricks. Tezza1 20:56, 26 July 2007 (UTC)
I concur with 59.167.77.190's comments at the top of this section. I will also state categorically that I am not Doctorjbeam or any of the SPAs mentioned in the RFCU. My own IP is not static but it's certainly not any of the others in the RFCU, which trace mainly to East Asia. In response to Tezza1, being a regular reader of a site is not a COI. If it was then I wouldn't be able to edit The Australian. Comparing a railfan hobby web site with a multinational fast food chain is simply ludicrous. The Null Device 00:41, 27 July 2007 (UTC)
As I indicated before, I'm a novice user here and I'm pretty disgusted about the whole thing. I don't know all the rules and procedures. I believe that individuals who have a definite COI should disclose it first or refrain from editing and discussion where they could face accusations of COI. If policy allows individuals to continue and behave like I have tried to demonstrate and does not permit reporting, then I'm very surprised and apologize. You also should delete my request form the COI noticeboard Tezza1 22:52, 27 July 2007 (UTC)
Durova,
Until my previous request is done, I've deleted the information from the COI noticeboard and put up an apology. Tezza1 22:38, 27 July 2007 (UTC)
I'm trying to learn, and in the process I have discovered a flaw in Wikipedia, which you would probably know already by reading comments made in media articles published elsewhere. As I've indicated before I strongly suspect there is a lot more to the recent editing flood than some of the users (who seem to be official staff or have direct business relationships) are willing to admit. Does Wikipedia have an official policy and investigation procedures where there is suspicion of this activity? If there is where do I go to lodge a complaint? Is there an official policy? I've done a quick Google search and I've discovered that this is a major problem - which also comes back to the points raised by user Brad Patrick. Maybe it would be appropriate to warn the individual privately and other users of WP:COI and the guidelines on the Railpage talk page again? As I won't be entering that arena again.
Tezza1 00:44, 28 July 2007 (UTC)
Durova, I'm no longer involved in editing the Railpage article, but I've resubmitted my post [30]to the COI noticeboard according to guidelines. I've only used information which has been sourced from the users talk page or from the article. The allegations have been made without naming the individual. I've also have a list of others suspected of having a COI with regards to the Railpage article. I can PM them too you for investigation, but on your page I seem to have read that you no longer do investigations. Tezza1 17:14, 18 August 2007 (UTC)
I would prefer if you DIDN'T characterise a fellow admin's comments as trolling when they were clearly meant in jest. [31] Viridae Talk 08:01, 26 July 2007 (UTC)
This is troublesome [32], as is [33]. I think User:Vegas4Now should be indef blocked. Jehochman Talk 21:58, 26 July 2007 (UTC)
Hello!
I am an English teacher in Toluca Mexico, and my students will be contributing to Wikipedia as the focus of their Fall 2007 English class. These are highly-advanced, uni-level students. I have gotten an overwhelming response from the Wikipedia community and one of the things I learned yesterday was about your support for class assignments like mine. Richardusr set up a page for me at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:School_and_university_projects/ITESM_Campus_Toluca/Mentors and I am still learning how to work all this stuff out.
I would appreciate any help and advice you can give me!
Thelmadatter 13:51, 27 July 2007 (UTC)Thelmadatter
Hello Durova:
I need a phone call from you regarding the statements about biography information being deleted involving Matthew Hill and David Davis.
I am working out of my house right now, but I expect to be in the office on Monday.
Hank Hayes Kingsport Times-News
The featured list "cultural depictions of Joan of Arc" has been nominated for removal. I am informing you about this, since you were the one who nominated this list at WP:FLC.-- Crzy cheetah 23:59, 27 July 2007 (UTC)
I went to the Banning Policy page and you had not posted. When you do, let me know.-- Fahrenheit451 00:47, 28 July 2007 (UTC)
Check out my proposed rewording.-- Fahrenheit451 01:38, 28 July 2007 (UTC)
Durova, keep up the good work. Navou banter 00:50, 28 July 2007 (UTC)
What WP:SSP work were you referring to here? I don't see any such edits. — Wknight94 ( talk) 01:17, 28 July 2007 (UTC)
Personally I think the intelligence claims is a load of bollocks (and I do care about Lockerbie, the worst terrorist outrage in my country ever) but anyway I reverted you cos I think the regulars are going to know anyway, if they are doing their job, and I'm up for protecting this admin the best I can, SqueakBox 01:22, 28 July 2007 (UTC)
Hi Durova. Like you, I hate it when we lose (potentially) useful contributors. How could we cook something up that would enable Bus Stop's return without it causing disruption? (NB I suspect that banning from all Jewish/Judaism articles is as good as a site ban anyway for that user.) Perhaps I'm excessively optimistic, but I hope that Bus Stop can now see clearly how exasperated the community has become and that an indefblock is decidedly unpleasant... -- Dweller 08:07, 29 July 2007 (UTC)
Hi, I'm GorillaWarfare and am hoping to receive some coaching to become an admin. If you'd like to coach me, please leave a message on my talk page. You can see my edit count here but don't be surprised when you see that I have 25 edits. That is because I recently forgot the password to my old account, User:Theunicyclegirl. Here is my edit count from my old account. I almost have 2000 edits. I frequently revert vandalism by watching Lupin's filtered RCs. I also like to expand stubs, particularly those relating to cats or dogs. I am very good with user warning templates and speedy deletion templates. I sometimes respond on AFD. I was intrigued by your description on the admin coaches page and so I thought I'd check it out. Not sure if this is for me, but it sounds pretty interesting. ;D Thanks for considering me! -- GorillaWarfare talk 17:04, 29 July 2007 (UTC)
Thank you for looking in at Talk:Straw-bale construction. The attempt to conduct a poll has long since been moot and I had ceased editing the page. Further action is needed, IMO, but I will await your further comments. Sunray 17:36, 29 July 2007 (UTC)
Can you double check my work at WP:RFPP? Warm regards, Navou banter 18:22, 29 July 2007 (UTC)
(outdent) A little harder than I thought. Perhaps I need to just hash my next DYK candidate on paper, before I put it here. Whats your style? Navou banter 02:02, 1 August 2007 (UTC)
Thanks for your support of my successful RfA. I value your perspective, so it was nice to see.
On a somewhat related note I'm interested in your "complex investigations" work. I know a bit about networking and tracing IPs, and after grading a few thousand term papers one gains a sense for when things don't smell right. Raymond Arritt 02:14, 30 July 2007 (UTC)
Welcome to Wikipedia. We invite everyone to contribute constructively to the encyclopedia. However, the external links you added to the page Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard do not comply with our guidelines for external links. Wikipedia is not a mere directory of links; nor should it be used for advertising or promotion. Since Wikipedia uses nofollow tags, external links do not alter search engine rankings. If you feel the link should be added to the article, then please discuss it on the article's talk page before reinserting it. Please take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. I am also concerned about a potential confict of interest; please document your affiliation with www.pahle.com on the talk page.
OK, enough, I'm loopy from lack of sleep and am going to bed. -- barneca ( talk) 03:15, 31 July 2007 (UTC)
I have a couple editors who I've been speaking to, both of whom have agreed to undergo community enforceable mediation. Do you have anyone currently available to take this? I think it would be a good application of the process (see my talk for more details, the civility there's broken down quite a bit over a long period of time, and I don't think some remedies against edit-warring and personal attacks would be out of order). If you do, would be much appreciated, it would be terribly wasteful for this to end up in arbitration, but it's heading that way if something else doesn't get done. Seraphimblade Talk to me 05:23, 31 July 2007 (UTC)
Please see this diff. ( [34]). Wish me luck. -- Dweller 13:57, 31 July 2007 (UTC)
I have left you a message at Commons. For legal purposes you should confirm the licensing changes I have made to an image you uploaded were what you intended. All the best, - Nard 23:26, 31 July 2007 (UTC)
I would ask you to please intervene on the Amazing Facts article dispute. Maniwar is out of control. 64.21.238.49 20:47, 1 August 2007 (UTC)
Just regarding what was said in response to Rebecca (or at the beginning, not sure) at the RfA that there was some issue with the Australian Wikiproject (or tension between it and Elonka) that you investigated. Could you let me know what the issue was, or at least in broad terms what sort of issue it was? I must admit I was surprised as I wasn't aware of any, and on talking to a few of the other admins there, it's clear they weren't either. One of the reasons I ask is that it's not the first time I've heard a suggestion that there is a perception of something out there. Thanks in advance :) Orderinchaos 19:12, 2 August 2007 (UTC)
I've taken a bold step, however, I do not think I'll be able to repair these archives. Do the mizabot revisions need deleted in order for them to be repaired? Rather, I don't think it would be controversial to repair them, if it requires a custodian can you take a look. If not, let me know what I'm missing. Thanks, Navou banter 02:32, 3 August 2007 (UTC)
Thanks for the info, though I don't think it has much to do with me, does it. A guy agreed with my reasoning - good for him. He turned out to be a sock-puppet - too bad. But it doesn't really change the core of the problem - which is Elonka's behaviour towards the community during the past conflicts. // Halibu tt 10:29, 3 August 2007 (UTC)
(outdent) Well, I don't think of admin coaching from an assumption of let's go get Editor A promoted. The most important thing is that the editor wants it for the right reasons and the second most important thing is temperament. Some people make excellent editors and simply aren't right for the mop. The age factor works both ways: young people tend to be faster and more flexible at adapting to new media, while mature people bring more education and life experience. I think it's healthy for Wikipedia to have a good mix of both.
I'd be glad to coach you, Pascal.Tesson and Anchoress, if you're interested in investigations. The site really does need more people to do this work. The main reason I coach is to keep enough skilled people at WP:SSP and WP:COIN - I decided at the start of the year to make that a priority after the WP:RFI board fell down for lack of volunteers. I just couldn't do enough alone. A backlogged WP:CSD stands out because the numbers jump out at people. POV pushing and other disruption is harder to measure, but just as important in the big picture. Durova Charge! 22:20, 3 August 2007 (UTC)
I replied on my talk page letting you know I'm already in admin training with The Transhumanist, but I think I might take you up on your offer anyway. I don't see why I can't do both. It would be different aspects, so it would good. I'm currently writing a guide for bringing an article to GA for the VC. If you could help me with learning some specific admin duties, that would be helpful. As far as COIN and SSP go, COIN doesn't look at all interesting to me, but SSP does. I'm going there now to try helping out. Lara ♥Love 16:33, 4 August 2007 (UTC)
In looking over SSP, I'm no longer interested. It seems way to time-consuming. I'm not sure what to get into. I'll continue to explore the encyclopedia and the administrators notice board, because I really do want to help and think I'd make a great admin, but I'm just not sure where I'd focus my attention. As it stands, AIV, RPP and requests on my talk page are about all I'd have to offer, so I think it's going to be a while before there's an RfA in my name. But, if you have any other recommendations for someone more into the fast-paced processes, I'm definitely open to looking into it. Regards,
Lara
♥Love 04:13, 10 August 2007 (UTC)
P.S. I volunteer to archive your talk page... just say the word! Haha.
This IP is also used by that user: User:72.231.188.136 -- Fyslee/ talk 22:54, 4 August 2007 (UTC)
Hi Durova... I'm writing with a question about the indef ban of Pez1103. I help out a lot at WP:WQA and we recently had a report from that user here. I did not respond, other than to ask for clarification, because the report was confused and did not contain links or diffs. Then I noticed that there were multiple reports about that topic and about that user at WP:COI, WP:30, and elsewhere.
I was wondering, which report resulted in the determination to ban the user? I'm not disagreeing, just want to understand. We get confusing reports at WQA sometimes and often it turns out that the reporting user is the one causing the problems. I'm asking about this mostly to learn better ways for following through on future reports.
Also, this is the first time I've seen a long-term ban rather than a limited block. Is that because there were legal threats involved? Thanks. -- Parsifal Hello 23:48, 4 August 2007 (UTC)
(←) I noticed that you unblocked Pez1103. Thank you for reconsidering. I don't know the user, but I'm sure that he/she has learned something already from this experience. Hopefully it will turn out in the long run not to be a problem.
Regarding the possible reciprocal COI I mentioned above, I did ask Herd of Swine about that website. It turns out that he does run it, but I found his reply to be carefully considered and on-track. He has agreed to mostly edit the talk page and let others make any the edits on the main page. Here is the conversation link if you want to read it.
At this point, unless something changes, that issue seems to be resolved. -- Parsifal Hello 01:18, 6 August 2007 (UTC)
Durova, thank you very much for your co-nomination, and your steadfast support in my Request for Adminship. Unfortunately the nomination did not succeed, but please rest assured that I am still in full support of the Wikipedia project, and I'll try again in a few months! I think you already know this, but if you ever have any questions or suggestions, please don't hesitate to contact me. Best wishes, -- El on ka 05:57, 5 August 2007 (UTC)
Hi, you blocked this user for issuing legal threats. Since he's asking to be unblocked, perhaps you'd want to review the unblock? While I think this is was serious accusation, I think this was not directly a legal threat. I leave the final call to you :). -- lucasbfr talk 13:12, 5 August 2007 (UTC)
Durova, I concur that there is a WP:SPA issue with with Pez1103. But there is tendentious editing at the article even without Pez, by several others. I've been working to calm the talk page and bring more NPOV since our prior conversation. Even while Pez was quiet for a few days following the block, I had to step in more than once with reminders and to protect from strong bias the opposite way. Luckily, a couple editors there are also relatively neutral and that has been helpful.
While Pez does have a marginal COI, I don't think it is financial. I believe Pez sincerely wants to help the sufferers of the disease, though is clearly misguided about how Wikipedia works. Also, the article is not about the MRF organization that Pez works with, the article is about the Morgellons condition that the MRF supports researching. That is an indirect relationship to the topic of the article, not a direct COI as if it were an article about the organization.
At least one other editor has a reciprocal COI, User:Herd of Swine. He informally agreed to only minimal edits to the article and to mainly use talk page discussions. That's been working out pretty well so far. If Pez would abide by a similar agreement, that might be a good solution for the COI issue.
It would not solve the ongoing multiple-editor POV-pushing; for that the article needs more unbiased editors. Maybe an RFC or some invitations at related Wikiprojects would be useful.
Pez is seeking an adopter; so far has not found one, but is making a real effort on that. I was hoping that when Pez finds an adopter, they could do an article RFC, and then Pez might learn how how to accept consensus when it forms. -- Parsifal Hello 20:08, 8 August 2007 (UTC)
Hi, I need some admin help. I found a spam only account that is adding external links, creating spam articles, and adding internal linkspam to those articles. Could you consider this one for an indefinite block please. Edit history: [36].
I posted this to OIC's talk page in an effort to work with him, but one of his friends responded with a referral to AIV, which is essentially useless in a slightly complex case like this one. They'll want four recent warnings, and then they'll issue a short block. The net result is that I spend more time fighting this guy than he spends spamming.
Thanks for your help! Jehochman Talk 17:17, 5 August 2007 (UTC)
Hi Durova, if you get a chance could you have a look at WP:ANI#possible_votestacking_.2F_sock-puppetry_in_AFD. There's some proable vote-stacking and sock-puppetry at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kingdom of Hightower-- Cailil talk 21:18, 5 August 2007 (UTC)
The Military history WikiProject coordinator selection process is starting. We are looking to elect nine coordinators to serve for the next six months; if you are interested in running, please sign up here by August 14! Kirill 03:01, 7 August 2007 (UTC)
Click here. - Jehochman Talk 15:55, 7 August 2007 (UTC)
She is also a diligent copy editor of several articles. She deserves this award. I was going to give it to her myself, but I'm assuming I have to go through this process? Sorry, still not familiar with everything Wikipedia. I hope I'm doing this correctly. :) - Jeeny Talk 23:31, 7 August 2007 (UTC)
Now that you have deleted VPN, where am I to inform of an update to my Wikipedia interwiki and specialized knowledge test? :) -- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk 13:00, 8 August 2007 (UTC)
Hello Durova -
You seem to have a knack for giving out great advice for people who deal with Wiki's ( http://searchengineland.com/070807-085103.php).
Perhaps you should go to the Wired How To Wiki and give them some advice. ( http://howto.wired.com/wiredhowtos/index.cgi?page_name=use_a_wiki;action=display;category=Work).
Keep up the good work.
Henry
Durova, if you have time, please take a look at this and see if you can help out. Avidor has made what I believe to be a completely groundless COI complaint against a pro-PRT editor who has absolutely no history of POV pushing. When I called him on it (see that link), he once again brought up that edit from my distant past. This scenario has played itself out maybe half a dozen times over the past year, in different forums and contexts, but always related to the old PRT debates. I'm not going to respond anymore to that thread unless I have to, because I don't want to start another flame war. Any assistance would be greatly appreciated. ATren 23:33, 8 August 2007 (UTC)
Have a look at my response over at WP:COIN. Durova Charge! 00:18, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
Hi Durova - I imagine article protection is not done lightly, so I wanted to let you know I support your decision. I was starting to feel concerned that a full-on campaign of big changes was coming up fueled by both sides, and was wondering what to do if that happened. It was a relief when I saw that you protected it.
Pez has not yet been adopted, but a prospective adopter has been helping on the talk page already anyway and has offered to set up an RFC. Protection will help make a time window for that too. -- Parsifal Hello 02:39, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
Hi Durova. I left you a message on my userpage. Cheers! -- roy<sac> Talk! .oOo. 05:18, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
Please review my comments at this diff on User:You Are Okay relative to the ideogram sock puppet, and you'll probably see why your comment at Wikipedia:Requests for comment/DreamGuy 2 is just a distraction from the issues there; the newbie has since withdrawn, and it would be best if your comments didn't hang around to muddy the waters. Or talk it over with Jehochman. These distractions are just going to make it harder to resolve anything. Thanks. Dicklyon 07:57, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
Durova -
Thank you for intervening on the Morgellons page. I do not believe that there will ever be agreement on that page, however. I am neglecting my health and my child trying to keep the article neutral, and cannot keep it up. There are editors with an agenda-- to try to debunk the idea that Morgellons is a real disease. Herd has devoted all of his time to doing this for the past couple of years -- as you can see if you go to his website. (He admitted it was his website.) He will not allow an unbiased article. This article has been a constant source of wars. In the word of an unbiased observer: "I've seldom seen so much bitter, mean-spirited, hostile prejudice, without even a hint of justification for it [directed at people who do believe that this is a new disease]." Mukrkrgsj It is a full time job -- 12 hours a day -- to try to keep this article unbiased. I'm sure that was not the intention of wikipedia to create this kind of nightmare editing.
I am proposing two options to put an end to all this until the CDC finishes its investigation. Please advise what I should do to get a group of impartial editors to look into doing this. Thanks, Pez
1)According to Herd and Dyanega, the idea that Morgellons is a newly emerging disease is a "fringe" theory. Since the article is about Morgellons disease, and if the idea that Morgellons disease even exists is FRINGE, this article violates wiki rules by its very inclusion. Therefore, I am again asking that this article be deleted until the CDC investigation is over.
2) I propose that the following be the entire content of the article and that it be locked. It is completely neutral, states everyone's opinion. I even included Herd's addition about delusional parasitosis to make him happy. The sources are the Mayo clinic and the CDC
"Morgellons" or "Morgellons disease," is also referred to as "unexplained dermopathy" (skin disease) by the CDC. In June 2007, a CDC website asserted persons with this unexplained skin condition report cutaneous symptoms, including crawling, biting, and stinging sensations; granules, threads, or black speck-like materials on or beneath the skin; and/or skin lesions. Some also report fatigue, mental confusion, short term memory loss, joint pain, and changes in vision. The CDC indicates the etiology of Morgellons is unknown and there is insufficient information to determine if persons who identify themselves as having Morgellons have a common cause for their symptoms, share common risk factors, or are contagious.[2] Morgellons disease is not a widely recognized medical diagnosis, and medical professionals' opinions about Morgellons disease are divided. Some health professionals believe that Morgellons disease is a specific condition likely to be confirmed by future research. Some health professionals, including most dermatologists, believe that signs and symptoms of Morgellons disease are caused by common skin illnesses or psychological disorders such as delusional parasitosis[4]. Other health professionals don't acknowledge Morgellons disease or are reserving judgment until more is known about the condition.[5] A CDC task force will be conducing an epidemiologic investigation into Morgellons. Pez1103 11:08, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
I also wrote this on the discussion page: What no one will acknowledge is how much harm a biased article can do. If what the MRF believes is true, if what the reports that the CDC has received are accurate, Morgellons patients have a newly emerging serious, systemic, disfiguring and disabling disease, which is not only infectious, it may be contagious. It affects thousands of children. No one knows what causes it or how to treat it. It affects entire families. Try to imagine what it would be like to have a disease like that. Try to imagine what it would be like to be Mary Letao. Imagine what it would be like to have three children come down with a horrifying disease -- to watch them get sicker and not only not be able to get any help for them, be ridiculed for trying. A biased article increases the suffering of everyone who has the disease -- by making it harder for them to get the help that they desperately need. And this is a biased article, filled with cherry picking and weasel words. What if the MRF is wrong and this is all mass hysteria? The wiki article, by its very existance, supports the idea that it is real and prepetuates the "delusion." Either way, people lose, people suffer. Mary never asked for this article, she never wanted to be a public figure -- she is just trying to get help for her children. The only way to prevent this article from continuing to be destructive is to either get rid of it entirely or have an unbiased editor make it completely neutral and lock it until the CDC investigation is over. There have been constant editing battles. All of it needs to stop. This isn't a game -- it's people's lives.
I'd like to request you extend the block for knowing and intentional abuse of our servers, see bookchan postings and the diff from AN/I explaining the intentional posting. We could potentially thank him, though, since now we're cleaning out quite a bit of material from the servers we didn't know was there. :) ~Kylu ( u| t) 14:09, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
Hi Durova, I notice you AFD'd this page last autumn and I feel I've no option but to put it up again. Since January this year I've been trying to keep it on-track (neutral and verified) but at this stage I can find no sources for the article. Since March there's been no more povpushing or other vandalism but the COI behind the page's creationand its failure to meet WP:ORG's caveat that "secondary sources such as newspapers should not be trivial mentions of the group" (I'm paraphrasing this badly)make it seem like a definite AFD to me. What do you think?-- Cailil talk 15:13, 9 August 2007 (UTC) PS. I'm also looking into the COI editor who was a major force in the creation and maintainance of this page, User:My Wikidness-- Cailil talk 15:13, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
User:Eyrian is unilaterally mass deleting information on this page and is on the verge of 3RR violation on the article. He claims that independent book reviews, CNN, and official websites of pumpkin festivals are somehow not reliable sources and is dismissing my edits today, which I spent a lot of time on, in a rather unsettling fashion as well. I'd like to assume good faith, but I fear that this is an instance of someone not familiar with the topic of the article and possibly a deletionist who disagrees with me out of principal as seen at Wikipedia_talk:What_Wikipedia_is_not#Popular_culture perhaps trying to destroy the main article I contributed to Wikipedia, which I of course hope isn't the case. Would you please review the article's recent edit and talk page discussions? Also, I am trying to look for new references and find ways to improve the article, but every time I make a change, he just mass reverts the whole article again, regardless of whether any aspect of the large number of changes I make are valid. Seems almost frustrated as well in the tone of talk page posts. I'll hold off reverting it back again for another 24 hours, but I don't see any reason why the stuff should be restored and improved after that time. I await your and Chaser's opinions if possible. Thanks. Sincerely, -- Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles Tally-ho! 17:31, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
I am finding the Wiki Vandals in business as well. I recently started posting in PLM, BOM and other business disciplines.
What I find is software vendors or their proxies are undoing edits and driving references/links to their specific products. Freeformer seems to be this type of contributor and wanted to point out that not only is Wiki used for political mind-management, it also seems to becoming the domain for companies wanting to make a mark and drive ideology towards their solutions.
You probably already knew this, but thought I would share after reading your article on how to address the vandalism of ideas.!
Tks Dave
Regarding the comments I posted on the thread about CVU, I'd love it if you had some time, if you could look at a project I began after posting on the controversial TTR thread. Originally, I posted to just explain how both WP:DTTR and TTR had merits, but was asked if I'd write an essay on Template Etiquette. With help from User:DGG and User:DESiegel, as well as input from others, I began that project. However, the real reason I wrote the comment on TTR in the first place, was due to the concerns I shared over at the CVU thread on which you just replied. I'm now wondering if a "Recent Changes 101" (or some such name) isn't more in line with the spirit the essay was originally, and I'd truly appreciate any thoughts you may have. I've asked a number of administrators to review it, but the project seems to be stalled, so I'd like any feedback you could give. My apologies in advance if you're too busy to take a look, and I appreciate your continued support of the people who fight vandalism. Most sincerely, Ariel♥ Gold 04:58, 10 August 2007 (UTC)
Would you please glance at Thatcher's sandbox? I really feel that Dyaenga's comments towards me are continously hostile, continuously accusing me of lying, violating rules. It really seems over the top. I am honestly trying my best to follow wiki rules. I state my opinion on the discussion page (I'm not even editing the article!) and the basis for my opinion and she just completely lashes out at me. This happened on the Morgellons page too. I'd like an unbiased opinion regarding this please. (And Herd checking a morgellons support board and copying statements that I made there and putting them on wikipedia may not violate wiki rules, but it's just plain creepy and shows their intense desire to throw me off the article.)
I'm not sure what is happening with the whole adopt thing. I posted my request. I also posted messages on boards of people who said that they would adopt. I'm wondering if I'm missing something because I am not too good at navigating thru wiki.
I am grateful for Thatcher's involvement in the article. It's nice to have a referee. :) I am grateful that she took out the disparaging comments about Mary Leitao, but I suspect that they will be added back in time. As long as there are so many people with an agenda working on this article, I don't think that it has any chance of remaining neutral. I would not mind being banned as long as Herd and Dyaenga were also banned. Then more neutral people could work on the article and there were not be the constant, very ugly edit wars. Is there some procedure to follow to request this?
If you just at the enormous size of the discussion page -- two archived sections and the number of edits on the Morgellons page -- it's just ridiculous and certainly indicitive of people with an agenda. (I worked on the article Oct/Nov 06 and mostly took a break until very recently. )
I would appreciate your advice. Pez1103 10:51, 10 August 2007 (UTC)
I am Tom Humphrey, a reporter for the Knoxville News Sentinel in Tennessee and interested in the article you wrote for searchengineland that referred to 'blanking vandalism' on wikipedia entries for two tennessee politians. i have spoken to the press secretary for U.S. Rep. David Davis, who acknowledges that he was the person attempting to alter the entries. (He is also the brother of state Rep. Matthew Hill, the other Tennessee politician mentioned in the article.
i would like to speak with you abount your article. if you wish, i can do so without using your real name (though i would prefer to use it).
thank you very much. that is a well-done and informative article, by the way.
Look at this: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:National_Football_League_first_overall_draft_picks
look under M. See the problem? It won't allow me to fix it. Plus, there appears to be a bogus Manning page up (the title starts with ksy). Can you help? I don't know who I can get in touch with. Enigmaman 19:34, 10 August 2007 (UTC)
Just a word to extend thanks for commenting on the matter on the COI Board concerning promotion of a website by Kandisky123 ( talk · contribs). → Lwalt ♦ talk 00:16, 12 August 2007 (UTC)
Dear Durova, you may wish to look over and react to the following discussion as, unless I'm mistaken it pertains to an article on which you contributed: Wikipedia:Featured_list_removal_candidates/Cultural_depictions_of_Joan_of_Arc. Sincerely, -- Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles Tally-ho! 20:37, 11 August 2007 (UTC)
User:Ksy92003/Peyton Manning
They created a page of their own, but it's now showing up under all the categories that he was listed under. If the user is going to make a page under their own account, it should not be linked to or listed on official pages.
This guideline needs your attention. Some new editors seem to be muddying it, and I'm not interested to engage in any more disputes today. Thanks. - Jehochman Talk 13:46, 12 August 2007 (UTC)
I'm trying to add the proper coordinates in the upper right-hand corner of Cape Filchner but can't figure it out. What am I doing wrong? - WarthogDemon 01:54, 13 August 2007 (UTC)
I know you're busy but I asked to award the triple crown to User:Awadewit who had many featured articles, DYK, and Good Articles. Is this the right place? I see you responding to others who have posted later than myself, but not accusing you of anything. Just wondering why I have to ask for the award here, and not get any feedback. Why can't I give it to her myself? Please reply. Thanks. Short is fine, I'm sorry to be a pest. Is this the right place, or should I go somewhere else? - Jeeny Talk 05:15, 13 August 2007 (UTC)
You've been mentioned in a Knoxville News-Sentinel article. Nice work! Sidatio 18:00, 13 August 2007 (UTC)
Not sure if self-nom for the Triple Crown is the done thing, but working on the basis that "if I don't ask, I don't get"...
Hope this is enough evidence. Thanks in anticipation - an excellent idea for an award. I'm already thinking about how to get the Imperial Triple Crown: I have a "spare" GA, I've just nominated another article I've written for DYK and, if that passes, all I'll need (!) is another FL.... So that's my social life gone for the next month, then. Bencherlite Talk 23:51, 13 August 2007 (UTC)
I believe User:Pastordavid, with 1 FA, 4 GA, and now at least 1 DYK for Pennsylvania Ministerium qualifies for the triple crown, considering all of these articles fall within the broader "Christianity" field. Also, there are few other people I think are in general more deserving of recognition of any kind than this editor. John Carter 15:46, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
Perhaps you may want to review his indef-block status? Seems to be creating a splash over in AFD. User talk:Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles. Gamer83 17:47, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
Dear Durova,
I tried to participate in a few AfDs to show that I could do so without creating other accounts and in a manner that shows I have read the article and discussions. Instead, I've made efforts to improve the articles under consideration and have discussed civily with the other editors. Now, one editor accuses me of being disruptive on your talk page, because I apparently disagreed with his nomination of an article. I tried, after this unblock, to come back as a "changed" editor by working more to improve articles and showing that I can participate in those discussions in a good manner and I disagree with the gamer guy so, it's a "stir"? As for my talk page, one editor notified me that they nominated an article I created for deletion, I replied politely. And I responded cordially with the only other person to post something on my page as well.
Anyway, this is just frustrating, because I really wanted to show you that I can be a valid contributer and yet I still have to contend with an attack by someone.
Also, I did put the adopt tag on my user page, but I have not yet heard from someone to adopt me.
I really believe in Wikipedia overall and want to contribute. You mentioned asking if I would be willing to work on investigations. If doing so will help keep me out of trouble, then YES, please let me know what I can do.
And if someone would please adopt me as a Wikipedia mentor, I would greatly appreciate it!
Thanks for your time and consideration.
Sincerely, -- Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles Tally-ho! 18:13, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
Sorry about adding so much text to your talk page, but anyway, do you like the little "tally-ho!" I added to my signature? It is inspired by your "charge," but because I like hound dogs . . . -- Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles Tally-ho! 18:47, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
Durova, JzG is attacking again. I am not involved at all, though due to my contentious history with JzG, I had his user page on my watch list, so I happened to come across it. Now, I understand he's disillousiouned and all that, but is that any excuse for telling another user to "fuck off" and calling him a "whining twat"? I am considering opening an RFC or Arb case against him, because I'm frankly sick of the double standard that's applied whenever JzG goes on a rampage. What do you think? Attacks like these, even when directed at apparently contentious users, are poison to this project, and it really bothers me to see it happen over and over again... ATren 22:11, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
I meant to leave a note about this earlier, sorry for the delay, but ATren's original post was reverted by someone earlier. [3] Anynobody 05:39, 12 July 2007 (UTC)
For the record, ATren isn't much better in the way he treats us Wikipedians. Just look at the C++ discussion logs to see how violently he attacks people whose opinions differ from his own, as well as how many times he would edit the C++ article in a single day to make sure his opinion, however flawed, would be the one to remain on the page. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.231.229.158 ( talk • contribs)
:Uh, I wasn't commenting on who was right or wrong just that someone deleted his post in case
Durova didn't notice the summary in the history section. Were you trying to start a new thread, or a subheading to
ATren's section?
Anynobody 05:40, 14 July 2007 (UTC)
I'm not involved except for the revert I was explaining. I've moved my comment back to it's intended section and crossed out my last post here (Since Durova is now aware of this thread I'll leave it to her capable discretion.) Anynobody 00:45, 15 July 2007 (UTC)
I welcome the heads up about the deleted post to my user talk page. No need to strikethrough that statement, but the good faith gesture is appreciated. And to clarify for anyone else who drops by, I often recommend mentorship and sometimes do informal short-term mentoring, but I almost never tell someone I'd like to be your mentor unless we're discussing admin coaching. This was an unusual situation with a long history and it's completely unrelated to the current COFS arbitration case, so let's simplify things for everyone my keeping these matters separate. Durova Charge! 09:41, 15 July 2007 (UTC)
You have mail.-- Chaser - T 04:19, 12 July 2007 (UTC)
I seem to have stepped on a bit of a land mine when I got involved with an ongoing and long term edit conflict over articles involving Ireland and Northern Ireland related articles. One thing that I suggested in the latest conflict is that all parties be put on a collective 1RR and that they be held to a higher state of WP:CIVIL then is normal. Would this fall under the aegis of WP:CEM, or not? I tend to think not, because it involves more than 2 editors (probably more like 5-6 a side), but it might be useful to try to keep the conflicts from breaking out, over and over and over and.. well you get the point. SirFozzie 18:37, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
There is one thing about the case that puzzles me, and was going to make a motion but thought I'd get your thoughts first.
Given the nature of this particular issue, would it not make more sense to re-open/phrase the case to include all the accounts editing from the CoS IPs? By itself, the COFS account hasn't been a big problem. However, when looked at as a part of the others, their teamwork and focus are what cause the bigger problem.
I had hoped someone would notice that even a POV-editor like Justanother edits some other pages regularly, whereas the IP editors don't edit enough to make more than a dent in their Scientology dominated lists of most edited articles. Anynobody 02:34, 18 July 2007 (UTC)
Difficulty understanding the process has caused me to throw away the research I had done, however I found examples fairly easily by looking at the history pages of a few Scientology related articles. I'm also concerned that I may be inadvertently angering jpgordon and pointing out that the case is "off course" could make things worse by making it seem as if I'm having a tantrum or other childish response to the changes made to my evidence. Despite what Justanother and Lsi john have been saying the arbcom knows you are neutral and the idea seems more likely to pass if I shut up. (I get the impression even you thought/think I'm after Scientologists, which I'm not but irregardless outside observers know you are not.) Anynobody 03:29, 18 July 2007 (UTC)
I appreciate the feedback, and agree with your assessment of the postings on noticeboards in the past. You'll notice I haven't done so nearly as much as I had a couple of months ago, I had assumed bringing issues to the attention of a wider audience would be helpful. It did show me how things generally work here though, so it wasn't totally wasted time.
I wish you'd be a bit clearer though, I promise not to respond poorly, but sometimes you are too general in your concerns. For example, the back and forth, it was happening on my talk page. As a courtesy I make it a point to try to answer everyone that posts, I even reply to bots (or rather, the users that follow up on them). Furthermore he tried to make it into a WP:AGF issue, I doubt his efforts were sincere but I could have been wrong, I'd rather respond all day long to a troll than ignore a slim chance of coming to an understanding. (Personally I think he went on as long as he did to dissuade those who would follow up from reading it all, for example I doubt you did because if I were in your position I wouldn't either. On the surface it probably just looks like two editors who can't get along by the volume of posts, and I'm not implying bad faith by doubting you read it all. As I said, I wouldn't if I were you either.)
Lastly the subject of mentorship, I've never been blocked and the only on going problem I have to deal with have become problems you are now dealing with too: [4]. If I had been in that conversation, I'd of let it go (since it's not my talk page). You've been editing here so long you have the credibility to engage in prolonged discussions without impact to your reputation. Anynobody 06:34, 18 July 2007 (UTC)
Almost forgot, do I have to show evidence that the arbcom is NOT about Scientology? I thought it was assumed that groups/people/etc. aren't singled out for special treatment. Given the nature of some editors involved, it seems like a good idea to remind everyone of that. Anynobody 06:38, 18 July 2007 (UTC)
I can honestly appreciate why it might seem like I'm mudslinging too sometimes. If you look at my mud though, I'm either pointing to a past occurrence of similar behavior or making a very strongly worded warning/description about particularly bad behavior. Since things are so transparent here I strive to back up what I am saying lest someone come along later and point out something I'd rather they didn't. Which is why I ask for proof or an explanation of some kind, since I am trying and am aware of my imperfection I can't correct mistakes I don't know about. (By that I mean not just the existence of a mistake, but why it was one so I won't do it again.) Anynobody 08:22, 19 July 2007 (UTC)
<< Well that's good, Durova, because I haven't written you off yet either (smile). Thanks for speaking your mind clearly, though. That is a plus. Too often, in my experience, you seem to want to speak in generalities but I can tell you that such generalities rarely are a satisfying answer.
A bit about me. Couple things that I do not do; I don't attack unless attacked first (and yes, I feel that presenting a deliberately one-sided view of me in an influential forum constitutes an attack). I don't try to "psychoanalyze" my fellow editors (that is Anynobody's bailiwick) although I might point out what I think is the motive for an attack if I can point at something that others might well agree is a motive; I don't think you can ignore motivation entirely, I try not to overdo it. I don't carry on attacking someone after they have stopped attacking me and I am more than willing to make peace.
What I do? I accord admins here a whole lot more AGF than I accord others and I usually assume for as long as possible that they are taking actions based on their understanding of the situation and their desire to serve the project, not out of any ill-will. I have the utmost respect for the
WP:PILLARS that this project stands on, perhaps even to a
naive level of respect (and will
defend them even against their alleged "creator"), because I think that the basic policies of this project are all that separates it from the
Urban Dictionary or
YTMND. I strive to be utterly transparent in my actions and intentions here.
Listen please, Durova, I have walked through fire here on this site to still be standing and I have asbestos soles and a dead eye when it comes to firing hot coals back at attackers. I do not apologize for that. I do not apologize for that but I know that I can come on as a bit of a shock for people that have not experienced the Scientology-series, The Master's Series of Tendencious and Dangerous Editing. I like to make the analogy that I learned to play
b-ball in a
prison yard but now I am in mixed company; many of my prison "buddies" are here but so are a lot more people that never played anything more aggressive than 3rd-grade gym. When someone acts like they want to play "prison ball" with me then I respond in kind. Sometimes that is not what they really want to play at all and it was all a misunderstanding, they just came on to strong. Or perhaps I did. You can do as you please and judge me as you please. I have already resolved some time ago to address some issues in my own dealings with others here. Other than that, I am simply here to edit the encyclopedia and encourage and help other Scientologists to do the same. If you have a problem with the latter then feel free to address it at the arbitration. I think that you can address that without trying to make me out the "bad guy". --
Justanother 18:41, 19 July 2007 (UTC)
Dear Durova,
What do you make of something like this as an investigative tool? Useful, sexist, other, etc.?
Sincerely,
-- Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles Tally-ho! 03:00, 18 July 2007 (UTC)
Congradulations! Your SEO Tips & Tactics From A Wikipedia Insider article received a rave review - "one of the most interesting and best written articles I have seen in a while," reports Durova fan Ross Dunn in Stepforth.com. [1]
Perhaps there is a Durova article in the near future? -- Jreferee ( Talk) 04:46, 18 July 2007 (UTC)
Activities at Wikipedia are transparent, yet many individuals who have a professional reputation to protect behave as if their actions were guarded by an opacity the site does not possess. -- Durova July 2007 [5]
I need a little help on where to get help on this. user:EdRooney keeps adding a bogus finale to this article claiming it is in an 85 issue of the Chicago Sun Times. The finale was actually called WebTrek and this has been cited in numerous online articles and on the page itself. user keeps reverting all removals. What to do? Also, can we keep the discussion here or at the webster page? I reverted under an ip and now made an account to make things easier. Transplanted suburbanite 14:43, 18 July 2007 (UTC)
FYI, I transcluded User:Durova/Triple crown winner's circle into Wikipedia:Did you know/Hall of Fame. Also, I moved the Triple crown winner's circle information at Template_talk:Did_you_know#See_also to Wikipedia:Did_you_know#Recognition. -- Jreferee ( Talk) 13:30, 19 July 2007 (UTC)
Would you care to comment on whether User:NCdave is engaged in disruptive editing at Steven Milloy? Sometimes it's hard to tell where to draw the line between sticking to one's principles and plain contrariness. Thanks. Raymond Arritt 01:29, 20 July 2007 (UTC)
Journalists, critics and religious groups worldwide have often referred to the organization as a
cult. ( Behar, Richard (
1991-05-06).
"The Thriving Cult of Greed and Power".
Time Magazine. p. C1. Retrieved 2007-07-16. {{
cite news}}
: Check date values in: |date=
(
help); More than one of |author=
and |last=
specified (
help) )
When I tried to the above statement, I was immediately reverted by User:RookZERO. In my opinion, the editing climate at that article is awful. Go ahead, try to make any trivial edit and see what happens. What do we do about this? That reference is a scary read. Jehochman Talk 02:32, 20 July 2007 (UTC)
I saw your message on Wikipedia talk:Admin coaching/Requests and I'm intrigued. I'm already an admin but I'm interested in knowing what techniques you have for forensic Wikiing. (I made up the phrase. It is almost certainly a neologism.)
Would you be so kind as to take me on as a student?
-- Richard 17:28, 20 July 2007 (UTC)
Last month, you dealt at length with User:Bus stop, regarding some POV and tendentious editing. after weeks, he accepted the 'adoption' of Fred Bauder. However, Talk:Who_is_a_Jew?#Ethnicity.3F, is the first of five consecutive sections in which he continues to promote his own POV, without really acknowledging the numerous other editors there. I contacted Fred Bauder, [6] and he replied to Bus stop User_talk:Bus_stop#Ethnic, warning him from the course of action. This has not dissuaded Bus stop. He is unlikely stop, so I am asking you to intervene,, as you were significantly involved in his previous situation. Thank you. ThuranX 19:06, 23 July 2007 (UTC)
All right, I've opened a WP:AN thread myself. Durova Charge! 01:11, 24 July 2007 (UTC)
Hi Durova,
I was wondering if you could bring your judgment to bear on a contentious situation, at Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2007 July 19#Historic transportation in Oregon. In my view, the original CfD discussion - which is pretty much indistinguishable from the discussion here - was nothing like consensus, and the closing admin mistakenly allowed his own opinion to guide his decision. I'm tired of arguing about it, and want to get back to creating content…hopefully with some assurance that my work won't be undone for petty reasons. Any assistance in moving this to resolution would be much appreciated… - Pete 07:25, 24 July 2007 (UTC)
Your List of notable brain tumor patients has been renamed to List of brain tumor patients by User:Cerejota.
As you know, the issue of whether "notable" should appear in the title has been mentioned on several people-lists. Today, someone posted on Talk:List of polio survivors#Name change? asking for the word notable. When I wrote the section in [[ WP:MEDMOS#Notable cases, I made sure I accommodated your views on the name.
You might like to comment on the polio page. If you accept that "notable" should be dropped (and I'm not pushing that position at all), should MEDMOS be changed? Colin° Talk 08:18, 24 July 2007 (UTC)
Given this edit, you might consider to change it to Durova Charge (after careful consideration of the situation, weighting of all other possibilities, and sleeping a night over it)! ;-). Best wishes, -- Stephan Schulz 15:05, 24 July 2007 (UTC)
The Mighty Defender of the Wiki Barnstar | ||
After seeing and reading SEO Tips & Tactics From A Wikipedia Insider (found via the Signpost), I am awed at a contribution that will serve to educate professionals to aid Wikipedia rather than harm it. As such, I feel that you deserve this Defender of the Wiki barnstar. :) Thank you. Nihiltres( t. l) 21:02, 24 July 2007 (UTC) |
I just read your comments on the Wikipedia:Suspected_sock_puppets/Hardouin page. I realise that the case is long and complicated: to understand it completely, you'd have to read through (and compare) months of edits/reverts/discussion. The base of all this is that most of these articles have remained practically unchanged since their rewriting by the same author; most all reverts indicated, by various sockpuppets, have been ad litteram reversions to the same's former version, always only hours after corrections have been made. This, in taking into account the relative inactivity of the concerned articles, is too much to chalk up to coincidence.
Another particularity of the "reverted-to" writ ithat Wiki is the only "factual" place on the web that many of the "facts" within can be found. Aside from the fact that this has a bad reflection on Wiki as a source, one can consider the eventuality of seeing texts being reverted ad litteram to such an "original" form.
I can't expect you to peruse the entire page history of all concerned articles (nor do the research to fathom the changes made therein), but please do not be too hasty in your conclusions. Thanks. THEPROMENADER 22:16, 24 July 2007 (UTC)
Hi. After a minor fan speculation edit revert on Captain America, seen here [7], I left the following on the page of the brand new editor, User:ServantOfTheBear. Here is that welcome, [8]. While my edit summary was curt, I tried to make my welcome informal, short, and simple. However ,I recieved an E-mail today, which reads as follows:
Please do not ever contact me. You make me very uncomfortable. I do not and will not talk to strangers. Any further messages will be interpreted as a threat. I have forwarded a copy of this letter to Wikipedia. Thank You
I'd be glad to forward the email to you if desired. I wished to bring this to admin attention immediately, though. That single revert, and welcome, comprises the entirity of my interactions with the editor, and I want to get out in front of this asap. Thank you. ThuranX 05:00, 25 July 2007 (UTC)
Hi there. The sockpuppet case I had mentioned via email has been resolved - see here - as User:Oldwindybear maintained his innocence but agreed to leave and resign the sysop bit. If you want to see a model example of what every suspected sockpuppet report would look like in an ideal world, take a look at this (you may have done so already). Extremely impressive. MastCell Talk 17:37, 25 July 2007 (UTC)
See this edit: [9]. Best, -- Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles Tally-ho! 22:18, 25 July 2007 (UTC)
Hi there Durova. First off, please don't take any of what follows as a personal attack - I recognise your longterm contribution to Wikipedia and congratulate you on that. In regards to your listing of The_Null_Device on WP:RFCU, I can tell you the outcome long before they can;
For a little bit of background - we (myself, The_Null_Device, JohnMc, EvanC, DoctorJBeam, others) are all users of Railpage (the site) and are interested in maintaining the article on Wikipedia. Tezza1 is a 'personality' from the Usenet group aus.rail, and is a very vocal detractor to the Railpage site. Myself, and the rest of the article contributors are continually frustrated by Tezza1's unwillingness to compromise, reach consensus, follow procedure, or be civil. You'll notice there is an RFC open for Tezza1 that details some of this. I notice from your tone in the RFCU that you've somehow gotten the idea that Tezza is the underdog, and we're the disruptive ones, however I assure you that if you read the talk page, and check the history of the article - you'll find that it's simply not the case. The reality is that Tezza1 is attracting sockpuppets from aus.rail to vandalize the article, and is attempting to make the process of article improvement as difficult as possible for the rest of us for the simple fact that he was once ejected from the site for breach of site policy. You can see that the sockpuppets by and large agree with him, and are intent on wasting wikipedian's time - why else would Tezza1 list the article for Speedy Deletion straight after it was last unprotected after the third AfD, and when that was reverted by an impartial party, sockpuppets immediately turned up to carry on his work? I hope that you will take that I have said into consideration, and I trust that this will be backed up by the results of the RFCU when it comes through. All the best. 59.167.77.190 05:28, 26 July 2007 (UTC)
Yes, the dispute is all about a short sentence in the little top right conner stating the site being "commercial", I base these beliefs because the subject the article is about is a privately owned corporation [15], the organization is clearly not a transparent non profit community organisaton as defined by the Australian Government [16] and yet asks for donations. A non-informed person (the man off the street) may be misled thinking the organization is a non profit based entity after reading the article. We have no evidence apart for users comments that the site is not commercial, and according to encyclopedic standards we have to assume that it is based on documentary evidence [17] [18]. I have argued my case on the talk page, requesting other users to prove otherwise with hard evidence of its non profit status. To this date they have not.I have even tried to reach some middle ground [19] by posting "Commercial? Yes, free membership, voluntary payment for service" - what is wrong with that?.
I'm starting to think to let them go adding vanity, someone else will object.
As for sock-puppets, I couldn't care less about what they do, but I do have to wonder why user 59.167.77.190 is so passionate and vigorous in his debate, and is yet to register as a user. Tezza1 11:00, 26 July 2007 (UTC)
I did make a comment on the 23rd of July about COI. "but I was hoping some common sense would prevail and the persons concerned would own up and disclose their COI. There is nothing wrong editing an article if you have a COI - the most recent Wiki Editor pls note!!! But please read the guidelines" [20]. Aside from the "commercial" dispute, up until the editing "flood" which occurred on the 23rd July, there has been relative peace in the Railpage article. The user "the null device" has been noticeably absent in posting up until the 23rd of July [21]. I could be wrong, but I believe the recent flood of edits may have been some sort of organized blocking strategy after my request for Peer review, and comments by user Evan_C like this don't help [22].
I've had some support [23] [24], and this article has attracted other administrators attention with the placement of tags over questionable content as well well [25] [26]. I've also noticed if you look closely at users comments when the article has been listed for deletion, some too have concerns over article content [27], [28].
I'm a relatively new user here, and I have made mistakes along the way. But I'm starting to think my objective view (right or wrong), has been a useless exercise, I'm going to let these guys have their way from now on. My post to Brad Partick, was for him just to provide an opinion on the article content as I believe his comments [29] seemed to ring true here. I have no real objection, to the existence of an Railpage article if it meets the guidelines for inclusion here, only its content. Recent edits mentioning, "biggest", "best or largest", weak referencing, organizations, hosting companies, and individuals involved in the operation, I believe have no place in the article. I feel if a large multinational fast food chain had written an article in the same manner as what the Railpage article is turning into, editors and administrators would be jumping on it like a ton of bricks. Tezza1 20:56, 26 July 2007 (UTC)
I concur with 59.167.77.190's comments at the top of this section. I will also state categorically that I am not Doctorjbeam or any of the SPAs mentioned in the RFCU. My own IP is not static but it's certainly not any of the others in the RFCU, which trace mainly to East Asia. In response to Tezza1, being a regular reader of a site is not a COI. If it was then I wouldn't be able to edit The Australian. Comparing a railfan hobby web site with a multinational fast food chain is simply ludicrous. The Null Device 00:41, 27 July 2007 (UTC)
As I indicated before, I'm a novice user here and I'm pretty disgusted about the whole thing. I don't know all the rules and procedures. I believe that individuals who have a definite COI should disclose it first or refrain from editing and discussion where they could face accusations of COI. If policy allows individuals to continue and behave like I have tried to demonstrate and does not permit reporting, then I'm very surprised and apologize. You also should delete my request form the COI noticeboard Tezza1 22:52, 27 July 2007 (UTC)
Durova,
Until my previous request is done, I've deleted the information from the COI noticeboard and put up an apology. Tezza1 22:38, 27 July 2007 (UTC)
I'm trying to learn, and in the process I have discovered a flaw in Wikipedia, which you would probably know already by reading comments made in media articles published elsewhere. As I've indicated before I strongly suspect there is a lot more to the recent editing flood than some of the users (who seem to be official staff or have direct business relationships) are willing to admit. Does Wikipedia have an official policy and investigation procedures where there is suspicion of this activity? If there is where do I go to lodge a complaint? Is there an official policy? I've done a quick Google search and I've discovered that this is a major problem - which also comes back to the points raised by user Brad Patrick. Maybe it would be appropriate to warn the individual privately and other users of WP:COI and the guidelines on the Railpage talk page again? As I won't be entering that arena again.
Tezza1 00:44, 28 July 2007 (UTC)
Durova, I'm no longer involved in editing the Railpage article, but I've resubmitted my post [30]to the COI noticeboard according to guidelines. I've only used information which has been sourced from the users talk page or from the article. The allegations have been made without naming the individual. I've also have a list of others suspected of having a COI with regards to the Railpage article. I can PM them too you for investigation, but on your page I seem to have read that you no longer do investigations. Tezza1 17:14, 18 August 2007 (UTC)
I would prefer if you DIDN'T characterise a fellow admin's comments as trolling when they were clearly meant in jest. [31] Viridae Talk 08:01, 26 July 2007 (UTC)
This is troublesome [32], as is [33]. I think User:Vegas4Now should be indef blocked. Jehochman Talk 21:58, 26 July 2007 (UTC)
Hello!
I am an English teacher in Toluca Mexico, and my students will be contributing to Wikipedia as the focus of their Fall 2007 English class. These are highly-advanced, uni-level students. I have gotten an overwhelming response from the Wikipedia community and one of the things I learned yesterday was about your support for class assignments like mine. Richardusr set up a page for me at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:School_and_university_projects/ITESM_Campus_Toluca/Mentors and I am still learning how to work all this stuff out.
I would appreciate any help and advice you can give me!
Thelmadatter 13:51, 27 July 2007 (UTC)Thelmadatter
Hello Durova:
I need a phone call from you regarding the statements about biography information being deleted involving Matthew Hill and David Davis.
I am working out of my house right now, but I expect to be in the office on Monday.
Hank Hayes Kingsport Times-News
The featured list "cultural depictions of Joan of Arc" has been nominated for removal. I am informing you about this, since you were the one who nominated this list at WP:FLC.-- Crzy cheetah 23:59, 27 July 2007 (UTC)
I went to the Banning Policy page and you had not posted. When you do, let me know.-- Fahrenheit451 00:47, 28 July 2007 (UTC)
Check out my proposed rewording.-- Fahrenheit451 01:38, 28 July 2007 (UTC)
Durova, keep up the good work. Navou banter 00:50, 28 July 2007 (UTC)
What WP:SSP work were you referring to here? I don't see any such edits. — Wknight94 ( talk) 01:17, 28 July 2007 (UTC)
Personally I think the intelligence claims is a load of bollocks (and I do care about Lockerbie, the worst terrorist outrage in my country ever) but anyway I reverted you cos I think the regulars are going to know anyway, if they are doing their job, and I'm up for protecting this admin the best I can, SqueakBox 01:22, 28 July 2007 (UTC)
Hi Durova. Like you, I hate it when we lose (potentially) useful contributors. How could we cook something up that would enable Bus Stop's return without it causing disruption? (NB I suspect that banning from all Jewish/Judaism articles is as good as a site ban anyway for that user.) Perhaps I'm excessively optimistic, but I hope that Bus Stop can now see clearly how exasperated the community has become and that an indefblock is decidedly unpleasant... -- Dweller 08:07, 29 July 2007 (UTC)
Hi, I'm GorillaWarfare and am hoping to receive some coaching to become an admin. If you'd like to coach me, please leave a message on my talk page. You can see my edit count here but don't be surprised when you see that I have 25 edits. That is because I recently forgot the password to my old account, User:Theunicyclegirl. Here is my edit count from my old account. I almost have 2000 edits. I frequently revert vandalism by watching Lupin's filtered RCs. I also like to expand stubs, particularly those relating to cats or dogs. I am very good with user warning templates and speedy deletion templates. I sometimes respond on AFD. I was intrigued by your description on the admin coaches page and so I thought I'd check it out. Not sure if this is for me, but it sounds pretty interesting. ;D Thanks for considering me! -- GorillaWarfare talk 17:04, 29 July 2007 (UTC)
Thank you for looking in at Talk:Straw-bale construction. The attempt to conduct a poll has long since been moot and I had ceased editing the page. Further action is needed, IMO, but I will await your further comments. Sunray 17:36, 29 July 2007 (UTC)
Can you double check my work at WP:RFPP? Warm regards, Navou banter 18:22, 29 July 2007 (UTC)
(outdent) A little harder than I thought. Perhaps I need to just hash my next DYK candidate on paper, before I put it here. Whats your style? Navou banter 02:02, 1 August 2007 (UTC)
Thanks for your support of my successful RfA. I value your perspective, so it was nice to see.
On a somewhat related note I'm interested in your "complex investigations" work. I know a bit about networking and tracing IPs, and after grading a few thousand term papers one gains a sense for when things don't smell right. Raymond Arritt 02:14, 30 July 2007 (UTC)
Welcome to Wikipedia. We invite everyone to contribute constructively to the encyclopedia. However, the external links you added to the page Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard do not comply with our guidelines for external links. Wikipedia is not a mere directory of links; nor should it be used for advertising or promotion. Since Wikipedia uses nofollow tags, external links do not alter search engine rankings. If you feel the link should be added to the article, then please discuss it on the article's talk page before reinserting it. Please take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. I am also concerned about a potential confict of interest; please document your affiliation with www.pahle.com on the talk page.
OK, enough, I'm loopy from lack of sleep and am going to bed. -- barneca ( talk) 03:15, 31 July 2007 (UTC)
I have a couple editors who I've been speaking to, both of whom have agreed to undergo community enforceable mediation. Do you have anyone currently available to take this? I think it would be a good application of the process (see my talk for more details, the civility there's broken down quite a bit over a long period of time, and I don't think some remedies against edit-warring and personal attacks would be out of order). If you do, would be much appreciated, it would be terribly wasteful for this to end up in arbitration, but it's heading that way if something else doesn't get done. Seraphimblade Talk to me 05:23, 31 July 2007 (UTC)
Please see this diff. ( [34]). Wish me luck. -- Dweller 13:57, 31 July 2007 (UTC)
I have left you a message at Commons. For legal purposes you should confirm the licensing changes I have made to an image you uploaded were what you intended. All the best, - Nard 23:26, 31 July 2007 (UTC)
I would ask you to please intervene on the Amazing Facts article dispute. Maniwar is out of control. 64.21.238.49 20:47, 1 August 2007 (UTC)
Just regarding what was said in response to Rebecca (or at the beginning, not sure) at the RfA that there was some issue with the Australian Wikiproject (or tension between it and Elonka) that you investigated. Could you let me know what the issue was, or at least in broad terms what sort of issue it was? I must admit I was surprised as I wasn't aware of any, and on talking to a few of the other admins there, it's clear they weren't either. One of the reasons I ask is that it's not the first time I've heard a suggestion that there is a perception of something out there. Thanks in advance :) Orderinchaos 19:12, 2 August 2007 (UTC)
I've taken a bold step, however, I do not think I'll be able to repair these archives. Do the mizabot revisions need deleted in order for them to be repaired? Rather, I don't think it would be controversial to repair them, if it requires a custodian can you take a look. If not, let me know what I'm missing. Thanks, Navou banter 02:32, 3 August 2007 (UTC)
Thanks for the info, though I don't think it has much to do with me, does it. A guy agreed with my reasoning - good for him. He turned out to be a sock-puppet - too bad. But it doesn't really change the core of the problem - which is Elonka's behaviour towards the community during the past conflicts. // Halibu tt 10:29, 3 August 2007 (UTC)
(outdent) Well, I don't think of admin coaching from an assumption of let's go get Editor A promoted. The most important thing is that the editor wants it for the right reasons and the second most important thing is temperament. Some people make excellent editors and simply aren't right for the mop. The age factor works both ways: young people tend to be faster and more flexible at adapting to new media, while mature people bring more education and life experience. I think it's healthy for Wikipedia to have a good mix of both.
I'd be glad to coach you, Pascal.Tesson and Anchoress, if you're interested in investigations. The site really does need more people to do this work. The main reason I coach is to keep enough skilled people at WP:SSP and WP:COIN - I decided at the start of the year to make that a priority after the WP:RFI board fell down for lack of volunteers. I just couldn't do enough alone. A backlogged WP:CSD stands out because the numbers jump out at people. POV pushing and other disruption is harder to measure, but just as important in the big picture. Durova Charge! 22:20, 3 August 2007 (UTC)
I replied on my talk page letting you know I'm already in admin training with The Transhumanist, but I think I might take you up on your offer anyway. I don't see why I can't do both. It would be different aspects, so it would good. I'm currently writing a guide for bringing an article to GA for the VC. If you could help me with learning some specific admin duties, that would be helpful. As far as COIN and SSP go, COIN doesn't look at all interesting to me, but SSP does. I'm going there now to try helping out. Lara ♥Love 16:33, 4 August 2007 (UTC)
In looking over SSP, I'm no longer interested. It seems way to time-consuming. I'm not sure what to get into. I'll continue to explore the encyclopedia and the administrators notice board, because I really do want to help and think I'd make a great admin, but I'm just not sure where I'd focus my attention. As it stands, AIV, RPP and requests on my talk page are about all I'd have to offer, so I think it's going to be a while before there's an RfA in my name. But, if you have any other recommendations for someone more into the fast-paced processes, I'm definitely open to looking into it. Regards,
Lara
♥Love 04:13, 10 August 2007 (UTC)
P.S. I volunteer to archive your talk page... just say the word! Haha.
This IP is also used by that user: User:72.231.188.136 -- Fyslee/ talk 22:54, 4 August 2007 (UTC)
Hi Durova... I'm writing with a question about the indef ban of Pez1103. I help out a lot at WP:WQA and we recently had a report from that user here. I did not respond, other than to ask for clarification, because the report was confused and did not contain links or diffs. Then I noticed that there were multiple reports about that topic and about that user at WP:COI, WP:30, and elsewhere.
I was wondering, which report resulted in the determination to ban the user? I'm not disagreeing, just want to understand. We get confusing reports at WQA sometimes and often it turns out that the reporting user is the one causing the problems. I'm asking about this mostly to learn better ways for following through on future reports.
Also, this is the first time I've seen a long-term ban rather than a limited block. Is that because there were legal threats involved? Thanks. -- Parsifal Hello 23:48, 4 August 2007 (UTC)
(←) I noticed that you unblocked Pez1103. Thank you for reconsidering. I don't know the user, but I'm sure that he/she has learned something already from this experience. Hopefully it will turn out in the long run not to be a problem.
Regarding the possible reciprocal COI I mentioned above, I did ask Herd of Swine about that website. It turns out that he does run it, but I found his reply to be carefully considered and on-track. He has agreed to mostly edit the talk page and let others make any the edits on the main page. Here is the conversation link if you want to read it.
At this point, unless something changes, that issue seems to be resolved. -- Parsifal Hello 01:18, 6 August 2007 (UTC)
Durova, thank you very much for your co-nomination, and your steadfast support in my Request for Adminship. Unfortunately the nomination did not succeed, but please rest assured that I am still in full support of the Wikipedia project, and I'll try again in a few months! I think you already know this, but if you ever have any questions or suggestions, please don't hesitate to contact me. Best wishes, -- El on ka 05:57, 5 August 2007 (UTC)
Hi, you blocked this user for issuing legal threats. Since he's asking to be unblocked, perhaps you'd want to review the unblock? While I think this is was serious accusation, I think this was not directly a legal threat. I leave the final call to you :). -- lucasbfr talk 13:12, 5 August 2007 (UTC)
Durova, I concur that there is a WP:SPA issue with with Pez1103. But there is tendentious editing at the article even without Pez, by several others. I've been working to calm the talk page and bring more NPOV since our prior conversation. Even while Pez was quiet for a few days following the block, I had to step in more than once with reminders and to protect from strong bias the opposite way. Luckily, a couple editors there are also relatively neutral and that has been helpful.
While Pez does have a marginal COI, I don't think it is financial. I believe Pez sincerely wants to help the sufferers of the disease, though is clearly misguided about how Wikipedia works. Also, the article is not about the MRF organization that Pez works with, the article is about the Morgellons condition that the MRF supports researching. That is an indirect relationship to the topic of the article, not a direct COI as if it were an article about the organization.
At least one other editor has a reciprocal COI, User:Herd of Swine. He informally agreed to only minimal edits to the article and to mainly use talk page discussions. That's been working out pretty well so far. If Pez would abide by a similar agreement, that might be a good solution for the COI issue.
It would not solve the ongoing multiple-editor POV-pushing; for that the article needs more unbiased editors. Maybe an RFC or some invitations at related Wikiprojects would be useful.
Pez is seeking an adopter; so far has not found one, but is making a real effort on that. I was hoping that when Pez finds an adopter, they could do an article RFC, and then Pez might learn how how to accept consensus when it forms. -- Parsifal Hello 20:08, 8 August 2007 (UTC)
Hi, I need some admin help. I found a spam only account that is adding external links, creating spam articles, and adding internal linkspam to those articles. Could you consider this one for an indefinite block please. Edit history: [36].
I posted this to OIC's talk page in an effort to work with him, but one of his friends responded with a referral to AIV, which is essentially useless in a slightly complex case like this one. They'll want four recent warnings, and then they'll issue a short block. The net result is that I spend more time fighting this guy than he spends spamming.
Thanks for your help! Jehochman Talk 17:17, 5 August 2007 (UTC)
Hi Durova, if you get a chance could you have a look at WP:ANI#possible_votestacking_.2F_sock-puppetry_in_AFD. There's some proable vote-stacking and sock-puppetry at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kingdom of Hightower-- Cailil talk 21:18, 5 August 2007 (UTC)
The Military history WikiProject coordinator selection process is starting. We are looking to elect nine coordinators to serve for the next six months; if you are interested in running, please sign up here by August 14! Kirill 03:01, 7 August 2007 (UTC)
Click here. - Jehochman Talk 15:55, 7 August 2007 (UTC)
She is also a diligent copy editor of several articles. She deserves this award. I was going to give it to her myself, but I'm assuming I have to go through this process? Sorry, still not familiar with everything Wikipedia. I hope I'm doing this correctly. :) - Jeeny Talk 23:31, 7 August 2007 (UTC)
Now that you have deleted VPN, where am I to inform of an update to my Wikipedia interwiki and specialized knowledge test? :) -- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk 13:00, 8 August 2007 (UTC)
Hello Durova -
You seem to have a knack for giving out great advice for people who deal with Wiki's ( http://searchengineland.com/070807-085103.php).
Perhaps you should go to the Wired How To Wiki and give them some advice. ( http://howto.wired.com/wiredhowtos/index.cgi?page_name=use_a_wiki;action=display;category=Work).
Keep up the good work.
Henry
Durova, if you have time, please take a look at this and see if you can help out. Avidor has made what I believe to be a completely groundless COI complaint against a pro-PRT editor who has absolutely no history of POV pushing. When I called him on it (see that link), he once again brought up that edit from my distant past. This scenario has played itself out maybe half a dozen times over the past year, in different forums and contexts, but always related to the old PRT debates. I'm not going to respond anymore to that thread unless I have to, because I don't want to start another flame war. Any assistance would be greatly appreciated. ATren 23:33, 8 August 2007 (UTC)
Have a look at my response over at WP:COIN. Durova Charge! 00:18, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
Hi Durova - I imagine article protection is not done lightly, so I wanted to let you know I support your decision. I was starting to feel concerned that a full-on campaign of big changes was coming up fueled by both sides, and was wondering what to do if that happened. It was a relief when I saw that you protected it.
Pez has not yet been adopted, but a prospective adopter has been helping on the talk page already anyway and has offered to set up an RFC. Protection will help make a time window for that too. -- Parsifal Hello 02:39, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
Hi Durova. I left you a message on my userpage. Cheers! -- roy<sac> Talk! .oOo. 05:18, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
Please review my comments at this diff on User:You Are Okay relative to the ideogram sock puppet, and you'll probably see why your comment at Wikipedia:Requests for comment/DreamGuy 2 is just a distraction from the issues there; the newbie has since withdrawn, and it would be best if your comments didn't hang around to muddy the waters. Or talk it over with Jehochman. These distractions are just going to make it harder to resolve anything. Thanks. Dicklyon 07:57, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
Durova -
Thank you for intervening on the Morgellons page. I do not believe that there will ever be agreement on that page, however. I am neglecting my health and my child trying to keep the article neutral, and cannot keep it up. There are editors with an agenda-- to try to debunk the idea that Morgellons is a real disease. Herd has devoted all of his time to doing this for the past couple of years -- as you can see if you go to his website. (He admitted it was his website.) He will not allow an unbiased article. This article has been a constant source of wars. In the word of an unbiased observer: "I've seldom seen so much bitter, mean-spirited, hostile prejudice, without even a hint of justification for it [directed at people who do believe that this is a new disease]." Mukrkrgsj It is a full time job -- 12 hours a day -- to try to keep this article unbiased. I'm sure that was not the intention of wikipedia to create this kind of nightmare editing.
I am proposing two options to put an end to all this until the CDC finishes its investigation. Please advise what I should do to get a group of impartial editors to look into doing this. Thanks, Pez
1)According to Herd and Dyanega, the idea that Morgellons is a newly emerging disease is a "fringe" theory. Since the article is about Morgellons disease, and if the idea that Morgellons disease even exists is FRINGE, this article violates wiki rules by its very inclusion. Therefore, I am again asking that this article be deleted until the CDC investigation is over.
2) I propose that the following be the entire content of the article and that it be locked. It is completely neutral, states everyone's opinion. I even included Herd's addition about delusional parasitosis to make him happy. The sources are the Mayo clinic and the CDC
"Morgellons" or "Morgellons disease," is also referred to as "unexplained dermopathy" (skin disease) by the CDC. In June 2007, a CDC website asserted persons with this unexplained skin condition report cutaneous symptoms, including crawling, biting, and stinging sensations; granules, threads, or black speck-like materials on or beneath the skin; and/or skin lesions. Some also report fatigue, mental confusion, short term memory loss, joint pain, and changes in vision. The CDC indicates the etiology of Morgellons is unknown and there is insufficient information to determine if persons who identify themselves as having Morgellons have a common cause for their symptoms, share common risk factors, or are contagious.[2] Morgellons disease is not a widely recognized medical diagnosis, and medical professionals' opinions about Morgellons disease are divided. Some health professionals believe that Morgellons disease is a specific condition likely to be confirmed by future research. Some health professionals, including most dermatologists, believe that signs and symptoms of Morgellons disease are caused by common skin illnesses or psychological disorders such as delusional parasitosis[4]. Other health professionals don't acknowledge Morgellons disease or are reserving judgment until more is known about the condition.[5] A CDC task force will be conducing an epidemiologic investigation into Morgellons. Pez1103 11:08, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
I also wrote this on the discussion page: What no one will acknowledge is how much harm a biased article can do. If what the MRF believes is true, if what the reports that the CDC has received are accurate, Morgellons patients have a newly emerging serious, systemic, disfiguring and disabling disease, which is not only infectious, it may be contagious. It affects thousands of children. No one knows what causes it or how to treat it. It affects entire families. Try to imagine what it would be like to have a disease like that. Try to imagine what it would be like to be Mary Letao. Imagine what it would be like to have three children come down with a horrifying disease -- to watch them get sicker and not only not be able to get any help for them, be ridiculed for trying. A biased article increases the suffering of everyone who has the disease -- by making it harder for them to get the help that they desperately need. And this is a biased article, filled with cherry picking and weasel words. What if the MRF is wrong and this is all mass hysteria? The wiki article, by its very existance, supports the idea that it is real and prepetuates the "delusion." Either way, people lose, people suffer. Mary never asked for this article, she never wanted to be a public figure -- she is just trying to get help for her children. The only way to prevent this article from continuing to be destructive is to either get rid of it entirely or have an unbiased editor make it completely neutral and lock it until the CDC investigation is over. There have been constant editing battles. All of it needs to stop. This isn't a game -- it's people's lives.
I'd like to request you extend the block for knowing and intentional abuse of our servers, see bookchan postings and the diff from AN/I explaining the intentional posting. We could potentially thank him, though, since now we're cleaning out quite a bit of material from the servers we didn't know was there. :) ~Kylu ( u| t) 14:09, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
Hi Durova, I notice you AFD'd this page last autumn and I feel I've no option but to put it up again. Since January this year I've been trying to keep it on-track (neutral and verified) but at this stage I can find no sources for the article. Since March there's been no more povpushing or other vandalism but the COI behind the page's creationand its failure to meet WP:ORG's caveat that "secondary sources such as newspapers should not be trivial mentions of the group" (I'm paraphrasing this badly)make it seem like a definite AFD to me. What do you think?-- Cailil talk 15:13, 9 August 2007 (UTC) PS. I'm also looking into the COI editor who was a major force in the creation and maintainance of this page, User:My Wikidness-- Cailil talk 15:13, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
User:Eyrian is unilaterally mass deleting information on this page and is on the verge of 3RR violation on the article. He claims that independent book reviews, CNN, and official websites of pumpkin festivals are somehow not reliable sources and is dismissing my edits today, which I spent a lot of time on, in a rather unsettling fashion as well. I'd like to assume good faith, but I fear that this is an instance of someone not familiar with the topic of the article and possibly a deletionist who disagrees with me out of principal as seen at Wikipedia_talk:What_Wikipedia_is_not#Popular_culture perhaps trying to destroy the main article I contributed to Wikipedia, which I of course hope isn't the case. Would you please review the article's recent edit and talk page discussions? Also, I am trying to look for new references and find ways to improve the article, but every time I make a change, he just mass reverts the whole article again, regardless of whether any aspect of the large number of changes I make are valid. Seems almost frustrated as well in the tone of talk page posts. I'll hold off reverting it back again for another 24 hours, but I don't see any reason why the stuff should be restored and improved after that time. I await your and Chaser's opinions if possible. Thanks. Sincerely, -- Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles Tally-ho! 17:31, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
I am finding the Wiki Vandals in business as well. I recently started posting in PLM, BOM and other business disciplines.
What I find is software vendors or their proxies are undoing edits and driving references/links to their specific products. Freeformer seems to be this type of contributor and wanted to point out that not only is Wiki used for political mind-management, it also seems to becoming the domain for companies wanting to make a mark and drive ideology towards their solutions.
You probably already knew this, but thought I would share after reading your article on how to address the vandalism of ideas.!
Tks Dave
Regarding the comments I posted on the thread about CVU, I'd love it if you had some time, if you could look at a project I began after posting on the controversial TTR thread. Originally, I posted to just explain how both WP:DTTR and TTR had merits, but was asked if I'd write an essay on Template Etiquette. With help from User:DGG and User:DESiegel, as well as input from others, I began that project. However, the real reason I wrote the comment on TTR in the first place, was due to the concerns I shared over at the CVU thread on which you just replied. I'm now wondering if a "Recent Changes 101" (or some such name) isn't more in line with the spirit the essay was originally, and I'd truly appreciate any thoughts you may have. I've asked a number of administrators to review it, but the project seems to be stalled, so I'd like any feedback you could give. My apologies in advance if you're too busy to take a look, and I appreciate your continued support of the people who fight vandalism. Most sincerely, Ariel♥ Gold 04:58, 10 August 2007 (UTC)
Would you please glance at Thatcher's sandbox? I really feel that Dyaenga's comments towards me are continously hostile, continuously accusing me of lying, violating rules. It really seems over the top. I am honestly trying my best to follow wiki rules. I state my opinion on the discussion page (I'm not even editing the article!) and the basis for my opinion and she just completely lashes out at me. This happened on the Morgellons page too. I'd like an unbiased opinion regarding this please. (And Herd checking a morgellons support board and copying statements that I made there and putting them on wikipedia may not violate wiki rules, but it's just plain creepy and shows their intense desire to throw me off the article.)
I'm not sure what is happening with the whole adopt thing. I posted my request. I also posted messages on boards of people who said that they would adopt. I'm wondering if I'm missing something because I am not too good at navigating thru wiki.
I am grateful for Thatcher's involvement in the article. It's nice to have a referee. :) I am grateful that she took out the disparaging comments about Mary Leitao, but I suspect that they will be added back in time. As long as there are so many people with an agenda working on this article, I don't think that it has any chance of remaining neutral. I would not mind being banned as long as Herd and Dyaenga were also banned. Then more neutral people could work on the article and there were not be the constant, very ugly edit wars. Is there some procedure to follow to request this?
If you just at the enormous size of the discussion page -- two archived sections and the number of edits on the Morgellons page -- it's just ridiculous and certainly indicitive of people with an agenda. (I worked on the article Oct/Nov 06 and mostly took a break until very recently. )
I would appreciate your advice. Pez1103 10:51, 10 August 2007 (UTC)
I am Tom Humphrey, a reporter for the Knoxville News Sentinel in Tennessee and interested in the article you wrote for searchengineland that referred to 'blanking vandalism' on wikipedia entries for two tennessee politians. i have spoken to the press secretary for U.S. Rep. David Davis, who acknowledges that he was the person attempting to alter the entries. (He is also the brother of state Rep. Matthew Hill, the other Tennessee politician mentioned in the article.
i would like to speak with you abount your article. if you wish, i can do so without using your real name (though i would prefer to use it).
thank you very much. that is a well-done and informative article, by the way.
Look at this: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:National_Football_League_first_overall_draft_picks
look under M. See the problem? It won't allow me to fix it. Plus, there appears to be a bogus Manning page up (the title starts with ksy). Can you help? I don't know who I can get in touch with. Enigmaman 19:34, 10 August 2007 (UTC)
Just a word to extend thanks for commenting on the matter on the COI Board concerning promotion of a website by Kandisky123 ( talk · contribs). → Lwalt ♦ talk 00:16, 12 August 2007 (UTC)
Dear Durova, you may wish to look over and react to the following discussion as, unless I'm mistaken it pertains to an article on which you contributed: Wikipedia:Featured_list_removal_candidates/Cultural_depictions_of_Joan_of_Arc. Sincerely, -- Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles Tally-ho! 20:37, 11 August 2007 (UTC)
User:Ksy92003/Peyton Manning
They created a page of their own, but it's now showing up under all the categories that he was listed under. If the user is going to make a page under their own account, it should not be linked to or listed on official pages.
This guideline needs your attention. Some new editors seem to be muddying it, and I'm not interested to engage in any more disputes today. Thanks. - Jehochman Talk 13:46, 12 August 2007 (UTC)
I'm trying to add the proper coordinates in the upper right-hand corner of Cape Filchner but can't figure it out. What am I doing wrong? - WarthogDemon 01:54, 13 August 2007 (UTC)
I know you're busy but I asked to award the triple crown to User:Awadewit who had many featured articles, DYK, and Good Articles. Is this the right place? I see you responding to others who have posted later than myself, but not accusing you of anything. Just wondering why I have to ask for the award here, and not get any feedback. Why can't I give it to her myself? Please reply. Thanks. Short is fine, I'm sorry to be a pest. Is this the right place, or should I go somewhere else? - Jeeny Talk 05:15, 13 August 2007 (UTC)
You've been mentioned in a Knoxville News-Sentinel article. Nice work! Sidatio 18:00, 13 August 2007 (UTC)
Not sure if self-nom for the Triple Crown is the done thing, but working on the basis that "if I don't ask, I don't get"...
Hope this is enough evidence. Thanks in anticipation - an excellent idea for an award. I'm already thinking about how to get the Imperial Triple Crown: I have a "spare" GA, I've just nominated another article I've written for DYK and, if that passes, all I'll need (!) is another FL.... So that's my social life gone for the next month, then. Bencherlite Talk 23:51, 13 August 2007 (UTC)