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

Just to let you know that this RFC was not certified by two users within 48 hours of being listed, so it has been deleted. Stifle 02:09, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

picking up from this exchange
I feel like I should get to know you better. I want to understand what drives you. I think we come from radically different cultural spaces. course you know me only as a guy who created some redlinkz to something that prob won't exist anytime soon. I'm a whole user tho. not that different from tons of otherz. I check out stuff around 'pedia that interests me. I guess maybe I should understand better your idea of what's good faith and what's not. why are you pretty sure that my wikifying cool head is not GoodFaith? there are a million red links out there. some of them point to articles that have a decent chance of being written in a decent amount of time. some, I'm sure, point to your mom. anyway, there are a million, so why me & my edits?

I agree it's unlikely that an article would be written about it. and I am thinking pretty long term into the future. Like a redirect. do you see problems sometimes here and there about wikipedia and ever say "fuck it" and not fix it? skizzno ^logic3.3 09:30, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

what's up? got me pegged for a troublemaker/keepin' me on ignore? perhapz you could direct me elsewhere for the more philosophical questions. I'm guessing you'r more into enforcement, not so much on the pontificating policy formulation/ your own personal ideas on making your own ideal WikiCommunity? I don't mean to make a bigThing out of a smallThing, but I'm a big fan of dialectic#hegelian dialectic and a sort of "start-with-an-example and extrapolate outward" method of exploring issues. this includes getting to know the other person's POV. so, yeah. hope to hear from ya to the extent that you'r interested at all. in the spirit of peace, skizzno ^logic3.3 23:01, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

I'm not deliberately ignoring you. I just don't see that this constitutes the basis for a prolonged discussion. I'd rather create and edit articles than engage in dialectic. Regards, Durova 03:49, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

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

-- O bli ( Talk) ^? 17:37, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

There are minor spelling errors in your evidence section "RfC on Jonathan Sarfati." You have User:Felonious_Monk which should be User:FeloniousMonk. Also, "chargres" which I think should be "charges." JoshuaZ 19:09, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

Dear Durova:

You have the honor of being the 14th person to respond to my survey!

Thank you for your participation. Your responses to the survey are much appreciated!

The final essay should be posted on my user page no later than March 27. Stay tuned!!!

Shuo Xiang 01:52, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

You seem like a reasonable person, and you have experience working in the edit conflict regarding the equally controversial Front National (France). So I ask you to interject your opinions regarding the edit conflict in the Sweden Democrats article, which is largely modelled after the FN article.

Basically, a member of the Sweden Democrats, SweHomer ( talk · contribs), says that the article is extrememly biased against the party. He says that the sources are part of a media conspiracy, that the article slanders the SD, and that the editors opposing him are working for the anti-racist magazine Expo. He also says the SD's view is not fairly represented. He has edited only the "Response to the Controversy" section, as of now.

I and Liftarn respond by telling him that all we did was provide quotes from the party and include a chronological timetable of notable events within the party. This way, we hope that readers can draw their own conclusions. We used the Wikipedia:Guidelines_for_controversial_articles as the justification for our edits. We believe that his edits are blatantly not NPOV. We deny his ad hominem attacks.

Your opinion would be appreciated, and pretty soon we may be conducting a straw poll.

WGee 21:50, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

I'm flattered that you sought me out and I'll see what I can do. Regards, Durova 00:06, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for your help. The dispute is largely resolved now, I think. SweHomer says he has quit the edit conflict because he thinks everyone involved is a "leftist" out to demonize the SD. I basically agree with your suggestions, and it's nice to have a cool head in the debate to give some meaningful advice. WGee 01:07, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

I'd give it a few days before calling the situation resolved. Many people post "I quit" statements to Internet sites without really quitting. Either way, there was at least a kernel of truth to some of this user's protests about POV. I definitely recommend removing "racist" from the introduction. You might expand the defense section by mining some of this contributor's citations and translating key parts into English. Best wishes, Durova 01:12, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

Ya, I guess you were right about him not quitting. --- WGee 19:39, 18 March 2006 (UTC)

Regarding your comments about older online historical soures, I'm curious as to how you "rank" sources because of this? Do more modern works tend to be taken over older when there is a conflict? How do you view them stacking up with regards to "primary sources"? I'm just asking your personal opinions and actions in this regards. - Vedexent 22:02, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

That's a complex question. The most cogent answer is, "It depends." An older historical analysis isn't necessarily better or worse than a newer one. There might be a difference in access to primary sources, either because those sources were destroyed or rediscovered. More recent historians have the advantage of drawing upon a larger body of previous analysis. Certain older historians have the advantage of having earned the respect of subsequent generations. When I worked on bringing Joan of Arc up to FA I used both, but tended to lean toward recent scholars. Durova 22:13, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

Sure, I would be willing to help, to the extent that I can, on attempting to bring this article to FA status. I'm not sure what precisely needs to be done, though. Perhaps you could enlighten me. BTW, I did put in an external link to the Joan of Arc statue in Portland, OR. I will be travelling to Portland this summer for the Portland Highland Games and plan on seeking it out in order to photograph it. It would be nice to have a CCPL image of that statue. JFPerry 23:06, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

I'll think about the article name. Meanwhile, I found this on a "Save Outdoor Sculpture" web site:

Oregon Portland - Joan of Arc - The legend of Joan of Arc is alive and well in Portland, Oregon. Located in the historic neighborhood of Laurelhurst, Joan of Arc sits atop her horse about to ride into the Battle of Orleans, 1420. This piece (1924) is one of eight castings made from the original plaster mold commissioned in 1874 by Emperor Napoleon III. The original is located in the Place des Pyramides, Paris, France. French-born Emmanuel Fremiet is internationally recognized for his sculptures, often of animals, in the United States, France, Australia, and Africa. The Regional Arts and Culture Council, steward of the city’s public art collection, is organizing the conservation.

I tried to correct the typo, but apparently the "edit this page" button at the top of their web page was not working. BTW, my Wikipedia email is now enabled in case of need for lengthier notes. JFPerry 02:54, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

Hello Durova : ) Thanks you for your input in the Sweden Democrats article. I agree that the opening paragraph is too strongly worded and your other comments. About 3 days ago, I started working with the three editors that are fussing ovet this article. WGee had left a message on WP:AN/I requesting SweHomer be banned. I checked it out and found all three editors were being a little rude, a whole lot stubborn, and were reverting each other. Mel Etitis responded the next day to WGee 3RR report on SweHomer. Both of us felt the editors need to back off editing the article until consensus is reached. I started a subpage to work on the text. If you would make your comments there maybe they will use it. I want to keep the discussion in one place and on topic. All three of them keep getting off topic and accusing the other. (Like WGee's original message to you with accusations about SweHomer : ). They are pretty reasonable people, so I am hopeful we can have a good outcome. -- FloNight ^talk 22:02, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

FloNight, I did not accuse SweHomer of anything in my original message to Durova. As you can see, I simply told Durova what each side was complaining about. Also, why do you see the need to privately discuss things with editors? It seems rather suspicious. --- WGee 19:42, 18 March 2006 (UTC)

Again you are taking turns in reverting. Can you please stop this and restore text to the version FloNight put it in?

"Do not remove or re-insert text without discussion leading to consensus. You have been asked nicely by myself and Mel."

I put this in the "talk" page of everyone, so there can me no further accidents. These to reverts were of course not done on purpose, you both just missed to read what Flonight wrote. SweHomer 12:11, 18 March 2006 (UTC)

Actually what it looks like to me is that you had removed some external links that the consensus had agreed were relevant, and they were restoring the consensus version. I can't do much about that kind of action on either side. You could request page protection. Durova 15:16, 18 March 2006 (UTC)

I took out the opening paragraph of the article and specifically asked that it not be re-inserted until there was consensus. There couldn't have been consensus since I didn't make a comment. ; ) FloNight ^talk 16:47, 18 March 2006 (UTC)

This is part of a discussion carried over from Joan of Arc brought to a more appropriate place -- your talk page:

You stated, "An administrator warned you today about WP:POINT." That absolutely explains nothing why you think it is a WP:POINT. It does not help this situation to state it in such a way. JzG's comments, which made the WP:POINT link, do not help the situation either. It is obviously something that could not be said so plain and simple. Its insertion only aggravates the situation. In the theme of WP:POINT, it would be much easier to just state your point rather. As for JzG, it is obvious he is not impartial to everybody, and he admitted to it. JzG hasn't explained anything either, but he has made accusations. Anyways, such topics are very unproductive. How you come off to me is very rude. Perhaps, that is just your style to make your point. You go about and connect me with jhballard -- what for? What is the point? What do you really have to say about that? Again, its unproductive. Why do you like to riddle these talk pages with such junk? It doesn't have anything to do with the article.

Look at this, which you stated:

Also, there's a wise old saying about people who live in glass houses. As User:Dzonatas you began editing this article a month after me so your referral to previous archives constitutes an admission that you are User:Jhballard. I welcome scrutiny about my own actions. Given your recent block history, I'm surprised you raise the subject.

What does glass houses have to do with the article? What is it that your have tried to insinuate? What does it matter if my past account is jhballard? Who cares if I admit to it or not? State your point. Perhaps, after you made fun of my daughter's name, and that I couldn't get you to stop -- that is the whole reason why I switched accounts. You are mean. My daughter is completely innocent to this. However, you and Sw posted personal information to this wikipedia without my permission. That is a violation of policy! I posted the information off-site. I never gave you or anybody permission to create such a scene over my daughters name. Bottom line, my daughter's name should have never been brought up -- period. The only information relavent from the family tree is the descension from the d'Arc. However, you and Sw went further than that -- you went too far.

Your actions against me, even the failed attempt at an RfC above, show that you have a personal motive. Whatever it is... it's not nice. Please, be more helpful and nice. — Dzonatas 16:23, 18 March 2006 (UTC)

I beg your pardon: my actions have demonstrated that my motive is to build a good encyclopedia. When I began editing Joan of Arc had a cleanup flag. Within two weeks I had expanded the footnotes from 2 to 17. Five months later I've raised it to a featured article with 70 footnotes to 26 different sources. On a different topic I began a list and raised it to featured status in less than a month. Nine of my new articles have been highlighted at "...Did you know?" I founded the Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Middle Ages task force, have never been blocked or warned by any administrator, and three editors have given me barnstars.

The only information I have ever had about you is what you chose to make public at Wikipedia. You posted your family tree to Wikifamilies and linked to it from an article talk page. You were trying to use it as a reference within the article, which compelled the editors to discuss it. I never insulted your daughter. Switisweti mentioned her in passing on my user page. He spoke in good faith but expressed himself poorly because English is his second language. When you objected he promptly apologized and I refactored my page. How is it mean spirited to suppose that your daughter's middle name "d'Arc" suggests you have very strong feelings about Joan of Arc?

Your concerns must have been substantial if this was why you switched accounts. The solution you chose was ineffective. You understand Wikipedia procedures so I'm sure you know the alternatives. You barely made any effort to conceal that you were the same person. That left other editors wondering why, per WP:Sockpuppet, you didn't just declare the change. You were party to disputes on two different articles at the time. I wondered too, but I let the matter slide until you accused me of sockpuppetry. The adage is, "People who live in glass houses shouldn't throw stones."

What I ask of you is no more than I ask of myself or of any other editor: cite a reputable source. I don't deny that I find your behavior and history of warnings and blocks to be disturbing, but none of that would matter if you conduct yourself in a reasonable manner where I encounter you. If I were the sort of person who pursued vendettas and violated policies, then I wouldn't be likely to admit to it. Why don't you get an independent opinion from an administrator? Choose any administrator you want. I have no fear of scrutiny. Durova 17:47, 18 March 2006 (UTC)

It appears as a good encyclopedia was built other editors were frustrated and left. It has become a trend that disturbs many where contributors that have worked really hard have just left wikipedia alone. There are those that put serious thought into dissent, and they hate it when it is not respected. It wastes time.

It comes down to immature attacks that put anybody into a defensive posture. Insinuations are an example. Attempts to gain numbers is another. Consensus is built buy agreements. There is no win, but there is communication. If one side tries to win it makes another lose. The agreement doesn't really exist -- just oppression. It is a dishonorable. Wikipedia is not here to make people losers.

The Joan of Arc article has lots of hard work on your part, but it lacks an honorable effort. There was lots of hard work of other editors -- lost. Consider how you reverted five times in one day, so what if they were right or wrong. A single revert could be done the next day. Perhaps, assume good faith and figure the other editor wasn't done with their entire edit.

Further, consider how you still try to link together the accounts and how you did it. Consider how you bring up "block history" on the article page when you have not even done your own research on such details of the block. Where is the assumption of good faith on either side of the block. Consider how you have gone off to "warn" others about me like to gain your support, which is straight up insinuation. What did you try to accomplish? Consider how you get rampant about other issues that are not directly related to the article. It's pathologically pitiful.

How is the opinion of an administrator any different from any other wikipedian. Being an administrator is no big deal. Many people choose not to be an administrator on here. The opinions are equal. It does, however, shed light toward your use of such "block history." It was based on an opinion of an administrator. You like to try to exploit such opinions to your advantage as if it has greater weight.

WP:Sockpuppet does not state that one person cannot have more than one account. If you look very closely, I haven't used the other account since you and Sw made such remarks about my daughter. I don't care if you tried to refactor it... you still try to bring the issue up later. Anotherwords, you don't seem very apologetic about it. Just let it go.

I was about to erase this entry, but I remembered how other editors have left wikipedia. An honorable featured article would have wider support of those who actually worked on the article. It might be hard to obtain, but well worth it. The Joan of Arc article has minority reports swept under the rug by the " consensus version." — Dzonatas 03:17, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

What are you trying to achieve? Durova 23:28, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

Durova, your email is not activated. I need to talk with you. Could you activate it or send me an email so I have it. thanks, -- FloNight ^talk 16:39, 18 March 2006 (UTC)

Copied from FloNight's user talk

Yes, my e-mail is not activated. It's one way of ensuring transparency: all my interactions at Wikipedia are conducted on-site. Is there some reason I should change this policy? Durova 17:51, 18 March 2006 (UTC)

You have policy? What's up with transparency? FloNight ^talk 18:09, 18 March 2006 (UTC)

Transparency means that anybody could review my entire conduct at Wikipedia. In case anyone ever accuses me of going off site to circumvent Wikipedia policy, this proves I have nothing to hide. What could you have to discuss with me that can't be said on our talk pages? If there's something really serious then it should probably go to an administrator. Durova 18:21, 18 March 2006 (UTC)

A good policy indeed. --- WGee 01:03, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

Durova, sorry for the delay in my reply. I wrote this earlier and thought I posted it. This has nothing to do with Sweden Democrats or the editors on that article. I've been thinking about emailing you for over a week. It was pure coincidence that WGee recruited you to Sweden Democrats. I wanted to discuss something related to Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Agapetos angel/Workshop. It needs to be by private email so never mind.

I was quite surprised by your policy. I think transparency has its place, but some topics are best discussed in private. Don't feed the trolls and similar thinking seems to contradict your policy. I also have a lot of respect for WP users that use private email to settle disruptive conflicts. No sense in keeping the whole encyclopedia in an uproar. FloNight ^talk 03:04, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

I see, and I'll give that serious consideration. Wait while I read up on the progress of that case. Regards, Durova 03:38, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

I've caught up on my reading. On the one hand, arbitration is serious enough that I understand discussing it off site. On the other hand, the whole case leaves me with privacy concerns and it's disturbing to learn that Agapetos angel's e-mail header was used in a search for her name and address. Isn't it obvious enough why a woman would object to discussing that on Alexa's no. 18 website? I have no idea how ArbCom views my small input, but I'm delighted I'm not the target of that scrutiny. I just don't see how this relates to troll feeding or what makes me close enough to the case for private communication. I'll be glad to discuss as much as you choose here on Wikipedia. If that means you respect me less or the trolls get a crumb now and then, I'll accept that as the price of privacy. Durova 06:07, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

Of course, I don't respect you any less. You have the right to your opinion. I'm a little bit perplexed, because I don't see any real danger. But, I'm mostly disappointed. I am trying to do some creative problem solving and want a second opinion. You were an obvious choice to provide it. regards, FloNight ^talk 11:44, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

I'm flattered you thought of me. Best wishes, Durova 15:58, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

Hi Durova, could you maybe clarify how much of that RfC outside opinion you we're endorsing? In particular, the RfC outside opinion did say that Agapetos' behavior was disturbing. Did you intend to only endorse the first part? Thanks. JoshuaZ 05:02, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

Durova, I am concerned about something you wrote on the RfA. You stated, '... it's obvious that only Agapetos angel's behavior is under scrutiny in this action'. That is incorrect. The RfA is a result of a request by KimB for an emergency injunction. It did not pass on those grounds but was accepted to examine 'the behavior of all parties to this case'. Therefore, it was necessary to point out the actions of the others, rather than just defend myself. Like the AN/I, however, it is being turned into something different than intended, as evidenced by your confusion. It might have helped matters if it had been called Agapetos angel, et. al., or something similar.

Also, I want to point out that I did not sign anyone's name to a straw poll; that is a oft-repeated falsehood that is gaining weight by the repetition. The misunderstanding arose from my listing names after a straw poll attempt (which I called a vote for consensus). I did this to summarise and bring people back to the issue at hand. It was completely blown out of proportion by editors feeding off one another that it was some sort of second straw poll, even after I explained that it was a summary. I reformatted my text several times to attempt to compromise between clarifying their misconception and retaining my assessment of that ongoing issue. Even from the beginning post of that summary, though, I indicated that Guettarda's dissent was implied (i.e., inferred - not expressly stated; he reverted the article to a previous version before my changes to the intro, indicating to me that he disagreed not only with the edit immediately before his revert, but also with my edits to the intro. This assessment was validated by Guettarda's later breakdown of complaints regarding the intro I proposed.). After several edits and two apologies, my user talk page was spammed with vile accusations that I removed and called trolling (after two warnings for Guettarda to stop doing it).

I've stopped participating on that RfA because no matter what I say to defend myself, I'm supposedly lying, and no matter that I show the other editors' misbehaviour, I am supposedly only deflecting attention from myself (ignoring that the RfA was to examine ALL behaviour). Hopefully it will be over soon and we can all go back to constructive editing. I just wanted to clear up these points with you. agapetos_angel 07:35, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

Could you clarify, then? The RfA specifies your name only. So I agree it would be useful in constructing your own defense to point to irregularities in other users' actions, particularly involved administrators, it looks very improper to propose injunctions against them as part of this case. Unless Wikipedia's methods are radically different from other organizations, standard procedure is to clear your own name and then pursue a separate action. Correct me if I'm wrong. That's the way I've always seen this work. Durova 07:54, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

I had no hand in naming the case; I believe that was done by an ArbCom clerk. See the links in my message above regarding examining 'all behaviour', as well as the relevant part of the conversation between Dmcdevit and me. I have no experience in arbitration, so I am unsure of all the exact procedures. I'm sorry if it appeared improper, but a case that examines all behaviour should, I feel, point out behaviour and propose injunctions regarding all parties. The injunction proposals are not defence, but proposals against inappropriate behaviour by the other editors. agapetos_angel 08:17, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

What's the bottom line here? Is it really proper to propose injunctions against other people in this case? If so I'll line out my comment, but please link to something that verifies this clearly. Durova 08:21, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

Yes, because all behaviour was to be examined. [1] agapetos_angel 08:36, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

AA, good to see you back : ) I was starting to get worried about you. -- FloNight ^talk 11:55, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

Durova, all behavior is examined by arb comm. By the way, it is not at all uncommon for the original person bringing the complaint to be charged as well. They may have worse behavior in a dispute and end up with stronger sanctions. If my comments in the case confused I'm sorry. My concern and comments related to the wisdom of expanding the case in directions that were very unlikely to be valid. FloNight ^talk 11:55, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

Fair enough. I'll strikethrough that statement. Thanks for clarifying. Durova 15:48, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

Thank you agapetos_angel 00:33, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

Could you weigh in at the bottom of the Talk Page for Katelyn Faber regarding the inclusion of an image of her? User:Tufflaw, who unsuccessfully tried to have the entire article deleted back in December 2005 insists on censoring/deleting it for extremely specious reasons, and I've been asked to gather a consensus. Please read the bottom two sections of that page. Thanks. Nightscream 18:58, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

Do you mean the Globe cover? It looks like some administrators have already weighed in. I suggest you seek an attorney's advice about fair use. I'm no lawyer, and honestly, I doubt I can be objective on this topic. I'd better sit this one out. Thanks for asking me. Durova 23:18, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

And double-thanks for being proactive with the page, and the editor. — Bunchofgrapes ( talk) 15:49, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

No problem. BTW they're thinking of listing offbeat older pages on the April 1 "...Did you know?" and I took the liberty of nominating casu marzu. Have you ever eaten it? Ewwww...I mean, great work. :) Durova 19:21, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

Dear Durova:

This is Shuo Xiang again reading through your response to my Wikipedia survey while I'm adding the final touches to my essay.

I'm really really really impressed with how many languages you are apparently fluent with. It seems that you know at least Russian and French in addition to English.

So tell me, how was it that you were able to learn French so well. I've spent five years learning French in Canadian high school (Canadian students are required to learn French), and I still can't speak it to any significant extent.

Thanks again for your in-depth and detailed response to my survey!

Shuo Xiang 16:31, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

I wish I could accept the compliment. You give me more credit than I deserve. I don't know Russian and only read French. Middle English barely qualifies as a different language. The one I really worked on is German. I speak a little Spanish, but not nearly enough to be of use here.

If you want to get better at a language, expose yourself to it. Put it on the radio, especially news stations. Watch television in the language. Read the French Wikipedia. And when you see people speaking French, find an excuse to go talk to them. The more you make it part of your life, the more your brain adjusts to it.

For formal classwork I was really strict with myself, but it worked.

1. I read every chapter before the first day it was discussed in class.
2. I made flash cards for all of the chapter's vocabulary before the class started learning the chapter.
3. I made my own grammar charts. Basically I took all the grammar in the textbook and wrote it up in table format in my own words, then underlined and highlighted things that were important.
4. The first thing in the morning and the last thing at night, I reviewed my charts and flash cards.

Sounds dreadful, doesn't it? But I was usually snacking on jelly beans and listening to music, making everything as fun as possible, and whenever I finished a chapter I'd reward myself with a meal of takeout sushi. Languages aren't rocket science. They just take patience. Durova 19:15, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

Hello Durova. Thank you very much for reviewing for my article. I liked what you had to say and I made some changes based on your comments. On the other hand, I also pointed out where you went wrong in some places. I'd like you to take another look and tell me what you think. Once again, thanks a lot. UberCryxic 01:09, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

Hey again. All the "10,000" figures (excluding casualty figures at Augincourt), because I admit they are controversial, have been removed. How does it look now? UberCryxic 01:46, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

I like the improvements. I kind of wish the rest of the article were as heavily referenced as the section where I've been a thorn in your side. There's a little bit of bias to my thinking: Joan of Arc went through the mill at peer review until I raised it to 70 citations. You've got my support, though. Good work. :) Durova 01:52, 21 March 2006 (UTC)