Dear Durova, I made a large amount of improvements to this article as well. Maybe we can boost it up to good status as well. Best, -- Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles Tally-ho! 03:12, 17 January 2008 (UTC)
After seeing PR's insinuations to Sam Blacketer about me, and then seeing PR refer to me again in his evidence statement, I felt compelled to respond. As I wrote at the evidence talk page, I'd be glad to strikethrough if PR withdraws those insinuations. And I'd still be glad to collaborate with him in uncontroversial areas. Best regards, Durova Charge! 00:27, 15 January 2008 (UTC)
(as Jaakobou's mentor Durova would tell us) - it's inappropriate to put words in my mouth. You never contacted me with any of these details and I've only just now started skimming your claims for the first time, now that you've made them available. You don't speak for me; please withdraw the attempt to. Durova Charge! 00:13, 18 January 2008 (UTC)
See my additions here. I haven't had a chance to review them yet, but the lists don't seem that comprehensive or well-organised yet (well, the Wikipedia PD resources list is the best one and probably is fairly comprehensive), and there seems to be some overlap and failure of synchronisation between the Wikipedia and Commons lists, but it is a start. Carcharoth ( talk) 13:07, 17 January 2008 (UTC)
Pfft. You shouldn't have told me about the Commons mailing list! Now I have wikien-l, Wikback and commons-l to keep track of and eventually join... :-) Carcharoth ( talk) 21:20, 17 January 2008 (UTC)
I've responded to your comments on Silence as consensus with a question. I hope that the timeline I recall is correct. I'm also wondering if the wording at what ignore all rules means might need further elucidation. -- Kim Bruning ( talk) 15:02, 17 January 2008 (UTC)
Now I know it is my opinion and I WP:AGF but I feel the admin is too in the hurry to perform his admin duties. This is the second time it happned and the admin himself stated, "Sorry for the delay in responding Igor _ I have been busy at my real life working." User_talk:Igorberger#Andy_Beard_AfD Once with Social_Network_Aggregation related duplicate page and now with closing Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Andy_Beard and deleting Andy Beard. Now it is not about the article but what was the hurry to delete it and not give it the full 5 days? Please advise, Igor Berger ( talk) 07:39, 18 January 2008 (UTC)
Hi Durova,
I noticed you added an ‘Edited by Durova’ to some recent historical FP images on the Wikipedia:Featured pictures/History page. What some people do is add an 'Edited by...' to the Author section on the image description; see here for example. Without that it's not necessarily obvious it's been edited, especially when there's no note on the description page about what's been done or whatever. Often it's not mentioned during the FPC nom either. If I’m closing them and see that note I’ll put in the “Edited by” with the FP credit (and give you a credit on your talkpage as well, as for the Carpenter). I can’t speak for other closers though! -- jjron ( talk) 12:14, 18 January 2008 (UTC)
Doesnt this comment of yours about banned user Jed here belong below the bullet for Jed and not as a separate bullet?
Since its related to his vote only, not the rest of the page. What do you think. -- Matt57 ( talk• contribs) 19:17, 18 January 2008 (UTC)
Hi Durova. I noticed that you placed Palestinian costumes as a suggested article for collaboration for the new Wikipedia:WikiProject Israel Palestine Collaboration. I'm wondering how appropriate this is, considering that it is not an article related to the conflict, but rather a cultural article fundamentally related to Palestinians, and not Israelis. I don't really want to see the issue get needlessly politicized, especially with a GA review underway. Would you mind retracting the suggestion? Thanks. Tiamut talk 20:20, 18 January 2008 (UTC)
What do you make of this edit and this justification? (You may need to go to the previous edit to check what "improvements" I claim to be making). It seems to me that the NPOV version of the article is being undermined on POV grounds by legalese intended to mislead me, and mislead the reader of the article. Actual or potential racism has been incited by the wording and the time scale of another legal action has been pointlessly removed, thus tending to mislead the reader. (There are huge other POV problems, see this revert but let's just examine the legal parts above). PR talk 09:57, 19 January 2008 (UTC) PS - I've responded to you above on Build - Criticise - Build, you may not spot it. I've also mentioned your name here but I'm not asking you to involve yourself immediately. PR talk 11:07, 19 January 2008 (UTC)
PS - I fear that, however much you want to distance yourself, you will also become involved in the cordial exchange of opinion here. PR talk
Durova, I made an interesting contact recently and he has a lot of interesting information about world events.
Please take a look http://www.mybloglog.com/buzz/members/EuroYank/
There are a few blogs with videos and other stuff. Regards, 02:42, 20 January 2008 (UTC)
Hello Durova. Thanks for you support on one of my images. Also, I do believe the halo's were added deliberately, to show a better conception of the Black Hole. - Ohmpandya We need to talk... ♦ contribs 04:11, 20 January 2008 (UTC)
What are your thoughts on having the Dead trees criteria for all BLP articles regardless of whether the subject wants them deleted or not? It seems to me that these articles are really more trouble that they are worth. Pocopocopocopoco ( talk) 06:03, 20 January 2008 (UTC)
Once before, not too long ago, you sanctioned a misbehaving editor who threatened legal action against me for removing their edits. We now have a different but similar case, with a legal threat posted to my personal talk page (see this diff: [1]). All I had done was politely pointed out to them that original research was prohibited, and that constantly reverting the removal of their edits was violating 3RR rules - which provoked this amazingly hostile and belligerent response. They do say that I should go ahead and contact an admin, and I'm doing so now (since I know and trust you to do the right thing), to request if you would please have a nice chat with this individual. Obviously anything else I say is only going to agitate them more. Thanks, Dyanega ( talk) 22:39, 20 January 2008 (UTC)
I was worried about the length, as DYK now requires 2,000 characters, but the long quotation from Davenport, which is out of copyright, gets it there! Xn4 01:09, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
Dear Durova, I made a large amount of improvements to this article as well. Maybe we can boost it up to good status as well. Best, -- Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles Tally-ho! 03:12, 17 January 2008 (UTC)
After seeing PR's insinuations to Sam Blacketer about me, and then seeing PR refer to me again in his evidence statement, I felt compelled to respond. As I wrote at the evidence talk page, I'd be glad to strikethrough if PR withdraws those insinuations. And I'd still be glad to collaborate with him in uncontroversial areas. Best regards, Durova Charge! 00:27, 15 January 2008 (UTC)
(as Jaakobou's mentor Durova would tell us) - it's inappropriate to put words in my mouth. You never contacted me with any of these details and I've only just now started skimming your claims for the first time, now that you've made them available. You don't speak for me; please withdraw the attempt to. Durova Charge! 00:13, 18 January 2008 (UTC)
See my additions here. I haven't had a chance to review them yet, but the lists don't seem that comprehensive or well-organised yet (well, the Wikipedia PD resources list is the best one and probably is fairly comprehensive), and there seems to be some overlap and failure of synchronisation between the Wikipedia and Commons lists, but it is a start. Carcharoth ( talk) 13:07, 17 January 2008 (UTC)
Pfft. You shouldn't have told me about the Commons mailing list! Now I have wikien-l, Wikback and commons-l to keep track of and eventually join... :-) Carcharoth ( talk) 21:20, 17 January 2008 (UTC)
I've responded to your comments on Silence as consensus with a question. I hope that the timeline I recall is correct. I'm also wondering if the wording at what ignore all rules means might need further elucidation. -- Kim Bruning ( talk) 15:02, 17 January 2008 (UTC)
Now I know it is my opinion and I WP:AGF but I feel the admin is too in the hurry to perform his admin duties. This is the second time it happned and the admin himself stated, "Sorry for the delay in responding Igor _ I have been busy at my real life working." User_talk:Igorberger#Andy_Beard_AfD Once with Social_Network_Aggregation related duplicate page and now with closing Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Andy_Beard and deleting Andy Beard. Now it is not about the article but what was the hurry to delete it and not give it the full 5 days? Please advise, Igor Berger ( talk) 07:39, 18 January 2008 (UTC)
Hi Durova,
I noticed you added an ‘Edited by Durova’ to some recent historical FP images on the Wikipedia:Featured pictures/History page. What some people do is add an 'Edited by...' to the Author section on the image description; see here for example. Without that it's not necessarily obvious it's been edited, especially when there's no note on the description page about what's been done or whatever. Often it's not mentioned during the FPC nom either. If I’m closing them and see that note I’ll put in the “Edited by” with the FP credit (and give you a credit on your talkpage as well, as for the Carpenter). I can’t speak for other closers though! -- jjron ( talk) 12:14, 18 January 2008 (UTC)
Doesnt this comment of yours about banned user Jed here belong below the bullet for Jed and not as a separate bullet?
Since its related to his vote only, not the rest of the page. What do you think. -- Matt57 ( talk• contribs) 19:17, 18 January 2008 (UTC)
Hi Durova. I noticed that you placed Palestinian costumes as a suggested article for collaboration for the new Wikipedia:WikiProject Israel Palestine Collaboration. I'm wondering how appropriate this is, considering that it is not an article related to the conflict, but rather a cultural article fundamentally related to Palestinians, and not Israelis. I don't really want to see the issue get needlessly politicized, especially with a GA review underway. Would you mind retracting the suggestion? Thanks. Tiamut talk 20:20, 18 January 2008 (UTC)
What do you make of this edit and this justification? (You may need to go to the previous edit to check what "improvements" I claim to be making). It seems to me that the NPOV version of the article is being undermined on POV grounds by legalese intended to mislead me, and mislead the reader of the article. Actual or potential racism has been incited by the wording and the time scale of another legal action has been pointlessly removed, thus tending to mislead the reader. (There are huge other POV problems, see this revert but let's just examine the legal parts above). PR talk 09:57, 19 January 2008 (UTC) PS - I've responded to you above on Build - Criticise - Build, you may not spot it. I've also mentioned your name here but I'm not asking you to involve yourself immediately. PR talk 11:07, 19 January 2008 (UTC)
PS - I fear that, however much you want to distance yourself, you will also become involved in the cordial exchange of opinion here. PR talk
Durova, I made an interesting contact recently and he has a lot of interesting information about world events.
Please take a look http://www.mybloglog.com/buzz/members/EuroYank/
There are a few blogs with videos and other stuff. Regards, 02:42, 20 January 2008 (UTC)
Hello Durova. Thanks for you support on one of my images. Also, I do believe the halo's were added deliberately, to show a better conception of the Black Hole. - Ohmpandya We need to talk... ♦ contribs 04:11, 20 January 2008 (UTC)
What are your thoughts on having the Dead trees criteria for all BLP articles regardless of whether the subject wants them deleted or not? It seems to me that these articles are really more trouble that they are worth. Pocopocopocopoco ( talk) 06:03, 20 January 2008 (UTC)
Once before, not too long ago, you sanctioned a misbehaving editor who threatened legal action against me for removing their edits. We now have a different but similar case, with a legal threat posted to my personal talk page (see this diff: [1]). All I had done was politely pointed out to them that original research was prohibited, and that constantly reverting the removal of their edits was violating 3RR rules - which provoked this amazingly hostile and belligerent response. They do say that I should go ahead and contact an admin, and I'm doing so now (since I know and trust you to do the right thing), to request if you would please have a nice chat with this individual. Obviously anything else I say is only going to agitate them more. Thanks, Dyanega ( talk) 22:39, 20 January 2008 (UTC)
I was worried about the length, as DYK now requires 2,000 characters, but the long quotation from Davenport, which is out of copyright, gets it there! Xn4 01:09, 21 January 2008 (UTC)