Some time ago you helped improve the article
Photosynthetic reaction centre to bring it to featured article standard. The article never became featured, probably because it's too obscure, so now I want to merge it with photosynthesis and then eventually rewrite that whole article. Few people have heard of reaction centres, but the majority of people have heard of photosynthesis, so this is probably a better candidate for a featured article. I just wondered if you would like to help merge the two articles appropriately.
Thanks. --
Miller 17:08, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
Just before the talk page gets so long that it has to be archived, several people will write beautiful compliments. As soon as the archive is completed, something really strange or nasty will happen on the new page.
Hi. Sorry I didn't get back to you sooner in regards to the Military History Project on Wiki. I was wondering how exactly one contributes through the project-is there a specific taskforce for Women in war? How exactly does it work? Asarelah 02:28, 21 March 2006 (UTC)
- Just sign up for the general project. Category:Women in war inspired me to approach you because it's well populated but hasn't gotten attention from the project yet. I was thinking it could use more subcategories for easier navigation. That's just a start - the project does plenty of things. Durova 03:07, 21 March 2006 (UTC)
Did you see the edit that SweHomer added that caused me to jump back in? [1] Hopefully, I nipped it in the bud. When things start in this direction, editor relationships rarely get better. FloNight talk 03:31, 21 March 2006 (UTC)
- Yes, that's why I posted in support of your statement. I'm glad you caught it early. Durova 03:34, 21 March 2006 (UTC)
At Talk:Sweden Democrats you suggested "If you'd like to write an article about Expo then go ahead." and I just wanted to inform you that an article already exist at Expo (magazine). I would say that Expo indeed is a reliable source, but it would be possible to get more sources if necessary. The major problem is that most newspapers only free archives for recent events. // Liftarn 08:43, 22 March 2006 (UTC)
- Thanks for the information. Actually my point on the talk page was that there were plenty of other sources already cited that supported the article text. Since that was the only one an editor disputed, it seemed that it wouldn't hurt the article to remove it. Then, since that editor was devoting a lot of talk page space to this source, I suggested he select another source he preferred to defend the party. The place to discuss Expo is on its own page. Just trying to facilitate consensus... Regards, Durova 18:15, 22 March 2006 (UTC)
Can you please help me with the List of French Monarchs list, as I seem to be the only one who is editing it... I'm finding it hard and really want this article to make FL status... any help would be much appreciated... Sotakeit 16:49, 24 March 2006 (UTC)
- You're almost there. Just footnote a few more of the statements in the introduction and I'll help copyedit. Aim for one citation every 1-2 paragraphs.
Durova 16:52, 24 March 2006 (UTC)
- I don't know what to put in the footnotes? And the one I added for Charlamange doesn't seem to work? I'll try to foot note so more, but it would be helpful if you could edit them if they don't work... Sotakeit 17:02, 24 March 2006 (UTC)
- You're almost there. Just footnote a few more of the statements in the introduction and I'll help copyedit. Aim for one citation every 1-2 paragraphs.
Durova 16:52, 24 March 2006 (UTC)
If this is just a problem with the formatting, then post the full information here and I'll implement it on the page. Be specific enough that I know where to place it. I'm about to go offline so it might be a few hours before it's in. Regards, Durova 17:05, 24 March 2006 (UTC)
I put this
ref name=Charlemange>Though he is considered Charles I of France he was also founder of the
Holy Roman Empire and is considered to be king of
Germany.</ref>
directly after "not that Charlemange..."
Sotakeit 17:08, 24 March 2006 (UTC) thanks :)
- That's really not a format I know. I've implemented the system I use. It has an empty footnote section at the bottom of the page. Just fill in the page numbers and adapt for your other citations. I'll come back later to copyedit. Cheers,
Durova 17:13, 24 March 2006 (UTC)
- You're getting the hang of the format. Let's have some authors and page numbers. :) Durova 20:21, 24 March 2006 (UTC)
- I don't know any page numbers of authors as I didn't write most of the introduction. O, and everytime I click on the edit but (the small one above) it says I've been blocked form editing (well my ISP) but I can still edit every other page and this page using the edit button atthe top...
Then you ought to contact an administrator. Maybe a vandal has been using your IP range. I don't see any blocks on your user report. Good luck, Durova 13:32, 26 March 2006 (UTC)
Homer Simpson wins!
Joyous | Talk 18:38, 26 March 2006 (UTC)
Hey, just want to say thanks for you help with the List of French Monarchs. Yours, Sotakeit 15:36, 27 March 2006 (UTC)
Dear Durova:
And it's here!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Announcing my CS 492 term-end paper: On Wikipedia — the Technology, the People, the Unfinished Work. File:Wikipedia.pdf
Thank you for all the kind help you have lent me during the paper-writing process!!!
Long live Wikipedia!!!
Shuo Xiang 22:17, 27 March 2006 (UTC)
Hi, I got your note on my talk page concerning the GA nomination of the Joan of Arc in art page. Sorry I haven't done anything yet, but I just became editor of the Open Directory Project Highland Games > Canada category and I want to be sure to get that category filled out before the start of the Highland Games season. I will go to the nomination page soon, though. JFPerry 00:37, 29 March 2006 (UTC)
 Issue I - March 2006 | |
|
Welcome to the inaugural issue of the Military history WikiProject's newsletter! We hope that this new format will help members—especially those who may be unable to keep up with some of the rapid developments that tend to occur—find new groups and programs within the project that they may wish to participate in. Please consider this inital issue to be a prototype; as always, any comments and suggestions are quite welcome, and will help us improve the newsletter in the coming months. Kirill Lok s hin, Lead Coordinator |
| |
delivered by Loopy e 04:57, 30 March 2006 (UTC)
Hi, recently you voted on a move from Roman Catholic Church to Catholic Church. Thanks for your support. That proposal was voted down, but now they're trying to accomplish the opposite: to change Catholic Church from a redirect into a disambiguation page (redundant with Catholicism, Catholicism (disambiguation), Catholic, One Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church, and other articles). There is an ongoing vote at Talk:Roman Catholic Church#Survey 2, and your contribution to the discussion is very much needed. In fact, there's a revert war going on at Catholic Church with some people trying to preempt the vote and create a disambig page anyway. So more voices and your contribution to the discussion in particular is very much needed! -- Hyphen5 13:01, 31 March 2006 (UTC)
You supported American Revolutionary War, which has been selected as the Military history WikiProject's new Collaboration of the Fortnight. Please help improve this article to featured article standards. Kirill Lok s h in 23:30, 2 April 2006 (UTC)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment/86.10.231.219
You have had some dealings with this user and I wonder if you could spare a moment to view the RFC. Midgley 08:32, 24 April 2006 (UTC)
The April 2006 issue of the project newsletter is now out. You may read this issue or change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you by following the link. Thanks. Kirill Lok s h in 18:36, 30 April 2006 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedian. I'm looking for some help at Scanderbeg. I 've left a message at the project page but noone responded. If you can and if you are interested, please check this french book (it is in public domain) so that this article (and perhaps the many related articles) gets improved. Thanks! talk to +MATIA 06:46, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
Pruneau 21:31, 23 May 2006 (UTC)
The May 2006 issue of the Military history WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you. — ERcheck @ 23:11, 25 May 2006 (UTC)
The June 2006 issue of the Military history WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you. Kirill Lokshin 05:59, 30 June 2006 (UTC)
The July 2006 issue of the Military history WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you.
This is an automated delivery by grafikbot.
Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history Coordinator Elections!
The Military history WikiProject coordinator selection process is starting. We are looking to elect seven coordinators to serve for the next six months; if you are interested in running, please sign up here by August 11!
This is an automated delivery by grafikbot - 18:31, 26 July 2006 (UTC)
The Military history WikiProject coordinator election has begun. We will select seven coordinators to serve for the next six months from a pool of eleven candidates. Please vote here by August 26!
This is an automated delivery by grafikbot - 11:33, 12 August 2006 (UTC)
Hi, Durova. The List of people with epilepsy has recently achived Featured List status. I've shamelessly nicked some ideas from your page. During the review, the issue of naming such lists appeared. When I investigated, I found that "notable" was discouraged as part of the title. Since all lists of people on Wikipedia should include only notable people, the word is redundant. Futher, the word "patient" has also been questioned, but perhaps more for my list than yours. I have found that picking a name that applies to all people in such a list is very hard. For example, "people with epilepsy" is a present-tense thing. So it may appear to exclude dead people or people who no longer have epilepsy. I think a compromise title is the best we can achieve. Anyway, you might want to voice your opinion over at the talk page.
Secondly, a bot has removed the Elizabeth Taylor image due to copyright issues. The other pictures of her either have the same problem, or aren't nearly as good. I tried to find someone else but think they have to be well recognised and also have a good safe picture. Possibly Eric Liddell might do. In the UK, Mo Mowlam is still well remembered but her picture probably can't be used in this list. Hmm...
Cheers, Colin° Talk 14:06, 19 August 2006 (UTC)
I see you've found another picture. I have found a good source for George Gershwin.
This paper (PMID 12131961) gives great detail on the subject. It is much better than the IMDB source. Someone once said that IMDB was as reliable as a Wikipedia page, with no sources, written by an anon. Hmm. Anyway, the paper suggests the first symptoms were in February and he died in July. That gives 6 months if that is your measure. However, from diagnosis of tumor to death was probably hours rather than days or months.
Colin°
Talk 19:52, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
Hi, I wish you had written your message to me sooner. I logged in late last night to find your "unpleasant surprise" and had a sleepless night as a result. I don't know what I've done to make you react with such apparent hostility. I certainly don't suppose your chore was anything but a mammoth task. If I've given the impression otherwise then I do apologise.
I will be writing a more detailed response later. However, you should know that I have been working on a new section of "Religious figures" to take the existing names and also a good bunch more. As I'm sure you are aware, such issues are extremely controversial (both with religious people and also amongst scientists/physicians) and often highly speculative. This is why I have not rushed to include it. Regards, Colin° Talk 10:07, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
Here is what JR Hughes says regarding Joan of Arc:
- "...(background and life story, which you already know) (ref 1)... The possibility that Joan of Arc's voices and visions were epileptic phenomena has been considered, but clearly auditory and visual hallucinations are very uncommon in epilepsy. Epileptic phenomena are nearly always brief and primitive, like light flashes; the well-formed visions she described lasted hours rather than just a minute or so (ref 2). Thus, the extremely pious and religious Joan of Arc likely experienced religious messages, rather than epileptic phenomena." The 1st reference is "Pernoud R. Joan of Arc,. New York: Penguin Books; 1969". The 2nd reference is "Bazil CW. Sensory disorders. In: Engel Jr J, Pedley TA, editors. Epilepsy, a comprehensive textbook. Lippincott-Raven: Philadelphia; 1997".
I had originally placed Joan in the "Similar conditions" box. An anonymous editor moved her to "No evidence". I don't agree with that since clearly many neurologist historians think visions of any kind are enough evidence to support their speculation. However, as you are very aware, religious issues are very controversial and I didn't want to get into a revert war with this person. I left it where it is, pending a move to a new section.
The level of evidence used by researchers to "diagnose" temporal lobe epilepsy (TLE) in religious figures ranges from thoroughly convincing to outragously poor. The two least convincing methods used appear to be the assumption that all visions can be explained as a seizure and the use of psychological analysis indicating the person may have had Geschwind syndrome. This highly controversial "syndrome" is occasionally being used as the sole means of "diagnosis" (ie. no evidence of seizures, just psychology).
You may be interested in this landmark paper, this talk and this article. Colin° Talk 11:42, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
- Hm, I have a hunch about who that anonymous editor may have been. The long text comment and the IP address look like Allen Williamson, an old troublemaker at Joan of Arc. Coming back to review the article after a hiatus, I discovered this morning that he vanity published in order to quote himself in Wikipedia's article.
- Although I'm very relieved to read this explanation, I'll leave my vote on your nomination unchanged for now because of the other concerns. Call it a hard (but very friendly) kick in the pants: I really think you're intelligent and talented enough to make that list much better than it already is. You might win me over or you might make FL without my support. Right now I'd rather wait - and probably hand you a barnstar two months from now as well as a "strong support" vote. Regards, Durova 18:44, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
- Correction: congratulations, you made FL. Now go and outdo yourself. Cheers, Durova 18:46, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
- Thanks. I've added 15 more names, mostly to the new religious section. I'd much prefer to add to the certain-diagnosis section than the wild speculation section (of which PubMed is perversely the main source – It seems doctors like nothing better than to speculate about the illnesses of dead people). I'm also more likely at this stage to add new or better sources than to find new names. We'll see. Other than comprehensiveness, and working on the sources, I'd be interested in what other improvements you can suggest. I'd also really like you to review the religious section, given your experience. I'm sure it could do with some more work. Colin° Talk 20:09, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
Please make sure to provide a helpful edit summary (per the instructions and big red box) when editing the nominations list in future. This will help us keep the Good Articles wikiproject running more efficiently. Thanks. -- Run! 13:03, 24 August 2006 (UTC)
Joan of Arc is up for a featured article review. Detailed concerns may be found here. Please leave your comments and help us address and maintain this article's featured quality. Sandy 23:01, 26 August 2006 (UTC)
Hi Durova,
Just a warning that a vandal might be wikistalking you. Your request to Wikipedia talk:Long term abuse has now been removed twice without explanation by IdlP ( talk • contribs) and Rm104 ( talk • contribs). -- Netsnipe (Talk) 09:33, 27 August 2006 (UTC)
- Even this message was deleted by QFMC ( talk • contribs) -- Netsnipe (Talk) 09:55, 27 August 2006 (UTC)
- Thank you very much. Durova 13:10, 27 August 2006 (UTC)
Do you know where I can take concerns about Wikistalking? I've followed your lead and noticed other evidence. Durova 13:39, 27 August 2006 (UTC)
- I suggest reporting it to Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents and filing Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser on all those you suspect to be same person. -- Netsnipe (Talk) 13:43, 27 August 2006 (UTC)
The August 2006 issue of the Military history WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you.
This is an automated delivery by grafikbot -- 12:04, 27 August 2006 (UTC)
Material was posted to this page that violated copyright law. I have deleted it. Durova 13:16, 27 August 2006 (UTC)
I noticed your comments on WP:ANI. I took a look at the two Joan of Arc questions you added on the two WikiProject talk pages. I just restored both questions. I did see that they were deletions by the same editor. They seemed to be followed by his/her addition of a subsequent question. Assuming good faith, it was the editor's first day as a registered user... and it appears that he/she restored an edit of yours to Joan of Arc. [2].
I did not respond on ANI, as I won't be investigating the issue. But, I did want you to know that I restored your edits. — ERcheck ( talk) 14:32, 27 August 2006 (UTC)
- Thank you very much. Since nobody responded to that informal request I opened a FA review on the article. Durova 15:23, 27 August 2006 (UTC)
Hi Durova,
I have honestly done my best to keep the balance on the Spencer article. Please see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Robert_Spencer#Balance . Thanks -- Reza1 09:57, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
P.S. Also, please note that I found and added some quotes from Bat Ye'or in defense of Spencer and put them at the top of the section. -- Reza1 09:57, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
- Thanks for letting me know. I've left my reaction on the article talk page: good effort, do more for the introductory paragraph. Cheers, Durova 16:30, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
Re: vandalism on Joan of Arc
Durova, thanks for alerting me to the activities of "Editor X". I'm sorry that you had to spend so much time combing through the edit history looking for these subtle instances of vandalism; it seems like a great annoyance.
I haven't been keeping a very close watch on Joan of Arc, so I hadn't noticed there was a pattern of biased editing going on. I have no special expertise in French history, so I will not notice this as easily as your expert eye, but I'll watch for it. It's unfortunate that the CheckUser request was denied; we'll just have to do this the hard way. --Akhilleus ( talk)
- Thought it was worthwhile to write down what I knew. It's unlikely to recur unless I go on another Wikibreak: Editor X stopped interfering for several months after I threatened a formal complaint to AOL. If it happens again I recommend making good on that threat. The only catch is that you'd have to take the results of a Wikipedia investigation to AOL yourself: Wikipedia has no established channels for reporting randomized IP vandals to their ISPs (even if their identity is nearly certain). It's not too hard to send a few e-mails - easier than dethreading all the damage. I wish I'd returned while the trail was fresher. Regards, Durova 16:28, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
I've added Joan of Arc bibliography and Cultural depictions of Joan of Arc to my watchlist. I'll keep an eye out for Editor X as time allows. --Akhilleus ( talk) 20:19, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
- Thank you. Durova 20:29, 2 September 2006 (UTC)
That's it I am sick and tired of dealing with these people on Wikipedia! I am withdrawing the nomination, so I hope your happy. Do you people have anything else to do?! I though Wikipedia was supposed to be a forum to further people's knowledge around the world. A free encyclopedia if you will. In my short time here on Wikipedia all I have run into is falsification on articles, false articles, biased information, righteous admins. clinging to this online bureaucracy. So why don't you guys stop messing around on this site and maybe make a valuable contribution to the world, like volunteer or something. Anyway I never am again going to contribute to this site. Again I hope your happy! Speedystickd 20:06, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
- I changed my mind. I will continue to contribute to Wikipedia. I do not appreciate being bullied into doing what others want. Speedystickd 21:22, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
I'm glad you're staying. I'm not an admin, by the way. I apologize if your feelings were hurt. Try waiting a month and resubmitting, or maybe seeing if there's a smaller Wikiproject that specializes in your topic. Usually it's the major encyclopedic articles such as Volcano that become collaborations of the week on the main board. Best wishes - and by the way, if you believe this reaches good article status at some point, get back to me. I'll give you feedback and (if it's ready) award the GA myself: I owe you that much. Durova 22:04, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
- As an outsider, I would like to point out that asking other people to give their vote in WP:AID is not considered gaming the system, according to a vote you can find
here. It is therefore not forbidden to go ask others to vote.
Errabee 22:15, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
- Ah, so there's been a separate discussion while I was on Wikibreak? I based my reaction on comparable incidents at AfD, none of which canvassed quite so many people. I have no problem with leaving messages for people who actually edited an article, but 90 messages to different users was excessive. I wouldn't want this to become a daily problem.
Durova 22:21, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
- I agree this was a clumsy attempt, and should be mildly discouraged. However, imho it is not canvassing, because WP:AID only counts support votes from editors willing to contribute to an article. It would be canvassing if the WP:AID article would be chosen on the difference between support and oppose votes. Errabee 22:48, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
- Ah, so there's been a separate discussion while I was on Wikibreak? I based my reaction on comparable incidents at AfD, none of which canvassed quite so many people. I have no problem with leaving messages for people who actually edited an article, but 90 messages to different users was excessive. I wouldn't want this to become a daily problem.
Durova 22:21, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
Durova, can you please have a second look at your response on Talk:Hugo Chávez, to help clarify things further, and can you please provide a link back to the RfC you are referring to? Thanks, Sandy 19:23, 30 August 2006 (UTC)
- Hate to keep pestering you, but you've mixed two different problems we've got on the same article. First, an editor is using primary sources, and your first response indicated that was OK (it's not, per WP:RS). Second, the same editor constantly deletes very well-sourced criticism from reliable, secondary sources, claiming WP:BLP. Your response mixed the two issues, implying that it's OK for him to use primary sources. Sorry for the mess, Sandy 20:48, 30 August 2006 (UTC)
- Actually it isn't a removal candidate, it's just in review. I requested the review myself - reviews don't necessarily question the FA status. Durova 21:20, 30 August 2006 (UTC)
- Yes, sorry, correct, it's in FAR :-) Just always glad when someone is actually working on them, as so few get any input. Sandy 21:22, 30 August 2006 (UTC)
- Thank you. May I suggest a page you might find helpful? Historical method explains some standard methods for evaluating the reliability of a source. Your posts suggest that secondary sources are inherently more reliable than primary ones. Secondary sources do provide analysis, but historians prefer primary sources for straightforward fact checking. Durova 21:39, 30 August 2006 (UTC)
- I understand, but we're talking about a different situation. One editor keeps posting PDFs and charts from presentations, which contain data that hasn't been subject to review by a reliable, secondary source. When the authors of the presentations are (eventually) quoted in reliable secondary sources, they inevitably say something very different from the original research being presented in the articles, using the primary source.
Sandy 21:49, 30 August 2006 (UTC)
- I see, well in that case I'd hardly define a chart as a primary source. It's necessarily a synthesis of data. Durova 13:05, 31 August 2006 (UTC)
- I understand, but we're talking about a different situation. One editor keeps posting PDFs and charts from presentations, which contain data that hasn't been subject to review by a reliable, secondary source. When the authors of the presentations are (eventually) quoted in reliable secondary sources, they inevitably say something very different from the original research being presented in the articles, using the primary source.
Sandy 21:49, 30 August 2006 (UTC)
Hello Durova
I spent several hours checking your requested images and writing emails today. I think you can help me:
google the name with google images
go to the website distributing a suitable image and get the email adress of their administrator (usually in the category "Contact")
Send him the following request or something you have written yourself
It must contain:
use on www.wikipedia.org upload on www.wikimedia.org clear request to name the appropriate license
It works better if you name the website's url or the url of the images and if you offer to provide a link to the source.
Example:
Dear XY
The online encyclopedia www.wikipedia.org is chronically suffering from a lack of images for history articles. Actually you could help if it is possible to release the following images:
- url list of requested images*
from your site http://www.XYsite.net/, so we can upload them on www.wikimedia.org In accordance with fair use (for example http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/1.0/ or http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/2.5/), we usually provide in exchange a link to the homepage of the friendly author or licensor.
Greetings Z
Wandalstouring 11:01, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
- Are these old requests you're referring to? This doesn't ring a bell. Durova 14:12, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
I couldn't find the appropriate template for that article on the dispute templates page. I'll make a note of it and use the templates appropriately from now on. Cheers! -- Merope 06:20, 3 September 2006 (UTC)
Thank you for taking the time to add your comments to the article's talk page. I'd like to try to make issues that you didn't find clear a bit more specific; I'll try to elaborate on the issues without taking sides (difficult, but I'll give it a shot—good WP:NPOV practice, I guess).
The issues have arisen with anonymous I.P. editors; while some of the edit summaries have been informative, they have not engaged in discussion on the article's talk page. It is unclear whether they have even read the information on the talk page; the citations to Wikipedia policy don't seem to have had affected the disputed editing.
A review of the edit summaries in the edit history may provide additional clarification of the disputes.
I'll restate the issues here and include your comments underneath; I'll add additional explanatory information under that.
At issue:
- The validity of the Model Profile of Michael Lucas at the
website at www.lucasentertainment.com as a source.
- Looks like official company PR material. Acceptable.
- A user has consistently deleted references to this website as being the "mouthpiece" of Michael Lucas. This has necessitated deleting specific information that was sourced only at this website; additional sources for the information were not available. (For example, the date he was made a U.S. citizen is found on this site and nowhere else. Likewise, his actual birthdate, rather than birth year; additionally, that he graduated with a law degree. Other sources just reference that he studied law.)
- Looks like official company PR material. Acceptable.
- The inclusion of a photo of a DVD cover depicting Michael Lucas.
- I'm unclear on the issue here. Suggest bowing to precedent and using it unless someone expresses a particular reason not to.
- The precedent is to use images of the person from DVD covers. A user has repeatedly removed the image with the explanation that it is "advertising" for the product. Because this is being done from an anonymous IP address it is unclear whether this is the same user who is removing other images at other gay porn star articles, and/or reducing them to such small thumbnails as to be useless and editing their captions. At other articles, a user has complained about the content of the images (see the edit history for Chad Hunt, for example.)
- I'm unclear on the issue here. Suggest bowing to precedent and using it unless someone expresses a particular reason not to.
- The validity of a blog
"Sex, Lies and Videotape: How Myths Are Born", Proceed at Your Own Risk as a source.
- A blog? No.
- This is a site that is self-identified as a blog. Text from the source and the citation have been added and removed a number of times. Similar information has been found from a verifiable source and included in the article; hopefully this will be sufficient to stop this particular editing see-saw.
- A blog? No.
The use of the word moved vs. fled to describe his leaving Russia and going to Germany.Statement is now changed and sourced.- I'm unclear on the issue here. If there's a dispute among legitimate citations, suggest footnoting with references to each version.
- A user consistently changed the phrase "moved to Germany" to "fled to Germany", without citing a source. The text has been changed with a citation to a specific source; the language should no longer be an issue.
- I'm unclear on the issue here. If there's a dispute among legitimate citations, suggest footnoting with references to each version.
- The relevance of specifying the makeup of his audience at the Masters Tea.
- I'm unclear on the issue here. Audience makeup doesn't seem very relevant. What's the argument for including it?
- The argument for including the information that the audience was 50 students is that many people are unfamiliar with what a "Master's Tea" is; because it takes place at a university, it could be misconstrued as an address to a large group of professors or other academics when, in fact, it was an address to a small group of students. The information is included in the article that is cited.
- I'm unclear on the issue here. Audience makeup doesn't seem very relevant. What's the argument for including it?
- The validity of
"Step Right Up", Narcissism101, www.narcissism101.typepad.com as a source.
- Another blog? No.
- This site is not clearly self-identified as a blog; however, it is hosted by typepad.com, which is a blog host site; one assumption is that it is, indeed, a blog.
- Another blog? No.
And I'd appreciate clarification of the last comment you added:
- Also, regarding Jewish identification, the site referenced looks like it would (marginally) pass
WP:V.
- With regard to this source, why is it "marginal"? The information that he is Jewish is found in articles on two Jewish news websites and specifically on the Lucas Entertainment corporate website; I'm just wondering why the www.somethingjewish.co.uk site is "marginal"?
- This also raises another question (for me, at least). In a situation like this, would information from the blog at a corporate site be admissible/usable? This is one of the ways that this corporate officer communicates to the public. Mr. Lucas has written about specific current events in his blog; this information would not normally be included in corporate PR material, as it is dated. Should sourcing be limited to the actual corporate PR information and the blog ignored?
Again, your help is greatly appreciated. I'm not sure what the process here is in terms of how many comments need to be received, etc. If you have experience with RfCs that you'd like to share, any further assistance you'd care to provide would be welcome—this is my first foray into these particular waters. Thanks again.— Chidom talk 08:31, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
This is a rock opera, like The Who or Pink Floyd. The major difference is that it became a fully-staged production (with actors as opposed to a simple band performance) much earlier than Tommy or The Wall, within months of its initial conception as an album. I didn't see a pop music section, so I placed it under opera. The major difference is that it had a professional playwright (James Lineberger, best known for Taps) do the libretto. -- Scottandrewhutchins 10:40, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
Some time ago you helped improve the article
Photosynthetic reaction centre to bring it to featured article standard. The article never became featured, probably because it's too obscure, so now I want to merge it with photosynthesis and then eventually rewrite that whole article. Few people have heard of reaction centres, but the majority of people have heard of photosynthesis, so this is probably a better candidate for a featured article. I just wondered if you would like to help merge the two articles appropriately.
Thanks. --
Miller 17:08, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
Just before the talk page gets so long that it has to be archived, several people will write beautiful compliments. As soon as the archive is completed, something really strange or nasty will happen on the new page.
Hi. Sorry I didn't get back to you sooner in regards to the Military History Project on Wiki. I was wondering how exactly one contributes through the project-is there a specific taskforce for Women in war? How exactly does it work? Asarelah 02:28, 21 March 2006 (UTC)
- Just sign up for the general project. Category:Women in war inspired me to approach you because it's well populated but hasn't gotten attention from the project yet. I was thinking it could use more subcategories for easier navigation. That's just a start - the project does plenty of things. Durova 03:07, 21 March 2006 (UTC)
Did you see the edit that SweHomer added that caused me to jump back in? [1] Hopefully, I nipped it in the bud. When things start in this direction, editor relationships rarely get better. FloNight talk 03:31, 21 March 2006 (UTC)
- Yes, that's why I posted in support of your statement. I'm glad you caught it early. Durova 03:34, 21 March 2006 (UTC)
At Talk:Sweden Democrats you suggested "If you'd like to write an article about Expo then go ahead." and I just wanted to inform you that an article already exist at Expo (magazine). I would say that Expo indeed is a reliable source, but it would be possible to get more sources if necessary. The major problem is that most newspapers only free archives for recent events. // Liftarn 08:43, 22 March 2006 (UTC)
- Thanks for the information. Actually my point on the talk page was that there were plenty of other sources already cited that supported the article text. Since that was the only one an editor disputed, it seemed that it wouldn't hurt the article to remove it. Then, since that editor was devoting a lot of talk page space to this source, I suggested he select another source he preferred to defend the party. The place to discuss Expo is on its own page. Just trying to facilitate consensus... Regards, Durova 18:15, 22 March 2006 (UTC)
Can you please help me with the List of French Monarchs list, as I seem to be the only one who is editing it... I'm finding it hard and really want this article to make FL status... any help would be much appreciated... Sotakeit 16:49, 24 March 2006 (UTC)
- You're almost there. Just footnote a few more of the statements in the introduction and I'll help copyedit. Aim for one citation every 1-2 paragraphs.
Durova 16:52, 24 March 2006 (UTC)
- I don't know what to put in the footnotes? And the one I added for Charlamange doesn't seem to work? I'll try to foot note so more, but it would be helpful if you could edit them if they don't work... Sotakeit 17:02, 24 March 2006 (UTC)
- You're almost there. Just footnote a few more of the statements in the introduction and I'll help copyedit. Aim for one citation every 1-2 paragraphs.
Durova 16:52, 24 March 2006 (UTC)
If this is just a problem with the formatting, then post the full information here and I'll implement it on the page. Be specific enough that I know where to place it. I'm about to go offline so it might be a few hours before it's in. Regards, Durova 17:05, 24 March 2006 (UTC)
I put this
ref name=Charlemange>Though he is considered Charles I of France he was also founder of the
Holy Roman Empire and is considered to be king of
Germany.</ref>
directly after "not that Charlemange..."
Sotakeit 17:08, 24 March 2006 (UTC) thanks :)
- That's really not a format I know. I've implemented the system I use. It has an empty footnote section at the bottom of the page. Just fill in the page numbers and adapt for your other citations. I'll come back later to copyedit. Cheers,
Durova 17:13, 24 March 2006 (UTC)
- You're getting the hang of the format. Let's have some authors and page numbers. :) Durova 20:21, 24 March 2006 (UTC)
- I don't know any page numbers of authors as I didn't write most of the introduction. O, and everytime I click on the edit but (the small one above) it says I've been blocked form editing (well my ISP) but I can still edit every other page and this page using the edit button atthe top...
Then you ought to contact an administrator. Maybe a vandal has been using your IP range. I don't see any blocks on your user report. Good luck, Durova 13:32, 26 March 2006 (UTC)
Homer Simpson wins!
Joyous | Talk 18:38, 26 March 2006 (UTC)
Hey, just want to say thanks for you help with the List of French Monarchs. Yours, Sotakeit 15:36, 27 March 2006 (UTC)
Dear Durova:
And it's here!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Announcing my CS 492 term-end paper: On Wikipedia — the Technology, the People, the Unfinished Work. File:Wikipedia.pdf
Thank you for all the kind help you have lent me during the paper-writing process!!!
Long live Wikipedia!!!
Shuo Xiang 22:17, 27 March 2006 (UTC)
Hi, I got your note on my talk page concerning the GA nomination of the Joan of Arc in art page. Sorry I haven't done anything yet, but I just became editor of the Open Directory Project Highland Games > Canada category and I want to be sure to get that category filled out before the start of the Highland Games season. I will go to the nomination page soon, though. JFPerry 00:37, 29 March 2006 (UTC)
|
Issue I - March 2006 | |
|
Welcome to the inaugural issue of the Military history WikiProject's newsletter! We hope that this new format will help members—especially those who may be unable to keep up with some of the rapid developments that tend to occur—find new groups and programs within the project that they may wish to participate in. Please consider this inital issue to be a prototype; as always, any comments and suggestions are quite welcome, and will help us improve the newsletter in the coming months. Kirill Lok s hin, Lead Coordinator |
| |
delivered by Loopy e 04:57, 30 March 2006 (UTC)
Hi, recently you voted on a move from Roman Catholic Church to Catholic Church. Thanks for your support. That proposal was voted down, but now they're trying to accomplish the opposite: to change Catholic Church from a redirect into a disambiguation page (redundant with Catholicism, Catholicism (disambiguation), Catholic, One Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church, and other articles). There is an ongoing vote at Talk:Roman Catholic Church#Survey 2, and your contribution to the discussion is very much needed. In fact, there's a revert war going on at Catholic Church with some people trying to preempt the vote and create a disambig page anyway. So more voices and your contribution to the discussion in particular is very much needed! -- Hyphen5 13:01, 31 March 2006 (UTC)
You supported American Revolutionary War, which has been selected as the Military history WikiProject's new Collaboration of the Fortnight. Please help improve this article to featured article standards. Kirill Lok s h in 23:30, 2 April 2006 (UTC)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment/86.10.231.219
You have had some dealings with this user and I wonder if you could spare a moment to view the RFC. Midgley 08:32, 24 April 2006 (UTC)
The April 2006 issue of the project newsletter is now out. You may read this issue or change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you by following the link. Thanks. Kirill Lok s h in 18:36, 30 April 2006 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedian. I'm looking for some help at Scanderbeg. I 've left a message at the project page but noone responded. If you can and if you are interested, please check this french book (it is in public domain) so that this article (and perhaps the many related articles) gets improved. Thanks! talk to +MATIA 06:46, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
Pruneau 21:31, 23 May 2006 (UTC)
The May 2006 issue of the Military history WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you. — ERcheck @ 23:11, 25 May 2006 (UTC)
The June 2006 issue of the Military history WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you. Kirill Lokshin 05:59, 30 June 2006 (UTC)
The July 2006 issue of the Military history WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you.
This is an automated delivery by grafikbot.
Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history Coordinator Elections!
The Military history WikiProject coordinator selection process is starting. We are looking to elect seven coordinators to serve for the next six months; if you are interested in running, please sign up here by August 11!
This is an automated delivery by grafikbot - 18:31, 26 July 2006 (UTC)
The Military history WikiProject coordinator election has begun. We will select seven coordinators to serve for the next six months from a pool of eleven candidates. Please vote here by August 26!
This is an automated delivery by grafikbot - 11:33, 12 August 2006 (UTC)
Hi, Durova. The List of people with epilepsy has recently achived Featured List status. I've shamelessly nicked some ideas from your page. During the review, the issue of naming such lists appeared. When I investigated, I found that "notable" was discouraged as part of the title. Since all lists of people on Wikipedia should include only notable people, the word is redundant. Futher, the word "patient" has also been questioned, but perhaps more for my list than yours. I have found that picking a name that applies to all people in such a list is very hard. For example, "people with epilepsy" is a present-tense thing. So it may appear to exclude dead people or people who no longer have epilepsy. I think a compromise title is the best we can achieve. Anyway, you might want to voice your opinion over at the talk page.
Secondly, a bot has removed the Elizabeth Taylor image due to copyright issues. The other pictures of her either have the same problem, or aren't nearly as good. I tried to find someone else but think they have to be well recognised and also have a good safe picture. Possibly Eric Liddell might do. In the UK, Mo Mowlam is still well remembered but her picture probably can't be used in this list. Hmm...
Cheers, Colin° Talk 14:06, 19 August 2006 (UTC)
I see you've found another picture. I have found a good source for George Gershwin.
This paper (PMID 12131961) gives great detail on the subject. It is much better than the IMDB source. Someone once said that IMDB was as reliable as a Wikipedia page, with no sources, written by an anon. Hmm. Anyway, the paper suggests the first symptoms were in February and he died in July. That gives 6 months if that is your measure. However, from diagnosis of tumor to death was probably hours rather than days or months.
Colin°
Talk 19:52, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
Hi, I wish you had written your message to me sooner. I logged in late last night to find your "unpleasant surprise" and had a sleepless night as a result. I don't know what I've done to make you react with such apparent hostility. I certainly don't suppose your chore was anything but a mammoth task. If I've given the impression otherwise then I do apologise.
I will be writing a more detailed response later. However, you should know that I have been working on a new section of "Religious figures" to take the existing names and also a good bunch more. As I'm sure you are aware, such issues are extremely controversial (both with religious people and also amongst scientists/physicians) and often highly speculative. This is why I have not rushed to include it. Regards, Colin° Talk 10:07, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
Here is what JR Hughes says regarding Joan of Arc:
- "...(background and life story, which you already know) (ref 1)... The possibility that Joan of Arc's voices and visions were epileptic phenomena has been considered, but clearly auditory and visual hallucinations are very uncommon in epilepsy. Epileptic phenomena are nearly always brief and primitive, like light flashes; the well-formed visions she described lasted hours rather than just a minute or so (ref 2). Thus, the extremely pious and religious Joan of Arc likely experienced religious messages, rather than epileptic phenomena." The 1st reference is "Pernoud R. Joan of Arc,. New York: Penguin Books; 1969". The 2nd reference is "Bazil CW. Sensory disorders. In: Engel Jr J, Pedley TA, editors. Epilepsy, a comprehensive textbook. Lippincott-Raven: Philadelphia; 1997".
I had originally placed Joan in the "Similar conditions" box. An anonymous editor moved her to "No evidence". I don't agree with that since clearly many neurologist historians think visions of any kind are enough evidence to support their speculation. However, as you are very aware, religious issues are very controversial and I didn't want to get into a revert war with this person. I left it where it is, pending a move to a new section.
The level of evidence used by researchers to "diagnose" temporal lobe epilepsy (TLE) in religious figures ranges from thoroughly convincing to outragously poor. The two least convincing methods used appear to be the assumption that all visions can be explained as a seizure and the use of psychological analysis indicating the person may have had Geschwind syndrome. This highly controversial "syndrome" is occasionally being used as the sole means of "diagnosis" (ie. no evidence of seizures, just psychology).
You may be interested in this landmark paper, this talk and this article. Colin° Talk 11:42, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
- Hm, I have a hunch about who that anonymous editor may have been. The long text comment and the IP address look like Allen Williamson, an old troublemaker at Joan of Arc. Coming back to review the article after a hiatus, I discovered this morning that he vanity published in order to quote himself in Wikipedia's article.
- Although I'm very relieved to read this explanation, I'll leave my vote on your nomination unchanged for now because of the other concerns. Call it a hard (but very friendly) kick in the pants: I really think you're intelligent and talented enough to make that list much better than it already is. You might win me over or you might make FL without my support. Right now I'd rather wait - and probably hand you a barnstar two months from now as well as a "strong support" vote. Regards, Durova 18:44, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
- Correction: congratulations, you made FL. Now go and outdo yourself. Cheers, Durova 18:46, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
- Thanks. I've added 15 more names, mostly to the new religious section. I'd much prefer to add to the certain-diagnosis section than the wild speculation section (of which PubMed is perversely the main source – It seems doctors like nothing better than to speculate about the illnesses of dead people). I'm also more likely at this stage to add new or better sources than to find new names. We'll see. Other than comprehensiveness, and working on the sources, I'd be interested in what other improvements you can suggest. I'd also really like you to review the religious section, given your experience. I'm sure it could do with some more work. Colin° Talk 20:09, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
Please make sure to provide a helpful edit summary (per the instructions and big red box) when editing the nominations list in future. This will help us keep the Good Articles wikiproject running more efficiently. Thanks. -- Run! 13:03, 24 August 2006 (UTC)
Joan of Arc is up for a featured article review. Detailed concerns may be found here. Please leave your comments and help us address and maintain this article's featured quality. Sandy 23:01, 26 August 2006 (UTC)
Hi Durova,
Just a warning that a vandal might be wikistalking you. Your request to Wikipedia talk:Long term abuse has now been removed twice without explanation by IdlP ( talk • contribs) and Rm104 ( talk • contribs). -- Netsnipe (Talk) 09:33, 27 August 2006 (UTC)
- Even this message was deleted by QFMC ( talk • contribs) -- Netsnipe (Talk) 09:55, 27 August 2006 (UTC)
- Thank you very much. Durova 13:10, 27 August 2006 (UTC)
Do you know where I can take concerns about Wikistalking? I've followed your lead and noticed other evidence. Durova 13:39, 27 August 2006 (UTC)
- I suggest reporting it to Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents and filing Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser on all those you suspect to be same person. -- Netsnipe (Talk) 13:43, 27 August 2006 (UTC)
The August 2006 issue of the Military history WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you.
This is an automated delivery by grafikbot -- 12:04, 27 August 2006 (UTC)
Material was posted to this page that violated copyright law. I have deleted it. Durova 13:16, 27 August 2006 (UTC)
I noticed your comments on WP:ANI. I took a look at the two Joan of Arc questions you added on the two WikiProject talk pages. I just restored both questions. I did see that they were deletions by the same editor. They seemed to be followed by his/her addition of a subsequent question. Assuming good faith, it was the editor's first day as a registered user... and it appears that he/she restored an edit of yours to Joan of Arc. [2].
I did not respond on ANI, as I won't be investigating the issue. But, I did want you to know that I restored your edits. — ERcheck ( talk) 14:32, 27 August 2006 (UTC)
- Thank you very much. Since nobody responded to that informal request I opened a FA review on the article. Durova 15:23, 27 August 2006 (UTC)
Hi Durova,
I have honestly done my best to keep the balance on the Spencer article. Please see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Robert_Spencer#Balance . Thanks -- Reza1 09:57, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
P.S. Also, please note that I found and added some quotes from Bat Ye'or in defense of Spencer and put them at the top of the section. -- Reza1 09:57, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
- Thanks for letting me know. I've left my reaction on the article talk page: good effort, do more for the introductory paragraph. Cheers, Durova 16:30, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
Re: vandalism on Joan of Arc
Durova, thanks for alerting me to the activities of "Editor X". I'm sorry that you had to spend so much time combing through the edit history looking for these subtle instances of vandalism; it seems like a great annoyance.
I haven't been keeping a very close watch on Joan of Arc, so I hadn't noticed there was a pattern of biased editing going on. I have no special expertise in French history, so I will not notice this as easily as your expert eye, but I'll watch for it. It's unfortunate that the CheckUser request was denied; we'll just have to do this the hard way. --Akhilleus ( talk)
- Thought it was worthwhile to write down what I knew. It's unlikely to recur unless I go on another Wikibreak: Editor X stopped interfering for several months after I threatened a formal complaint to AOL. If it happens again I recommend making good on that threat. The only catch is that you'd have to take the results of a Wikipedia investigation to AOL yourself: Wikipedia has no established channels for reporting randomized IP vandals to their ISPs (even if their identity is nearly certain). It's not too hard to send a few e-mails - easier than dethreading all the damage. I wish I'd returned while the trail was fresher. Regards, Durova 16:28, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
I've added Joan of Arc bibliography and Cultural depictions of Joan of Arc to my watchlist. I'll keep an eye out for Editor X as time allows. --Akhilleus ( talk) 20:19, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
- Thank you. Durova 20:29, 2 September 2006 (UTC)
That's it I am sick and tired of dealing with these people on Wikipedia! I am withdrawing the nomination, so I hope your happy. Do you people have anything else to do?! I though Wikipedia was supposed to be a forum to further people's knowledge around the world. A free encyclopedia if you will. In my short time here on Wikipedia all I have run into is falsification on articles, false articles, biased information, righteous admins. clinging to this online bureaucracy. So why don't you guys stop messing around on this site and maybe make a valuable contribution to the world, like volunteer or something. Anyway I never am again going to contribute to this site. Again I hope your happy! Speedystickd 20:06, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
- I changed my mind. I will continue to contribute to Wikipedia. I do not appreciate being bullied into doing what others want. Speedystickd 21:22, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
I'm glad you're staying. I'm not an admin, by the way. I apologize if your feelings were hurt. Try waiting a month and resubmitting, or maybe seeing if there's a smaller Wikiproject that specializes in your topic. Usually it's the major encyclopedic articles such as Volcano that become collaborations of the week on the main board. Best wishes - and by the way, if you believe this reaches good article status at some point, get back to me. I'll give you feedback and (if it's ready) award the GA myself: I owe you that much. Durova 22:04, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
- As an outsider, I would like to point out that asking other people to give their vote in WP:AID is not considered gaming the system, according to a vote you can find
here. It is therefore not forbidden to go ask others to vote.
Errabee 22:15, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
- Ah, so there's been a separate discussion while I was on Wikibreak? I based my reaction on comparable incidents at AfD, none of which canvassed quite so many people. I have no problem with leaving messages for people who actually edited an article, but 90 messages to different users was excessive. I wouldn't want this to become a daily problem.
Durova 22:21, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
- I agree this was a clumsy attempt, and should be mildly discouraged. However, imho it is not canvassing, because WP:AID only counts support votes from editors willing to contribute to an article. It would be canvassing if the WP:AID article would be chosen on the difference between support and oppose votes. Errabee 22:48, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
- Ah, so there's been a separate discussion while I was on Wikibreak? I based my reaction on comparable incidents at AfD, none of which canvassed quite so many people. I have no problem with leaving messages for people who actually edited an article, but 90 messages to different users was excessive. I wouldn't want this to become a daily problem.
Durova 22:21, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
Durova, can you please have a second look at your response on Talk:Hugo Chávez, to help clarify things further, and can you please provide a link back to the RfC you are referring to? Thanks, Sandy 19:23, 30 August 2006 (UTC)
- Hate to keep pestering you, but you've mixed two different problems we've got on the same article. First, an editor is using primary sources, and your first response indicated that was OK (it's not, per WP:RS). Second, the same editor constantly deletes very well-sourced criticism from reliable, secondary sources, claiming WP:BLP. Your response mixed the two issues, implying that it's OK for him to use primary sources. Sorry for the mess, Sandy 20:48, 30 August 2006 (UTC)
- Actually it isn't a removal candidate, it's just in review. I requested the review myself - reviews don't necessarily question the FA status. Durova 21:20, 30 August 2006 (UTC)
- Yes, sorry, correct, it's in FAR :-) Just always glad when someone is actually working on them, as so few get any input. Sandy 21:22, 30 August 2006 (UTC)
- Thank you. May I suggest a page you might find helpful? Historical method explains some standard methods for evaluating the reliability of a source. Your posts suggest that secondary sources are inherently more reliable than primary ones. Secondary sources do provide analysis, but historians prefer primary sources for straightforward fact checking. Durova 21:39, 30 August 2006 (UTC)
- I understand, but we're talking about a different situation. One editor keeps posting PDFs and charts from presentations, which contain data that hasn't been subject to review by a reliable, secondary source. When the authors of the presentations are (eventually) quoted in reliable secondary sources, they inevitably say something very different from the original research being presented in the articles, using the primary source.
Sandy 21:49, 30 August 2006 (UTC)
- I see, well in that case I'd hardly define a chart as a primary source. It's necessarily a synthesis of data. Durova 13:05, 31 August 2006 (UTC)
- I understand, but we're talking about a different situation. One editor keeps posting PDFs and charts from presentations, which contain data that hasn't been subject to review by a reliable, secondary source. When the authors of the presentations are (eventually) quoted in reliable secondary sources, they inevitably say something very different from the original research being presented in the articles, using the primary source.
Sandy 21:49, 30 August 2006 (UTC)
Hello Durova
I spent several hours checking your requested images and writing emails today. I think you can help me:
google the name with google images
go to the website distributing a suitable image and get the email adress of their administrator (usually in the category "Contact")
Send him the following request or something you have written yourself
It must contain:
use on www.wikipedia.org upload on www.wikimedia.org clear request to name the appropriate license
It works better if you name the website's url or the url of the images and if you offer to provide a link to the source.
Example:
Dear XY
The online encyclopedia www.wikipedia.org is chronically suffering from a lack of images for history articles. Actually you could help if it is possible to release the following images:
- url list of requested images*
from your site http://www.XYsite.net/, so we can upload them on www.wikimedia.org In accordance with fair use (for example http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/1.0/ or http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/2.5/), we usually provide in exchange a link to the homepage of the friendly author or licensor.
Greetings Z
Wandalstouring 11:01, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
- Are these old requests you're referring to? This doesn't ring a bell. Durova 14:12, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
I couldn't find the appropriate template for that article on the dispute templates page. I'll make a note of it and use the templates appropriately from now on. Cheers! -- Merope 06:20, 3 September 2006 (UTC)
Thank you for taking the time to add your comments to the article's talk page. I'd like to try to make issues that you didn't find clear a bit more specific; I'll try to elaborate on the issues without taking sides (difficult, but I'll give it a shot—good WP:NPOV practice, I guess).
The issues have arisen with anonymous I.P. editors; while some of the edit summaries have been informative, they have not engaged in discussion on the article's talk page. It is unclear whether they have even read the information on the talk page; the citations to Wikipedia policy don't seem to have had affected the disputed editing.
A review of the edit summaries in the edit history may provide additional clarification of the disputes.
I'll restate the issues here and include your comments underneath; I'll add additional explanatory information under that.
At issue:
- The validity of the Model Profile of Michael Lucas at the
website at www.lucasentertainment.com as a source.
- Looks like official company PR material. Acceptable.
- A user has consistently deleted references to this website as being the "mouthpiece" of Michael Lucas. This has necessitated deleting specific information that was sourced only at this website; additional sources for the information were not available. (For example, the date he was made a U.S. citizen is found on this site and nowhere else. Likewise, his actual birthdate, rather than birth year; additionally, that he graduated with a law degree. Other sources just reference that he studied law.)
- Looks like official company PR material. Acceptable.
- The inclusion of a photo of a DVD cover depicting Michael Lucas.
- I'm unclear on the issue here. Suggest bowing to precedent and using it unless someone expresses a particular reason not to.
- The precedent is to use images of the person from DVD covers. A user has repeatedly removed the image with the explanation that it is "advertising" for the product. Because this is being done from an anonymous IP address it is unclear whether this is the same user who is removing other images at other gay porn star articles, and/or reducing them to such small thumbnails as to be useless and editing their captions. At other articles, a user has complained about the content of the images (see the edit history for Chad Hunt, for example.)
- I'm unclear on the issue here. Suggest bowing to precedent and using it unless someone expresses a particular reason not to.
- The validity of a blog
"Sex, Lies and Videotape: How Myths Are Born", Proceed at Your Own Risk as a source.
- A blog? No.
- This is a site that is self-identified as a blog. Text from the source and the citation have been added and removed a number of times. Similar information has been found from a verifiable source and included in the article; hopefully this will be sufficient to stop this particular editing see-saw.
- A blog? No.
The use of the word moved vs. fled to describe his leaving Russia and going to Germany.Statement is now changed and sourced.- I'm unclear on the issue here. If there's a dispute among legitimate citations, suggest footnoting with references to each version.
- A user consistently changed the phrase "moved to Germany" to "fled to Germany", without citing a source. The text has been changed with a citation to a specific source; the language should no longer be an issue.
- I'm unclear on the issue here. If there's a dispute among legitimate citations, suggest footnoting with references to each version.
- The relevance of specifying the makeup of his audience at the Masters Tea.
- I'm unclear on the issue here. Audience makeup doesn't seem very relevant. What's the argument for including it?
- The argument for including the information that the audience was 50 students is that many people are unfamiliar with what a "Master's Tea" is; because it takes place at a university, it could be misconstrued as an address to a large group of professors or other academics when, in fact, it was an address to a small group of students. The information is included in the article that is cited.
- I'm unclear on the issue here. Audience makeup doesn't seem very relevant. What's the argument for including it?
- The validity of
"Step Right Up", Narcissism101, www.narcissism101.typepad.com as a source.
- Another blog? No.
- This site is not clearly self-identified as a blog; however, it is hosted by typepad.com, which is a blog host site; one assumption is that it is, indeed, a blog.
- Another blog? No.
And I'd appreciate clarification of the last comment you added:
- Also, regarding Jewish identification, the site referenced looks like it would (marginally) pass
WP:V.
- With regard to this source, why is it "marginal"? The information that he is Jewish is found in articles on two Jewish news websites and specifically on the Lucas Entertainment corporate website; I'm just wondering why the www.somethingjewish.co.uk site is "marginal"?
- This also raises another question (for me, at least). In a situation like this, would information from the blog at a corporate site be admissible/usable? This is one of the ways that this corporate officer communicates to the public. Mr. Lucas has written about specific current events in his blog; this information would not normally be included in corporate PR material, as it is dated. Should sourcing be limited to the actual corporate PR information and the blog ignored?
Again, your help is greatly appreciated. I'm not sure what the process here is in terms of how many comments need to be received, etc. If you have experience with RfCs that you'd like to share, any further assistance you'd care to provide would be welcome—this is my first foray into these particular waters. Thanks again.— Chidom talk 08:31, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
This is a rock opera, like The Who or Pink Floyd. The major difference is that it became a fully-staged production (with actors as opposed to a simple band performance) much earlier than Tommy or The Wall, within months of its initial conception as an album. I didn't see a pop music section, so I placed it under opera. The major difference is that it had a professional playwright (James Lineberger, best known for Taps) do the libretto. -- Scottandrewhutchins 10:40, 5 September 2006 (UTC)