You're ready to be an admin. Anyone watching this page, please agree now. Syn ergy 21:48, 5 March 2009 (UTC) reply

Don't make me template you.... ;p Syn ergy 21:51, 5 March 2009 (UTC) reply

User:Synergy/Durova. Syn ergy 22:17, 5 March 2009 (UTC) reply

Durova never wasn't ready. She made a mistake. Actually a mistake far less serious than mistakes routinely made by many administrators. often with no consequence at all. She resigned rather than allow disruption to be created, something which should be far more common (with, then, less disruptive process to request that she return). My guess is that most of what she wants to do, she does not need an admin bit. Obviously, I would fully support any RfA for her, but my opinion is that she never did deserve removal of the bit, that the community lost by its loss, and, while the bit was removed "under a cloud" and thus not restorable except by ArbComm action upon her request (I'd assume) or by a new RfA, I would not recommend that she apply. If someone else wants to make the request on her behalf, she would then decide whether or not to accept this and allow the discussion to continue, but I'd also recommend to her that she not participate on the RfAr page, beyond minimal response to questions, if even that. (I.e., "want to ask me a question, ask me on my Talk.") She should not have to go through any disruptive or difficult process to get her bit back, if she even would accept it. -- Abd ( talk) 17:56, 6 March 2009 (UTC) reply

Can you upload a PNG of your version of this? I think I might like to work on the uncropped, if you have one saved at that point - no reason not to provide two options, and it's not a significant amount of extra work. I think your choice is an excellent choice for on Wikipedia, but if I'm going to put a lot of time into it, may as well throw in a version that might be prefered in other contexts.

Wish this wasn't black and white, though. For this kind of engraving, colour does make the finer lines look a bit better. Shoemaker's Holiday ( talk) 16:13, 6 March 2009 (UTC) reply

We do have a .png of it. Sec while I get the link. Durova ^Charge! 16:19, 6 March 2009 (UTC) reply

File:John_Paul_Jones2.png Durova ^Charge! 16:21, 6 March 2009 (UTC) reply

132.62.88.94 seems to be vandalizing John Paul Jones on a pretty regular basis, I was wondering if you wouldn't mind getting someone to block him again. DrAlbertOxfordPhD ( talk) 20:42, 12 March 2009 (UTC) reply

Go ahead and put up a final warning on their talk page next time they do it. We'll get them blocked if it continues. Durova ^Charge! 20:55, 12 March 2009 (UTC) reply

I put the warning up, but it's the fifth one on their talk page. I doubt this is going to get them to stop. DrAlbertOxfordPhD ( talk) 21:33, 12 March 2009 (UTC) reply

Let me know next time it happens, if I don't see it myself. We'll get a block at that point. Thank you. :) Durova ^Charge! 21:38, 12 March 2009 (UTC) reply

SA seems to be creating disruption deliberately. Please see my comment at Jehochman talk, which is not an invitation to you to respond there! That comment refers to two AE reports that show cooperation between SA and Hipocrite; SA makes a spelling correction to an article covered by the topic ban, Hipocrite -- who considers the ban ridiculous -- reverts it and reports it formally to AE. On Jehochman Talk, I suggest a solution that respects both the WP:IAR stated intention of SA and the needs of Arbitration enforcement. That is, if SA makes a trivial correction to an article, not controversial, he should immediately revert himself, thus leaving behind no net edit, but calling attention to the spelling error, and making it a matter of seconds for anyone else, usually, to fix it, just revert his self-reversion. This is much more efficient than proposing an edit on Talk. And if he once in a while fails to revert himself, nobody is going to block him over a spelling correction; the problem is that if he's making many such corrections, AE becomes much more complicated and this toe over the line could creep. If he reverts himself, no problem at all, no disruption, unless the edits become truly controversial, in which case ordinary AE can deal with it as disruptive.

Note that if SA were blocked, he'd not be able to make these spelling corrections except perhaps as IP. Spelling corrections don't carry a signature of the editor, and even when blocked editors are ID'd as socks, sometimes all their contributions are more or less automatically reverted, including spelling corrections. I have, on occasion, tracked these edits and reverted the block-reversions. Anyone who wants to help both the project and SA could, then, just watch his contributions, taking very little time. But if that was used to circumvent the ban, (i.e., SA makes controversial edit, reverts self, and then supporting editor shows up and without discussion and consensus in Talk, reverts it back in) it would be meat puppetry and itself sanctionable.

I'm hoping that your advice to SA will be more effective than if I were the one to make the suggestion to him. -- Abd ( talk) 17:48, 6 March 2009 (UTC) reply

Obviously, ScienceApologist and I have discussed this sort of thing. Probably with equal obviousness, those conversations usually happen after he edits rather than before. My message to him has been clear:

• The best thing he can do right now is raise an uncontroversial science article to FA.
• Testing the limits of his topic ban makes it very unlikely that the ban would be lifted early, and could lead to stricter sanctions.
• If he wants to probe the limits anyway, he must accept the consequences.

ScienceApologist is a highly educated adult, so the likely result of joining the negotiations for how he might be permitted to correct a spelling mistake would be to diminish my influence with him. Your good intentions are much appreciated, but it's the sort of conversation he's likely to regard as ridiculous. Durova ^Charge! 18:35, 6 March 2009 (UTC) reply

Why is Abd so concerned with putting a stop to SA's correction of spelling mistakes? This seems ridiculous and lends credence to the argument that SA is being stalked and persecuted. Why not wait for a substantive violation rather than muck about with nonsense? ChildofMidnight ( talk) 18:55, 6 March 2009 (UTC) reply

The point of my comment here and of my actions with regard to the spelling corrections seems to have been entirely missed by ChildofMidnight. I'm not trying to stop SA's spelling corrections, I'm trying to encourage them without serious complications to Arbitration enforcement. I did not report SA's corrections, and, in fact, I reverted one of them back in. If SA is being stalked, it's not by me, I have not (yet) looked at his contributions. Here is the concern: as it stands, SA has declared an intention to make these "harmless" or even "helpful" edits, but they are not harmless (because of AE enforcement) and there appears to be some intention to thumb his nose at ArbComm. I'm not pushing this, and, indeed am assuming good faith. If his intention is to fix spelling corrections, he now has a suggested means involving little fuss. If his intention is the fuss, he'll ignore this. Edit summaries might look like this:

(sp, will self-revert per ban)

(rv self, undo to fix sp)

Now, if someone is "stalking" SA -- i.e., reviewing his edits to determine possible ban violation, they would see the intention to self-revert with the first edit, they would see that there is no intention to violate the ban, and, usually, they could themselves rv SA, thus cooperating with him to improve the project. We need more of that. -- Abd ( talk) 12:37, 7 March 2009 (UTC) reply

Would prefer to steer SA in uncontroversial and productive directions, rather than wait for him to make a substantive violation. Of course he's a highly educated adult and I don't keep him on a leash (even though the Committee tried to hand me a leash for him). Durova ^Charge! 18:58, 6 March 2009 (UTC) reply

Let's not make this too kinky. :) ChildofMidnight ( talk) 19:13, 6 March 2009 (UTC) reply

Oh gosh, I didn't have that intention at all. Durova ^Charge! 19:20, 6 March 2009 (UTC) reply

Durova, if it's true that "ArbComm tried to hand [you] a leash," and that you don't keep him on it, which would mean tugging a bit if he runs too far away from your guidance, then you should inform ArbComm so that they won't depend on your mentorship. The mentorship can be considered a means of avoiding banning SA entirely. Does SA have a mentor, voluntarily accepted (by the editor and the mentor)? If not, we should know. -- Abd ( talk) 12:42, 7 March 2009 (UTC) reply

It's worth pointing out that none of the proposed "mentorship" remedies in the Fringe science case actually passed. As far as the Committee is concerned, nothing has officially changed from the mentorship arrangement between SA and Durova that existed before the case. (We did, apparently, confuse everyone as to what this arrangement actually was by playing around with the terminology mid-case, which is quite unfortunate; but, as far as I know, it hasn't actually been altered.) Kirill  ^[pf] 03:53, 9 March 2009 (UTC) reply

What makes you imagine I haven't? I am a mentor, not a parole officer, and the Committee knows perfectly well that they enacted a phantom position with no one to fill it. Part of my concern was that it was so poorly worded that uninvolved Wikipedians would be utterly befuddled afterward: that at first they would suppose I was shirking a duty, or hadn't explained myself properly, and eventually would wind up losing respect for the Committee as they discovered what had actually transpired. I did everything in my power to stop that motion but they passed it anyway, so I informed the Committee that I am prepared to resign from all mentorships in protest if they ever try this again. Durova ^Charge! 15:55, 7 March 2009 (UTC) reply

Well, I did, in fact, imagine that because you were shown as mentor, that you had assumed the obligation, I've never before heard of someone being shanghaied into the position. My sympathies. If you have informed ArbComm, you are done; in fact, more than done. You had no obligation to lift a finger. As to respect for the Committee, not only can any editor make mistakes, a whole Committee can make mistakes, though usually less often; my respect for the Committee does not keep me from noticing a few really stupid decisions, on occasion. This has got to be up there among the most blatant, if you made no noises of acceptance. Sheesh! We do not improve relations between the Committee and the community by covering up ArbComm errors; a functional ArbComm, indeed, will rapidly recognize and fix mistakes. Anyway, Durova, I'm glad I asked.

Whenever mentorship is a condition upon an editor, to avoid some stronger sanction, I'd consider it an obligation of a mentor accepting the mentorship to inform the community of failure of the relationship. That, by itself, would not necessarily result in a sanction, but it could be a factor. I do not see mentors as taskmasters, they should have no power to force any action; but they certainly should have the power, and should exercise the power, to request a mentoree to refrain from specific actions or to otherwise set conditions for the continuation of mentorship as they see fit, and then, if not satisfied, to resign. Otherwise the relationship would be oppressive, useless, or even dangerous. If you have some significantly different vision of mentorship, Durova, I'd suggest that you might have an obligation to clearly disclose it whenever there is this situation of the community depending on your mentorship for protection for abuse by an editor. "I'll just give him advice if he asks." Fine. But it should be clear. (And this is not a claim that you were not clear, I assume you tried.)

(outdent) This is part of why I was so disappointed in the Arbitration Committee. Before the case opened I began mentoring SA, and still am. There was no quid pro quo implied or intended, and I explicitly told the Committee both before the case opened and when the proposed decision went up that I had no intention of politicizing the mentorship by using it as any sort of leverage in terms of potential sanctions. I declined the offer they were making before it went up, and was surprised to see it both go live and pass under the same name (but a fundamentally different concept) from what I was doing. I was never bound by it. They simply took it into their heads to wish that someone would fill a role they envisioned, and they chose (very foolishly IMO) to call their phantom position by the same name as what I was doing.

The result is that you--a hardworking Wikipedian doing your best to help--are getting the mistaken impression that somehow I haven't done things correctly. Rest assured that I have. If you read over the talk page of the original case request, you'll see my announcement and disclaimer. The talk page of the proposed decision has my reactions (at first stunned, then increasingly incensed), and the archives of the Arbitration Committee announcement board talk page contains my threat to resign from all mentorships in protest against the Committee's action.

For the foreseeable future, if I take on any new mentorships I intend to keep them out of the Committee's eye. This isn't the first time their attempts at interference have wasted my time and undermined my work in this area. Durova ^Charge! 23:07, 8 March 2009 (UTC) reply

Hi Durova,

Just to let you know that the Featured Picture File:Arctic eclipse.jpg is due to make an appearance as Picture of the Day on March 8, 2009. If you get a chance, you can check and improve the caption at Template:POTD/2009-03-08. howcheng { chat} 18:28, 6 March 2009 (UTC) reply

Thank you very much. :) Durova ^Charge! 18:35, 6 March 2009 (UTC) reply

Your Featured picture candidate has been promoted Your nomination for featured picture status, File:Aerial house3.jpg, gained a consensus of support, and has been promoted. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates. MER-C 01:08, 7 March 2009 (UTC) reply

Thank you! :) Durova ^Charge! 01:10, 7 March 2009 (UTC) reply

Durova, I've closed Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/John Paul Jones as not promoted. Feel free to relist once you have finished. I hope you understand. Thanks, Spencer ^{T♦ C} 17:14, 7 March 2009 (UTC) reply

Not a problem at all. This is the sort of image where Shoemaker's skills shine (and it's a special circle of hell for me). He'll probably finish and we'll conominate. Durova ^Charge! 17:25, 7 March 2009 (UTC) reply

Okay, that sounds good. Spencer ^{T♦ C} 17:29, 7 March 2009 (UTC) reply

The nomination for that picture appears to have been transcluded twice. You might want to check WP:FPC. ErikTheBikeMan ( talk) 20:18, 7 March 2009 (UTC) reply

Different parties. ;) Durova ^Charge! 20:26, 7 March 2009 (UTC) reply

Useful question/comment for considering, that the orphan tags might be driving users away, rather than bringing them in. Look at this for instance: Praxis porphyretica. The tag overwhelms the article. This was my original concern, that the tag overwhelms the article detracting from its usefulness, plus the temptation to inappropriately deorphan articles by adding spurious links that don't increase the value of the information to the reader. -- KP Botany ( talk) 21:29, 7 March 2009 (UTC) reply

Agreed. Durova ^Charge! 21:38, 7 March 2009 (UTC) reply

Hello, Durova. You have new messages at Wadester16's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Durova,

Please ask Zahakiel to stop vandalizing my user page. -- e.Shubee ( talk) 05:20, 8 March 2009 (UTC) reply

Hi Durova, Eshubee posted to my page that he'd contacted you. You don't have to reprimand me, I will try very hard to ignore him after this. I'm just really distressed that his continued and ferocious attacks on my religion have been allowed to go on this long on a forum that is supposed to be dedicated to knowledge and not ideology. He posted some pretty bad misrepresentations of one line in a legal document on his talk page, supposedly vindicating his long held and long discredited view that my religion does not exist(!) and when I found his all I did was give him notice that (as he's done before, and been warned by administrators) he was misrepresenting the facts in his crusade against my group. I do not believe that simply replying to claims such as that one were vandalism (I was polite, especially given the circumstances, and the things he has said in the past and currently), but he deleted it from his page as vandalism... and moved it to mine. Editors discuss things on their talk pages all the time, and I thought that, since he raised the issue on his page after all this time, I shouldn't have to argue about it on mine, so yes, I did move it back to the original post. He deleted it again, so I have left it alone since... I do not want to be unduly offensive, but I am feeling pretty attacked, and there is no indication at all that this will let up... ever.

You have been aware of some of this in the past, so I won't rehash anything here. But if he posts on my page again, I'll just delete it and ignore him. If he puts any more falsehoods about my Church on his page, that's his right to do, I suppose, as with his website(s). I had hoped something could be done to prevent this kind of thing from happening again after the last time, at least on Wikipedia, but, it appears not. Thank you for your time. ◄ Zahakiel ► 05:38, 8 March 2009 (UTC) reply

Great minds think alike; we were each posting on the other's user talk at the same time. If it bothers you that much, then bring it to the attention of an admin board please. I'm not sure how this would be handled, but you'd get a few more eyes on the situation that way. Best wishes (on both sides), Durova ^Charge! 05:44, 8 March 2009 (UTC) reply

Thanks. I have replied on my talk page. I'll just leave it alone, I don't know how it should be handled either. ◄ Zahakiel ► 05:46, 8 March 2009 (UTC) reply

It would be better to reply on his user talk, if at all. He seems to have pretty strong views and is unlikely to change them. But it's clearly marked that his user page is a user page--not an article. So no one is likely to confuse the difference. Durova ^Charge! 06:06, 8 March 2009 (UTC) reply

The Military history WikiProject coordinator selection process has started; to elect the coordinators to serve for the next six months. If you are interested in running, please sign up here by 23:59 (UTC) on 13 March!
This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot ( talk) 18:40, 8 March 2009 (UTC) reply

Wait, really? Why on earth would you hand-tint lithographs, a process whose big advantage was its ability to easily do full-colour prints? Shoemaker's Holiday ( talk) 13:18, 9 March 2009 (UTC) reply

Chromolithography was still relatively new in the 1860s. I'm going to guess here, but my guess is that the customers in both cases wanted 'the best'. The best lithography meant Currier and Ives, and possibly they perceived the best color process as hand tinting. The Chapultepec image was hand tinted also, about 16 years before this. Durova ^Charge! 16:57, 9 March 2009 (UTC) reply

On March 9, 2009, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Jean Desbouvrie, which you created or substantially expanded. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

Shubinator ( talk) 20:51, 9 March 2009 (UTC) reply

Thank you. :) Durova ^Charge! 22:31, 9 March 2009 (UTC) reply

Hi, Durova. I have come to you with a question about an image because I know you have much experience in this area. A new user Jamaldn has uploaded an image, File:Knr-big-mosque-inscription.jpg, that he credits to a "Professor JP Mulliner" while at the same time claiming that he is the copyright holder. Jamaldn is not the professor, who is very likely fictitious (background here and here). The image is interesting, but nobody has any verifiable information about it. How would you resolve the copyright issue? Aramgar ( talk) 02:18, 10 March 2009 (UTC) reply

Approach the editor at his/her user talk and ask about the discrepancy. Suggest an OTRS submission if the author JP Mulliner has approved of the upload and copyleft licensure. Professor Mulliner would need to submit an email, but it's actually quite simple. Durova ^Charge! 02:21, 10 March 2009 (UTC) reply

Simple enough, if Professor Mulliner were actually a real person. My agf is a little strained with this guy. I'll see what comes of my question. Thanks. Aramgar ( talk) 02:36, 10 March 2009 (UTC) reply

Reading further, I see what you mean. Still, this should be simple enough. If Professor Mulliner actually exists then these two editors know him/her well enough to obtain this photograph, and can certainly follow up with the necessary OTRS letter from the good professor. If not then request deletion. You might want to email the librarians at Leeds to follow up on these claims. Let me know how it goes? Best regards, Durova ^Charge! 02:45, 10 March 2009 (UTC) reply

Hi Durova. I'm having a "bad day" so to speak, and I wanted to ask some questions to an experienced editor. I'm not sure who the best person is to ask, but I thought you might be willing to drop your 2 cents on me. Here goes: 1) I've mostly worked in my corner of the 'Pedia, but a couple articles I've stumbled on have been disputed. In dealing with the dispute resolution processes I find they assume people are editing with good faith and willing to compromise, but in cases of fanatacism there doesn't seem to be any end or effective solution. So instead it goes to Arbcomm where they "don't deal with content". That's all well and good, but for instance there has been a months long stand-off over whether Ayn Rand is a philosopher. And what's really needed is some resolution. A panel of adults to weigh in and say: these are the sources, these are the arguments, this is how it should be handled.

Okay so here's my issue, instead of that we have a months long (at least it seems that way I don't have the patience to follow the process in all its minutiae) diff mongering hearings that go on incessantly wasting the time of what I must think are otherwise useful editors and the only result is a bunch bans and blocks and editing restrictions. This is a horrendous outcome. All those involved, even the fanatics, are good faith though sometimes opinionated editors. They need guidance and resolution not this endless process that doesn't deal with the content in dispute. And if there a blockable violations why wasn't action taken along the way instead of waiting so darn long?

And I have related frustrations over all the what I would call bureaucracy like this blocking of ScienceApologist over spelling corrections. I notice that pages come in unpatrolled, lots of them, and yet there is this endless drama on ANI and other boards, a constant mopping, much of it necessary no doubt, but in other cases it just seems like mopping for the sake of mopping. And why isn't there somewhere to post general article issues? We have AfD, ANI, AN, all these enforcement places, but heaven forbid you want independent input from a broad range of editors, there's no place to go. (Yes, I know about RfCs and third opinions, but a general board where normal editors can resolve issues would sure be nice.) I just don't understand it all. Oh well. Sorry for the long thread from a disgruntled radical. Maybe some of your fans will comment. I'm just frustrated with it all and I could use some insights. Isn't there a better way? ChildofMidnight ( talk) 03:50, 10 March 2009 (UTC) reply

Wow, you cover a lot of ground. I'll try to do justice to as much of it as possible.

• Ayn Rand is not my cup of tea. Never has been. My favorite female philosopher is Hannah Arendt, which isn't much use to the Ayn Rand crowd. And from conversation with a professor of philosophy, it appears that Arendt isn't generally considered a philosopher either (sigh). So you'll need a Wikipedian with a different sword to carve that gordian knot.
• Arbitrators have a limited and crude set of tools to hack at the gordian knots that come their way. In over 50 cases I have never seen a case closure that pleased everybody.
• The useful thing, though, is that over time arbitration tends to settle itself out. The editors who are here for the good of the project adjust and bounce back. It's frustrating to see someone who's right on the edge and who makes choices that marginalize themselves. You can talk to them, reason with them, show them where the arc is headed. Ultimately that decision and its consequences rests with that person.
• Your idea for a content noticeboard sounds interesting. Hammer that into a workable concept and you'll have my support.

Best wishes, Durova ^Charge! 15:38, 10 March 2009 (UTC) reply

Thanks very much for your response Durova. If only I were in charge so I could make everything perfect. :) Have a great day. ChildofMidnight ( talk) 16:16, 10 March 2009 (UTC) reply

I am intrigued by the noticeboard suggestion. It sounds like a very good idea. We need a central RfC noticeboard for the larger community, a sort of Trafalgar Square, one which will be on many editors' watchlists. -- Fyslee ( talk) 23:47, 10 March 2009 (UTC) reply

Hi Fyslee. I was just coming back to note that upon reflection I still think the idea is a good one. I certainly can't take credit for it is I am pretty sure it was mentioned by others. I think it could just be a kind of notice board for seeking outside opinions on articles. Sort of a what do other people think about this issue, page. I can't really see the harm. I guess the big objection would be people wanting to keep discussion on the article talk page. And people always point out that third opinion and RfCs exist. But I think a place to go and see what other people think and to get a quick reply would be very helpful. Anyway, I don't want to be the nail that sticks up any more than I already am. But if anyone is willing to run with idea I certainly support it. There are lots of places to get input on all kinds of behavioral issues, but nowhere to discuss article issues. It certainly wouldn't replace the article talk page, but often there more general questions arise and it would be nice to get independent input. Maybe it's a horrible idea, but I think it would be cool to at least try. I'll leave it to Durova to set it up.  :) Just to clarify, I think the guidelines would be that the article discussion page is still the primary place for discussion, but for more general issues or to seek input the board could also be used. ChildofMidnight ( talk) 01:48, 11 March 2009 (UTC) reply

The key would be to define its parameters so it doesn't get out of hand, and so that it doesn't overlap with existing processes. Might be a good topic for a centralized discussion on how to implement the idea and make it practical. Durova ^Charge! 02:13, 11 March 2009 (UTC) reply

Your Featured picture candidate has been promoted Your nomination for featured picture status, File:Baseball_glass_workers2.jpg, gained a consensus of support, and has been promoted. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates. Shoemaker's Holiday ( talk) 05:23, 10 March 2009 (UTC) reply

Thank you. :) Durova ^Charge! 15:41, 10 March 2009 (UTC) reply

Hey Durova. You added a caption here that says the image was the "Cover art for the original incarnation of Life Magazine". I take this to mean that the first issue of Life magazine had that image on the cover; is my inference correct? If so, do you have a source for it? Thanks! seresin (  ¡? )  05:55, 10 March 2009 (UTC) reply

It was not the first issue ever of Life magazine, but it was an issue from the first of three different magazines by that name. If you know a clearer way to express that in the caption, please do. Durova ^Charge! 15:23, 10 March 2009 (UTC) reply

Your Featured picture candidate has been promoted Your nomination for featured picture status, File:Babe Ruth2.jpg, gained a consensus of support, and has been promoted. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates. MER-C 06:53, 10 March 2009 (UTC) reply

Thank you. :) Durova ^Charge! 15:42, 10 March 2009 (UTC) reply

Your Featured picture candidate has been promoted Your nomination for featured picture status, File:USS Texas2.jpg, gained a consensus of support, and has been promoted. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates. MER-C 06:53, 10 March 2009 (UTC) reply

Thank you. :) Durova ^Charge! 15:42, 10 March 2009 (UTC) reply

Hi, I'm so sorry I haven't been able to catch you around. I looked for you a few times on Skype the other week, but I think we have a big time difference which probably doesn't help. Hope its still ok to get involved with photo rest. I've had a bit of an unexpected wikibreak, but will see if I can spot you later (once I have been thru my much neglected watchlist!) Regards, sassf ( talk) 10:48, 10 March 2009 (UTC) reply

Sure, there's no deadline. :) Durova ^Charge! 15:41, 10 March 2009 (UTC) reply

User:Durova/Archive 66 has been identified as an Awesome Wikipedian, and therefore, I've officially declared today as Durova/Archive 66's day! For being such a beautiful person and great Wikipedian, enjoy being the Star of the day, dear Durova/Archive 66! Peace, Rlevse ~ A record of your Day will always be kept here.

For a userbox you can add to your userbox page, see User:Rlevse/Today/Happy Me Day! and my own userpage for a sample of how to use it. — Rlevse • Talk • 00:56, 11 March 2009 (UTC) reply

<cracks open a bottle of Sam Adams> Here, here! Syn ergy 01:15, 11 March 2009 (UTC) reply

Aw, thank you! (Steals the Sam Adams and drinks it). Durova ^Charge! 01:42, 11 March 2009 (UTC) reply

Hi. I don't know if you noticed this today or not, but apparently the rangeblock wasn't wide enough to catch all the IPs that go back to that address. [1] Thanks. Wildhartlivie ( talk) 02:16, 11 March 2009 (UTC) reply

I've requested semiprotection. Durova ^Charge! 02:35, 11 March 2009 (UTC) reply

Hi, Durova. Thanks for your assistance in everything.

I was wondering, since Elizabeth and Alison are off-wiki, if you could help me. I requested assistance at WP:ANI to no avail. I screwed up in my attempt to recreate a disambiguation page after the original was deleted when one of the pages was deleted. The deleted page was restored by User: Eliz81 after I was unbanned.

I thought a disamb. page was needed as there are two subjects with the exact same name ( Duncan Ferguson (political activist), Duncan Ferguson (Scottish football player)), but I now know that a disamb. page is not required for only two names.

Right now, however, the edit history of Duncan Ferguson (Scottish football player) was deleted although it still exists at Duncan Ferguson.

Please help. Thanks, Rms125a@hotmail.com ( talk) 11:56, 11 March 2009 (UTC) reply

Well, I'm not actually an administrator. But I'll try to get one for you. Durova ^Charge! 15:06, 11 March 2009 (UTC) reply

What exactly are you requesting? Durova ^Charge! 15:25, 11 March 2009 (UTC) reply

 Done (I hope correctly :P ). Cirt ( talk) 15:28, 11 March 2009 (UTC) reply

Thanks for the help. :) Durova ^Charge! 15:39, 11 March 2009 (UTC) reply

Hi Durova,

Just to let you know that the Featured Picture File:The Anatomy Lesson.jpg is due to make an appearance as Picture of the Day on March 13, 2009. If you get a chance, you can check and improve the caption at Template:POTD/2009-03-13. howcheng { chat} 16:28, 11 March 2009 (UTC) reply

Thank you. I've told a Dutch editor the good news about his country's culture running on the main page. Cheers! Durova ^Charge! 16:52, 11 March 2009 (UTC) reply

I went in and fixed recent edits of yours that deleted too much of what was good in the articles about Albert Herter and Ethel Franklin Betts. You got rid of categories in the latter and beneficial edits which improved the former. Looks like the battle fury was upon you in your fight to rid WP of linkspam! Binksternet ( talk) 18:51, 11 March 2009 (UTC) reply

Apologies for inadvertently reverting the beneficial edits. At first I thought it was a simple linkspam matter, then discovered the editor was also doing cut-and-paste copyvio. Had to start over from the top and run Google searches on all the content contributions. Must've been distracted on those two reversions; thank you for the correction. Best regards, Durova ^Charge! 18:57, 11 March 2009 (UTC) reply

My apologies for the controversial or inappropriate edits on the pages for certain American Illustrators I made this morning and yesterday afternoon. The museum links and links for further reading I considered to be appropriate given the subject matter, and while I had the oral consent of the authors of the biographical material I cut and pasted, I was not properly diligent in reading the terms and conditions for wikipedia, particularly with how they pertain to copyright. Rest assured I have better things to do then spending a good sized chunk out of two days "vandalizing" or "spamming" wikipedia. Once again my apologies, and please receive my sincere assurances that these edits and links were not done with any malice or willful disregard for Wikipedia. Wikipedia is the #1 thing I like about the internet, and I would never deliberately interfere or make things difficult with its operation.

That being said, after being notified that these edits I made were inappropriate, I went to change the pages back to how they existed prior to my edits. In every instance, either you Durova, or someone else, has beaten me to it. I just want to say sorry, and thank you. Please do not hesitate to contact me if there are any further matters that need to be discussed with regards to this issue. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Erikb02809 ( talk • contribs) 19:30, 11 March 2009 (UTC) reply

Thank you very much for the apologies (although none were really needed). We're all doing our best here. Let's work together moving forward. Would you like tips on citations? Durova ^Charge! 19:41, 11 March 2009 (UTC) reply

By the way, could you enable email on your account please? I tried to write the museum but the message bounced back. Have some positive ideas to share about moving forward. Durova ^Charge! 19:43, 11 March 2009 (UTC) reply

Ok, should be enabled. -Erikb02809 —Preceding unsigned comment added by Erikb02809 ( talk • contribs) 14:50, 13 March 2009 (UTC) reply

Your Featured picture candidate has been promoted Your nomination for featured picture status, File:Military aviary2.jpg, gained a consensus of support, and has been promoted. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates. MER-C 08:21, 12 March 2009 (UTC) reply

Thank you. :) Durova ^Charge! 15:56, 12 March 2009 (UTC) reply

Your Featured picture candidate has been promoted Your nomination for featured picture status, File:John Phillip Sousa - De Wolf Hopper - El Capitan1.png, gained a consensus of support, and has been promoted. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates. MER-C 08:22, 12 March 2009 (UTC) reply

Copied from my page - you did redo the colours of the version that passed. Shoemaker's Holiday ( talk) 08:37, 12 March 2009 (UTC) reply

Thank you very much. Let's count this as yours, though. Your work was the lion's share of it. Cheers! Durova ^Charge! 15:56, 12 March 2009 (UTC) reply

Yes, if you can send me the uncompressed tif somehow I'll redo with that and replace my edit with it. How do you want to get it to me - FTP/Yousendit/temp upload to WP? Name your method. Mfield ( talk) 23:58, 12 March 2009 (UTC) reply

My email's enabled. Once I have your address I could use yousendit. Or if you have Skype I'll give you my Skype ID. Durova ^Charge! 01:09, 13 March 2009 (UTC) reply

Its done and uploaded over. I ran it through selective Nik Dfine this time which did a good job with the grain, especially in the sky. Mfield ( talk) 04:29, 13 March 2009 (UTC) reply

Great, thank you. Did you see the original before any editing? Looked like someone tried a quick dash with a healing brush to hide one of the streaks. Am guessing they're scanner streaks. Durova ^Charge! 04:44, 13 March 2009 (UTC) reply

Thanks for the barnstar, I have taken up your (non) challenge on restoring Wikipedia:Featured_picture_candidates/delist/Conf_dead_chancellorsville as well. Mfield ( talk) 19:52, 13 March 2009 (UTC) reply

Heaven help you there. Btw are you good at command line conversions? I've just about finished a restoration on the Wright brothers' first flight (for delist/replace) and it's one of those once in a blue moon TIFF files that my software doesn't want to convert to JPEG. Not sure why this happens occasionally. Durova ^Charge! 22:20, 13 March 2009 (UTC) reply

Yousendit me it and i'll convert it, I have a plethora of options. Mfield ( talk) 22:21, 13 March 2009 (UTC) reply

Yousendit maxes out at 100MB. The TIFF is 163MB. I could downsample it a bit, or transfer full size if you have Skype? Durova ^Charge! 22:25, 13 March 2009 (UTC) reply

		The Random Acts of Kindness Barnstar
		Durova. I award you this for helping me find an image that has passed, and a gif that is passing. It was my first featured credit at featured pictures, and I humbly thank you. Syn ergy 01:17, 13 March 2009 (UTC) reply

You earned it. :) If you want to show thanks, make it the first of many. Durova ^Charge! 02:19, 13 March 2009 (UTC) reply

Something along your expertise: Do you think this is eligible for Commons? I want to transfer all FPs to Commons, but of course, must err on the side of copyright safety. Thanks for the help! :-) ~ ωαdεstεr16 _♣T ^C♣ 02:39, 13 March 2009 (UTC) reply

If the copyright assertion about Italian law is correct, then yes it can be. Durova ^Charge! 03:00, 13 March 2009 (UTC) reply

Hi Durova,

Just to let you know that the Featured Picture File:Wrecked ammunition train3.jpg is due to make an appearance as Picture of the Day on March 15, 2009. If you get a chance, you can check and improve the caption at Template:POTD/2009-03-15. howcheng { chat} 22:03, 13 March 2009 (UTC) reply

Thank you. Considering that it's a train wreck, could we transclude it to ANI? ;) Durova ^Charge! 22:20, 13 March 2009 (UTC) reply

P.S. File:1783 balloonj.jpg follows on March 16. And as far as train wrecks go, File:Train wreck at Montparnasse 1895.jpg is probably a better image for that. :) howcheng { chat} 22:43, 13 March 2009 (UTC) reply

Let's away on the balloon. :) The Montparnasse image--wouldn't that be about right for ArbCom? Durova ^Charge! 23:18, 13 March 2009 (UTC) reply

Your Featured picture candidate has been promoted Your nomination for featured picture status, File:Democratic presidential ticket 1864b.jpg, gained a consensus of support, and has been promoted. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates. MER-C 03:22, 15 March 2009 (UTC) reply

Thank you. :) Durova ^Charge! 03:27, 15 March 2009 (UTC) reply

Your Featured picture candidate has been promoted Your nomination for featured picture status, File:Republican presidential ticket 1864b.jpg, gained a consensus of support, and has been promoted. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates. MER-C 03:22, 15 March 2009 (UTC) reply

Thank you. :) Durova ^Charge! 03:27, 15 March 2009 (UTC) reply

You're invited to sign up as a founding member, at Wikipedia:WikiProject Council/Proposals#WikiProject Historic Sites ! :) doncram ( talk) 05:37, 15 March 2009 (UTC) reply

Oh golly; you've figured out I'm a sucker for flattery? ;) Durova ^Charge! 05:39, 15 March 2009 (UTC) reply

Good to know. Actually i didn't think i had begun to flatter u yet (is an invitation flattery?) but I will be happy to lay it on thicker whenever i'd like to get your help, too. :) doncram ( talk) 03:13, 16 March 2009 (UTC) reply

Teehee. :) Best wishes with your project. Durova ^Charge! 03:29, 16 March 2009 (UTC) reply

The WikiCup Newsletter

The WikiCup Newsletter Round I, Issue 9 - March 15, 2009 Archive before | Archive after Content Leaders As of this newsletter, the following is a list of participants with the most: Featured articles Gary King and Juliancolton have both had 3 successful featured article nominations. Featured lists Matthewedwards has had 7 successful featured list nominations. Featured topics Scorpion0422 and Mitchazenia have both had 1 successful featured topic nomination. Featured pictures Durova has had 51 successful featured picture nominations. Featured sounds Shoemaker's Holiday has had 7 successful featured sound nominations. Featured portals Sunderland06 has had 1 successful featured portal nomination. Good topics Scorpion0422, Theleftorium, Gary King and Climie.ca have all had 1 successful good topic nomination. Good articles Mitchazenia has had 34 successful good article nominations. Did you know? items Candlewicke has had 41 successful "Did you know?" nominations. In the news items Candlewicke has had 25 successful "In the News" nominations. Biggest Jumps This week, the players with the biggest difference between their points last fortnight, and their points this week are: Rank User LF TF D 1 Durova 1713 1932 219 2 Mitchazenia 951 1167 216 3 Scorpion0422 683 788 105 4 ThinkBlue 291 386 95 5 Shoemaker's Holiday 791 873 82 6 Theleftorium 990 1060 70 7 Sasata 513 581 68 8 Rlevse 224 290 66 9 Matthewedwards 630 695 65 10 97198 314 360 46 LF = Last Week's score, TF = This Week's score, D = Difference between last week and this week's scores A full list is located at Wikipedia:WikiCup/Jumps From the Judges I think it's safe to say that this week is probably your last chance to nominate anything for promotion to count in this round, so start planning that all-important final push. Bear in mind that anything not promoted this month will still count in the next round if you go through. It's looking very close in the Wildcards section, so if you don't see yourself there, don't panic—you may not be too far off the pace!  GARDEN , iMatthew // talk, and The Helpful One If you don't wish to receive this newsletter in the future, remove your name from this list. If you are not a participant, but would still like to receive this newsletter, feel free to add your name to the list. WikiCup At a Glance As of this newsletter, the WikiCup participants have collected a total of: 19 Featured articles 33 Featured lists 2 Featured topics 77 Featured pictures 21 Featured sounds 1 Featured portal 2 Good topics 144 Good articles 276 Did you know? items 43 In the news items Current leaders In this round of the WikiCup, the top two contestants from each pool, along with ten wildcards, will advance to the next round. As of this newsletter, the current pool leaders are: Pool A Gary King (1087) Spencer (353) Pool B Shoemaker's Holiday (873) Spittlespat (77) Pool C Scorpion0422 (788) Candlewicke (658) Pool D ThinkBlue (386) 97198 (360) Pool E Sasata (581) X! (215) Pool F Bedford (331) the_ed17 (313) Pool G Sunderland06 (228) Ceranthor (183) Pool H Juliancolton (632) Dendodge (219) Pool I Durova (1932) Theleftorium (1060) Pool J Mitchazenia (1167) Matthewedwards (695) Wildcards Useight (648) Paxse (468) Rlevse (290) J Milburn (288) Climie.ca (262) Catalan (255) Rambo's Revenge (241) Tinucherian (159) Ottava Rima (159) PeterSymonds (127) Neurolysis (108) WereSpielChequers (107) NapHit (100) All scores are accurate as of 12:12, 15 March 2009 (UTC). Contestants in italics are just behind the wildcards.

16:50, 15 March 2009 (UTC) The Helpful Bot 16:50, 15 March 2009 (UTC) reply

Hi Durova,

Just to let you know that the Featured Picture File:Sultan Pasha Al-Atrash2.jpg is due to make an appearance as Picture of the Day on March 18, 2009. If you get a chance, you can check and improve the caption at Template:POTD/2009-03-18. howcheng { chat} 00:15, 16 March 2009 (UTC) reply

Thank you. :) Durova ^Charge! 00:33, 16 March 2009 (UTC) reply

Hi Durova,

Just to let you know that the Featured Picture File:Napoleon's exile to Elba3.jpg is due to make an appearance as Picture of the Day on May 3, 2009. If you get a chance, you can check and improve the caption at Template:POTD/2009-05-03. I'm doing this a little early so I don't forget when the time comes. howcheng { chat} 01:56, 16 March 2009 (UTC) reply

Very good; excellent choice for the date. Cheers! Durova ^Charge! 02:01, 16 March 2009 (UTC) reply

Hello. In two articles where I had added a source, you reverted them out as not referenced in the article and as good faith edits which of course they were.

• Ducey, Carolyn, "Quilt History Timeline, Pre-History – 1800", International Quilt Study Center, University of Nebraska, Lincoln.
• International Quilt Study Center & Museum, University of Nebraska-Lincoln

They were in the articles, Quilt and History of quilting. One I added as "Further reading" which exempts it from being referenced in the article proper. So, without discussion they were removed by you. They are interesting and useful perhaps as a further reading. Why did you remove a further reading and also revert out the University of Nebraska external link which is presumably of interest? Please advise. Best wishes. --- (Bob) Wikiklrsc ( talk) 17:50, 16 March 2009 (UTC) reply

Oh, thank you for explaining. In that case fine. The textile arts articles get a regular influx of spam (mostly linkspam, also bookspam). It's a topic with few regular contributors. Would it be possible, please, to add a little content from these sources to the article text? Best regards, Durova ^Charge! 17:58, 16 March 2009 (UTC) reply

You're very welcome! I understand. So, I will work them back in somehow. Actually, this was spurred from a lecture and exhibit yesterday I attended on "African-American Improvisational Quilts". I had a nice talk with the presenter. So I read up on a few things. We were trying to see if "improvisational" and patchwork quilts were historically precedented in China, rather than rigorously patterned beautiful silk quilting. Thanks and Best wishes. --- (Bob) Wikiklrsc ( talk) 18:22, 16 March 2009 (UTC) reply

That sounds wonderful, thank you. :) Durova ^Charge! 18:23, 16 March 2009 (UTC) reply

:) You're quite welcome, of course. Thanks for your kind help. --- (Bob) Wikiklrsc ( talk) 16:25, 17 March 2009 (UTC) reply

Hey,

I wanted to give you this heads up behind my thinking. I was never thinking of politics behind what I was saying and I am quite away of how featured images work. However, when I think of adding images to articles, I look at it with an over all perspective, not a featured image perspective. What I mean is this: does the image help augment the article and better explain the section? When a reader looks at the image, can it stand on it's own and explain what is going on without captions? A better example would be this: say we have an article on a rather notable fire at a rather notable historic structure. Not many photos were taking during or after the fire. The article is not a big article, almost a stub, so there really is only room for one or two images. There are three images of the event: one is a low res shot of the building on fire. A second one is also a medium res version of the firefighters fighting the fire. Finally, the third is a very high res version of a man posing with the fire going on in the background, but not the main focus of the shot. Plus the high res version is a featured image. When adding images to the article, I look through the images and select the two most relevant images, irregardless of quality, that better show the event (I.E. the low and medium res images).

Now that image you added needed caption, (well written captions) to explain that he is a senator in that shot and that he was giving a speech. If I removed that caption I could easily add any other caption ranging from him being pissed that he had lost a state election to him looking arrogant. I also know that the image was originally intended to replace the main image and to that end, the uploader had cropped out the majority of the shot to focus on his rather pissed off looking face in hopes of a campaign stunt (This was way back in the primaries.).

Lastly, if you had just reasonably answered my questions the first time I asked them, instead of blowing me off (which what you had written had appeared to me) I most likely have had no problem and left it alone. I am not against using featured images in articles, but I don't subscribe to the notion that if an image is featured it trumps everything else. I tend to look at the over all article and that was what my questions were aimed at, nothing more. Brothejr ( talk) 15:11, 17 March 2009 (UTC) reply

Do you think I was blowing you off? I was trying to answer you several different ways, and having difficulty understanding your objections. Wikipedia has quite a few featured pictures which would be nearly incomprehensible without captioning. Take this example. Just a cluttered old crowd scene in thumbnail, until something explains that it's President William McKinley's last public address on the day before his assassination. Or this: just ink scribbles? Or a manuscript Confederate map of the first major battle of the American Civil War. Durova ^Charge! 15:25, 17 March 2009 (UTC) reply

Well I guess we both misunderstood each other then. :) Oh, before I forget, happy Saint Patrick’s Day!  :) Brothejr ( talk) 15:36, 17 March 2009 (UTC) reply

Thank you, and same to you. :) Durova ^Charge! 15:38, 17 March 2009 (UTC) reply

On behalf of the Wikipedia:Kindness Campaign, we just want to spread Wikipedia:WikiLove by wishing you a Happy Saint Patrick’s Day! Sincerely, -- A Nobody ^{My talk} 15:32, 17 March 2009 (UTC) reply

Aw, thanks! (looks over wardrobe and dodges pinches) ;) Durova ^Charge! 15:33, 17 March 2009 (UTC) reply

You're welcome! Sincerely, -- A Nobody ^{My talk} 16:05, 17 March 2009 (UTC) reply

Guessing I should qualify?

• DYK
• GA
• FC

Guettarda ( talk) 16:37, 17 March 2009 (UTC) reply

Hi Guettarda ( talk · contribs) - please see User:Durova/Triple crown winner's circle/Nominations. Thanks, Cirt ( talk) 16:49, 17 March 2009 (UTC) reply

Obviously I can't read...I read those instructions, but transposed the appropriate actions in my mind as I read them :( Guettarda ( talk) 21:31, 17 March 2009 (UTC) reply

Do you really think that's going to help? I'm confused. — Hex (❝?!❞) 16:51, 17 March 2009 (UTC) reply

It can't get much worse, and maybe some of the parties will step back and see how this appears. The new arbitrators are trying to implement important reforms. Surely the encyclopedia would be better off if the experienced editors in this dispute found a more congenial solution for an issue that is really quite minor. Durova ^Charge! 16:59, 17 March 2009 (UTC) reply

Hi Durova,

Just to let you know that the Featured Picture File:Light bulb Edison 2.jpg is due to make an appearance as Picture of the Day on March 19, 2009. If you get a chance, you can check and improve the caption at Template:POTD/2009-03-19. howcheng { chat} 18:12, 17 March 2009 (UTC) reply

Also, per your request, File:Hotel Del c1900b.jpg is set for Template:POTD/2009-03-29, currently with lipsum text. howcheng { chat} 18:32, 17 March 2009 (UTC) reply

Please use {{ LOC-image}} (Commons has this template too) when uploading your LOC P&P images. I can't find File:D-Day.jpg anywhere in P&P or American Memory (use the permalinks for the latter). :( Thanks, howcheng { chat} 19:04, 17 March 2009 (UTC) reply

I didn't upload that image. Actually I prefer to link directly rather than use the template. Best, Durova ^Charge! 20:17, 17 March 2009 (UTC) reply

Commons:File:D-Day.jpg I meant. Didn't realize there was another image here blocking that one. As long as there's a link to the bibliography page, I really don't care what format it takes. howcheng { chat} 21:39, 17 March 2009 (UTC) reply

That's from the maps division. Durova ^Charge! 21:42, 17 March 2009 (UTC) reply

Could you please look at this nomination, which you voted to delist, I assume per size concerns. I believe that those have been addressed. ErikTheBikeMan ( talk) 22:01, 17 March 2009 (UTC) reply

Done. Durova ^Charge! 00:27, 18 March 2009 (UTC) reply

Thanks for your advice. Could you have another look? I've made the requested edits. Shoemaker's Holiday ( talk) 22:58, 17 March 2009 (UTC) reply

Done. Durova ^Charge! 00:26, 18 March 2009 (UTC) reply

Can you have a quick skim over my comments about you here, and make sure I've not completely misrepresented your opinions (in the section that begins "Few image concerns…"). Thanks! –  iridescent 00:05, 18 March 2009 (UTC) reply

Replied at the FAC. Durova ^Charge! 00:26, 18 March 2009 (UTC) reply

Okay, I've had to make some changes, I hope I haven't broken too much:

1. The JPG is used in the bug report on PNG display. We shouldn't change it until the bug is dealt with.
2. I've moved the tiff, lest it cause confusion to have multiple restorations with only the extention differing them.
3. Please use PNG, not JPG. It just confuses the issue: My entire point is that we shouldn't be using the damaged version in Wikipedia files, because it conceals the correct version, then you go and suggest replacing the PNG with JPG anyway. Shoemaker's Holiday ( talk) 00:15, 18 March 2009 (UTC) reply

You can still link directly to the historic file in the bug report. I'm surprised you want to use the PNG, though, since yesterday you were complaining about the PNG thumbnail displaying. Don't quite follow your rationales generally this week, either. Yesterday you segued from complaining about the very real shortcomings in how WMF handles PNG files, by deprecating the implementation of our first uncompressed alternative. If the PNG blurriness issue gets resolved, then delist/replace would be trivial. Until then, since 99% of viewers see images in thumbnail rather than clicking on the file hosting page itself, the display does look better in JPEG and let's go with that. Durova ^Charge! 00:25, 18 March 2009 (UTC) reply

First off, I cannot link to historic versions of THUMBNAILS, which is what would be required. Secondly, TIFFs don't display at all, as far as I can tell. Thirdly, the fix - applying sharpening which is applied to JPG but not PNG - is evidently trivial, and a little support would cause it to be implemented very soon, solving the PNG problem. Shoemaker's Holiday ( talk) 01:15, 18 March 2009 (UTC) reply

Please take a more congenial tone. Durova ^Charge! 01:30, 18 March 2009 (UTC) reply

I put it up. You'll probably want to tweak the caption, but I'm going back to bed now. Shoemaker's Holiday ( talk) 19:32, 18 March 2009 (UTC) reply

Hi, Most of the issues you raised were addressed by an editor, so, can you please take a look and reconsider your position? Thanks. -- Ragib ( talk) 07:32, 18 March 2009 (UTC) reply

Have followed up. Durova ^Charge! 15:07, 19 March 2009 (UTC) reply

Wikipedia:WikiProject Historic Sites is opened up. I took the liberty of assuming your support for the wikiproject meant you wanted to join as a member, and I copied your signature to the Members list on the main page. Please visit and add to, or remove, your listing there. It would be great to hear about what you're interested in the Wikiproject being, in your member comment and/or at the Talk page, shortcut wt:HSITES. Thanks for your support! doncram ( talk) 17:21, 18 March 2009 (UTC) reply

http://www.boingboing.net/2009/03/17/massive-archive-of-u.html
http://www.flickr.com/photos/medicalmuseum/

You saw my post to the Commons mailing list about this? Durova ^Charge! 15:12, 19 March 2009 (UTC) reply

I talked to Roger about it. His position is that the finding doesn't mention this sock in particular, but refers to general sock disruptiveness. I think that's a well-supported position to take. Cool Hand Luke 18:49, 18 March 2009 (UTC) reply

Sounds like a reasonable middle ground. Wanted to make you aware of the basis for my misgivings. Thanks very much, Durova ^Charge! 19:52, 18 March 2009 (UTC) reply

Your Featured picture candidate has been promoted Your nomination for featured picture status, File:Randy's donuts1 edit1.jpg, gained a consensus of support, and has been promoted. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates. MER-C 08:42, 19 March 2009 (UTC) reply

Thank you. :) Durova ^Charge! 15:14, 19 March 2009 (UTC) reply