Chamal talk 08:00, 24 April 2009 (UTC)
MER-C seems to have forgotten to notify co-nominators again, so, from my talk page:
Your
Featured picture candidate has been promoted Your nomination for
featured picture status,
File:B'nai B'rith membership certificate 1876.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 02:54, 24 April 2009 (UTC)
|
Shoemaker's Holiday ( talk) 19:15, 24 April 2009 (UTC)
The 50 DYK Medal | ||
Looks like I have the pleasure of awarding you this medal Durova. :) Great work, and I know you will exceed this soon enough. The main page is calling. ;) Syn ergy 21:43, 24 April 2009 (UTC) |
An Arbitration case in which you commented has been opened, and is located here. Please add any evidence you may wish the Arbitrators to consider to the evidence sub-page, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Abd and JzG/Evidence. Please submit your evidence within one week, if possible. You may also contribute to the case on the workshop sub-page, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Abd and JzG/Workshop.
On behalf of the Arbitration Committee, Hersfold ( t/ a/ c) 02:10, 25 April 2009 (UTC)
Nah, I believe I noticed Borobudur pop-up on my watchlist. fyi, I got busy and lost the other thread... Cheers, Jack Merridew 16:09, 25 April 2009 (UTC)
The WikiCup Newsletter | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Delivered for the WikiCup by ROBOTIC GARDEN at 14:26, 26 April 2009 (UTC). To report errors see the talk page.
Is there any new evidence for the JzG case, or will it just be a summary of what's already been presented elsewhere? To answer your question, I proceed to the workshop because I've already seen the stuff that's been presented to date. I don't need to see it presented again. Jehochman Talk 23:29, 26 April 2009 (UTC)
Hi Durova,
Just to let you know that the Featured Picture File:Ijazah3.jpg is due to make an appearance as Picture of the Day on April 28, 2009. If you get a chance, you can check and improve the caption at Template:POTD/2009-04-28. howcheng { chat} 03:43, 27 April 2009 (UTC)
Hi. I answered to your talkpage message, I think we basically agree, though I feel that the evidence I present hooks into a different part of the situation. Also, I believe that I recused to 'decide' on the de-blacklisting request, but that to me does not mean that I am not allowed to expand on the issues involved if I believe that those issues were fully presented in the case.
I am a bit troubled by your "The one alteration I actually encouraged has not been made: removal of the ambiguous suggestion that I share Abd's content POV.". I do not see where I make that ambiguous suggestion. If I do so, could you please point me how I do that, as I have no reason to suggest that. I have also responded to your sentence where you suggest I have altered evidence, I hope there that you meant that I altered the representation of the evidence, there is for me no way I can alter evidence, that is in the diffs. I don't want us to go into dispute over these things, and I'd rather remove the response as it is not part of the case. -- Dirk Beetstra T C 10:30, 27 April 2009 (UTC)
Hi Durova,
Just to let you know that the Featured Picture File:Red Jacket 2.jpg is due to make an appearance as Picture of the Day on April 29, 2009. If you get a chance, you can check and improve the caption at Template:POTD/2009-04-29. howcheng { chat} 23:10, 27 April 2009 (UTC)
Your
Featured picture candidate has been promoted Your nomination for
featured picture status,
File:Midsummer Night's Dream Henry Fuseli2.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 11:56, 28 April 2009 (UTC)
|
I don't know if you saw, but this has passed on commons. I shoved it into the POTY queue for the first day of Rosh Hashanah, 19 September, since Shavuot was already filled. Shoemaker's Holiday ( talk) 12:16, 28 April 2009 (UTC)
In other news, kind of annoyed at FPC: The stupidity of opposing the Grant image for using a Victorian format, combined with having to practically beg people to review any literature-related FPCs are starting to annoy me. Thinking of taking a long break. Shoemaker's Holiday ( talk) 12:18, 28 April 2009 (UTC)
I note that you reverted Bob's removal of a paragraph at WP:NOR (saying that it was a long standing concept in the policy). Please note that Bob had discussed the reasoning behind his edit on the NOR talk page. While you are absolutely within your rights to object and revert, please do him the courtesy of explaining why you reverted on the talk page.
Blueboar (
talk) 15:34, 28 April 2009 (UTC)
I see you already have... thanks. Blueboar ( talk) 15:36, 28 April 2009 (UTC)
Hi! I stumbled upon File:Nagasakibomb.jpg, which was featured in August 2007, and includes a number of scratches and dust particles. I'm sure WP:GL could handle it, but given that you have such expertise in this sort of restoration, and it's already featured, I thought I'd ask if you could please clean it up. Thanks!-- HereToHelp ( talk to me) 19:21, 29 April 2009 (UTC)
The main issue is time, and the fact that just ain't much in the way of good references available. I have laid my hands on a copy of a book on US Krags and hope to be able to use that for referencing that section, but Real Life is keeping me busy. WegianWarrior ( talk) 22:55, 29 April 2009 (UTC)
Your
Featured picture candidate has been promoted Your nomination for
featured picture status,
File:Richmond Virginia damage2.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 11:26, 30 April 2009 (UTC)
|
You are doing this prematurely. You have no idea what plans Yahoo has for these pages. They are unlikely to be trashed. Please stop this campaign. ► RATEL ◄ 15:10, 30 April 2009 (UTC)
Could you list this image at WP:PUF? It would look more credible if you listed it since it's on a blacklisted domain. Blueboy 96 22:12, 30 April 2009 (UTC)
Apologies, Durova. I can't say that I was entirely unaware of the mentorship; it just hadn't occured to me. -- Levine2112 discuss 03:31, 1 May 2009 (UTC)
Hi, I noticed you special edition section and wanted to ask about a group of editors that have contributed to the WikiProject Video games. Some have contributed to several video game related articles, and I picked the ones below somewhat arbitrarily. They may have a different article that they may favor more.
Do they meet to criteria to start a VG project section? ( Guyinblack25 talk 19:26, 1 May 2009 (UTC))
Shubinator ( talk) 00:54, 2 May 2009 (UTC)
This is just a ping to see if the USRD special edition TC has ever been designed. It was last mentioned in October at WT:USRD, and that discussion was archived in archive #14. Imzadi1979 ( talk) 06:39, 2 May 2009 (UTC)
I've been suggested to you, as someone who might be able to help out with this... Do you think you could spare a minute to glance at it? Thanks in advance/no hard feelings!! ╟─ Treasury Tag► contribs─╢ 15:20, 2 May 2009 (UTC)
I found several images at Commons but wasn't sure the correct way of dealing with them. The first two ( File:AFClogo.jpg and File:AFC blue logo.jpg) are logos so I assume they are speedy deletes. File:AFC arieal.JPG, File:AFCGrade1.jpg and File:AFC TD.jpg are to be found at http://www.alfalaah.org.za/?pg=117 while File:AFC JGym.jpg is at http://www.alfalaah.org.za/?pg=112a&resp=learner. However, the images at Commons are better quality than the ones on the Al Falaah website. This leads me to think that User talk:Abdulmirza has taken or has access to the originals. I was unsure if the images should be tagged as speedy, regular deletion or some other process. There was another, File:AFC Lab.jpg, that I couldn't see on the Al Falaah site. Cheers. Enter CambridgeBayWeather, waits for audience applause, not a sausage 17:29, 2 May 2009 (UTC)
You have mail that relates to the permalink you just made. Risker ( talk) 01:29, 3 May 2009 (UTC)
Hi Durova,
Just to let you know that the Featured Picture File:Beethoven opus 101 manuscript.jpg is due to make an appearance as Picture of the Day on May 4, 2009. If you get a chance, you can check and improve the caption at Template:POTD/2009-05-04. The audio files are included too, but I'm not sure how I'm going to get those on the Main Page yet. howcheng { chat} 02:31, 3 May 2009 (UTC)
Your
Featured picture candidate has been promoted Your nomination for
featured picture status,
File:Salem witch2.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. ~
ωαdεstεr16
«talk
stalk» 18:34, 3 May 2009 (UTC)
|
Your
Featured picture candidate has been promoted Your nomination for
featured picture status,
File:Borobudur lantern slide2.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. ~
ωαdεstεr16
«talk
stalk» 18:34, 3 May 2009 (UTC)
|
The WikiCup Newsletter | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Delivered for the WikiCup by ROBOTIC GARDEN at 08:33, 4 May 2009 (UTC). To report errors see the talk page.
Nice one. Paxse ( talk) 14:32, 5 May 2009 (UTC)
Dear Durova, you are an image expert, so I think you can answer my question. I've started the bio of Ismail Shammout, a Palestinian artist, who painted Where to ..?. SlimVirgin uploaded File:Ismail Shammout's Where to ....JPG. The image is copyrighted and unlicensed. If I use the image in the bio, does it qualifies as fair use under U.S. copyright law? Have a nice day! AdjustShift ( talk) 15:17, 5 May 2009 (UTC)
The
April 2009 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 has been an automated delivery by
BrownBot (
talk) 22:55, 5 May 2009 (UTC)
Durova, can you have a word with this fellow? He deleted one of the archival versions of an FP, and when I complained, he got very, very rude. If we're going to maintain proper restoration archives, random deletions of the files are going to be a major problem.
Either that, or use your contacts to get the coders off their arses so that they'll finally support decent-sized PNGs. Shoemaker's Holiday ( talk) 16:38, 6 May 2009 (UTC)
Thought I'd try this once more (though I still say that it's demeaning to have to literally beg to get people to review literature FPCs). However, do you think it's alright not to show the original scan on the FPC when the changes are so minor (since I was able to scan a good-quality copy myself) that I don't think they'd be at all noticable at thumbnail, save the minor levels adjustment? Shoemaker's Holiday ( talk) 18:58, 6 May 2009 (UTC)
Please join the arbitration against me. All negative comments are welcome at Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration under my name. Regards, — Mattisse ( Talk) 20:36, 6 May 2009 (UTC)
Durova, I hate to be a pain, but does this look a bit pink to you, or is it just my monitor (LCD displays can be a little angle-dependant). Shoemaker's Holiday ( talk) 22:41, 6 May 2009 (UTC)
rʨanaɢ talk/ contribs 23:26, 6 May 2009 (UTC)
In these two edits, 64.124.12.253 ( talk · contribs) uses two images uploaded to Commons by commons:User:KPAsucxs to effectively defame two unidentified young women. The provenance of the images is...obviously questionable, at best. I've no experience handling this sort of thing on Commons; could you help? Maralia ( talk) 02:11, 7 May 2009 (UTC)
Your
Featured picture candidate has been promoted Your nomination for
featured picture status,
File:Under the horse chestnut tree2.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. ~
ωαdεstεr16
«talk
stalk» 03:07, 7 May 2009 (UTC)
|
Hi Durova,
Just to let you know that the Featured Picture File:Shooting Captured Insurgents - Spanish-American War.ogv is due to make an appearance as Picture of the Day on May 9, 2009. If you get a chance, you can check and improve the caption at Template:POTD/2009-05-09. I noticed that there was a Featured Sound from the same article, so I threw that in there as well, although that music file really could use more context in the article. howcheng { chat} 03:41, 7 May 2009 (UTC)
Hi Duvora,
I noticed your comments on this case. I am not sure that you understand that arbcom has given the users who initiated this case the item at the very top of their wish list: sanctions of Jayjg.
I have been restricted from making further comments on this case, but my own view is that years of blocks and bans have done nothing to improve the difficulties of editing I/P articles, and this will likewise accomplish nothing good. Also, since WP:NPOV assumes that a balanced result will eventually work out from discussions between editors with differing POVs, sanctions like this only further encourage editors to disguise the process. Because some conflict is inevitable when editors really do have strongly held, and opposing, POVs, it seems better to allow some friction. Arbcom is making an effort to have things look harmonious when they really are not harmonious. That will only further encourage and reward those users who dissemble most effectively. Malcolm Schosha ( talk) 12:02, 7 May 2009 (UTC)
See WT:WikiCup =P Shoemaker's Holiday ( talk) 12:35, 7 May 2009 (UTC)
I know you've withdrawn the proposal but shouldn't the part dealing the other Grockl ( talk · contribs · logs) SPA still stand? It's obvious that user has an issue with WP:OWN and WP:SPA. - ALLST✰R▼ echo wuz here @ 20:24, 7 May 2009 (UTC)
Please see User talk:Steve Crossin#Mentor. Thanks. - ALLST✰R▼ echo wuz here @ 10:41, 8 May 2009 (UTC)
I guess I should explain my reasoning here, for Durova, as I realize Steve's past would cause some to question why I did it. I asked Steve to do this because of his past and how he's learned a great deal from it. I think it's a good idea that someone who's "been there", can help out another user who is making a good faith effort at becoming an asset to the Wiki. - ALLST✰R▼ echo wuz here @ 10:57, 8 May 2009 (UTC)
Re your message: Thanks. I left my opinion on the copycat/IP account, but I haven't quite formed my opinion on the other yet. -- Gogo Dodo ( talk) 02:54, 8 May 2009 (UTC)
I'm sorry I didn't contact you! I wasn't sure whether you were still his mentor; then I got involved in writing that proposal, and I forgot to check or drop you a note anyway. My apologies. Obviously, your opinion would be very valuable. SlimVirgin talk| contribs 18:03, 8 May 2009 (UTC)
I suspect user:Gwinndeith to be someones sock. At Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Molobo, user:Sciurinae says he has definite proof that Gwinndeith is a sock of user:Molobo, but wants an impartial admin to have his evidence reviewed confidentially. Weren't you the one who did the sleuthing? If you are interested, please contact Sciurinae and have a look. Thank you, Skäpperöd ( talk) 19:36, 8 May 2009 (UTC)
╟─ Treasury Tag► contribs─╢ 20:37, 8 May 2009 (UTC)
Hi Durova,
Just to let you know that the Featured Picture File:Segregation 1938b.jpg is due to make an appearance as Picture of the Day on May 12, 2009. If you get a chance, you can check and improve the caption at Template:POTD/2009-05-12. I'm not altogether happy with this one. I didn't want to use racial segregation as the bolded article because there's another FP in there, but even though it's the only photo in state racism, I'm not sure it's a great fit. Personally I think File:DurbanSign1989.jpg probably works better in that article, as it shows a government sign. howcheng { chat} 04:27, 9 May 2009 (UTC)
Your
Featured picture candidate has been promoted Your nomination for
featured picture status,
File:Stocking factory2.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. ~
ωαdεstεr16
«talk
stalk» 06:33, 9 May 2009 (UTC)
|
Note: please feel free to rename this; I was unsure what to go with... ~ ωαdεstεr16 «talk stalk» 06:33, 9 May 2009 (UTC)
I believe WP:ELEM qualifies for such a crown since user:Mav, user:Cryptic C62, user:Itub, user:Stone and me have all have had an FA and a GA within the scope of the project and each of us have had at least one DYK. Nergaal ( talk) 01:57, 10 May 2009 (UTC)
Yes, it was; new requests should be going to one of the subpages rather than the main page, and protecting it seems like a decent way of minimizing the number of editors mistakenly pasting things onto it. If you have a better idea, of course, please don't hesitate to suggest it. Kirill [talk] [pf] 05:41, 10 May 2009 (UTC)
There's no clear instruction at the destination location stating that the header title points to an editable page. And again, why? The process is bureaucratic enough already. Is there some pressing need for which clerks are unsatisfactory? Durova Charge! 06:02, 10 May 2009 (UTC)
I want to apologise for thinking anything could really be that simple when I made my little comment re plagiarism. It goes back to one of my earliest edits: nothing gets done on Wikipedia without a good old-fashioned 100kb debate. Still, I guess it's better than the Milgramesque cult of personality certain sources portray it as. Recognizance ( talk) 06:15, 10 May 2009 (UTC)
You had said my comment at Wikipedia talk:Plagiarism was "brilliant" and I responded that I was glad to see something was getting done without a 100kb debate. I'm just saying it was more naïve than brilliant. Recognizance ( talk) 06:30, 10 May 2009 (UTC)
Hello! Your submission of Raquel Forner at the Did You Know nominations page has been reviewed, and there still are some issues that may need to be clarified. Please review the comment(s) underneath your nomination's entry and respond there as soon as possible. Thank you for contributing to Did You Know! Paxse ( talk) 12:05, 10 May 2009 (UTC)
Hi Durova,
Just to let you know that the Featured Picture File:Yellowstone 1871b.jpg is due to make an appearance as Picture of the Day on May 15, 2009. If you get a chance, you can check and improve the caption at Template:POTD/2009-05-15. howcheng { chat} 04:14, 11 May 2009 (UTC)
An Arbitration case in which you commented has been opened, and is located here. Please add any evidence you may wish the Arbitrators to consider to the evidence sub-page, Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Mattisse/Evidence. Please submit your evidence within one week, if possible. You may also contribute to the case on the workshop sub-page, Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Mattisse/Workshop.
On behalf of the Arbitration Committee, [[Sam Korn]] (smoddy) 08:25, 11 May 2009 (UTC)
Your
Featured picture candidate has been promoted Your nomination for
featured picture status,
File:Ramallah spinner2.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 10:33, 11 May 2009 (UTC)
|
Dear Durova, I wonder if I might have your advice on the following Wiki image-related matter. Suppose the copyright owners of a topographic map were to upload a low resolution image of their map to Wikimedia Commons, naturally under some free license (say CC-BY-SA-3.0 and GFDL). Would that affect their copyright on the map itself, and if yes, in what way? Particularly, would it then be legal for anyone to publish ans sell a version of the map that otherwise would have been a violation of copyright? Best, Apcbg ( talk) 11:34, 12 May 2009 (UTC)
In real life, you get mail. On Wikipedia, mail gets you. Cheers, Dloh cierekim 04:06, 13 May 2009 (UTC)
Durova, I think I may have been somewhat under-appreciative of your long-term good-faith efforts the other day, and reckon I owe you a bit of an apology. It is herewith offered. Jayen 466 22:06, 13 May 2009 (UTC)
I think you might be speaking from experience. :) And I would say that's part of the reason my RfA was defeated. Which is why I've started making the point that I can be just as effective a vandal-hunter without being an admin. Maybe more effective, because no one can ever say I abused my (non-existent) admin authority. :) I do have rollback, but I use it very cautiously - typically against obvious vandalism from drive-by IP's and redlink users. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots 22:39, 13 May 2009 (UTC)
Re: http://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard&diff=prev&oldid=289894979.
Durova,
AN is precisely the venue Kittybrewster ought to use to appeal his topic ban. An appeal would be filed with the Committee against the additional restrictions they "topped up" the community-placed topic ban with, but otherwise, the venue was quite correct. I would understand an archival of the thread on the basis of it wouldn't go anywhere, but I don't appreciate your closing the thread with the summary you used after my, Tiptoety, and KnightLago commenting that it's in the correct venue. Furthermore, arbitrator Vassyana confirmed this morning—over clerks-l, which is annoyingly a private mailing list—that any appeal of the topic ban would be directed through AN.
AGK 19:02, 14 May 2009 (UTC)
Hi Durova.
I've noticed that the evidence that you've submitted to this case is currently in the region of 2,500 words long. You're probably aware that there is a requirement that evidence be kept to around 1,000 words. I understand that part of the reason for the length of your statement is that you have quoted extensively rather than simply pointing to diffs, but nonetheless it would, I am sure, be appreciated if you could attempt to shorten it. If you feel it is necessary to present evidence of this kind of length, you could do so in a subpage of your user page and link there from your main statement.
Thanks, [[Sam Korn]] (smoddy) 18:27, 15 May 2009 (UTC)
Hate to tell you this, but, technically, you aren't a party in this arbitration. You might want to move your comments to the "Others" sections. I don't know how persnickety the ArbCom gets, but if they do get rather picky, it might not be taken very well that you placed yourself in the wrong section. John Carter ( talk) 20:51, 15 May 2009 (UTC)
Wikipedia:Featured_picture_candidates/Suttungr: When would be a good time to take this live? Shoemaker's Holiday ( talk) 00:41, 16 May 2009 (UTC)
Acknowledged, I will be more careful next time. Apologies, Otisjimmy1 ( talk) 03:09, 16 May 2009 (UTC)
We over at MILHIST are discussing the project Triple Crown again; would you be able to weigh in here? Thanks and cheers, — Ed (Talk • Contribs) 06:38, 16 May 2009 (UTC)
I've rang your bell over on Commons. - ALLST✰R▼ echo wuz here @ 07:03, 16 May 2009 (UTC)
Requesting the ban of someone for basically raising valid points regarding an article hardly strikes me as being moderate. And, as others have already said elsewhere, I'm in the process of trying to find the quote today, there is at least some reason to think that the extremists may already have the upper hand in this case. Certainly, the first two RfCs were so fundamentally flawed that I personally find it hard to believe that anyone would consider them evidence of anything but what they were, persecution of Mattisse. And, I suppose, one real demonstration of good faith is to apologize for actions which may have been, well, excessive. In fact, I think that is among the most basic such steps. I wonder how many of them I've seen? John Carter ( talk) 14:26, 16 May 2009 (UTC)
I'd really appreciate your input here to get this thing started right. -- Brangifer ( talk) 21:40, 16 May 2009 (UTC)
I have proposed this project here. Where else should it be announced to help get more attention and get this up and going? We need more editors to help this off its feet. -- Brangifer ( talk) 22:03, 16 May 2009 (UTC)
Orlady ( talk) 23:22, 16 May 2009 (UTC)
There you go; I suppose I would have got much the same at one of the more familiar venues but, with the exception of RfAR, would it have provided such food for thought? Thinking about it, though, I would agree that I extend greater faith toward the unloved than the established order - but that is both my nature in life and also a balance against the majority whose bias' work the other way. Something to bear in mind, anyway. LessHeard vanU ( talk) 01:52, 17 May 2009 (UTC)
Your
Featured picture candidate has been promoted Your nomination for
featured picture status,
File:Let alone2.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 03:57, 17 May 2009 (UTC)
|
Royal broil 05:07, 17 May 2009 (UTC)
Hi Durova,
Just to let you know that the Featured Picture File:Cedar Key 1884b small.jpg is due to make an appearance as Picture of the Day on May 19, 2009. If you get a chance, you can check and improve the caption at Template:POTD/2009-05-19. howcheng { chat} 07:40, 17 May 2009 (UTC)
I am one of the editors who support SA being allowed to edit the Optics article. I never thought to talk to you first never mind to SA. To me it's just common sense to allow him to edi the article as stated by the many editors who spoke up for it. Please except my apology, also please let SA know that I for one didn't realize I should have spoken to either of you first before giving my opinion on this which I now realize I should have. Thanks in advance, -- CrohnieGal Talk 12:05, 17 May 2009 (UTC)
Durova, I've now made a more specific proposal here involving transwikiing the material in several steps. Since step 1 is to find out whether you approve of the proposed procedure, I would appreciate it if you would comment in that thread. ☺ Coppertwig ( talk) 14:15, 18 May 2009 (UTC)
Wikipedia:Featured_picture_candidates/The_Punishment_of_Loki - Have a read of Banaticus' comment - I think he makes a good point that we should probably take to heart when setting up restored/unrestored pairs. Shoemaker's Holiday ( talk) 16:40, 17 May 2009 (UTC)
Pointed out here by an anonymous IP. I moved it to a lower place in the thread so it could be easily seen and responded to without interrupting the year-old thread.
Would you be willing to help me with a little work from a German source? It's for Ero e Leandro, a minor work of Handel's which was only published a decade ago. I recently acquired the only major source I lacked for discussion of the work, so I believe that it should be relatively easy to push it up to GA or FA if you're willing to help with the German. Shoemaker's Holiday ( talk) 17:43, 17 May 2009 (UTC)
Royal broil 22:28, 17 May 2009 (UTC)
Hi,
You responded to the message I left on the administrators' noticeboard yesterday in regards to User:Electroide, so I wanted to share this with you, just in case you didn't see my reply on the noticeboard entry, which is now archived. Thanks, — BMRR ( talk) 00:50, 18 May 2009 (UTC)
Would you be interested in joining this project? We need more editors who share a burden for rescuing promising editors who have gotten into serious trouble because of behavioral issues. IF (a fundamental condition!) they are interested in reforming and adapting to our standards of conduct, and are also willing to abide by our policies and guidelines, rather than constantly subverting them, we can offer to help them return to Wikipedia as constructive editors. Right now many if not most users who have been banned are still active here, but they are here as socks or anonymous IPs who may or may not be constructive. We should offer them a proper way to return. If you think this is a good idea, please join us. -- Brangifer ( talk) 04:24, 18 May 2009 (UTC)
As you're his mentor, according to the last action at the Arbcom page, see Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Banned user editing. Thanks. - ALLST✰R▼ echo wuz here @ 04:58, 18 May 2009 (UTC)
Lies, every bit of it. He better have proof (he doesn't because it's all lies). I missed that edit and you undone it. Luckily I found it. - ALLST✰R▼ echo wuz here @ 12:05, 18 May 2009 (UTC)
I plan to archive this thread soon seeing that the circular discussion won't cease. Being that the involved parties have stated that they believe another go at mediation would be a waste of time, I am hopeful you will still assist in drafting. Thanks for you insight and help in this issue. Nja 247 07:36, 18 May 2009 (UTC)
The WikiCup Newsletter | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Delivered for the WikiCup by ROBOTIC GARDEN at 09:09, 18 May 2009 (UTC). To report errors see the talk page.
I see you're listed as a reviewer of this, at the review desk. I've bought the book, but haven't been particularly motivated to read it; would you be interested in doing a joint review? -- John Broughton (♫♫) 16:35, 18 May 2009 (UTC)
Maison Bonfils was the business of Felix Bonfils (d. 1885); Marie Cabanis (d. 1918) and Adrien Bonfils (d. 1928) were additional photographers. [6] So shouldn't File:Sphinx partially excavated2.jpg be eligable for commons? Thegreenj 00:15, 19 May 2009 (UTC)
Sorry about that one. I've been misfiring a lot lately. Also, I really don't see the point in keeping it around. The bout of vandalism ended three years ago, and the subpage remains untouched. What purpose does it serve now? Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ( Many otters • One bat • One hammer) 19:19, 19 May 2009 (UTC)
While I understand your intention to made the Arb case about overall behaviour on the ADHD page, it hasn't born fruit. It is dishonest to continue to title the Arb request ADHD. It should have my name on it. No one has talked about other issues, and other parties involved in the request recognize this. (ie- Overall, I think the title of this arbitration request is a little off. It is not really “ADHD”, but rather “Scuro and the Question of Disruptive Editing.” Thank you for your time, J Readings). Please change the title.-- scuro ( talk) 10:21, 20 May 2009 (UTC)
Hi, Durova, since you seem to be very knowledgeable of historical costume (per your FP activity) and copyright laws, I seek your advice. I've been working on creating/editing traditional Korean clothing related articles from Korean sources because there are not much accessible English sources. While translating terms to English ones, I've been getting surprised more and more at the current status quo of fashion or textile-related articles. They are too poorly written nor even articles on basic terms do not seem to exist. (eg. gored skirt, shirring). So I wonder if I find books in Public Domain from Google books, can I directly copy and paste contents from such books to needed articles without paraphrasing? I don't have enough knowledge to write things on tricky and sophisticated fashion terms in English because I have little knowledge of the subject However, I'm wondering that is allowed on Wiki as long as I mention where the source come from. I want to use the book, Clothing for Women; Selection, Design, Construction By Laura Irene Baldt-- Caspian blue 15:36, 20 May 2009 (UTC)
I wish to note that your recent addition to your statement at Arb continues to put forward that links to prior DR weren't provided at ANI and that you had to dig them up. As noted in my statement at Arb, the WQA was linked to in the first paragraph of the ANI thread, and user:Literaturegeek had provided links to the RfC and the MedCab on 14 May at 11.01pm. Though, it was said at 7.43 pm on 16 May by you "After two days of requesting the background I finally dug it up myself". I realise it would have been preferred for those links to also have been in the opening paragraph, however it's not exactly correct to say that they weren't provided prior to your action. Nja 247 07:16, 21 May 2009 (UTC)
Hi, I saw the message that you had left on Patlichty's talkpage User_talk:Patlichty about image restoration. Am I right to assume that the restoration was done digitally? I'm very interested in how this was done, could you point me to some schools/resources where I can get professional training in this field? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Cmyk ( talk • contribs) 15:57, 21 May 2009 (UTC)
Hi Durova. Pardon me for intruding on your talk page when there are so many activities within WP that you're attempting to attend to. I come here for 2 reasons really: 1.) You seem to be well informed on the FT and plagiarism issues; and, I'm hoping my question won't get lost in the crowds of various "board threads". 2.) I have the distinct impression that you always take great pains to give any and all editors a fair hearing. My question is one of those "What did she know, and when did she know it?" things.
I ask because I was one of the plebs that supported FT in her recent RfA, and I'm hoping that my vetting and support were not conspicuously erroneous. If the last transgression happened months ago, then I'm a bit more confident that my support was justifiable. I hope this is the case, and I thank you for your time. — Ched : ? 16:05, 21 May 2009 (UTC)
Hello Durova. I just wanted to thank you for being so kind and personally helpful to me over the last few days. Your first instinct was to lend a hand rather than point a finger, which I deeply respect. People like you are what make the project beautiful. Flying Toaster 18:55, 21 May 2009 (UTC)
An Arbitration case involving you has been opened, and is located here. Please add any evidence you may wish the Arbitrators to consider to the evidence sub-page, Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/ADHD/Evidence. Please submit your evidence within one week, if possible. You may also contribute to the case on the workshop sub-page, Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/ADHD/Workshop.
On behalf of the Arbitration Committee, —— nix eagle email me 20:53, 21 May 2009 (UTC)
Hi Durova,
Just to let you know that the Featured Picture File:Langechildren2.jpg is due to make an appearance as Picture of the Day on May 24, 2009. If you get a chance, you can check and improve the caption at Template:POTD/2009-05-24. howcheng { chat} 06:34, 22 May 2009 (UTC)
Hi, Durova. I have a question regarding Inkscape. I'm creating a map and when I save it I'm getting 4 different .svg formats to save in. Plain SVG, Inkscape SVG, Compressed Plain SVG and Compressed Inkscape SVG.
I saved it as a Plain SVG, but when I tried to close Inkscape I got the following message:
The file "Map" was saved with a format (SVG Output) that may cause data loss!
Do you want to save this file as an Inkscape SVG?
Do you know which of the two versions, Plain or Inkscape SVG, is the right format for uploading to Wikipedia?
Thanks, Matthewedwards : Chat 07:25, 22 May 2009 (UTC)
Hi Durova -
Since you and I seem to have different opinions (both working toward the same result - full inclusion of Bluemarine into our community in a healthy and positive way) I wanted to let you know that I appreciate the role you have taken, although I occasionally disagree with you. I usually think it goes unsaid, but perhaps it is important to say - that your work with him has been spectacular. You are an effective and strong advocate for him, and I salute you for it. I hope you understand that I believe my role is to advocate for myself and others who were so badly hurt by him. I hope you know that we are as passionate in our defense as you are in yours.
I don't have a proposed solution. It's not for lack of trying. I just think it's too early. There are too many things still sending up red flags. If I believed Matt had disappeared, served his time, not tried any funny business, etc, I can almost promise you that I'd be leading the charge to have him reinstated. I do not believe those things, so I'm not leading the charge. I'd like to be, though.
What can we do in order to come to some sort of peaceful, and justice-filled (for all parties) compromise to get Matt back to normality? How can I help with that?
I come in peace, as one who has - as of late - been on the opposite side of the issue from you. If you think it would help for me to talk to him directly, a la' Truth and Reconciliation in the South African style, I stand ready to gather folks who can address his issues with him in an affirming fashion. He doesn't need to be judged. The time for judging is over. At this point, relationships must be healed. Tell me how I can help with that. - Philippe 10:06, 22 May 2009 (UTC)
As you may have seen, I'm not going to participate in en-wiki FPC until some actual hard rules are in place there. I will continue restoration, I may comment, but I refuse to nominate anything. The stress and necessity of dealing with those people is not worth it. Shoemaker's Holiday ( talk) 16:41, 22 May 2009 (UTC)
C.U.T.K.D T | C 21:28, 22 May 2009 (UTC)
Hi Durova,
Just to let you know that the Featured Picture File:Yorktown artillery2.jpg is due to make an appearance as Picture of the Day on May 25, 2009. If you get a chance, you can check and improve the caption at Template:POTD/2009-05-25. Since Memorial Day was originally for the Civil War, I thought this to be appropriate. howcheng { chat} 23:50, 22 May 2009 (UTC)
Hi, Durova. Unfortunately, the ANI thread Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive193#Requesting full protection of Optics was archived before anyone got around to answer my question, but since you seem to be knowledgeable about the underlying issues, could you enlighten me? Thanks, Sandstein 06:28, 23 May 2009 (UTC)
The WikiCup Newsletter | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Delivered for the WikiCup by The Helpful Bot at 19:59, 23 May 2009 (UTC). To report errors leave at message here.
Hi, Durova! I guess maybe I should have notified you about the discussion I've just been having with Moonriddengirl, and possibly I should have notified you about my change of vote here. Sorry about that! Maybe I forgot. I tried to notify you about a few things recently, in the thread #Sorry above, but I'm not sure whether you saw those messages! I figured you might be busy (which could explain why you didn't reply) and wasn't sure whether I should start a new thread here. I would also like to encourage you to keep editors at Talk:Optics informed of significant plans and progress you're making, to avoid duplication of effort. Maybe I've been a bit over-enthusiastic about some aspects of this: sorry about that. ☺ Coppertwig ( talk) 01:57, 24 May 2009 (UTC)
Right; sorry. I didn't much know what to say because during the same time there was a simultaneous push at one of the arbcom talk boards that had started up without anyone informing either SA or myself (took about a day to hear back from him and confirm whether he knew; he didn't) and then almost immediately as that closed someone tried to do a GFDL-violating port. The same individual had done the first port (the one that led to an AE thread) and was being very difficult about it. Had to request full protection of the article; feared yet another AE thread would occur otherwise. Suffice it to say that it's hard to do all the positive planning that's possible while I'm running around like a chicken with her head cut off. At any rate the support for the arbcom thread seemed to demonstrate a very strong consensus to get the article ported (I could hardly even stop it from steamrolling when I tried; how's that for consensus?) So wasn't certain what beyond that would be served by joining your poll. Mainly I was concerned that if I appeared to support it in any way at all, someone would jump the gun again. Maybe it would be GFDL compliant, but what's the next step? We also needed permission to proxy edit continued improvements, so porting without that permission in place would shut the primary contributor out of the drive. Strong feelings on both sides have made this a political minefield, much more so than I anticipated when we began. Durova Charge! 16:23, 24 May 2009 (UTC)
See Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Bluemarine/Archive. While I don't agree that there's no editing evidence, based on edits like this which are most certainly Matt's style and this one being on a userpage of someone he's had an issue with in the past, as a result of the checkuser, I have placed CSD tags on all but one of the IP addresses asking their talk pages to be deleted since they were created by StephenLaurie ( talk · contribs) only to tag them as socks of Matt. Now we should look into StephenLaurie being a sock, as well as proceed on what to do about Matt's community ban. - ALLST✰R▼ echo wuz here @ 19:14, 24 May 2009 (UTC)
Thank you for participating in my
"RecFA", which passed with a final tally of 153/39/22. There were issues raised regarding my adminship that I intend to cogitate upon, but I am grateful for the very many supportive comments I received and for the efforts of certain editors (
Ceoil,
Noroton and
Lar especially) in responding to some issues. I wish to note how humbled I was when I read
Buster7's support comment, although a fair majority gave me great pleasure. I would also note those whose opposes or neutral were based in process concerns and who otherwise commented kindly in regard to my record. ~~~~~ |
I appreciate your advice. We have a blatant case of violation of Wikipedia policy by a clique of admins in an Arbitration. I get blocked for standing up for my rights and then libeled. I have been damaged in the public and I want remedy.-- Fahrenheit451 ( talk) 03:34, 25 May 2009 (UTC)
The following motion was carried 9 to 0 (with 2 recusals and 1 abstention) further to this request to amend the Fringe science arbitration case:
The remedy has been entered onto the arbitration case page, at #Further motion following Request for Amendment (May 2009).
For the Arbitration Committee,
AGK 14:17, 25 May 2009 (UTC)
Your
Featured picture candidate has been promoted Your nomination for
featured picture status,
File:Sphinx partially excavated2.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.
wadester16 |
Talk→ 18:45, 25 May 2009 (UTC)
|
Please see Massachusetts#References, Herbert Hoover#Notes, Nasa#References, George Washington#Notes, Paris Hilton#References. Thirty-five inline refs is nothing special. - Denimadept ( talk) 20:24, 25 May 2009 (UTC)
Once upon a time you requested a photo of the Jackie Robinson memorial outside the Pasadena, California city hall. I uploaded an image File:Jackie_robinson_memorial_pasadena.jpeg, but the fair use rationale is being challenged here: Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Jackie Robinson/archive2. Your opinion would be welcome. I don't know enough about the current application of the fair use criteria to judge either way (and the argument against seems pretty solid to me), but I thought you should have a chance to speak up for keeping the photo. Thanks. -- Amble ( talk) 22:57, 25 May 2009 (UTC)
Thanks once again for your input/improvements. It looks like the Jackie Robinson FAC will fail due to non-free image concerns, but not so much because of the Pasadena sculpture issue, which is currently still in the article. BillTunell ( talk) 18:53, 2 June 2009 (UTC)
Hi, Durova. Just stumbled across this and its subpage, User:KoshVorlon/WierdWiki/Durova. I'm not 100% sure what to do with it (is it an attack page; does it have any purpose?) but I thought I'd let you take the decision, if that's OK... ╟─ Treasury Tag► hemicycle─╢ 07:48, 26 May 2009 (UTC)
What? She went after a person that was doing good, and that was her charge to ban him. Then the secret mailing list comes out. Talk about paranoid about the wiki review. Its like stalin's government runs wikipedia. 70.248.189.186 ( talk) 18:41, 29 May 2009 (UTC)
Your
Featured picture candidate has been promoted Your nomination for
featured picture status,
File:USS West Virginia2.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.
wadester16 |
Talk→ 18:57, 26 May 2009 (UTC)
|
Please be more careful when you're blindly reverting. Just because an IP address removes a large portion of text, doesn't mean that they're vandalizing. Obama's economic policies has nothing to do with Carlos Santana, and the editor with the IP address did the right thing. [10] is the edit.
Heads up.-- 68.248.238.82 ( talk) 00:43, 27 May 2009 (UTC)
This is just a quick reminder that the round ends this Friday, May 29, 2009. I wanted to let you guys know the current standings. If you are very close, but not close enough, work as hard as possible these next two days. Pool leaders are listed as usual, and under the 10 wildcards, are competitors that are still fighting for a spot. Also, if you currently have any un-reviewed GAN's up and you'd like them to be reviewed and counted for this round, you must place them on the appropriate thread of the WikiCup talk page.
GARDEN , iMatthew : Chat , and The Helpful One The Helpful Bot 00:47, 27 May 2009 (UTC)
Hi Durova,
Just to let you know that the Featured Picture File:Mount Rushmore2.jpg is due to make an appearance as Picture of the Day on August 10, 2009. If you get a chance, you can check and improve the caption at Template:POTD/2009-08-10. howcheng { chat} 06:53, 27 May 2009 (UTC)
Hi, were you mentoring DG at one time, and are you still? thanks - KillerChihuahua ?!? 17:33, 27 May 2009 (UTC)
Wadester grabbed a statement I had made but thought better of and deleted almost immediately, and pasted it back into the talk page. I had not intended for that statement to be up, and suspect that his restoring it in a manner which made it appear I had intended it to remain up is in gross violation of WP:TALK. Shoemaker's Holiday ( talk) 19:55, 27 May 2009 (UTC)
WT:WikiProject Video games/Article guidelines#COPYVIO implications We would like to know if there are any copyright violation impacts for removing a logo by cropping an image for a box to put on the infobox. 陣 内 Jinnai 20:35, 27 May 2009 (UTC)
If you qualify for the Imperial crown jewels (2 FC, GA, DYK), do you need to re-nom for 3 each and 4 each even though they are the same award? Or do you just add them to the winner's circle? How does that work? Thanks. KV5 ( Talk • Phils) 11:47, 28 May 2009 (UTC)
Hehe, thanks! I appreciate it. :) – Juliancolton | Talk 19:08, 28 May 2009 (UTC)
This arbitration case has been closed and the final decision is available at the link above. The following editors are subjected to bans/topic-bans/restrictions as listed below :
Any editor who is subject to remedies in this proceeding, or who wishes to edit from an open proxy, is restricted to a single current or future account to edit Scientology-related topics and may not contribute to the topic as anonymous IP editors. Editors topic banned by remedies in this proceeding are prohibited (i) from editing articles related to Scientology or Scientologists, broadly defined, as well as the respective article talk pages and (ii) from participating in any Wikipedia process relating to those articles. Editors topic banned above may apply to have the topic ban lifted after demonstrating their commitment to the goals of Wikipedia and their ability to work constructively with other editors. Applications will be considered no earlier than six months after the close of this case, and additional reviews will be done no more frequently than every six months thereafter.
Any uninvolved administrator may, on his or her own discretion, ban any editor from editing within the Scientology topic. Prior to topic banning the editor, the administrator will leave a message on the editor's talk page, linking to this paragraph, warning the editor that a topic ban is contemplated and outlining the behaviours for which it is contemplated. If the editor fails to heed the warning, the editor may be topic banned, initially, for three months, then with additional topic bans increasing in duration to a maximum of one year. Any editor who, in the judgment of an uninvolved administrator, is (i) focused primarily on Scientology or Scientologists and (ii) clearly engaged in promoting an identifiable agenda may be topic-banned for up to one year.
All IP addresses owned or operated by the Church of Scientology and its associates, broadly interpreted, are to be blocked as if they were open proxies. Any current or future editor who, after this decision is announced, makes substantial edits to any Scientology-related articles or discussions on any page is directed to edit on these from only a single user account, which shall be the user's sole or main account, unless the user has previously sought and obtained permission from the Arbitration Committee to operate a legitimate second account. They shall edit in accordance to Wikipedia policies and refrain from advocacy, to disclose on the relevant talk pages any circumstances (but not including personal identifying information) that constitute or may reasonably be perceived as constituting a conflict of interest with respect to that page, and not through a proxy configuration.
- For the Arbitration Committee, Mailer Diablo 01:31, 29 May 2009 (UTC)
There's no issue to get involved in here, I just wanted your opinion about this picture. It was the lead on this article, and I uploaded one I was kind of proud of that I had overlooked in 2008. 9 x out of 10 I try to find a place for the previous lead. This one I didn't. It also had this caption. That aside, how appropriate on a BLP is this stalker-paparazzi "feel" and um--the--er--"headlights" that are so prominent? I'm not saying it's a BLP violation - but doesn't it seem a little unenyclopedic for a BLP? Or am I being uptight? Should I place it? -->David Shankbone 02:20, 29 May 2009 (UTC)
Hi Durova.
Be advised that, as an extension of Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Scientology/Evidence, I've applied a {{ Courtesy blank}}ing to your evidence for the Scientology case. My primary rationale for doing so is this; naturally, we don't want a case that's receiving the media attention that this one is to be appearing so openly.
The Committee directed me to blank the case pages, but naturally, pages in your userspace are your call. You are, as always, free to revert me.
Respectfully,
AGK 17:15, 29 May 2009 (UTC)
Jehochman, thanks. Actually all I've ever done with that blog is put it onto WMF aggregators and enable a default Blogger option. It's mainly written for an audience of fellow editors, so a result like this seemed really unlikely. Thanks for the suggestions, but considering how awkward this is do I want to increase its visibility? Durova Charge! 17:52, 29 May 2009 (UTC)
This may reflect your idea. Jehochman Talk 17:23, 29 May 2009 (UTC)
All right, I'll bite. Though I'm posting here instead of on Blogger because Blogger doesn't have a watchlist (that I know of).
After reading your post, a few questions came to mind.
In the Digital Age, more and more encyclopedias are moving their content to the Web. Some of the smaller ones (I imagine) have begun putting content solely on the Web as it's cheaper, easier to update, etc. A literal interpretation of the "dead tree standard" suggests that information from a reputable encyclopedia that hasn't physically been printed would fail the criterion. Do you agree? Do you disagree? Is there wiggle room?
The second question that came into my mind was one of practicality and feasibility. Assuming that all biographies must be found in an encyclopedia, doesn't that require making publicly-available lists for every non-Web-based encyclopedia? Doesn't that introduce new legal issues if we publish copyrighted lists like that (where the lists required creative input)? And we have to evaluate books for their acceptability as encyclopedias. Does a Who's Who count? Some of those aren't very reputable businesses....
And of course all of this relies nearly entirely on the idea that all publishers / authors are unbiased in their selections. Are most of them? How many really small encyclopedias exist and have they been sampled for various things like selection criteria, etc.?
Any comments, views, etc. on the issue would certainly be interesting to me. (Or, if there are links to other discussions that you have, those will also work. :-) -- MZMcBride ( talk) 19:00, 29 May 2009 (UTC)
(unindent) Okay. A few more points I want to discuss.
Let's say you have the president of a big Internet corporation. Are people who are notable in the 21st century covered in encyclopedias? Let's say the president of Mozilla or something similar. Or, looking at other parts of the world, are specialty encyclopedias as common for people from Zimbabwe, South Africa, India, China, Tibet, etc.?
Looking at another angle, let's say for the sake of argument that we have 5,000 non-notable biographies of living people. The people who generally request deletion of their biographies are people whose biographies generally contain negative content. If these non-notable people got their negative biographies deleted while the non-negative (and subsequently non-requested) biographies stay, suddenly we'd be left with pretty crap content overall, no?
More and more I'm thinking that "dead trees" isn't necessarily what's needed. What's needed is more stringent notability guidelines. Though your idea for simplification and making the guidelines easy to explain seems very spot-on.
Your thoughts? -- MZMcBride ( talk) 01:58, 2 June 2009 (UTC)
The WikiCup Newsletter | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Delivered for the WikiCup by The Helpful Bot at 14:31, 31 May 2009 (UTC). To report errors leave at message here.
I can see why you'd remove "New Starbucks Opens In Rest Room Of Existing Starbucks", but I added that phrase not only because it neatly captures a popular image of Starbucks, but also because it has been quoted by the LA Times, Newsweek, Boston Globe, CNN Money, Chicago Tribune, BusinessWeek and others. http://news.google.co.uk/archivesearch?um=1&ned=uk&hl=en&q=%22New+Starbucks+Opens+In+Rest+Room+Of+Existing+Starbucks%22&cf=all As such, it is a notable satire of saturation marketing. Fences and windows ( talk) 02:50, 1 June 2009 (UTC)
Thoughts on how I should handle an original scan too big to upload? Shoemaker's Holiday ( talk) 10:11, 1 June 2009 (UTC)
Hi Durova, You were next on my list of people to contact when I got your message. I don't care much for blanket RfA thankspam and prefer to write personally to each person who took the time to actively participate. I do thank you for your participation, your input and your kind words following my withdrawal. Should I decide to attempt a(n) RfA in the future I look forward to your support and help. Because you never outright said I was in violation of the guideline WP:Plagiarism, I felt it was not appropriate to bring up the guideline's infancy as a defense (and it would not change the fact that I had not adequately rewritten the content anyway). I see that its guideline status is under dispute, which I feel is appropriate based on the ambiguous language in its definition. At a minimum (in my opinion) the phrases adequate credit, proper attribution and insufficiently adapted into original language (which is no longer part of the definition) nead clear definitions similar to the way that the general notability guidelines define significant coverage, reliable sources, independent of the subject, and presumed. I am bringing this up here as you were the editor who promoted the proposal to guideline as you mentioned in your opposition statement, and I felt it appropriate to tell you personally. Take care, happy editing and I will see you around. -- kelapstick ( talk) 17:32, 1 June 2009 (UTC)
I write to ask for prospective help. In a sense, I'm only interested laying the foundation for the future. Perhaps this may be construed as taking steps to avert problems might be mitigated by a timely comment or suggestion ...?
Voting is underway at Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Tang Dynasty/Proposed decision. In part because of "Evidence presented by Caspian blue", the locus of dispute was modified and "evidence in the case has expanded to include other disputes in which Tenmei has been involved." You will be surprised to learn that Durova has anything at all to do with this so-called "evidence" at "Tenmei's wikihounding and trolling". I don't think this timeless prose is worth struggling to read, but I mention this to explain a bit more of the reasons why I'm reaching out to you specifically.
ArbCom findings of fact included:
ArbCom remedies included:
It is clear that ArbCom anticipates future difficulties; and I guess I need to do the same. Arguably, my previous postings on your talk page are congruent with exactly the sort of thing ArbCom wants me to do in future; and I'm willing to invest in learning about how to disagree without being disagreeable.
If you want to discuss this off-wiki, feel free to contact me at tenmei1781@gmail.com. -- Tenmei ( talk) 17:21, 1 June 2009 (UTC)
The Original Barnstar | ||
Thank you, for going above and beyond by going with me through the 450 edits of that IP to locate and delete that sneaky citation vandalism. Without you, the college student who tries to use Wikipedia for one of its greatest purposes – looking up useful journals and reference books – would be in a lot of trouble. Truly, you deserve this. NW ( Talk) ( How am I doing?) 03:54, 2 June 2009 (UTC) |
The Anti-Vandalism Barnstar | ||
Seconded. Until It Sleeps 04:10, 2 June 2009 (UTC) |
The Anti-Vandalism Barnstar | ||
Thirded. Benders Game 04:17, 2 June 2009 (UTC) |
Hi Durova - I was hoping that you could check the copyright advice I gave a new user here. I'm concerned that my initial understanding of "free for editorial use only" may have been inaccurate, or perhaps not explained fully enough. If you get a chance, could you please take a look? I would hate to have screwed this up, especially since I was trying to smooth things over after a couple of earlier run-ins. Plus I'd just like to know for myself. Thanks, Kafka Liz ( talk) 00:28, 3 June 2009 (UTC)
I don't know: Honestly, I've only seen this happen with you, and, without seeing in detail what you're doing, couldn't even begin to speculate as to why. Can you give me the link? I'll sort it out. Shoemaker's Holiday ( talk) 16:13, 3 June 2009 (UTC)
Hello, I'm reviewing your GA candidate Jean Desbouvrie. In perusing your user page I noted that you're expert with images. This is an area of WP that I am absolutely ignorant about. I'd love to start adding feature images to my (very small) repetoire of featured content, but I am neither a graphic artist nor a very proficient photographer. Is my quest hopeless? Can you point me towards any materials or give me suggestions on how I can become active in the restoration of old photos, which seems to be a pet project of yours? I'm particularly interested in Olympic Games images to help augment the articles I am working on for that project. Your help would be genuinely appreciated. H1nkles ( talk) 20:07, 5 June 2009 (UTC)
...can you help me out with this one? It was certainly a G12 previously, but... Frank | talk 00:44, 7 June 2009 (UTC)
In reply to your question about Twinkle and unblocking, not that I am aware of. I changed the terms of his block with a note here explaining why and another at the ongoing administrators' thread (as well as at Quadell's userpage). Another administrator blocked him again to protect the talk page, but he removed that stipulation on Frank's request. -- Moonriddengirl (talk) 01:18, 7 June 2009 (UTC)
Maybe you are correct and I cannot see why this would be such a big deal if there is no reason for it to be. The discussion now seems to have descended into an argument over penises. Perhaps I have not paid the matter enough attention, could you explain on my talk page or even just copy and paste the points that are most problematic and I will be all the wiser hopefully. :-) -- can dle • wicke 01:03, 7 June 2009 (UTC)
Thank you very much for your time at AE today.-- Jacurek ( talk) 22:52, 8 June 2009 (UTC)
Regards-- Jacurek ( talk) 01:01, 9 June 2009 (UTC)
Once more, the principal voice of reason. I'm not longer willing to keep checking more than once a day or so, and so I seem to have missed out until after I was no longer needed, at least immediately. DGG ( talk) 01:34, 9 June 2009 (UTC)
When you post to any ANI threads about me, please declare that you have a history of personal conflict with me. It is not fair that you present yourself as unbiased when you are not. Jehochman Talk 11:04, 9 June 2009 (UTC)
This matter of Sam Blacketer is spilling over to multiple pages and seems like it is inevitably heading to arbitration. I'm pulling my thumbs out of the dyke, and whatever happens will have to be dealt with by other people. You commenting on me, or me commenting on you is probably not very helpful in the scheme of things. The Boothroyd article had some very serious socking. I am not quite sure about all the accounts, but several are quite obvious. A private checkuser request is pending. Jehochman Talk 15:57, 9 June 2009 (UTC)
It's good to see you stepping away now. That doesn't satisfy most of the concerns expressed above. The principal issue is not whether you stood up for David Boothroyd as much as anybody else, but more than. And made choices that risk backfiring upon David, upon this website, and upon me personally--without ever fully informing people about your intentions and actions until other parties raised questions. Durova Charge! 19:43, 9 June 2009 (UTC)
I've sent you an e-mail. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.132.241.17 ( talk) 15:26, 9 June 2009 (UTC)
Did you see this, due to bloom at the Huntington in the next 5 days. I am poised to get over there and capture it for Wikiposterity. Mfield ( Oi!) 19:26, 10 June 2009 (UTC)
You do a lot of good things. I am going out for WP:TEA. Jehochman Talk 22:11, 10 June 2009 (UTC)
I see you've deleted references containing imdb and cited WP:RS in your edit summaries. I've used imdb for music/film/tv shows and was unaware of its categorisation as unreliable for cast/crew/soundtrack/award wins. A quick look at Wikipedia:Citing IMDb indicated to me that ambiguity exists on wikipedia about its reliability in different areas, the article itself failed to attain consensus. I agree with the Inappropriate uses section and have no problem adhering to its tenets. However I have used it for Wikipedia:Citing IMDb#Disputed uses and would like to know whether these uses are now considered to be inappropriate too. If so, has the use of IMDB in these murky areas been determined more emphatically elsewhere? Should wikipedia editors totally avoid IMDb as a reference? Shaidar cuebiyar ( talk) 11:48, 11 June 2009 (UTC)
This argument (all VPs → FP) recently started popping up. Our disagreements aside, I don't believe you started this process for this argument to be made. Maybe something should be said about how this isn't realistic and not an option? wadester 16 20:19, 11 June 2009 (UTC)
Up is down, eh? It's a weird evening when I'm lead defense council for the AC all of a sudden. And you just cracked me up with that. rootology ( C)( T) 03:11, 13 June 2009 (UTC)
The Established editors association will be a kind of union of who have made substantial and enduring contributions to the encyclopedia for a period of time (say, two years or more). The proposed articles of association are here - suggestions welcome.
If you wish to be elected, please notify me here. If you know of someone else who may be eligible, please nominate them here
Discussion is here. Peter Damian ( talk) 10:21, 13 June 2009 (UTC)
Quite so, thank you. Durova Charge! 16:29, 14 June 2009 (UTC)
The WikiCup Newsletter (last week) | ||||||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
The WikiCup Newsletter (this week) | ||||||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Delivered by The Helpful Bot at 21:56, 13 June 2009 (UTC) for the WikiCup. To report errors, please leave a message on the talk page.
Hey. Clueless li'l ol' me has just been made aware that there are apparently a suite of articles related to transsexualism that are being constructed by someone very close to the researchers that are subjects of the articles and cited in them.
Transsexualism is not my forte, but after being asked to review the perennial bad penny article of Homosexual transsexual, I spoke my piece that it is poorly written basically gibberish that says nothing, and the topic is probably not an actual concept, but part of a theory espoused by three researchers whose overall theory is also included in this suite of questionable topics: Blanchard, Bailey, and Lawrence theory. Some members of WP:LGBT seem to know who this is, but I don't. Read the WP:LGBT thread about it here.
I read the lead and first section of Homosexual transsexual. The sources I could get hold of use this term only in passing, and never seem to define or address the concept as a whole. The citations seem misattributed and the entire article appears to be an example of undue weight. So I've never gotten involved in ferreting out this kind of abuse. Any tips on how to go about it? -- Moni3 ( talk) 22:49, 13 June 2009 (UTC)
Hi Durova. I like your x-admin box.
I have no idea if it's widely known, but I wanted to mention the creation of Wikipedia:Content noticeboard, in case you hadn't noticed it's creation. I think JulianCotton and Iridescent are the ones who made it happen. ChildofMidnight ( talk) 03:35, 14 June 2009 (UTC)
I have been blanked! thanks D. ( Off2riorob ( talk) 19:13, 14 June 2009 (UTC))
Kaldari has proposed a replacement image. Please consider updating your !vote. wadester 16 04:50, 15 June 2009 (UTC)
Chamal talk 08:00, 24 April 2009 (UTC)
MER-C seems to have forgotten to notify co-nominators again, so, from my talk page:
Your
Featured picture candidate has been promoted Your nomination for
featured picture status,
File:B'nai B'rith membership certificate 1876.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 02:54, 24 April 2009 (UTC)
|
Shoemaker's Holiday ( talk) 19:15, 24 April 2009 (UTC)
The 50 DYK Medal | ||
Looks like I have the pleasure of awarding you this medal Durova. :) Great work, and I know you will exceed this soon enough. The main page is calling. ;) Syn ergy 21:43, 24 April 2009 (UTC) |
An Arbitration case in which you commented has been opened, and is located here. Please add any evidence you may wish the Arbitrators to consider to the evidence sub-page, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Abd and JzG/Evidence. Please submit your evidence within one week, if possible. You may also contribute to the case on the workshop sub-page, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Abd and JzG/Workshop.
On behalf of the Arbitration Committee, Hersfold ( t/ a/ c) 02:10, 25 April 2009 (UTC)
Nah, I believe I noticed Borobudur pop-up on my watchlist. fyi, I got busy and lost the other thread... Cheers, Jack Merridew 16:09, 25 April 2009 (UTC)
The WikiCup Newsletter | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Delivered for the WikiCup by ROBOTIC GARDEN at 14:26, 26 April 2009 (UTC). To report errors see the talk page.
Is there any new evidence for the JzG case, or will it just be a summary of what's already been presented elsewhere? To answer your question, I proceed to the workshop because I've already seen the stuff that's been presented to date. I don't need to see it presented again. Jehochman Talk 23:29, 26 April 2009 (UTC)
Hi Durova,
Just to let you know that the Featured Picture File:Ijazah3.jpg is due to make an appearance as Picture of the Day on April 28, 2009. If you get a chance, you can check and improve the caption at Template:POTD/2009-04-28. howcheng { chat} 03:43, 27 April 2009 (UTC)
Hi. I answered to your talkpage message, I think we basically agree, though I feel that the evidence I present hooks into a different part of the situation. Also, I believe that I recused to 'decide' on the de-blacklisting request, but that to me does not mean that I am not allowed to expand on the issues involved if I believe that those issues were fully presented in the case.
I am a bit troubled by your "The one alteration I actually encouraged has not been made: removal of the ambiguous suggestion that I share Abd's content POV.". I do not see where I make that ambiguous suggestion. If I do so, could you please point me how I do that, as I have no reason to suggest that. I have also responded to your sentence where you suggest I have altered evidence, I hope there that you meant that I altered the representation of the evidence, there is for me no way I can alter evidence, that is in the diffs. I don't want us to go into dispute over these things, and I'd rather remove the response as it is not part of the case. -- Dirk Beetstra T C 10:30, 27 April 2009 (UTC)
Hi Durova,
Just to let you know that the Featured Picture File:Red Jacket 2.jpg is due to make an appearance as Picture of the Day on April 29, 2009. If you get a chance, you can check and improve the caption at Template:POTD/2009-04-29. howcheng { chat} 23:10, 27 April 2009 (UTC)
Your
Featured picture candidate has been promoted Your nomination for
featured picture status,
File:Midsummer Night's Dream Henry Fuseli2.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 11:56, 28 April 2009 (UTC)
|
I don't know if you saw, but this has passed on commons. I shoved it into the POTY queue for the first day of Rosh Hashanah, 19 September, since Shavuot was already filled. Shoemaker's Holiday ( talk) 12:16, 28 April 2009 (UTC)
In other news, kind of annoyed at FPC: The stupidity of opposing the Grant image for using a Victorian format, combined with having to practically beg people to review any literature-related FPCs are starting to annoy me. Thinking of taking a long break. Shoemaker's Holiday ( talk) 12:18, 28 April 2009 (UTC)
I note that you reverted Bob's removal of a paragraph at WP:NOR (saying that it was a long standing concept in the policy). Please note that Bob had discussed the reasoning behind his edit on the NOR talk page. While you are absolutely within your rights to object and revert, please do him the courtesy of explaining why you reverted on the talk page.
Blueboar (
talk) 15:34, 28 April 2009 (UTC)
I see you already have... thanks. Blueboar ( talk) 15:36, 28 April 2009 (UTC)
Hi! I stumbled upon File:Nagasakibomb.jpg, which was featured in August 2007, and includes a number of scratches and dust particles. I'm sure WP:GL could handle it, but given that you have such expertise in this sort of restoration, and it's already featured, I thought I'd ask if you could please clean it up. Thanks!-- HereToHelp ( talk to me) 19:21, 29 April 2009 (UTC)
The main issue is time, and the fact that just ain't much in the way of good references available. I have laid my hands on a copy of a book on US Krags and hope to be able to use that for referencing that section, but Real Life is keeping me busy. WegianWarrior ( talk) 22:55, 29 April 2009 (UTC)
Your
Featured picture candidate has been promoted Your nomination for
featured picture status,
File:Richmond Virginia damage2.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 11:26, 30 April 2009 (UTC)
|
You are doing this prematurely. You have no idea what plans Yahoo has for these pages. They are unlikely to be trashed. Please stop this campaign. ► RATEL ◄ 15:10, 30 April 2009 (UTC)
Could you list this image at WP:PUF? It would look more credible if you listed it since it's on a blacklisted domain. Blueboy 96 22:12, 30 April 2009 (UTC)
Apologies, Durova. I can't say that I was entirely unaware of the mentorship; it just hadn't occured to me. -- Levine2112 discuss 03:31, 1 May 2009 (UTC)
Hi, I noticed you special edition section and wanted to ask about a group of editors that have contributed to the WikiProject Video games. Some have contributed to several video game related articles, and I picked the ones below somewhat arbitrarily. They may have a different article that they may favor more.
Do they meet to criteria to start a VG project section? ( Guyinblack25 talk 19:26, 1 May 2009 (UTC))
Shubinator ( talk) 00:54, 2 May 2009 (UTC)
This is just a ping to see if the USRD special edition TC has ever been designed. It was last mentioned in October at WT:USRD, and that discussion was archived in archive #14. Imzadi1979 ( talk) 06:39, 2 May 2009 (UTC)
I've been suggested to you, as someone who might be able to help out with this... Do you think you could spare a minute to glance at it? Thanks in advance/no hard feelings!! ╟─ Treasury Tag► contribs─╢ 15:20, 2 May 2009 (UTC)
I found several images at Commons but wasn't sure the correct way of dealing with them. The first two ( File:AFClogo.jpg and File:AFC blue logo.jpg) are logos so I assume they are speedy deletes. File:AFC arieal.JPG, File:AFCGrade1.jpg and File:AFC TD.jpg are to be found at http://www.alfalaah.org.za/?pg=117 while File:AFC JGym.jpg is at http://www.alfalaah.org.za/?pg=112a&resp=learner. However, the images at Commons are better quality than the ones on the Al Falaah website. This leads me to think that User talk:Abdulmirza has taken or has access to the originals. I was unsure if the images should be tagged as speedy, regular deletion or some other process. There was another, File:AFC Lab.jpg, that I couldn't see on the Al Falaah site. Cheers. Enter CambridgeBayWeather, waits for audience applause, not a sausage 17:29, 2 May 2009 (UTC)
You have mail that relates to the permalink you just made. Risker ( talk) 01:29, 3 May 2009 (UTC)
Hi Durova,
Just to let you know that the Featured Picture File:Beethoven opus 101 manuscript.jpg is due to make an appearance as Picture of the Day on May 4, 2009. If you get a chance, you can check and improve the caption at Template:POTD/2009-05-04. The audio files are included too, but I'm not sure how I'm going to get those on the Main Page yet. howcheng { chat} 02:31, 3 May 2009 (UTC)
Your
Featured picture candidate has been promoted Your nomination for
featured picture status,
File:Salem witch2.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. ~
ωαdεstεr16
«talk
stalk» 18:34, 3 May 2009 (UTC)
|
Your
Featured picture candidate has been promoted Your nomination for
featured picture status,
File:Borobudur lantern slide2.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. ~
ωαdεstεr16
«talk
stalk» 18:34, 3 May 2009 (UTC)
|
The WikiCup Newsletter | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Delivered for the WikiCup by ROBOTIC GARDEN at 08:33, 4 May 2009 (UTC). To report errors see the talk page.
Nice one. Paxse ( talk) 14:32, 5 May 2009 (UTC)
Dear Durova, you are an image expert, so I think you can answer my question. I've started the bio of Ismail Shammout, a Palestinian artist, who painted Where to ..?. SlimVirgin uploaded File:Ismail Shammout's Where to ....JPG. The image is copyrighted and unlicensed. If I use the image in the bio, does it qualifies as fair use under U.S. copyright law? Have a nice day! AdjustShift ( talk) 15:17, 5 May 2009 (UTC)
The
April 2009 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 has been an automated delivery by
BrownBot (
talk) 22:55, 5 May 2009 (UTC)
Durova, can you have a word with this fellow? He deleted one of the archival versions of an FP, and when I complained, he got very, very rude. If we're going to maintain proper restoration archives, random deletions of the files are going to be a major problem.
Either that, or use your contacts to get the coders off their arses so that they'll finally support decent-sized PNGs. Shoemaker's Holiday ( talk) 16:38, 6 May 2009 (UTC)
Thought I'd try this once more (though I still say that it's demeaning to have to literally beg to get people to review literature FPCs). However, do you think it's alright not to show the original scan on the FPC when the changes are so minor (since I was able to scan a good-quality copy myself) that I don't think they'd be at all noticable at thumbnail, save the minor levels adjustment? Shoemaker's Holiday ( talk) 18:58, 6 May 2009 (UTC)
Please join the arbitration against me. All negative comments are welcome at Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration under my name. Regards, — Mattisse ( Talk) 20:36, 6 May 2009 (UTC)
Durova, I hate to be a pain, but does this look a bit pink to you, or is it just my monitor (LCD displays can be a little angle-dependant). Shoemaker's Holiday ( talk) 22:41, 6 May 2009 (UTC)
rʨanaɢ talk/ contribs 23:26, 6 May 2009 (UTC)
In these two edits, 64.124.12.253 ( talk · contribs) uses two images uploaded to Commons by commons:User:KPAsucxs to effectively defame two unidentified young women. The provenance of the images is...obviously questionable, at best. I've no experience handling this sort of thing on Commons; could you help? Maralia ( talk) 02:11, 7 May 2009 (UTC)
Your
Featured picture candidate has been promoted Your nomination for
featured picture status,
File:Under the horse chestnut tree2.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. ~
ωαdεstεr16
«talk
stalk» 03:07, 7 May 2009 (UTC)
|
Hi Durova,
Just to let you know that the Featured Picture File:Shooting Captured Insurgents - Spanish-American War.ogv is due to make an appearance as Picture of the Day on May 9, 2009. If you get a chance, you can check and improve the caption at Template:POTD/2009-05-09. I noticed that there was a Featured Sound from the same article, so I threw that in there as well, although that music file really could use more context in the article. howcheng { chat} 03:41, 7 May 2009 (UTC)
Hi Duvora,
I noticed your comments on this case. I am not sure that you understand that arbcom has given the users who initiated this case the item at the very top of their wish list: sanctions of Jayjg.
I have been restricted from making further comments on this case, but my own view is that years of blocks and bans have done nothing to improve the difficulties of editing I/P articles, and this will likewise accomplish nothing good. Also, since WP:NPOV assumes that a balanced result will eventually work out from discussions between editors with differing POVs, sanctions like this only further encourage editors to disguise the process. Because some conflict is inevitable when editors really do have strongly held, and opposing, POVs, it seems better to allow some friction. Arbcom is making an effort to have things look harmonious when they really are not harmonious. That will only further encourage and reward those users who dissemble most effectively. Malcolm Schosha ( talk) 12:02, 7 May 2009 (UTC)
See WT:WikiCup =P Shoemaker's Holiday ( talk) 12:35, 7 May 2009 (UTC)
I know you've withdrawn the proposal but shouldn't the part dealing the other Grockl ( talk · contribs · logs) SPA still stand? It's obvious that user has an issue with WP:OWN and WP:SPA. - ALLST✰R▼ echo wuz here @ 20:24, 7 May 2009 (UTC)
Please see User talk:Steve Crossin#Mentor. Thanks. - ALLST✰R▼ echo wuz here @ 10:41, 8 May 2009 (UTC)
I guess I should explain my reasoning here, for Durova, as I realize Steve's past would cause some to question why I did it. I asked Steve to do this because of his past and how he's learned a great deal from it. I think it's a good idea that someone who's "been there", can help out another user who is making a good faith effort at becoming an asset to the Wiki. - ALLST✰R▼ echo wuz here @ 10:57, 8 May 2009 (UTC)
Re your message: Thanks. I left my opinion on the copycat/IP account, but I haven't quite formed my opinion on the other yet. -- Gogo Dodo ( talk) 02:54, 8 May 2009 (UTC)
I'm sorry I didn't contact you! I wasn't sure whether you were still his mentor; then I got involved in writing that proposal, and I forgot to check or drop you a note anyway. My apologies. Obviously, your opinion would be very valuable. SlimVirgin talk| contribs 18:03, 8 May 2009 (UTC)
I suspect user:Gwinndeith to be someones sock. At Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Molobo, user:Sciurinae says he has definite proof that Gwinndeith is a sock of user:Molobo, but wants an impartial admin to have his evidence reviewed confidentially. Weren't you the one who did the sleuthing? If you are interested, please contact Sciurinae and have a look. Thank you, Skäpperöd ( talk) 19:36, 8 May 2009 (UTC)
╟─ Treasury Tag► contribs─╢ 20:37, 8 May 2009 (UTC)
Hi Durova,
Just to let you know that the Featured Picture File:Segregation 1938b.jpg is due to make an appearance as Picture of the Day on May 12, 2009. If you get a chance, you can check and improve the caption at Template:POTD/2009-05-12. I'm not altogether happy with this one. I didn't want to use racial segregation as the bolded article because there's another FP in there, but even though it's the only photo in state racism, I'm not sure it's a great fit. Personally I think File:DurbanSign1989.jpg probably works better in that article, as it shows a government sign. howcheng { chat} 04:27, 9 May 2009 (UTC)
Your
Featured picture candidate has been promoted Your nomination for
featured picture status,
File:Stocking factory2.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. ~
ωαdεstεr16
«talk
stalk» 06:33, 9 May 2009 (UTC)
|
Note: please feel free to rename this; I was unsure what to go with... ~ ωαdεstεr16 «talk stalk» 06:33, 9 May 2009 (UTC)
I believe WP:ELEM qualifies for such a crown since user:Mav, user:Cryptic C62, user:Itub, user:Stone and me have all have had an FA and a GA within the scope of the project and each of us have had at least one DYK. Nergaal ( talk) 01:57, 10 May 2009 (UTC)
Yes, it was; new requests should be going to one of the subpages rather than the main page, and protecting it seems like a decent way of minimizing the number of editors mistakenly pasting things onto it. If you have a better idea, of course, please don't hesitate to suggest it. Kirill [talk] [pf] 05:41, 10 May 2009 (UTC)
There's no clear instruction at the destination location stating that the header title points to an editable page. And again, why? The process is bureaucratic enough already. Is there some pressing need for which clerks are unsatisfactory? Durova Charge! 06:02, 10 May 2009 (UTC)
I want to apologise for thinking anything could really be that simple when I made my little comment re plagiarism. It goes back to one of my earliest edits: nothing gets done on Wikipedia without a good old-fashioned 100kb debate. Still, I guess it's better than the Milgramesque cult of personality certain sources portray it as. Recognizance ( talk) 06:15, 10 May 2009 (UTC)
You had said my comment at Wikipedia talk:Plagiarism was "brilliant" and I responded that I was glad to see something was getting done without a 100kb debate. I'm just saying it was more naïve than brilliant. Recognizance ( talk) 06:30, 10 May 2009 (UTC)
Hello! Your submission of Raquel Forner at the Did You Know nominations page has been reviewed, and there still are some issues that may need to be clarified. Please review the comment(s) underneath your nomination's entry and respond there as soon as possible. Thank you for contributing to Did You Know! Paxse ( talk) 12:05, 10 May 2009 (UTC)
Hi Durova,
Just to let you know that the Featured Picture File:Yellowstone 1871b.jpg is due to make an appearance as Picture of the Day on May 15, 2009. If you get a chance, you can check and improve the caption at Template:POTD/2009-05-15. howcheng { chat} 04:14, 11 May 2009 (UTC)
An Arbitration case in which you commented has been opened, and is located here. Please add any evidence you may wish the Arbitrators to consider to the evidence sub-page, Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Mattisse/Evidence. Please submit your evidence within one week, if possible. You may also contribute to the case on the workshop sub-page, Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Mattisse/Workshop.
On behalf of the Arbitration Committee, [[Sam Korn]] (smoddy) 08:25, 11 May 2009 (UTC)
Your
Featured picture candidate has been promoted Your nomination for
featured picture status,
File:Ramallah spinner2.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 10:33, 11 May 2009 (UTC)
|
Dear Durova, I wonder if I might have your advice on the following Wiki image-related matter. Suppose the copyright owners of a topographic map were to upload a low resolution image of their map to Wikimedia Commons, naturally under some free license (say CC-BY-SA-3.0 and GFDL). Would that affect their copyright on the map itself, and if yes, in what way? Particularly, would it then be legal for anyone to publish ans sell a version of the map that otherwise would have been a violation of copyright? Best, Apcbg ( talk) 11:34, 12 May 2009 (UTC)
In real life, you get mail. On Wikipedia, mail gets you. Cheers, Dloh cierekim 04:06, 13 May 2009 (UTC)
Durova, I think I may have been somewhat under-appreciative of your long-term good-faith efforts the other day, and reckon I owe you a bit of an apology. It is herewith offered. Jayen 466 22:06, 13 May 2009 (UTC)
I think you might be speaking from experience. :) And I would say that's part of the reason my RfA was defeated. Which is why I've started making the point that I can be just as effective a vandal-hunter without being an admin. Maybe more effective, because no one can ever say I abused my (non-existent) admin authority. :) I do have rollback, but I use it very cautiously - typically against obvious vandalism from drive-by IP's and redlink users. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots 22:39, 13 May 2009 (UTC)
Re: http://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard&diff=prev&oldid=289894979.
Durova,
AN is precisely the venue Kittybrewster ought to use to appeal his topic ban. An appeal would be filed with the Committee against the additional restrictions they "topped up" the community-placed topic ban with, but otherwise, the venue was quite correct. I would understand an archival of the thread on the basis of it wouldn't go anywhere, but I don't appreciate your closing the thread with the summary you used after my, Tiptoety, and KnightLago commenting that it's in the correct venue. Furthermore, arbitrator Vassyana confirmed this morning—over clerks-l, which is annoyingly a private mailing list—that any appeal of the topic ban would be directed through AN.
AGK 19:02, 14 May 2009 (UTC)
Hi Durova.
I've noticed that the evidence that you've submitted to this case is currently in the region of 2,500 words long. You're probably aware that there is a requirement that evidence be kept to around 1,000 words. I understand that part of the reason for the length of your statement is that you have quoted extensively rather than simply pointing to diffs, but nonetheless it would, I am sure, be appreciated if you could attempt to shorten it. If you feel it is necessary to present evidence of this kind of length, you could do so in a subpage of your user page and link there from your main statement.
Thanks, [[Sam Korn]] (smoddy) 18:27, 15 May 2009 (UTC)
Hate to tell you this, but, technically, you aren't a party in this arbitration. You might want to move your comments to the "Others" sections. I don't know how persnickety the ArbCom gets, but if they do get rather picky, it might not be taken very well that you placed yourself in the wrong section. John Carter ( talk) 20:51, 15 May 2009 (UTC)
Wikipedia:Featured_picture_candidates/Suttungr: When would be a good time to take this live? Shoemaker's Holiday ( talk) 00:41, 16 May 2009 (UTC)
Acknowledged, I will be more careful next time. Apologies, Otisjimmy1 ( talk) 03:09, 16 May 2009 (UTC)
We over at MILHIST are discussing the project Triple Crown again; would you be able to weigh in here? Thanks and cheers, — Ed (Talk • Contribs) 06:38, 16 May 2009 (UTC)
I've rang your bell over on Commons. - ALLST✰R▼ echo wuz here @ 07:03, 16 May 2009 (UTC)
Requesting the ban of someone for basically raising valid points regarding an article hardly strikes me as being moderate. And, as others have already said elsewhere, I'm in the process of trying to find the quote today, there is at least some reason to think that the extremists may already have the upper hand in this case. Certainly, the first two RfCs were so fundamentally flawed that I personally find it hard to believe that anyone would consider them evidence of anything but what they were, persecution of Mattisse. And, I suppose, one real demonstration of good faith is to apologize for actions which may have been, well, excessive. In fact, I think that is among the most basic such steps. I wonder how many of them I've seen? John Carter ( talk) 14:26, 16 May 2009 (UTC)
I'd really appreciate your input here to get this thing started right. -- Brangifer ( talk) 21:40, 16 May 2009 (UTC)
I have proposed this project here. Where else should it be announced to help get more attention and get this up and going? We need more editors to help this off its feet. -- Brangifer ( talk) 22:03, 16 May 2009 (UTC)
Orlady ( talk) 23:22, 16 May 2009 (UTC)
There you go; I suppose I would have got much the same at one of the more familiar venues but, with the exception of RfAR, would it have provided such food for thought? Thinking about it, though, I would agree that I extend greater faith toward the unloved than the established order - but that is both my nature in life and also a balance against the majority whose bias' work the other way. Something to bear in mind, anyway. LessHeard vanU ( talk) 01:52, 17 May 2009 (UTC)
Your
Featured picture candidate has been promoted Your nomination for
featured picture status,
File:Let alone2.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 03:57, 17 May 2009 (UTC)
|
Royal broil 05:07, 17 May 2009 (UTC)
Hi Durova,
Just to let you know that the Featured Picture File:Cedar Key 1884b small.jpg is due to make an appearance as Picture of the Day on May 19, 2009. If you get a chance, you can check and improve the caption at Template:POTD/2009-05-19. howcheng { chat} 07:40, 17 May 2009 (UTC)
I am one of the editors who support SA being allowed to edit the Optics article. I never thought to talk to you first never mind to SA. To me it's just common sense to allow him to edi the article as stated by the many editors who spoke up for it. Please except my apology, also please let SA know that I for one didn't realize I should have spoken to either of you first before giving my opinion on this which I now realize I should have. Thanks in advance, -- CrohnieGal Talk 12:05, 17 May 2009 (UTC)
Durova, I've now made a more specific proposal here involving transwikiing the material in several steps. Since step 1 is to find out whether you approve of the proposed procedure, I would appreciate it if you would comment in that thread. ☺ Coppertwig ( talk) 14:15, 18 May 2009 (UTC)
Wikipedia:Featured_picture_candidates/The_Punishment_of_Loki - Have a read of Banaticus' comment - I think he makes a good point that we should probably take to heart when setting up restored/unrestored pairs. Shoemaker's Holiday ( talk) 16:40, 17 May 2009 (UTC)
Pointed out here by an anonymous IP. I moved it to a lower place in the thread so it could be easily seen and responded to without interrupting the year-old thread.
Would you be willing to help me with a little work from a German source? It's for Ero e Leandro, a minor work of Handel's which was only published a decade ago. I recently acquired the only major source I lacked for discussion of the work, so I believe that it should be relatively easy to push it up to GA or FA if you're willing to help with the German. Shoemaker's Holiday ( talk) 17:43, 17 May 2009 (UTC)
Royal broil 22:28, 17 May 2009 (UTC)
Hi,
You responded to the message I left on the administrators' noticeboard yesterday in regards to User:Electroide, so I wanted to share this with you, just in case you didn't see my reply on the noticeboard entry, which is now archived. Thanks, — BMRR ( talk) 00:50, 18 May 2009 (UTC)
Would you be interested in joining this project? We need more editors who share a burden for rescuing promising editors who have gotten into serious trouble because of behavioral issues. IF (a fundamental condition!) they are interested in reforming and adapting to our standards of conduct, and are also willing to abide by our policies and guidelines, rather than constantly subverting them, we can offer to help them return to Wikipedia as constructive editors. Right now many if not most users who have been banned are still active here, but they are here as socks or anonymous IPs who may or may not be constructive. We should offer them a proper way to return. If you think this is a good idea, please join us. -- Brangifer ( talk) 04:24, 18 May 2009 (UTC)
As you're his mentor, according to the last action at the Arbcom page, see Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Banned user editing. Thanks. - ALLST✰R▼ echo wuz here @ 04:58, 18 May 2009 (UTC)
Lies, every bit of it. He better have proof (he doesn't because it's all lies). I missed that edit and you undone it. Luckily I found it. - ALLST✰R▼ echo wuz here @ 12:05, 18 May 2009 (UTC)
I plan to archive this thread soon seeing that the circular discussion won't cease. Being that the involved parties have stated that they believe another go at mediation would be a waste of time, I am hopeful you will still assist in drafting. Thanks for you insight and help in this issue. Nja 247 07:36, 18 May 2009 (UTC)
The WikiCup Newsletter | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Delivered for the WikiCup by ROBOTIC GARDEN at 09:09, 18 May 2009 (UTC). To report errors see the talk page.
I see you're listed as a reviewer of this, at the review desk. I've bought the book, but haven't been particularly motivated to read it; would you be interested in doing a joint review? -- John Broughton (♫♫) 16:35, 18 May 2009 (UTC)
Maison Bonfils was the business of Felix Bonfils (d. 1885); Marie Cabanis (d. 1918) and Adrien Bonfils (d. 1928) were additional photographers. [6] So shouldn't File:Sphinx partially excavated2.jpg be eligable for commons? Thegreenj 00:15, 19 May 2009 (UTC)
Sorry about that one. I've been misfiring a lot lately. Also, I really don't see the point in keeping it around. The bout of vandalism ended three years ago, and the subpage remains untouched. What purpose does it serve now? Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ( Many otters • One bat • One hammer) 19:19, 19 May 2009 (UTC)
While I understand your intention to made the Arb case about overall behaviour on the ADHD page, it hasn't born fruit. It is dishonest to continue to title the Arb request ADHD. It should have my name on it. No one has talked about other issues, and other parties involved in the request recognize this. (ie- Overall, I think the title of this arbitration request is a little off. It is not really “ADHD”, but rather “Scuro and the Question of Disruptive Editing.” Thank you for your time, J Readings). Please change the title.-- scuro ( talk) 10:21, 20 May 2009 (UTC)
Hi, Durova, since you seem to be very knowledgeable of historical costume (per your FP activity) and copyright laws, I seek your advice. I've been working on creating/editing traditional Korean clothing related articles from Korean sources because there are not much accessible English sources. While translating terms to English ones, I've been getting surprised more and more at the current status quo of fashion or textile-related articles. They are too poorly written nor even articles on basic terms do not seem to exist. (eg. gored skirt, shirring). So I wonder if I find books in Public Domain from Google books, can I directly copy and paste contents from such books to needed articles without paraphrasing? I don't have enough knowledge to write things on tricky and sophisticated fashion terms in English because I have little knowledge of the subject However, I'm wondering that is allowed on Wiki as long as I mention where the source come from. I want to use the book, Clothing for Women; Selection, Design, Construction By Laura Irene Baldt-- Caspian blue 15:36, 20 May 2009 (UTC)
I wish to note that your recent addition to your statement at Arb continues to put forward that links to prior DR weren't provided at ANI and that you had to dig them up. As noted in my statement at Arb, the WQA was linked to in the first paragraph of the ANI thread, and user:Literaturegeek had provided links to the RfC and the MedCab on 14 May at 11.01pm. Though, it was said at 7.43 pm on 16 May by you "After two days of requesting the background I finally dug it up myself". I realise it would have been preferred for those links to also have been in the opening paragraph, however it's not exactly correct to say that they weren't provided prior to your action. Nja 247 07:16, 21 May 2009 (UTC)
Hi, I saw the message that you had left on Patlichty's talkpage User_talk:Patlichty about image restoration. Am I right to assume that the restoration was done digitally? I'm very interested in how this was done, could you point me to some schools/resources where I can get professional training in this field? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Cmyk ( talk • contribs) 15:57, 21 May 2009 (UTC)
Hi Durova. Pardon me for intruding on your talk page when there are so many activities within WP that you're attempting to attend to. I come here for 2 reasons really: 1.) You seem to be well informed on the FT and plagiarism issues; and, I'm hoping my question won't get lost in the crowds of various "board threads". 2.) I have the distinct impression that you always take great pains to give any and all editors a fair hearing. My question is one of those "What did she know, and when did she know it?" things.
I ask because I was one of the plebs that supported FT in her recent RfA, and I'm hoping that my vetting and support were not conspicuously erroneous. If the last transgression happened months ago, then I'm a bit more confident that my support was justifiable. I hope this is the case, and I thank you for your time. — Ched : ? 16:05, 21 May 2009 (UTC)
Hello Durova. I just wanted to thank you for being so kind and personally helpful to me over the last few days. Your first instinct was to lend a hand rather than point a finger, which I deeply respect. People like you are what make the project beautiful. Flying Toaster 18:55, 21 May 2009 (UTC)
An Arbitration case involving you has been opened, and is located here. Please add any evidence you may wish the Arbitrators to consider to the evidence sub-page, Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/ADHD/Evidence. Please submit your evidence within one week, if possible. You may also contribute to the case on the workshop sub-page, Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/ADHD/Workshop.
On behalf of the Arbitration Committee, —— nix eagle email me 20:53, 21 May 2009 (UTC)
Hi Durova,
Just to let you know that the Featured Picture File:Langechildren2.jpg is due to make an appearance as Picture of the Day on May 24, 2009. If you get a chance, you can check and improve the caption at Template:POTD/2009-05-24. howcheng { chat} 06:34, 22 May 2009 (UTC)
Hi, Durova. I have a question regarding Inkscape. I'm creating a map and when I save it I'm getting 4 different .svg formats to save in. Plain SVG, Inkscape SVG, Compressed Plain SVG and Compressed Inkscape SVG.
I saved it as a Plain SVG, but when I tried to close Inkscape I got the following message:
The file "Map" was saved with a format (SVG Output) that may cause data loss!
Do you want to save this file as an Inkscape SVG?
Do you know which of the two versions, Plain or Inkscape SVG, is the right format for uploading to Wikipedia?
Thanks, Matthewedwards : Chat 07:25, 22 May 2009 (UTC)
Hi Durova -
Since you and I seem to have different opinions (both working toward the same result - full inclusion of Bluemarine into our community in a healthy and positive way) I wanted to let you know that I appreciate the role you have taken, although I occasionally disagree with you. I usually think it goes unsaid, but perhaps it is important to say - that your work with him has been spectacular. You are an effective and strong advocate for him, and I salute you for it. I hope you understand that I believe my role is to advocate for myself and others who were so badly hurt by him. I hope you know that we are as passionate in our defense as you are in yours.
I don't have a proposed solution. It's not for lack of trying. I just think it's too early. There are too many things still sending up red flags. If I believed Matt had disappeared, served his time, not tried any funny business, etc, I can almost promise you that I'd be leading the charge to have him reinstated. I do not believe those things, so I'm not leading the charge. I'd like to be, though.
What can we do in order to come to some sort of peaceful, and justice-filled (for all parties) compromise to get Matt back to normality? How can I help with that?
I come in peace, as one who has - as of late - been on the opposite side of the issue from you. If you think it would help for me to talk to him directly, a la' Truth and Reconciliation in the South African style, I stand ready to gather folks who can address his issues with him in an affirming fashion. He doesn't need to be judged. The time for judging is over. At this point, relationships must be healed. Tell me how I can help with that. - Philippe 10:06, 22 May 2009 (UTC)
As you may have seen, I'm not going to participate in en-wiki FPC until some actual hard rules are in place there. I will continue restoration, I may comment, but I refuse to nominate anything. The stress and necessity of dealing with those people is not worth it. Shoemaker's Holiday ( talk) 16:41, 22 May 2009 (UTC)
C.U.T.K.D T | C 21:28, 22 May 2009 (UTC)
Hi Durova,
Just to let you know that the Featured Picture File:Yorktown artillery2.jpg is due to make an appearance as Picture of the Day on May 25, 2009. If you get a chance, you can check and improve the caption at Template:POTD/2009-05-25. Since Memorial Day was originally for the Civil War, I thought this to be appropriate. howcheng { chat} 23:50, 22 May 2009 (UTC)
Hi, Durova. Unfortunately, the ANI thread Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive193#Requesting full protection of Optics was archived before anyone got around to answer my question, but since you seem to be knowledgeable about the underlying issues, could you enlighten me? Thanks, Sandstein 06:28, 23 May 2009 (UTC)
The WikiCup Newsletter | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Delivered for the WikiCup by The Helpful Bot at 19:59, 23 May 2009 (UTC). To report errors leave at message here.
Hi, Durova! I guess maybe I should have notified you about the discussion I've just been having with Moonriddengirl, and possibly I should have notified you about my change of vote here. Sorry about that! Maybe I forgot. I tried to notify you about a few things recently, in the thread #Sorry above, but I'm not sure whether you saw those messages! I figured you might be busy (which could explain why you didn't reply) and wasn't sure whether I should start a new thread here. I would also like to encourage you to keep editors at Talk:Optics informed of significant plans and progress you're making, to avoid duplication of effort. Maybe I've been a bit over-enthusiastic about some aspects of this: sorry about that. ☺ Coppertwig ( talk) 01:57, 24 May 2009 (UTC)
Right; sorry. I didn't much know what to say because during the same time there was a simultaneous push at one of the arbcom talk boards that had started up without anyone informing either SA or myself (took about a day to hear back from him and confirm whether he knew; he didn't) and then almost immediately as that closed someone tried to do a GFDL-violating port. The same individual had done the first port (the one that led to an AE thread) and was being very difficult about it. Had to request full protection of the article; feared yet another AE thread would occur otherwise. Suffice it to say that it's hard to do all the positive planning that's possible while I'm running around like a chicken with her head cut off. At any rate the support for the arbcom thread seemed to demonstrate a very strong consensus to get the article ported (I could hardly even stop it from steamrolling when I tried; how's that for consensus?) So wasn't certain what beyond that would be served by joining your poll. Mainly I was concerned that if I appeared to support it in any way at all, someone would jump the gun again. Maybe it would be GFDL compliant, but what's the next step? We also needed permission to proxy edit continued improvements, so porting without that permission in place would shut the primary contributor out of the drive. Strong feelings on both sides have made this a political minefield, much more so than I anticipated when we began. Durova Charge! 16:23, 24 May 2009 (UTC)
See Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Bluemarine/Archive. While I don't agree that there's no editing evidence, based on edits like this which are most certainly Matt's style and this one being on a userpage of someone he's had an issue with in the past, as a result of the checkuser, I have placed CSD tags on all but one of the IP addresses asking their talk pages to be deleted since they were created by StephenLaurie ( talk · contribs) only to tag them as socks of Matt. Now we should look into StephenLaurie being a sock, as well as proceed on what to do about Matt's community ban. - ALLST✰R▼ echo wuz here @ 19:14, 24 May 2009 (UTC)
Thank you for participating in my
"RecFA", which passed with a final tally of 153/39/22. There were issues raised regarding my adminship that I intend to cogitate upon, but I am grateful for the very many supportive comments I received and for the efforts of certain editors (
Ceoil,
Noroton and
Lar especially) in responding to some issues. I wish to note how humbled I was when I read
Buster7's support comment, although a fair majority gave me great pleasure. I would also note those whose opposes or neutral were based in process concerns and who otherwise commented kindly in regard to my record. ~~~~~ |
I appreciate your advice. We have a blatant case of violation of Wikipedia policy by a clique of admins in an Arbitration. I get blocked for standing up for my rights and then libeled. I have been damaged in the public and I want remedy.-- Fahrenheit451 ( talk) 03:34, 25 May 2009 (UTC)
The following motion was carried 9 to 0 (with 2 recusals and 1 abstention) further to this request to amend the Fringe science arbitration case:
The remedy has been entered onto the arbitration case page, at #Further motion following Request for Amendment (May 2009).
For the Arbitration Committee,
AGK 14:17, 25 May 2009 (UTC)
Your
Featured picture candidate has been promoted Your nomination for
featured picture status,
File:Sphinx partially excavated2.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.
wadester16 |
Talk→ 18:45, 25 May 2009 (UTC)
|
Please see Massachusetts#References, Herbert Hoover#Notes, Nasa#References, George Washington#Notes, Paris Hilton#References. Thirty-five inline refs is nothing special. - Denimadept ( talk) 20:24, 25 May 2009 (UTC)
Once upon a time you requested a photo of the Jackie Robinson memorial outside the Pasadena, California city hall. I uploaded an image File:Jackie_robinson_memorial_pasadena.jpeg, but the fair use rationale is being challenged here: Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Jackie Robinson/archive2. Your opinion would be welcome. I don't know enough about the current application of the fair use criteria to judge either way (and the argument against seems pretty solid to me), but I thought you should have a chance to speak up for keeping the photo. Thanks. -- Amble ( talk) 22:57, 25 May 2009 (UTC)
Thanks once again for your input/improvements. It looks like the Jackie Robinson FAC will fail due to non-free image concerns, but not so much because of the Pasadena sculpture issue, which is currently still in the article. BillTunell ( talk) 18:53, 2 June 2009 (UTC)
Hi, Durova. Just stumbled across this and its subpage, User:KoshVorlon/WierdWiki/Durova. I'm not 100% sure what to do with it (is it an attack page; does it have any purpose?) but I thought I'd let you take the decision, if that's OK... ╟─ Treasury Tag► hemicycle─╢ 07:48, 26 May 2009 (UTC)
What? She went after a person that was doing good, and that was her charge to ban him. Then the secret mailing list comes out. Talk about paranoid about the wiki review. Its like stalin's government runs wikipedia. 70.248.189.186 ( talk) 18:41, 29 May 2009 (UTC)
Your
Featured picture candidate has been promoted Your nomination for
featured picture status,
File:USS West Virginia2.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.
wadester16 |
Talk→ 18:57, 26 May 2009 (UTC)
|
Please be more careful when you're blindly reverting. Just because an IP address removes a large portion of text, doesn't mean that they're vandalizing. Obama's economic policies has nothing to do with Carlos Santana, and the editor with the IP address did the right thing. [10] is the edit.
Heads up.-- 68.248.238.82 ( talk) 00:43, 27 May 2009 (UTC)
This is just a quick reminder that the round ends this Friday, May 29, 2009. I wanted to let you guys know the current standings. If you are very close, but not close enough, work as hard as possible these next two days. Pool leaders are listed as usual, and under the 10 wildcards, are competitors that are still fighting for a spot. Also, if you currently have any un-reviewed GAN's up and you'd like them to be reviewed and counted for this round, you must place them on the appropriate thread of the WikiCup talk page.
GARDEN , iMatthew : Chat , and The Helpful One The Helpful Bot 00:47, 27 May 2009 (UTC)
Hi Durova,
Just to let you know that the Featured Picture File:Mount Rushmore2.jpg is due to make an appearance as Picture of the Day on August 10, 2009. If you get a chance, you can check and improve the caption at Template:POTD/2009-08-10. howcheng { chat} 06:53, 27 May 2009 (UTC)
Hi, were you mentoring DG at one time, and are you still? thanks - KillerChihuahua ?!? 17:33, 27 May 2009 (UTC)
Wadester grabbed a statement I had made but thought better of and deleted almost immediately, and pasted it back into the talk page. I had not intended for that statement to be up, and suspect that his restoring it in a manner which made it appear I had intended it to remain up is in gross violation of WP:TALK. Shoemaker's Holiday ( talk) 19:55, 27 May 2009 (UTC)
WT:WikiProject Video games/Article guidelines#COPYVIO implications We would like to know if there are any copyright violation impacts for removing a logo by cropping an image for a box to put on the infobox. 陣 内 Jinnai 20:35, 27 May 2009 (UTC)
If you qualify for the Imperial crown jewels (2 FC, GA, DYK), do you need to re-nom for 3 each and 4 each even though they are the same award? Or do you just add them to the winner's circle? How does that work? Thanks. KV5 ( Talk • Phils) 11:47, 28 May 2009 (UTC)
Hehe, thanks! I appreciate it. :) – Juliancolton | Talk 19:08, 28 May 2009 (UTC)
This arbitration case has been closed and the final decision is available at the link above. The following editors are subjected to bans/topic-bans/restrictions as listed below :
Any editor who is subject to remedies in this proceeding, or who wishes to edit from an open proxy, is restricted to a single current or future account to edit Scientology-related topics and may not contribute to the topic as anonymous IP editors. Editors topic banned by remedies in this proceeding are prohibited (i) from editing articles related to Scientology or Scientologists, broadly defined, as well as the respective article talk pages and (ii) from participating in any Wikipedia process relating to those articles. Editors topic banned above may apply to have the topic ban lifted after demonstrating their commitment to the goals of Wikipedia and their ability to work constructively with other editors. Applications will be considered no earlier than six months after the close of this case, and additional reviews will be done no more frequently than every six months thereafter.
Any uninvolved administrator may, on his or her own discretion, ban any editor from editing within the Scientology topic. Prior to topic banning the editor, the administrator will leave a message on the editor's talk page, linking to this paragraph, warning the editor that a topic ban is contemplated and outlining the behaviours for which it is contemplated. If the editor fails to heed the warning, the editor may be topic banned, initially, for three months, then with additional topic bans increasing in duration to a maximum of one year. Any editor who, in the judgment of an uninvolved administrator, is (i) focused primarily on Scientology or Scientologists and (ii) clearly engaged in promoting an identifiable agenda may be topic-banned for up to one year.
All IP addresses owned or operated by the Church of Scientology and its associates, broadly interpreted, are to be blocked as if they were open proxies. Any current or future editor who, after this decision is announced, makes substantial edits to any Scientology-related articles or discussions on any page is directed to edit on these from only a single user account, which shall be the user's sole or main account, unless the user has previously sought and obtained permission from the Arbitration Committee to operate a legitimate second account. They shall edit in accordance to Wikipedia policies and refrain from advocacy, to disclose on the relevant talk pages any circumstances (but not including personal identifying information) that constitute or may reasonably be perceived as constituting a conflict of interest with respect to that page, and not through a proxy configuration.
- For the Arbitration Committee, Mailer Diablo 01:31, 29 May 2009 (UTC)
There's no issue to get involved in here, I just wanted your opinion about this picture. It was the lead on this article, and I uploaded one I was kind of proud of that I had overlooked in 2008. 9 x out of 10 I try to find a place for the previous lead. This one I didn't. It also had this caption. That aside, how appropriate on a BLP is this stalker-paparazzi "feel" and um--the--er--"headlights" that are so prominent? I'm not saying it's a BLP violation - but doesn't it seem a little unenyclopedic for a BLP? Or am I being uptight? Should I place it? -->David Shankbone 02:20, 29 May 2009 (UTC)
Hi Durova.
Be advised that, as an extension of Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Scientology/Evidence, I've applied a {{ Courtesy blank}}ing to your evidence for the Scientology case. My primary rationale for doing so is this; naturally, we don't want a case that's receiving the media attention that this one is to be appearing so openly.
The Committee directed me to blank the case pages, but naturally, pages in your userspace are your call. You are, as always, free to revert me.
Respectfully,
AGK 17:15, 29 May 2009 (UTC)
Jehochman, thanks. Actually all I've ever done with that blog is put it onto WMF aggregators and enable a default Blogger option. It's mainly written for an audience of fellow editors, so a result like this seemed really unlikely. Thanks for the suggestions, but considering how awkward this is do I want to increase its visibility? Durova Charge! 17:52, 29 May 2009 (UTC)
This may reflect your idea. Jehochman Talk 17:23, 29 May 2009 (UTC)
All right, I'll bite. Though I'm posting here instead of on Blogger because Blogger doesn't have a watchlist (that I know of).
After reading your post, a few questions came to mind.
In the Digital Age, more and more encyclopedias are moving their content to the Web. Some of the smaller ones (I imagine) have begun putting content solely on the Web as it's cheaper, easier to update, etc. A literal interpretation of the "dead tree standard" suggests that information from a reputable encyclopedia that hasn't physically been printed would fail the criterion. Do you agree? Do you disagree? Is there wiggle room?
The second question that came into my mind was one of practicality and feasibility. Assuming that all biographies must be found in an encyclopedia, doesn't that require making publicly-available lists for every non-Web-based encyclopedia? Doesn't that introduce new legal issues if we publish copyrighted lists like that (where the lists required creative input)? And we have to evaluate books for their acceptability as encyclopedias. Does a Who's Who count? Some of those aren't very reputable businesses....
And of course all of this relies nearly entirely on the idea that all publishers / authors are unbiased in their selections. Are most of them? How many really small encyclopedias exist and have they been sampled for various things like selection criteria, etc.?
Any comments, views, etc. on the issue would certainly be interesting to me. (Or, if there are links to other discussions that you have, those will also work. :-) -- MZMcBride ( talk) 19:00, 29 May 2009 (UTC)
(unindent) Okay. A few more points I want to discuss.
Let's say you have the president of a big Internet corporation. Are people who are notable in the 21st century covered in encyclopedias? Let's say the president of Mozilla or something similar. Or, looking at other parts of the world, are specialty encyclopedias as common for people from Zimbabwe, South Africa, India, China, Tibet, etc.?
Looking at another angle, let's say for the sake of argument that we have 5,000 non-notable biographies of living people. The people who generally request deletion of their biographies are people whose biographies generally contain negative content. If these non-notable people got their negative biographies deleted while the non-negative (and subsequently non-requested) biographies stay, suddenly we'd be left with pretty crap content overall, no?
More and more I'm thinking that "dead trees" isn't necessarily what's needed. What's needed is more stringent notability guidelines. Though your idea for simplification and making the guidelines easy to explain seems very spot-on.
Your thoughts? -- MZMcBride ( talk) 01:58, 2 June 2009 (UTC)
The WikiCup Newsletter | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Delivered for the WikiCup by The Helpful Bot at 14:31, 31 May 2009 (UTC). To report errors leave at message here.
I can see why you'd remove "New Starbucks Opens In Rest Room Of Existing Starbucks", but I added that phrase not only because it neatly captures a popular image of Starbucks, but also because it has been quoted by the LA Times, Newsweek, Boston Globe, CNN Money, Chicago Tribune, BusinessWeek and others. http://news.google.co.uk/archivesearch?um=1&ned=uk&hl=en&q=%22New+Starbucks+Opens+In+Rest+Room+Of+Existing+Starbucks%22&cf=all As such, it is a notable satire of saturation marketing. Fences and windows ( talk) 02:50, 1 June 2009 (UTC)
Thoughts on how I should handle an original scan too big to upload? Shoemaker's Holiday ( talk) 10:11, 1 June 2009 (UTC)
Hi Durova, You were next on my list of people to contact when I got your message. I don't care much for blanket RfA thankspam and prefer to write personally to each person who took the time to actively participate. I do thank you for your participation, your input and your kind words following my withdrawal. Should I decide to attempt a(n) RfA in the future I look forward to your support and help. Because you never outright said I was in violation of the guideline WP:Plagiarism, I felt it was not appropriate to bring up the guideline's infancy as a defense (and it would not change the fact that I had not adequately rewritten the content anyway). I see that its guideline status is under dispute, which I feel is appropriate based on the ambiguous language in its definition. At a minimum (in my opinion) the phrases adequate credit, proper attribution and insufficiently adapted into original language (which is no longer part of the definition) nead clear definitions similar to the way that the general notability guidelines define significant coverage, reliable sources, independent of the subject, and presumed. I am bringing this up here as you were the editor who promoted the proposal to guideline as you mentioned in your opposition statement, and I felt it appropriate to tell you personally. Take care, happy editing and I will see you around. -- kelapstick ( talk) 17:32, 1 June 2009 (UTC)
I write to ask for prospective help. In a sense, I'm only interested laying the foundation for the future. Perhaps this may be construed as taking steps to avert problems might be mitigated by a timely comment or suggestion ...?
Voting is underway at Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Tang Dynasty/Proposed decision. In part because of "Evidence presented by Caspian blue", the locus of dispute was modified and "evidence in the case has expanded to include other disputes in which Tenmei has been involved." You will be surprised to learn that Durova has anything at all to do with this so-called "evidence" at "Tenmei's wikihounding and trolling". I don't think this timeless prose is worth struggling to read, but I mention this to explain a bit more of the reasons why I'm reaching out to you specifically.
ArbCom findings of fact included:
ArbCom remedies included:
It is clear that ArbCom anticipates future difficulties; and I guess I need to do the same. Arguably, my previous postings on your talk page are congruent with exactly the sort of thing ArbCom wants me to do in future; and I'm willing to invest in learning about how to disagree without being disagreeable.
If you want to discuss this off-wiki, feel free to contact me at tenmei1781@gmail.com. -- Tenmei ( talk) 17:21, 1 June 2009 (UTC)
The Original Barnstar | ||
Thank you, for going above and beyond by going with me through the 450 edits of that IP to locate and delete that sneaky citation vandalism. Without you, the college student who tries to use Wikipedia for one of its greatest purposes – looking up useful journals and reference books – would be in a lot of trouble. Truly, you deserve this. NW ( Talk) ( How am I doing?) 03:54, 2 June 2009 (UTC) |
The Anti-Vandalism Barnstar | ||
Seconded. Until It Sleeps 04:10, 2 June 2009 (UTC) |
The Anti-Vandalism Barnstar | ||
Thirded. Benders Game 04:17, 2 June 2009 (UTC) |
Hi Durova - I was hoping that you could check the copyright advice I gave a new user here. I'm concerned that my initial understanding of "free for editorial use only" may have been inaccurate, or perhaps not explained fully enough. If you get a chance, could you please take a look? I would hate to have screwed this up, especially since I was trying to smooth things over after a couple of earlier run-ins. Plus I'd just like to know for myself. Thanks, Kafka Liz ( talk) 00:28, 3 June 2009 (UTC)
I don't know: Honestly, I've only seen this happen with you, and, without seeing in detail what you're doing, couldn't even begin to speculate as to why. Can you give me the link? I'll sort it out. Shoemaker's Holiday ( talk) 16:13, 3 June 2009 (UTC)
Hello, I'm reviewing your GA candidate Jean Desbouvrie. In perusing your user page I noted that you're expert with images. This is an area of WP that I am absolutely ignorant about. I'd love to start adding feature images to my (very small) repetoire of featured content, but I am neither a graphic artist nor a very proficient photographer. Is my quest hopeless? Can you point me towards any materials or give me suggestions on how I can become active in the restoration of old photos, which seems to be a pet project of yours? I'm particularly interested in Olympic Games images to help augment the articles I am working on for that project. Your help would be genuinely appreciated. H1nkles ( talk) 20:07, 5 June 2009 (UTC)
...can you help me out with this one? It was certainly a G12 previously, but... Frank | talk 00:44, 7 June 2009 (UTC)
In reply to your question about Twinkle and unblocking, not that I am aware of. I changed the terms of his block with a note here explaining why and another at the ongoing administrators' thread (as well as at Quadell's userpage). Another administrator blocked him again to protect the talk page, but he removed that stipulation on Frank's request. -- Moonriddengirl (talk) 01:18, 7 June 2009 (UTC)
Maybe you are correct and I cannot see why this would be such a big deal if there is no reason for it to be. The discussion now seems to have descended into an argument over penises. Perhaps I have not paid the matter enough attention, could you explain on my talk page or even just copy and paste the points that are most problematic and I will be all the wiser hopefully. :-) -- can dle • wicke 01:03, 7 June 2009 (UTC)
Thank you very much for your time at AE today.-- Jacurek ( talk) 22:52, 8 June 2009 (UTC)
Regards-- Jacurek ( talk) 01:01, 9 June 2009 (UTC)
Once more, the principal voice of reason. I'm not longer willing to keep checking more than once a day or so, and so I seem to have missed out until after I was no longer needed, at least immediately. DGG ( talk) 01:34, 9 June 2009 (UTC)
When you post to any ANI threads about me, please declare that you have a history of personal conflict with me. It is not fair that you present yourself as unbiased when you are not. Jehochman Talk 11:04, 9 June 2009 (UTC)
This matter of Sam Blacketer is spilling over to multiple pages and seems like it is inevitably heading to arbitration. I'm pulling my thumbs out of the dyke, and whatever happens will have to be dealt with by other people. You commenting on me, or me commenting on you is probably not very helpful in the scheme of things. The Boothroyd article had some very serious socking. I am not quite sure about all the accounts, but several are quite obvious. A private checkuser request is pending. Jehochman Talk 15:57, 9 June 2009 (UTC)
It's good to see you stepping away now. That doesn't satisfy most of the concerns expressed above. The principal issue is not whether you stood up for David Boothroyd as much as anybody else, but more than. And made choices that risk backfiring upon David, upon this website, and upon me personally--without ever fully informing people about your intentions and actions until other parties raised questions. Durova Charge! 19:43, 9 June 2009 (UTC)
I've sent you an e-mail. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.132.241.17 ( talk) 15:26, 9 June 2009 (UTC)
Did you see this, due to bloom at the Huntington in the next 5 days. I am poised to get over there and capture it for Wikiposterity. Mfield ( Oi!) 19:26, 10 June 2009 (UTC)
You do a lot of good things. I am going out for WP:TEA. Jehochman Talk 22:11, 10 June 2009 (UTC)
I see you've deleted references containing imdb and cited WP:RS in your edit summaries. I've used imdb for music/film/tv shows and was unaware of its categorisation as unreliable for cast/crew/soundtrack/award wins. A quick look at Wikipedia:Citing IMDb indicated to me that ambiguity exists on wikipedia about its reliability in different areas, the article itself failed to attain consensus. I agree with the Inappropriate uses section and have no problem adhering to its tenets. However I have used it for Wikipedia:Citing IMDb#Disputed uses and would like to know whether these uses are now considered to be inappropriate too. If so, has the use of IMDB in these murky areas been determined more emphatically elsewhere? Should wikipedia editors totally avoid IMDb as a reference? Shaidar cuebiyar ( talk) 11:48, 11 June 2009 (UTC)
This argument (all VPs → FP) recently started popping up. Our disagreements aside, I don't believe you started this process for this argument to be made. Maybe something should be said about how this isn't realistic and not an option? wadester 16 20:19, 11 June 2009 (UTC)
Up is down, eh? It's a weird evening when I'm lead defense council for the AC all of a sudden. And you just cracked me up with that. rootology ( C)( T) 03:11, 13 June 2009 (UTC)
The Established editors association will be a kind of union of who have made substantial and enduring contributions to the encyclopedia for a period of time (say, two years or more). The proposed articles of association are here - suggestions welcome.
If you wish to be elected, please notify me here. If you know of someone else who may be eligible, please nominate them here
Discussion is here. Peter Damian ( talk) 10:21, 13 June 2009 (UTC)
Quite so, thank you. Durova Charge! 16:29, 14 June 2009 (UTC)
The WikiCup Newsletter (last week) | ||||||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
The WikiCup Newsletter (this week) | ||||||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Delivered by The Helpful Bot at 21:56, 13 June 2009 (UTC) for the WikiCup. To report errors, please leave a message on the talk page.
Hey. Clueless li'l ol' me has just been made aware that there are apparently a suite of articles related to transsexualism that are being constructed by someone very close to the researchers that are subjects of the articles and cited in them.
Transsexualism is not my forte, but after being asked to review the perennial bad penny article of Homosexual transsexual, I spoke my piece that it is poorly written basically gibberish that says nothing, and the topic is probably not an actual concept, but part of a theory espoused by three researchers whose overall theory is also included in this suite of questionable topics: Blanchard, Bailey, and Lawrence theory. Some members of WP:LGBT seem to know who this is, but I don't. Read the WP:LGBT thread about it here.
I read the lead and first section of Homosexual transsexual. The sources I could get hold of use this term only in passing, and never seem to define or address the concept as a whole. The citations seem misattributed and the entire article appears to be an example of undue weight. So I've never gotten involved in ferreting out this kind of abuse. Any tips on how to go about it? -- Moni3 ( talk) 22:49, 13 June 2009 (UTC)
Hi Durova. I like your x-admin box.
I have no idea if it's widely known, but I wanted to mention the creation of Wikipedia:Content noticeboard, in case you hadn't noticed it's creation. I think JulianCotton and Iridescent are the ones who made it happen. ChildofMidnight ( talk) 03:35, 14 June 2009 (UTC)
I have been blanked! thanks D. ( Off2riorob ( talk) 19:13, 14 June 2009 (UTC))
Kaldari has proposed a replacement image. Please consider updating your !vote. wadester 16 04:50, 15 June 2009 (UTC)