Wow, what a clean talkpage you've got, I'm almost afraid to write anything!
I'd say deleting the article was a mistake, which, honestly, a few Google searches from either one of you would have suggested. Here are a few pieces of evidence on his notability: The remix of Chromeo's Fancy Footwork was included in the Deluxe edition of the single [1], his track Discopolis was played on daytime Radio 1 (never mind the rotation on the dance music shows (hich btw are impossible to get hold of)): [2] as well as being included on Pete Tong's Essential Selection mix CD [3], he had an official remix released by Kitsuné Music of La Roux's UK Top 40 single charts number 2 In for the Kill [4]. A pretty impressing discography would at least point to some notability [5]. He's djing (equivalent to live performances) all over the world as clearly shows on his MySpace. Next gigs are St Petersburg on nov 27, Singapore dec 31 and Rome jan 5, Barcelona the next day. I saw him in Stockholm in August [6].
Expect that he charges a couple of thousand euros for a gig excluding air fares and accommodation for him and his entourage (they were at least three in Stockholm). Also expect he charges several thousand euros for a remix and you might get the picture.
This reminds me of the reason why I left Wikipedia; the AfD:John Dahlbäck, which was based on misunderstandings and misconceptions of the dance music genre. Honestly, I don't care if you put it back up again or not and I'm not going to critic how you guys handled the AfD, even if a chance of defending the article had been nice (then again I probably wouldn't have seen it till now). I'm guessing, in the most respectful manner, that neither of you have any deeper knowledge of dance music let alone Lifelike himself, it's almost like there is a direct correlation of great influence on Wikipedia and poor knowledge of the dance music culture and vice versa... But seriously, I would have been a bit more hesitant to so speedily deleting an article I knew nothing about. I guess this also boils down to the question what music we should write about on WP. I agree that not any garage band are worthy an article, but with genres that rarely make it to the ordinary sales charts, the growth of music blogs and the decline of record sales the community maybe should ask itself if WP only should write about Brittney Spears or whoever will be the last person to actually be able to charge money for his/her music.
If I sound disrespectful or grouchy, please accept my apologies, I just got so fed up with the last discussion. Lastly, have a look at the Discopolis video which, by the way, have gotten 135k views since March when it was re-uploaded by its content owner and four years after the hype: [7] (it got some censorship problems back in the day so beware). Have a wonderful day and I look forward to your response! Sebisthlm ( talk)
The Distinguished Hive Mind Member Barnstar | ||
Congratulations on earning a distinguished spot on Hive Mind, you must be doing something right! Coffee // have a cup // ark // 06:41, 19 November 2009 (UTC) |
Enjoy this rouge barnstar, and keep up the good work! -- Coffee // have a cup // ark // 06:41, 19 November 2009 (UTC)
You complained recently about the declining quality of reviews at FPC. I've begun an overhaul of the (rather vague) criteria that will hopefully focus discussion and cut out some of the silliness. My understanding of the criteria with respect to historical images isn't very good due to accessibility (third world internet means I can't review your images), so I'm not that familiar with technical/editing requirements for restorations (plus I'm rather rusty).
It also proposes tightening of standards regarding attribution and documentation of manipulation.
The page is Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Criteria RFC. MER-C 09:20, 19 November 2009 (UTC)
I think I'm ready, I've left you a nom. :) Staxringold talk contribs 15:16, 19 November 2009 (UTC)
On your wikicup accomplishment. Jehochman Talk 19:55, 20 November 2009 (UTC)
I've responded on my talk page, but you realize that I wasn't the user who marked the issue resolved or the user who archived it, just the last person to comment. AniMate 01:35, 21 November 2009 (UTC)
Your
Featured picture candidate has been promoted Your nomination for
featured picture status,
File:Turkish heliograph at Huj2.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.
Zoo
Fari 07:09, 21 November 2009 (UTC)
|
Your
Featured picture candidate has been promoted Your nomination for
featured picture status,
File:Dugout home2.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.
Zoo
Fari 07:09, 21 November 2009 (UTC)
|
Hey, could you check back at 1941 Atlantic hurricane season's FAC when you get a chance? Thanks. :) – Juliancolton | Talk 15:36, 21 November 2009 (UTC)
Sure, I would be very interested... I knew going in that to have a historical photo be featured would be an uphill climb, and I was prepared with a larger version just in case. Based upon the criteria, it shouldn't have been a problem. I have run across many old WWI photos from the Canadian Archives that are outstanding, and have used Photoshop to try and make them clearer and sharper without loss of quality, but I haven't added them to the Commons. What have you got? Monsieurdl mon talk 18:38, 22 November 2009 (UTC)
I saw this and thought it might interest you [8]. ChildofMidnight ( talk) 19:42, 22 November 2009 (UTC)
I have deleted this RFC as it has not been certified by the requisite 2 editors. Kevin ( talk) 01:39, 23 November 2009 (UTC)
I was formerly under ArbCom sanctions through WP:RFAR/HWY. I started the article Interstate 15 in Arizona [9] though someone else added the fact and nom'ed for DYK a few days later ( Wikipedia:Recent additions 162). (I got a copy of the template). I am responsible for Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/California State Route 78/archive3 and Talk:California State Route 78/GA1. Does this qualify for the Valiant Return Triple Crown? -- Rschen7754 ( T C) 11:18, 23 November 2009 (UTC)
Hi Lise,
Just to let you know that the Featured Picture File:Amsterdam Centraal Station2.jpg is due to make an appearance as Picture of the Day on November 29, 2009. If you get a chance, you can check and improve the caption at Template:POTD/2009-11-29. howcheng { chat} 19:46, 24 November 2009 (UTC)
Durova, how do ANI sections get archived? Wildhartlivie continues to rant and rave there, and it doesn't seem very productive. Can you archive the Editor issues re: Ed Gein article and Threatened by another editor sections? That would reduce the number of forums to which the dispute can be posted. On the ANI board, you had mentioned "plenty of types of dispute resolution." What would you suggest at this point? Thanks for any help! -- Sift& Winnow 20:16, 24 November 2009 (UTC)
I really don't like not being notified when someone would like to have me blocked on a groundless basis and I hugely dislike when something is completely misrepresented and misconstrued. Then again, I don't much care for being dismissed as ranting and raving when I feel the need to defend myself against false charges. I'll take that step you mention next time. Thanks. Wildhartlivie ( talk) 21:30, 24 November 2009 (UTC)
Большое спасиво за помощ при откоректировки иновмешателья Moryak ( talk) 22:09, 24 November 2009 (UTC)
It appears that the Library of Congress has updated the file description for ppmsca.15849 to reflect your discovery earlier this year. I don't know whether it's necessary at this point in time to update the file descriptions of File:Wounded Knee aftermath.jpg and File:Wounded Knee aftermath3.jpg to reflect the new LOC caption, but I thought I'd bring it to your attention. Cheers, – BLACK FALCON ( TALK) 00:16, 25 November 2009 (UTC)
Regarding this, this, and this, it's clear that there wasn't clear communication between ARBCOM and at least one administrator on a sensitive issue, resulting in much drama.
This example raises the general question of "how are administrators supposed to know when higher-ups are giving them guidance." Not just the administrators that are there when the guidance is issued, but those who may have been on wikibreak or who were not yet given the bit at the time also need a mechanism to check the "list of current non-public administrator guidance."
If there isn't already a mechanism in place to make sure that non-public decisions by ARBCOM, LEGAL, and OFFICE are communicated to those charged with enforcing them, please look into it. Thanks. davidwr/( talk)/( contribs)/( e-mail) 13:35, 25 November 2009 (UTC)
Forgive me if this reaction appears naive: other than collapsing one admin board thread and marking it resolved I've basically had nothing to do with this matter. That action was an easy call: an arbitrator had already posted to the thread to request that the matter be submitted to the Committee privately for review. Given the extreme sensitivity of the subject at issue, that was a reasonable request and prompt thread closure was needed, preferably by someone who was as distant from the conflict as possible.
In fact, have been so far from the conflict that I hadn't even noticed Nihonjoe was requesting bureaucrat ops. So now the candidacy has been placed on hold for a debate on the legitimacy of opposes over the P issue? Am I correct in surmising that the arbitrators were less prompt and effective about actually reviewing the block and communicating their decision, than in making the request that they handle the review off-wiki? Durova 369 18:37, 25 November 2009 (UTC)
Well, as one of the individuals who does criticize ArbCom on a fairly regular basis, you might have stumbled upon as good a place as any for basic pointers. If past experience is any indicator to how to handle this, let the RfB resolve itself one way or the other before pursuing the comprehensive issue. Try an email to Cary Bass on the Foundation side and to one or more of the sitting arbs to apprise them of this developing situation and to ask for guidance about how to head off future problems of a similar type. If the underlying matter were less sensitive then an onsite request to the ArbCom announcements board talk page would be a natural place to go--and maybe that's what they'll advise this time too. If they do suggest that, it wouldn't be effective to head there right away due to the very high odds of current hot discussion migrating there with all its heat intact.
Wiki community discussions are better at addressing short term and immediate issues than at resolving long range systemic failures. If a mechanism is flawed and breaks down in predictable ways, the consensus response will not look beyond the immediate manifestation. A vocal subgroup will disparage any attempt to identify or address the underlying systemic flaws. That subgroup usually thwarts effective followup because it makes a much more cogent sound bite to shout X is just stirring more drama! or Y is forum shopping! than to actually identify a pattern of systemic failures and initiate a dialog about options for preventing future problems. The latter requires patience and nuance, which tend to be in short supply where they would do the most good. One's best hope of holding any long range discussion is to wait until a dispute simmers down in hopes that the hottest heads will turn their attention elsewhere while the others recover from the storm.
At any rate, I'd be flattered if you cc'd me. Looks like you really have put your finger on the pulse of something that ought to be addressed proactively. Durova 369 22:47, 25 November 2009 (UTC)
:) – Juliancolton | Talk 15:01, 25 November 2009 (UTC)
I just wanted to wish those Wikipedians who have been nice enough to give me a barnstar or smile at me, supportive enough to agree with me, etc., a Happy Thanksgiving! Sincerely, -- A Nobody My talk 19:04, 25 November 2009 (UTC)
Was just wondering if File:Close-up of a skylight on coastal plain, with lava stalactites forming on the roof of the tube.jpg would be the type of thing for an FP nomination. Not my thing, so I ask Wikipedia's own image expert :) Cheers, Res Mar 19:54, 26 November 2009 (UTC)
I know you've strong views here, and a bit of why. Anyway, I just referred to you in a post here:
Teh water's quite hot, and very, very, fowl. You're serious woman; you can take it ;)
Cheers, Jack Merridew 06:31, 27 November 2009 (UTC)
coughs quietly. Cheers, Jack Merridew 03:12, 29 November 2009 (UTC)
(opening night, New York;) Other side some years later. (could be you meant this, but computer says no) Cheers, Jack Merridew 06:25, 30 November 2009 (UTC)
Skip and I are fast becoming friends, check out my user page and especially this new pic. — Dog The Teddy Bear • Bully! • 17:46, 27 November 2009 (UTC)
Hello Durova, this is an automated message from SDPatrolBot to inform you the PROD template you added to PICMG 1.1 has been removed. It was removed by Joe601 with the following edit summary 'adding references'. Please consider discussing your concerns with Joe601 before pursuing deletion further yourself. If you still think the article should be deleted after communicating with the 'dePRODer,' you may want to send the article to AfD for community discussion. Thank you, SDPatrolBot ( talk) 19:38, 27 November 2009 (UTC) ( Learn how to opt out of these messages) 19:38, 27 November 2009 (UTC)
Durova, if you think your post about two year old grievances is going to result in mud slinging,
[10] you always have the option to not hit "save". When somebody does something you don't agree with they might not be pure evil. Perhaps there could be a more innocuous explanation such as different styles, incompetence, ignorance, presumptuousness, rudeness or misunderstanding. I think Wikipedia would benefit if many users, not singling you out, would be more tolerant of others. I found your comments at
Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Franamax to be embarrassing example of how we should not treat each other. If you don't like mud, stop slinging it. A wise person once told me What you say about others will have very little effect on their reputations, but could have a big effect on your own.
When User:Archtransit blocked me, did I go baying for blood? No. I was peeved at first, but then calmed down and tried very hard to assume good faith at Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Archtransit. Soon enough he revealed his true colors and was de-sysoped and banned. When a user really needs to be sanctioned, the fact will become evident to a large number of people. There's no need for any one editor to go out on a limb. (That was in fact the mistake I made back in the summer of '08, going out on a limb.) As a recent example, check the dialog at User talk:Mobile historian. I assumed good faith of the user and was prepared to unblock them. [11] When they thought they had won my trust, the user insisted upon restoring bad edits and linking to spam sites. [12] So I denied the unblock request, and had the sites blacklisted. [13] [14] Yep, assumed good faith, but still got to the bottom of the rabbit hole. Jehochman Talk 23:23, 27 November 2009 (UTC)
I'm trying to get User:Brews ohare ( Prof. John R. Brews in real life) back to editing physics/engineering articles. Currently he is subject to a physics topic ban, which i.m.o. is quite ridiculous. Brews got himself into trouble basically by dominating certain talk pages, particularly the the speed of light talk page, to get his way. That led to an Arbcom case leading to the topic ban. Given what happened during and after the Arbcom case (I'll explain below in detail), I think there have to be some well known Wikipedians involved in any appeals process.
The way this Arbcom case proceeded was i.m.o. highly problematic. The issue was never topic related. It is true that Brews not only dominated the talk page but was also wrong on the point he was arguing in favor of. That may have led the Arbitrators, who mostly don't know much about physics to think that Brews is the typical crank who should not edit any physics pages. The fact that
User:David Tombe, who fits the desciption "crank" much better, was the subject of the same Arbcom case could be a factor here. Ironically
User:David Tombe got off with a lighter sentence as far as physics is concerned. Unlike David, Brews can't even discuss any physics on his talk page.
Since this topic ban was imposed, Brews has been active on some policy related pages, he also contributed to
my essay. That led to complaints that i.m.o. are highly exaggerated. He has been accused of "fighting old battles", even though most of the points he was arguing in favor of on the policy pages were not seen to be relevant during the Arbcom case. So, if it was irrelevant then, it can't be relevant now.
Thing is that Brews is only interested in physics. After the Arbcom case, I though he would leave Wikipedia permanently. So, I was happy to see him stick around here. The negative comments to his involvement on the policy pages mainly come from uninvolved people who were involved in the orignal Arbcom case. E.g. Jehochman seems to have Brews on his watchlist and every time he sees Brews editing a policy related talk page he calls that "disruption" and goes to the Arbcom enforcement or Clarification page. Some other editors are acting in the same way.
I would say: If Brews is editing a page that you are not involved in then that is none of your business. However, these people got their way and Brews is now not allowed to edit any policy related pages. This is where things stand right now.
I made a compromize proposal to allow Brews to edit physics related pages on his own user space, to be released to Wikipedia after approval, while the topic ban formally stands, so Brews cannot directly edit any physics apges, not even the onces written by him after being released.
see here for details.
Brews has told me that he is willing to edit under such severe restrictions. But it seems that this proposal is falling on deaf ears. It seems that the Arbitrators somehow believe that the current topic ban is the right way to go forward.
This view of the Arbitrators makes me sceptical that they are able to deal with this issue in a pragmatic way. They seem to be so absorbed by Wikipedia's rules that they do not see the engineering professor who could make (and has already made) many valuable contributions to Wikipedia.
Another very negative development is that my efforts have led to attacks on me by Jehochman. This seems to be because I have also defended
User:Likebox, who is an expert in theoretical physics. Like Brews he also caused some trouble. In his case it was pushing his POV on a math topic a bit too hard. To Jehochman, Brews and Likebox are troublemakers who should leave Wikipedia. Anyone who tries to mediate to get unreasonable sentences overturned and tries to get the editors back to editing their topics of interests and expertise are seen to be part of the problem as well. Nothing I wrote to Likebox or Brews suggests that I want to make them cause trouble at all.
This whole negative climate surrounding this case makes it necessary i.m.o. to have some well known Wikipedians like you to be involved in any appeal.
Count Iblis (
talk) 03:28, 28 November 2009 (UTC)
Hi, Durova, I'm little bit unclear whether this image of modern art piece is in PD not. I came across the image by reviewing a DYK hook. The copper art piece produced by Santa Clara del Cobre, a Mexican village is obviously a modern work, but purchased by the writer and nominator Thelmadatter ( talk · contribs). In that case, how do you label its copyright? Is it treated same as copyrighted commercial products with trademark? I think this could not be in PD, but I could be wrong. Your help would be appreciated. Thanks.-- Caspian blue 18:56, 28 November 2009 (UTC)
Could you please give me an opinion on what sort of work should be done to make this image better?-- fetch comms ☛ 21:55, 28 November 2009 (UTC)
Lord Kitchener still lurks here. upstate NYer 01:40, 29 November 2009 (UTC)
Hi. I am contacting you on behalf of the WikiCup judges because you were involved in our previous points polling. Though most of the polls are now closed, we have restarted polls relating to the points value for both valued pictures and in the news entries. You are welcome to submit your votes here; the polls will be closing in a week's time. J Milburn ( talk) 20:02, 29 November 2009 (UTC)
You have double posted here. Nothing urgent, I am sure a clerk will come along in due course if you don't get to it. LessHeard vanU ( talk) 20:42, 29 November 2009 (UTC)
… for taking the time to read that RfC and close it. I appreciate the effort. Deor ( talk) 20:55, 29 November 2009 (UTC)
Would appreciate any input you might have at Wikipedia:Portal peer review/Christmas/archive1. Yeah, it is a bit late for reviews, which I noticed myself, but that portal is probably going to be at its peak viewing around now, so now is probably the time to work hardest to make it good. John Carter ( talk) 16:53, 30 November 2009 (UTC)
Looking through the archives of WP:FSC, I see that you have been known to restore sound files as well as images. Is there anything that can be done with this one, or is it as good/bad as it'll get? In any case, is it worth a run through FSC? No rush to answer. Regards, Bencherlite Talk 21:04, 30 November 2009 (UTC)
I'm writing about how to deal with the talk page edits on Talk:Celestial spheres. Since your closing of the RfC, Logicus has resumed his abrasive editing style on the talk page (which includes arguing OR there, but not in the article).
A slightly involved editor whose opinions I respect told me that an RfC/U would be useless and
The system seems to be well designed to deal with acute problems but is there a way to deal with long term (over two years) chronic, small scale, disruptive editing? (For an example of what I have in mind I've gathered a dossier in a draft RfC). If the advice I received was correct I fear that insofar as "exhausting the patience" is by definition a chronic, not an acute problem, WP:DE has become a dead letter.
I know you have past experience with these issues (including on the abandoned Community sanctions noticeboard) and your advice on the best way to proceed would be most welcome. -- SteveMcCluskey ( talk) 02:48, 1 December 2009 (UTC)
In case you missed it, Logicus has posted a reply for you at Talk:Celestial spheres. -- SteveMcCluskey ( talk) 23:38, 1 December 2009 (UTC)
If you're going to start removing links to sites reposting emails they have received, you're going to have a LOT of links to remove. Was your removal well considered? -- Gmaxwell ( talk) 04:29, 2 December 2009 (UTC)
Hi Durova. I appreciate your refactoring of an unnecessarily provocative thread heading, although I would have preffered it if you would have done it for all of headers in the relevant discussion. :) I've been warned before for trying to lessen drama by doing something like that, but I think good faith and the need to keep things collegial trumps the frantic objections of the paranoid and suspicious. Anyway, I came by to see if you wanted to dig up a photo for this new article which is also a DYK nom. It was in operation in the 1910s and early 1920s. If you have insights, suggestions, or want to do the heavy lifting of finding an old photo for that article I'd appreciate it. I think you pointed me where to look a long time ago, but I forgot. In the interests of elevating focusing my expertise on an appropriate area of specialty, I usually work only on photos post 2004. If you're busy (actually, it's probably fair to assume you're busy) and want to maintain your focus I certainly understand. Cheers. ChildofMidnight ( talk) 21:25, 2 December 2009 (UTC)
This article when I googled Hochman : [19] and the computing company that is mentioned in the article along with what he says about his company made me believe that they were one in the same. Not a Jewish name conspiracy theory.-- Die4Dixie ( talk) 02:36, 3 December 2009 (UTC)
Hi Lise,
Just to let you know that the Featured Picture File:Layla and Majnun2.jpg is due to make an appearance as Picture of the Day on December 4, 2009. If you get a chance, you can check and improve the caption at Template:POTD/2009-12-04. howcheng { chat} 18:18, 3 December 2009 (UTC)
Excuse noise ... Saw your response to SirFozzie at AN, and noted the CSN reference. (Recently learned of WP:PAIN by a similar passing mention). Historical perspective is always good. And dropping by your user page is surely pleasant in that respect. (And beautifully done.) Just holiday drive-by noise, but thank you, Durova — whose username is now invested with meaning. (And, wow!, on that Obama/Durova comparison stat. lol) Cheers. Proofreader77 ( talk) 23:59, 3 December 2009 (UTC)
That diff should be oversighted immediately. It looks like the subsequent one was, but they missed the previous one (with your name in it) as well so you should request it. Radeksz seems to have cut and pasted his entire inbox into the article, and from what I can tell, he merely invited you to join Gmail at some time in the past. Skäpperöd should revert your name from his addition to the evidence page. Viriditas ( talk) 00:06, 4 December 2009 (UTC)
Thought you'd care to see what I'll be working on next. Hoping to use this in White Sea and maybe Northern Dvina River. Looks like it will mainly just be removing smudges, dirt, etc; so maybe I can handle this one on my own :). I've got classes wrapping up in the next couple weeks, so I may be slow, but I'll let you know when I have a decent restoration for you to check out. Jujutacular T · C 00:12, 4 December 2009 (UTC)
Hi Durova, Mickey Mouse may interfere with those plans over yonder about Yeats, in which case you can head over to Wikilivres. It is run by Wikisource folk, and will hopefully morph into Wikisource Canada whenever the Canadian chapter gets off the ground. John Vandenberg ( chat) 08:49, 4 December 2009 (UTC)
No doubt inspired by your awesome WikiCup success, this year's Bacon Challenge event will include a competitive point scoring format. Given the critical importance of this subject matter, I know you will want to participate, so remember to sign up today: Bacon Challenge 2010! ChildofMidnight ( talk) 17:09, 4 December 2009 (UTC)
Hi Lise,
Just to let you know that the Featured Picture File:Military College of Chapultepec2.jpg is due to make an appearance as Picture of the Day on December 5, 2009. If you get a chance, you can check and improve the caption at Template:POTD/2009-12-05. Sorry I didn't get to moving the Layla and Majnun one out from yesterday, but I wasn't clear on the connection to the person you mentioned. howcheng { chat} 19:18, 4 December 2009 (UTC)
I've been stewing in my own juices about something that happened here which oddly made me think about you and our interaction over William S. Saturn's porn star picture on his user page. I've been irritated because someone I'm tangentially in conflict with has made a point of not acknowledging that I, at the very least, acted in good faith when trying to lower the temperature in a confrontation. Eventually our conversation turned (inevitably) to what's wrong with Wikipedia. He stated that one of our biggest problems is that we don't stop trolls or toxic personalities from operating quickly enough. I haven't responded yet, but I've come to the conclusion that the biggest problem we have here is that this community holds grudges (with a hearty dose of drama). I involved myself in the situation because I saw someone whose actions have long irked me try to inflame an already volatile situation. I was holding a grudge against someone I likely will never meet and it lead to a nice amount of conflict with an arbitrator I've never interacted with before. So, how does this apply to you? The grudges the core group of regulars holds make so much noise that we often ignore or push aside really important issues. You raised a valid point about an arguably inappropriate image on an editor's user page, which I dismissed and tried to shut down because I didn't think WP:AN/I was the right forum. To a degree I think I'm right. AN/I is useless when it comes to nuanced situations that require careful consideration. Still, I dismissed a good faith and likely needed discussion, basically saying your concerns didn't need to be heard. I'm sorry. Simple as that. There likely won't be an easy or drama free environment on Wikipedia to discuss sensitive issues that affect minorities on Wikipedia, but should you ever enter into one, I'll gladly take part... and won't dismiss it. Again, my apologies. AniMate 06:07, 5 December 2009 (UTC)
This is the current status of the Guidelines section at WP:NRM. I recall you saying once, a few months ago, that we might need a generic arbitration case for NRMs. Bearing in mind that arbitrations are often very divisive, I wonder if what we really need first of all is a guideline, to provide some general direction in this topic area. I've jotted down a few ideas on Will Beback's talk page. What do you think? Given your involvement with a number of these arbitrations in the past, your input would be of great value. Best, -- JN 466 14:39, 5 December 2009 (UTC)
I would be most grateful if, as I have already requested 3 days ago, you would be so kind as to identify and quote the Wikipedia policy statement that says when somebody challenges an edit as breaching NOR, the burden of proof is on its editor to prove it is not OR rather than on the challenger to prove it is OR.
And is this a policy you approve of ? -- Logicus ( talk) 15:27, 5 December 2009 (UTC)
PS To Durova: You may possibly find my comments to Wilson on 3 December, disabusing him of his error that the Verifiability policy’s perfectly reasonable burden of evidence rule I agree with is also such an utterly unreasonable and indeed outrageous burden of proof rule I strongly disapprove of, helpful in trying to identify any such rule as you allege. And any such rule can only possibly bring Wikipedia into ever greater disrepute in the press than it already is.
(To JN466: Certainly you obviously need to read my comments to Wilson.) -- Logicus ( talk) 15:39, 5 December 2009 (UTC)
I would like this AfD for the Waka Flocka Flame article closed ASAP. This has been open for a week, and a consensus should be determined. Dalekusa ( talk) 00:02, 7 December 2009 (UTC)
I think you missed my "Poke, Poke, Pokemon!" edit summary earlier since the section is so deep in your talk page. Staxringold talk contribs 05:34, 7 December 2009 (UTC)
Why did you change your signature form Charge!! to the number of featured articles/files/etc.? Dalekusa ( talk) 19:51, 7 December 2009 (UTC)
Correct answer gets a cookie. Jehochman Talk 21:41, 7 December 2009 (UTC)
Other options:
5. The amount of people she's trolled, without them realizing it.
6. The number of times she's proposed a feature picture restoration to solve a dispute between editors.
7. The amount of times she's linked me to The Weather in California to make fun of the fact that we actually have winter out here.
8. The number of times she's said "I don't know what you're talking about." when others catch her on point 5. ;)
1. I'm a size four.
5. Should be 373 now?
7. It's actually raining today.
Cheers!
Durova
372 21:59, 7 December 2009 (UTC)
On your new image restoration article, I hope you add your byline, so the reader can tell who "I" refers to? Best regards, -- Ssilvers ( talk) 21:52, 7 December 2009 (UTC)
So all I have to do is get permission? I know that the links no longer work, but I am confused to if I have to find permission from all of them since they are military images, and thus supposedly not copyrighted. Kevin Rutherford ( talk) 00:21, 8 December 2009 (UTC)
On an unrelated note, I might end up having you review some photos that I might nominate for FP. Please notify me when you do that though since I am interested in having the first FP for the Cape known. Kevin Rutherford ( talk) 00:59, 8 December 2009 (UTC)
The first one looks fine to me. I've been busy (and tired), so it wasn't on my mind till last night.Mitch32( A fortune in fabulous articles can be yours!) 10:53, 8 December 2009 (UTC)
Just ask people to unwatch your page :) Equazcion (talk) 17:18, 8 Dec 2009 (UTC)
Durova, I thought the Wikipedians agreed not to take legal action! Why did you call the authorities, as you did on WP:ANI. 7107Lecker Tischgespräch, außerdem... 12:38, 9 December 2009 (UTC)
I have done courses on photoshop, and I will be interested in helping in the restoration of images. However I am not very sure about how to begin or even which image to start with. I will be specially interested in Spanish or science pictures, but I am not very sure on how to find free images. Contact me at my talk page (so I do not watch your talk page :-) if you have any proposals on a restoration.-- Garrondo ( talk) 21:25, 9 December 2009 (UTC)
Hi Lise,
Just to let you know that the Featured Picture File:Shoki2 detail.jpg is due to make an appearance as Picture of the Day on December 10, 2009. If you get a chance, you can check and improve the caption at Template:POTD/2009-12-10. The link to the full-sized image is within the POTD templates. And yes, I just finished this with 35 minutes to spare. :) howcheng { chat} 23:27, 9 December 2009 (UTC)
Your
Featured picture candidate has been promoted Your nomination for
featured picture status,
File:Lincoln conspirators execution2.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.
jjron (
talk) 12:08, 10 December 2009 (UTC)
|
The Sega Dreamcast picture is a Valued picture nominee. Can you please vote on it ASAP (even though it is for Valued Picture)? If you have any questions, respond on my talkpage ASAP Secret Saturdays ( talk to me) 00:08, 11 December 2009 (UTC)
Hello Durova, I'm Hunter Kahn. Our mutual friend Cirt suggested you could help me out with a question I had. I've been working on the article Maurice Clemmons, the suspected shooter in the recent police officer shooting in Washington. I sent a public information request to the Arkansas Parole Board seeking a copy of the one-page proclamation document that Mike Huckabee issued in 2000 that essentially set Clemmons free. They did me one better and sent me all 27-pages worth of clemency/parole-related documents. I now have those on PDF, and I'd like to incorporate them into the Clemmons article. Basically what I'm looking to do is exactly what has been done with this surreply on the article Beck v. Eiland-Hall, which shows an image of one of the PDFs like a picture, then shows the entire document when you click on it. I assume you can do this by uploading it to Wikimedia Commons, but I don't have any idea which license to choose in this case or exactly how to do it. I've asked Cirt since he's the major contributer to that Beck page, but he suggested I ask you. Could you help me out and give me some direction here? Or if not, maybe you could direct me to someone who could help? Thanks so much in advance! — Hunter Kahn ( c) 06:27, 11 December 2009 (UTC)
I never suggested administrators have special powers to set policy. Would you refactor that? Jehochman Talk 11:43, 11 December 2009 (UTC)
Hi there. We've never met, but I stumbled upon your page a while back after clicking through pictures, and that lead me to knowing about Nadezhda Durova. I just used that information in a term paper, and I believe that the random knowledge I gleaned from the article has made it a better paper. Thanks for putting thought into your name, turns out, it's proven highly useful to a complete stranger. Nuclear Lunch Detected Hungry? 19:59, 11 December 2009 (UTC)
Wow, what a clean talkpage you've got, I'm almost afraid to write anything!
I'd say deleting the article was a mistake, which, honestly, a few Google searches from either one of you would have suggested. Here are a few pieces of evidence on his notability: The remix of Chromeo's Fancy Footwork was included in the Deluxe edition of the single [1], his track Discopolis was played on daytime Radio 1 (never mind the rotation on the dance music shows (hich btw are impossible to get hold of)): [2] as well as being included on Pete Tong's Essential Selection mix CD [3], he had an official remix released by Kitsuné Music of La Roux's UK Top 40 single charts number 2 In for the Kill [4]. A pretty impressing discography would at least point to some notability [5]. He's djing (equivalent to live performances) all over the world as clearly shows on his MySpace. Next gigs are St Petersburg on nov 27, Singapore dec 31 and Rome jan 5, Barcelona the next day. I saw him in Stockholm in August [6].
Expect that he charges a couple of thousand euros for a gig excluding air fares and accommodation for him and his entourage (they were at least three in Stockholm). Also expect he charges several thousand euros for a remix and you might get the picture.
This reminds me of the reason why I left Wikipedia; the AfD:John Dahlbäck, which was based on misunderstandings and misconceptions of the dance music genre. Honestly, I don't care if you put it back up again or not and I'm not going to critic how you guys handled the AfD, even if a chance of defending the article had been nice (then again I probably wouldn't have seen it till now). I'm guessing, in the most respectful manner, that neither of you have any deeper knowledge of dance music let alone Lifelike himself, it's almost like there is a direct correlation of great influence on Wikipedia and poor knowledge of the dance music culture and vice versa... But seriously, I would have been a bit more hesitant to so speedily deleting an article I knew nothing about. I guess this also boils down to the question what music we should write about on WP. I agree that not any garage band are worthy an article, but with genres that rarely make it to the ordinary sales charts, the growth of music blogs and the decline of record sales the community maybe should ask itself if WP only should write about Brittney Spears or whoever will be the last person to actually be able to charge money for his/her music.
If I sound disrespectful or grouchy, please accept my apologies, I just got so fed up with the last discussion. Lastly, have a look at the Discopolis video which, by the way, have gotten 135k views since March when it was re-uploaded by its content owner and four years after the hype: [7] (it got some censorship problems back in the day so beware). Have a wonderful day and I look forward to your response! Sebisthlm ( talk)
The Distinguished Hive Mind Member Barnstar | ||
Congratulations on earning a distinguished spot on Hive Mind, you must be doing something right! Coffee // have a cup // ark // 06:41, 19 November 2009 (UTC) |
Enjoy this rouge barnstar, and keep up the good work! -- Coffee // have a cup // ark // 06:41, 19 November 2009 (UTC)
You complained recently about the declining quality of reviews at FPC. I've begun an overhaul of the (rather vague) criteria that will hopefully focus discussion and cut out some of the silliness. My understanding of the criteria with respect to historical images isn't very good due to accessibility (third world internet means I can't review your images), so I'm not that familiar with technical/editing requirements for restorations (plus I'm rather rusty).
It also proposes tightening of standards regarding attribution and documentation of manipulation.
The page is Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Criteria RFC. MER-C 09:20, 19 November 2009 (UTC)
I think I'm ready, I've left you a nom. :) Staxringold talk contribs 15:16, 19 November 2009 (UTC)
On your wikicup accomplishment. Jehochman Talk 19:55, 20 November 2009 (UTC)
I've responded on my talk page, but you realize that I wasn't the user who marked the issue resolved or the user who archived it, just the last person to comment. AniMate 01:35, 21 November 2009 (UTC)
Your
Featured picture candidate has been promoted Your nomination for
featured picture status,
File:Turkish heliograph at Huj2.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.
Zoo
Fari 07:09, 21 November 2009 (UTC)
|
Your
Featured picture candidate has been promoted Your nomination for
featured picture status,
File:Dugout home2.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.
Zoo
Fari 07:09, 21 November 2009 (UTC)
|
Hey, could you check back at 1941 Atlantic hurricane season's FAC when you get a chance? Thanks. :) – Juliancolton | Talk 15:36, 21 November 2009 (UTC)
Sure, I would be very interested... I knew going in that to have a historical photo be featured would be an uphill climb, and I was prepared with a larger version just in case. Based upon the criteria, it shouldn't have been a problem. I have run across many old WWI photos from the Canadian Archives that are outstanding, and have used Photoshop to try and make them clearer and sharper without loss of quality, but I haven't added them to the Commons. What have you got? Monsieurdl mon talk 18:38, 22 November 2009 (UTC)
I saw this and thought it might interest you [8]. ChildofMidnight ( talk) 19:42, 22 November 2009 (UTC)
I have deleted this RFC as it has not been certified by the requisite 2 editors. Kevin ( talk) 01:39, 23 November 2009 (UTC)
I was formerly under ArbCom sanctions through WP:RFAR/HWY. I started the article Interstate 15 in Arizona [9] though someone else added the fact and nom'ed for DYK a few days later ( Wikipedia:Recent additions 162). (I got a copy of the template). I am responsible for Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/California State Route 78/archive3 and Talk:California State Route 78/GA1. Does this qualify for the Valiant Return Triple Crown? -- Rschen7754 ( T C) 11:18, 23 November 2009 (UTC)
Hi Lise,
Just to let you know that the Featured Picture File:Amsterdam Centraal Station2.jpg is due to make an appearance as Picture of the Day on November 29, 2009. If you get a chance, you can check and improve the caption at Template:POTD/2009-11-29. howcheng { chat} 19:46, 24 November 2009 (UTC)
Durova, how do ANI sections get archived? Wildhartlivie continues to rant and rave there, and it doesn't seem very productive. Can you archive the Editor issues re: Ed Gein article and Threatened by another editor sections? That would reduce the number of forums to which the dispute can be posted. On the ANI board, you had mentioned "plenty of types of dispute resolution." What would you suggest at this point? Thanks for any help! -- Sift& Winnow 20:16, 24 November 2009 (UTC)
I really don't like not being notified when someone would like to have me blocked on a groundless basis and I hugely dislike when something is completely misrepresented and misconstrued. Then again, I don't much care for being dismissed as ranting and raving when I feel the need to defend myself against false charges. I'll take that step you mention next time. Thanks. Wildhartlivie ( talk) 21:30, 24 November 2009 (UTC)
Большое спасиво за помощ при откоректировки иновмешателья Moryak ( talk) 22:09, 24 November 2009 (UTC)
It appears that the Library of Congress has updated the file description for ppmsca.15849 to reflect your discovery earlier this year. I don't know whether it's necessary at this point in time to update the file descriptions of File:Wounded Knee aftermath.jpg and File:Wounded Knee aftermath3.jpg to reflect the new LOC caption, but I thought I'd bring it to your attention. Cheers, – BLACK FALCON ( TALK) 00:16, 25 November 2009 (UTC)
Regarding this, this, and this, it's clear that there wasn't clear communication between ARBCOM and at least one administrator on a sensitive issue, resulting in much drama.
This example raises the general question of "how are administrators supposed to know when higher-ups are giving them guidance." Not just the administrators that are there when the guidance is issued, but those who may have been on wikibreak or who were not yet given the bit at the time also need a mechanism to check the "list of current non-public administrator guidance."
If there isn't already a mechanism in place to make sure that non-public decisions by ARBCOM, LEGAL, and OFFICE are communicated to those charged with enforcing them, please look into it. Thanks. davidwr/( talk)/( contribs)/( e-mail) 13:35, 25 November 2009 (UTC)
Forgive me if this reaction appears naive: other than collapsing one admin board thread and marking it resolved I've basically had nothing to do with this matter. That action was an easy call: an arbitrator had already posted to the thread to request that the matter be submitted to the Committee privately for review. Given the extreme sensitivity of the subject at issue, that was a reasonable request and prompt thread closure was needed, preferably by someone who was as distant from the conflict as possible.
In fact, have been so far from the conflict that I hadn't even noticed Nihonjoe was requesting bureaucrat ops. So now the candidacy has been placed on hold for a debate on the legitimacy of opposes over the P issue? Am I correct in surmising that the arbitrators were less prompt and effective about actually reviewing the block and communicating their decision, than in making the request that they handle the review off-wiki? Durova 369 18:37, 25 November 2009 (UTC)
Well, as one of the individuals who does criticize ArbCom on a fairly regular basis, you might have stumbled upon as good a place as any for basic pointers. If past experience is any indicator to how to handle this, let the RfB resolve itself one way or the other before pursuing the comprehensive issue. Try an email to Cary Bass on the Foundation side and to one or more of the sitting arbs to apprise them of this developing situation and to ask for guidance about how to head off future problems of a similar type. If the underlying matter were less sensitive then an onsite request to the ArbCom announcements board talk page would be a natural place to go--and maybe that's what they'll advise this time too. If they do suggest that, it wouldn't be effective to head there right away due to the very high odds of current hot discussion migrating there with all its heat intact.
Wiki community discussions are better at addressing short term and immediate issues than at resolving long range systemic failures. If a mechanism is flawed and breaks down in predictable ways, the consensus response will not look beyond the immediate manifestation. A vocal subgroup will disparage any attempt to identify or address the underlying systemic flaws. That subgroup usually thwarts effective followup because it makes a much more cogent sound bite to shout X is just stirring more drama! or Y is forum shopping! than to actually identify a pattern of systemic failures and initiate a dialog about options for preventing future problems. The latter requires patience and nuance, which tend to be in short supply where they would do the most good. One's best hope of holding any long range discussion is to wait until a dispute simmers down in hopes that the hottest heads will turn their attention elsewhere while the others recover from the storm.
At any rate, I'd be flattered if you cc'd me. Looks like you really have put your finger on the pulse of something that ought to be addressed proactively. Durova 369 22:47, 25 November 2009 (UTC)
:) – Juliancolton | Talk 15:01, 25 November 2009 (UTC)
I just wanted to wish those Wikipedians who have been nice enough to give me a barnstar or smile at me, supportive enough to agree with me, etc., a Happy Thanksgiving! Sincerely, -- A Nobody My talk 19:04, 25 November 2009 (UTC)
Was just wondering if File:Close-up of a skylight on coastal plain, with lava stalactites forming on the roof of the tube.jpg would be the type of thing for an FP nomination. Not my thing, so I ask Wikipedia's own image expert :) Cheers, Res Mar 19:54, 26 November 2009 (UTC)
I know you've strong views here, and a bit of why. Anyway, I just referred to you in a post here:
Teh water's quite hot, and very, very, fowl. You're serious woman; you can take it ;)
Cheers, Jack Merridew 06:31, 27 November 2009 (UTC)
coughs quietly. Cheers, Jack Merridew 03:12, 29 November 2009 (UTC)
(opening night, New York;) Other side some years later. (could be you meant this, but computer says no) Cheers, Jack Merridew 06:25, 30 November 2009 (UTC)
Skip and I are fast becoming friends, check out my user page and especially this new pic. — Dog The Teddy Bear • Bully! • 17:46, 27 November 2009 (UTC)
Hello Durova, this is an automated message from SDPatrolBot to inform you the PROD template you added to PICMG 1.1 has been removed. It was removed by Joe601 with the following edit summary 'adding references'. Please consider discussing your concerns with Joe601 before pursuing deletion further yourself. If you still think the article should be deleted after communicating with the 'dePRODer,' you may want to send the article to AfD for community discussion. Thank you, SDPatrolBot ( talk) 19:38, 27 November 2009 (UTC) ( Learn how to opt out of these messages) 19:38, 27 November 2009 (UTC)
Durova, if you think your post about two year old grievances is going to result in mud slinging,
[10] you always have the option to not hit "save". When somebody does something you don't agree with they might not be pure evil. Perhaps there could be a more innocuous explanation such as different styles, incompetence, ignorance, presumptuousness, rudeness or misunderstanding. I think Wikipedia would benefit if many users, not singling you out, would be more tolerant of others. I found your comments at
Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Franamax to be embarrassing example of how we should not treat each other. If you don't like mud, stop slinging it. A wise person once told me What you say about others will have very little effect on their reputations, but could have a big effect on your own.
When User:Archtransit blocked me, did I go baying for blood? No. I was peeved at first, but then calmed down and tried very hard to assume good faith at Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Archtransit. Soon enough he revealed his true colors and was de-sysoped and banned. When a user really needs to be sanctioned, the fact will become evident to a large number of people. There's no need for any one editor to go out on a limb. (That was in fact the mistake I made back in the summer of '08, going out on a limb.) As a recent example, check the dialog at User talk:Mobile historian. I assumed good faith of the user and was prepared to unblock them. [11] When they thought they had won my trust, the user insisted upon restoring bad edits and linking to spam sites. [12] So I denied the unblock request, and had the sites blacklisted. [13] [14] Yep, assumed good faith, but still got to the bottom of the rabbit hole. Jehochman Talk 23:23, 27 November 2009 (UTC)
I'm trying to get User:Brews ohare ( Prof. John R. Brews in real life) back to editing physics/engineering articles. Currently he is subject to a physics topic ban, which i.m.o. is quite ridiculous. Brews got himself into trouble basically by dominating certain talk pages, particularly the the speed of light talk page, to get his way. That led to an Arbcom case leading to the topic ban. Given what happened during and after the Arbcom case (I'll explain below in detail), I think there have to be some well known Wikipedians involved in any appeals process.
The way this Arbcom case proceeded was i.m.o. highly problematic. The issue was never topic related. It is true that Brews not only dominated the talk page but was also wrong on the point he was arguing in favor of. That may have led the Arbitrators, who mostly don't know much about physics to think that Brews is the typical crank who should not edit any physics pages. The fact that
User:David Tombe, who fits the desciption "crank" much better, was the subject of the same Arbcom case could be a factor here. Ironically
User:David Tombe got off with a lighter sentence as far as physics is concerned. Unlike David, Brews can't even discuss any physics on his talk page.
Since this topic ban was imposed, Brews has been active on some policy related pages, he also contributed to
my essay. That led to complaints that i.m.o. are highly exaggerated. He has been accused of "fighting old battles", even though most of the points he was arguing in favor of on the policy pages were not seen to be relevant during the Arbcom case. So, if it was irrelevant then, it can't be relevant now.
Thing is that Brews is only interested in physics. After the Arbcom case, I though he would leave Wikipedia permanently. So, I was happy to see him stick around here. The negative comments to his involvement on the policy pages mainly come from uninvolved people who were involved in the orignal Arbcom case. E.g. Jehochman seems to have Brews on his watchlist and every time he sees Brews editing a policy related talk page he calls that "disruption" and goes to the Arbcom enforcement or Clarification page. Some other editors are acting in the same way.
I would say: If Brews is editing a page that you are not involved in then that is none of your business. However, these people got their way and Brews is now not allowed to edit any policy related pages. This is where things stand right now.
I made a compromize proposal to allow Brews to edit physics related pages on his own user space, to be released to Wikipedia after approval, while the topic ban formally stands, so Brews cannot directly edit any physics apges, not even the onces written by him after being released.
see here for details.
Brews has told me that he is willing to edit under such severe restrictions. But it seems that this proposal is falling on deaf ears. It seems that the Arbitrators somehow believe that the current topic ban is the right way to go forward.
This view of the Arbitrators makes me sceptical that they are able to deal with this issue in a pragmatic way. They seem to be so absorbed by Wikipedia's rules that they do not see the engineering professor who could make (and has already made) many valuable contributions to Wikipedia.
Another very negative development is that my efforts have led to attacks on me by Jehochman. This seems to be because I have also defended
User:Likebox, who is an expert in theoretical physics. Like Brews he also caused some trouble. In his case it was pushing his POV on a math topic a bit too hard. To Jehochman, Brews and Likebox are troublemakers who should leave Wikipedia. Anyone who tries to mediate to get unreasonable sentences overturned and tries to get the editors back to editing their topics of interests and expertise are seen to be part of the problem as well. Nothing I wrote to Likebox or Brews suggests that I want to make them cause trouble at all.
This whole negative climate surrounding this case makes it necessary i.m.o. to have some well known Wikipedians like you to be involved in any appeal.
Count Iblis (
talk) 03:28, 28 November 2009 (UTC)
Hi, Durova, I'm little bit unclear whether this image of modern art piece is in PD not. I came across the image by reviewing a DYK hook. The copper art piece produced by Santa Clara del Cobre, a Mexican village is obviously a modern work, but purchased by the writer and nominator Thelmadatter ( talk · contribs). In that case, how do you label its copyright? Is it treated same as copyrighted commercial products with trademark? I think this could not be in PD, but I could be wrong. Your help would be appreciated. Thanks.-- Caspian blue 18:56, 28 November 2009 (UTC)
Could you please give me an opinion on what sort of work should be done to make this image better?-- fetch comms ☛ 21:55, 28 November 2009 (UTC)
Lord Kitchener still lurks here. upstate NYer 01:40, 29 November 2009 (UTC)
Hi. I am contacting you on behalf of the WikiCup judges because you were involved in our previous points polling. Though most of the polls are now closed, we have restarted polls relating to the points value for both valued pictures and in the news entries. You are welcome to submit your votes here; the polls will be closing in a week's time. J Milburn ( talk) 20:02, 29 November 2009 (UTC)
You have double posted here. Nothing urgent, I am sure a clerk will come along in due course if you don't get to it. LessHeard vanU ( talk) 20:42, 29 November 2009 (UTC)
… for taking the time to read that RfC and close it. I appreciate the effort. Deor ( talk) 20:55, 29 November 2009 (UTC)
Would appreciate any input you might have at Wikipedia:Portal peer review/Christmas/archive1. Yeah, it is a bit late for reviews, which I noticed myself, but that portal is probably going to be at its peak viewing around now, so now is probably the time to work hardest to make it good. John Carter ( talk) 16:53, 30 November 2009 (UTC)
Looking through the archives of WP:FSC, I see that you have been known to restore sound files as well as images. Is there anything that can be done with this one, or is it as good/bad as it'll get? In any case, is it worth a run through FSC? No rush to answer. Regards, Bencherlite Talk 21:04, 30 November 2009 (UTC)
I'm writing about how to deal with the talk page edits on Talk:Celestial spheres. Since your closing of the RfC, Logicus has resumed his abrasive editing style on the talk page (which includes arguing OR there, but not in the article).
A slightly involved editor whose opinions I respect told me that an RfC/U would be useless and
The system seems to be well designed to deal with acute problems but is there a way to deal with long term (over two years) chronic, small scale, disruptive editing? (For an example of what I have in mind I've gathered a dossier in a draft RfC). If the advice I received was correct I fear that insofar as "exhausting the patience" is by definition a chronic, not an acute problem, WP:DE has become a dead letter.
I know you have past experience with these issues (including on the abandoned Community sanctions noticeboard) and your advice on the best way to proceed would be most welcome. -- SteveMcCluskey ( talk) 02:48, 1 December 2009 (UTC)
In case you missed it, Logicus has posted a reply for you at Talk:Celestial spheres. -- SteveMcCluskey ( talk) 23:38, 1 December 2009 (UTC)
If you're going to start removing links to sites reposting emails they have received, you're going to have a LOT of links to remove. Was your removal well considered? -- Gmaxwell ( talk) 04:29, 2 December 2009 (UTC)
Hi Durova. I appreciate your refactoring of an unnecessarily provocative thread heading, although I would have preffered it if you would have done it for all of headers in the relevant discussion. :) I've been warned before for trying to lessen drama by doing something like that, but I think good faith and the need to keep things collegial trumps the frantic objections of the paranoid and suspicious. Anyway, I came by to see if you wanted to dig up a photo for this new article which is also a DYK nom. It was in operation in the 1910s and early 1920s. If you have insights, suggestions, or want to do the heavy lifting of finding an old photo for that article I'd appreciate it. I think you pointed me where to look a long time ago, but I forgot. In the interests of elevating focusing my expertise on an appropriate area of specialty, I usually work only on photos post 2004. If you're busy (actually, it's probably fair to assume you're busy) and want to maintain your focus I certainly understand. Cheers. ChildofMidnight ( talk) 21:25, 2 December 2009 (UTC)
This article when I googled Hochman : [19] and the computing company that is mentioned in the article along with what he says about his company made me believe that they were one in the same. Not a Jewish name conspiracy theory.-- Die4Dixie ( talk) 02:36, 3 December 2009 (UTC)
Hi Lise,
Just to let you know that the Featured Picture File:Layla and Majnun2.jpg is due to make an appearance as Picture of the Day on December 4, 2009. If you get a chance, you can check and improve the caption at Template:POTD/2009-12-04. howcheng { chat} 18:18, 3 December 2009 (UTC)
Excuse noise ... Saw your response to SirFozzie at AN, and noted the CSN reference. (Recently learned of WP:PAIN by a similar passing mention). Historical perspective is always good. And dropping by your user page is surely pleasant in that respect. (And beautifully done.) Just holiday drive-by noise, but thank you, Durova — whose username is now invested with meaning. (And, wow!, on that Obama/Durova comparison stat. lol) Cheers. Proofreader77 ( talk) 23:59, 3 December 2009 (UTC)
That diff should be oversighted immediately. It looks like the subsequent one was, but they missed the previous one (with your name in it) as well so you should request it. Radeksz seems to have cut and pasted his entire inbox into the article, and from what I can tell, he merely invited you to join Gmail at some time in the past. Skäpperöd should revert your name from his addition to the evidence page. Viriditas ( talk) 00:06, 4 December 2009 (UTC)
Thought you'd care to see what I'll be working on next. Hoping to use this in White Sea and maybe Northern Dvina River. Looks like it will mainly just be removing smudges, dirt, etc; so maybe I can handle this one on my own :). I've got classes wrapping up in the next couple weeks, so I may be slow, but I'll let you know when I have a decent restoration for you to check out. Jujutacular T · C 00:12, 4 December 2009 (UTC)
Hi Durova, Mickey Mouse may interfere with those plans over yonder about Yeats, in which case you can head over to Wikilivres. It is run by Wikisource folk, and will hopefully morph into Wikisource Canada whenever the Canadian chapter gets off the ground. John Vandenberg ( chat) 08:49, 4 December 2009 (UTC)
No doubt inspired by your awesome WikiCup success, this year's Bacon Challenge event will include a competitive point scoring format. Given the critical importance of this subject matter, I know you will want to participate, so remember to sign up today: Bacon Challenge 2010! ChildofMidnight ( talk) 17:09, 4 December 2009 (UTC)
Hi Lise,
Just to let you know that the Featured Picture File:Military College of Chapultepec2.jpg is due to make an appearance as Picture of the Day on December 5, 2009. If you get a chance, you can check and improve the caption at Template:POTD/2009-12-05. Sorry I didn't get to moving the Layla and Majnun one out from yesterday, but I wasn't clear on the connection to the person you mentioned. howcheng { chat} 19:18, 4 December 2009 (UTC)
I've been stewing in my own juices about something that happened here which oddly made me think about you and our interaction over William S. Saturn's porn star picture on his user page. I've been irritated because someone I'm tangentially in conflict with has made a point of not acknowledging that I, at the very least, acted in good faith when trying to lower the temperature in a confrontation. Eventually our conversation turned (inevitably) to what's wrong with Wikipedia. He stated that one of our biggest problems is that we don't stop trolls or toxic personalities from operating quickly enough. I haven't responded yet, but I've come to the conclusion that the biggest problem we have here is that this community holds grudges (with a hearty dose of drama). I involved myself in the situation because I saw someone whose actions have long irked me try to inflame an already volatile situation. I was holding a grudge against someone I likely will never meet and it lead to a nice amount of conflict with an arbitrator I've never interacted with before. So, how does this apply to you? The grudges the core group of regulars holds make so much noise that we often ignore or push aside really important issues. You raised a valid point about an arguably inappropriate image on an editor's user page, which I dismissed and tried to shut down because I didn't think WP:AN/I was the right forum. To a degree I think I'm right. AN/I is useless when it comes to nuanced situations that require careful consideration. Still, I dismissed a good faith and likely needed discussion, basically saying your concerns didn't need to be heard. I'm sorry. Simple as that. There likely won't be an easy or drama free environment on Wikipedia to discuss sensitive issues that affect minorities on Wikipedia, but should you ever enter into one, I'll gladly take part... and won't dismiss it. Again, my apologies. AniMate 06:07, 5 December 2009 (UTC)
This is the current status of the Guidelines section at WP:NRM. I recall you saying once, a few months ago, that we might need a generic arbitration case for NRMs. Bearing in mind that arbitrations are often very divisive, I wonder if what we really need first of all is a guideline, to provide some general direction in this topic area. I've jotted down a few ideas on Will Beback's talk page. What do you think? Given your involvement with a number of these arbitrations in the past, your input would be of great value. Best, -- JN 466 14:39, 5 December 2009 (UTC)
I would be most grateful if, as I have already requested 3 days ago, you would be so kind as to identify and quote the Wikipedia policy statement that says when somebody challenges an edit as breaching NOR, the burden of proof is on its editor to prove it is not OR rather than on the challenger to prove it is OR.
And is this a policy you approve of ? -- Logicus ( talk) 15:27, 5 December 2009 (UTC)
PS To Durova: You may possibly find my comments to Wilson on 3 December, disabusing him of his error that the Verifiability policy’s perfectly reasonable burden of evidence rule I agree with is also such an utterly unreasonable and indeed outrageous burden of proof rule I strongly disapprove of, helpful in trying to identify any such rule as you allege. And any such rule can only possibly bring Wikipedia into ever greater disrepute in the press than it already is.
(To JN466: Certainly you obviously need to read my comments to Wilson.) -- Logicus ( talk) 15:39, 5 December 2009 (UTC)
I would like this AfD for the Waka Flocka Flame article closed ASAP. This has been open for a week, and a consensus should be determined. Dalekusa ( talk) 00:02, 7 December 2009 (UTC)
I think you missed my "Poke, Poke, Pokemon!" edit summary earlier since the section is so deep in your talk page. Staxringold talk contribs 05:34, 7 December 2009 (UTC)
Why did you change your signature form Charge!! to the number of featured articles/files/etc.? Dalekusa ( talk) 19:51, 7 December 2009 (UTC)
Correct answer gets a cookie. Jehochman Talk 21:41, 7 December 2009 (UTC)
Other options:
5. The amount of people she's trolled, without them realizing it.
6. The number of times she's proposed a feature picture restoration to solve a dispute between editors.
7. The amount of times she's linked me to The Weather in California to make fun of the fact that we actually have winter out here.
8. The number of times she's said "I don't know what you're talking about." when others catch her on point 5. ;)
1. I'm a size four.
5. Should be 373 now?
7. It's actually raining today.
Cheers!
Durova
372 21:59, 7 December 2009 (UTC)
On your new image restoration article, I hope you add your byline, so the reader can tell who "I" refers to? Best regards, -- Ssilvers ( talk) 21:52, 7 December 2009 (UTC)
So all I have to do is get permission? I know that the links no longer work, but I am confused to if I have to find permission from all of them since they are military images, and thus supposedly not copyrighted. Kevin Rutherford ( talk) 00:21, 8 December 2009 (UTC)
On an unrelated note, I might end up having you review some photos that I might nominate for FP. Please notify me when you do that though since I am interested in having the first FP for the Cape known. Kevin Rutherford ( talk) 00:59, 8 December 2009 (UTC)
The first one looks fine to me. I've been busy (and tired), so it wasn't on my mind till last night.Mitch32( A fortune in fabulous articles can be yours!) 10:53, 8 December 2009 (UTC)
Just ask people to unwatch your page :) Equazcion (talk) 17:18, 8 Dec 2009 (UTC)
Durova, I thought the Wikipedians agreed not to take legal action! Why did you call the authorities, as you did on WP:ANI. 7107Lecker Tischgespräch, außerdem... 12:38, 9 December 2009 (UTC)
I have done courses on photoshop, and I will be interested in helping in the restoration of images. However I am not very sure about how to begin or even which image to start with. I will be specially interested in Spanish or science pictures, but I am not very sure on how to find free images. Contact me at my talk page (so I do not watch your talk page :-) if you have any proposals on a restoration.-- Garrondo ( talk) 21:25, 9 December 2009 (UTC)
Hi Lise,
Just to let you know that the Featured Picture File:Shoki2 detail.jpg is due to make an appearance as Picture of the Day on December 10, 2009. If you get a chance, you can check and improve the caption at Template:POTD/2009-12-10. The link to the full-sized image is within the POTD templates. And yes, I just finished this with 35 minutes to spare. :) howcheng { chat} 23:27, 9 December 2009 (UTC)
Your
Featured picture candidate has been promoted Your nomination for
featured picture status,
File:Lincoln conspirators execution2.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.
jjron (
talk) 12:08, 10 December 2009 (UTC)
|
The Sega Dreamcast picture is a Valued picture nominee. Can you please vote on it ASAP (even though it is for Valued Picture)? If you have any questions, respond on my talkpage ASAP Secret Saturdays ( talk to me) 00:08, 11 December 2009 (UTC)
Hello Durova, I'm Hunter Kahn. Our mutual friend Cirt suggested you could help me out with a question I had. I've been working on the article Maurice Clemmons, the suspected shooter in the recent police officer shooting in Washington. I sent a public information request to the Arkansas Parole Board seeking a copy of the one-page proclamation document that Mike Huckabee issued in 2000 that essentially set Clemmons free. They did me one better and sent me all 27-pages worth of clemency/parole-related documents. I now have those on PDF, and I'd like to incorporate them into the Clemmons article. Basically what I'm looking to do is exactly what has been done with this surreply on the article Beck v. Eiland-Hall, which shows an image of one of the PDFs like a picture, then shows the entire document when you click on it. I assume you can do this by uploading it to Wikimedia Commons, but I don't have any idea which license to choose in this case or exactly how to do it. I've asked Cirt since he's the major contributer to that Beck page, but he suggested I ask you. Could you help me out and give me some direction here? Or if not, maybe you could direct me to someone who could help? Thanks so much in advance! — Hunter Kahn ( c) 06:27, 11 December 2009 (UTC)
I never suggested administrators have special powers to set policy. Would you refactor that? Jehochman Talk 11:43, 11 December 2009 (UTC)
Hi there. We've never met, but I stumbled upon your page a while back after clicking through pictures, and that lead me to knowing about Nadezhda Durova. I just used that information in a term paper, and I believe that the random knowledge I gleaned from the article has made it a better paper. Thanks for putting thought into your name, turns out, it's proven highly useful to a complete stranger. Nuclear Lunch Detected Hungry? 19:59, 11 December 2009 (UTC)