User talk:Durova/Archive 62

Hello, Durova, I come to here to ask your help regarding image policies since you're an admins at Commons and your expertise are lied on there. I believe Image:Soju jinro gfdl.jpg is a fair use image even if it which looks seemingly taken by a professional photographer is released by the user. So I think it should be only used for Jinro, the maker and for the specific item. According to the page at Commons, some user transferred from English Wikipedia and the photographer is "Geoff Martin". I just want to clarify the copyright status and how far I can use the image within Wikipedia. Thanks.--Caspian blue (talk) 02:21, 3 September 2008 (UTC)Reply

The uploader probably didn't realize this is a derivative work; the manufacturer owns a copyright on the label. Transwiki to English Wikipedia, request speedy deletion from Commons as copyvio, and use only at the article about that particular brand. Remove GDFL and "Geoff Martin" copyright claim; relabel as copyright fair use and write a nonfree media use rationale. Thank you very much for asking. :) Durova^Charge! 03:40, 3 September 2008 (UTC)Reply

Thank you for the advice and opinion on it. I think I might face a strong resistance from editors if I remove it from soju because the brand dominates South Korean soju (a type of distilled drink) market. I already faced such problem yesterday on a minor article. If you have a time, could you look into this gallery page? commons:Korean_alcoholic_beverages I think some of them are on the verge of "fair use" and "acceptable usage as CC-BY(-SA)". Could you do me a favor one more time? Thanks.--Caspian blue (talk) 19:54, 3 September 2008 (UTC)Reply

Your Featured picture candidate has been promoted Your nomination for featured picture status, Image:Storming the bastille 4.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) 08:47, 3 September 2008 (UTC)Reply

Thank you. :) Durova^Charge! 08:58, 3 September 2008 (UTC)Reply

 

Thank you for donating your time on behalf of women's rights! Next thing you know, we'll be demanding the vote! :) Awadewit (talk) 16:55, 3 September 2008 (UTC)Reply

You're welcome. :) Durova^Charge! 17:03, 3 September 2008 (UTC)Reply

Hi. Thank you for your efforts to improve ethics at Wikipedia. I brought up Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Agapetos angel at http://en.wikiversity.org/w/index.php?title=Ethical_Management_of_the_English_Language_Wikipedia/Moulton,_JWSchmidt%27s_investigation&diff=316468&oldid=316345 . We would love for you to come to our ethics project and add whatever you wish to add. Wikiversity is different from WikiPedia. At wikiversity, there is no 3 revert rule, original research is allowed, and multiple pages presenting different points of view are allowed. But claims should still be backed with evidence. Thanks again. I hope you care to share with us some of your experience and insight. WAS 4.250 (talk) 20:52, 3 September 2008 (UTC)Reply

You're welcome. It's a pleasant surprise to get a message about that old case. Durova^Charge! 20:50, 3 September 2008 (UTC)Reply

Thank you for the invitation. Existing commitments are taking up too much time to branch out in that area. If I may give a slight correction to that summary, I wasn't the one who took that case to ArbCom. I had done some dispute resolution prior to arbitration and given out a barnstar to the editors at a related article. Since my attempt at mediation was cited at RFAR, I got pulled into the case a little bit (although I wasn't a named party). Best regards, Durova^Charge! 21:03, 3 September 2008 (UTC)Reply

Thanks for the correction. Perhaps at some other time you will grace us with your presence there. Take care. WAS 4.250 (talk) 21:59, 3 September 2008 (UTC)Reply

Well, let's just say I don't have the best working relationship with some of the contributors there. I wish you well, but can barely keep up with the tugging at my sleeves that I already get. Best, Durova^Charge! 22:02, 3 September 2008 (UTC)Reply

Per MoS, images can't be left-aligned directly under directly below subsection-level headings, and as the legislative picture was in the way of right-aligning the road sign image, I removed it, as it seems the least relevant. Feel free to revert, though. –Juliancolton ^{Tropical Cyclone} 21:20, 3 September 2008 (UTC)Reply

It's okay I guess. I was hoping to give the article some historic color. That sort of flavor is usually lacking in roads articles. Durova^Charge! 21:27, 3 September 2008 (UTC)Reply

Hmm, that is indeed true. Is this any better? –Juliancolton ^{Tropical Cyclone} 21:30, 3 September 2008 (UTC)Reply

Looks fine by me. :) Durova^Charge! 21:36, 3 September 2008 (UTC)Reply

Certainly; I'd be more than happy to help with any questions/requests. –Juliancolton ^{Tropical Cyclone} 13:24, 4 September 2008 (UTC)Reply

Have you seen the comment at Image talk:Zahadolzhá--Navaho.jpg? I was about to schedule this for POTD but on the assumption that the comment is sincere (and true), it seems like it would culturally insensitive to put this on the Main Page. What do you think? Or do you think you can possibly investigate this some? howcheng {chat} 04:13, 4 September 2008 (UTC)Reply

Thank you very much for asking; I hadn't noticed that note either. Not sure what to make of it so I've left a note asking for advice. Best regards, Durova^Charge! 06:39, 4 September 2008 (UTC)Reply

 

Hi Durova,

Just to let you know that the Featured Picture Image:Ambrose Everett Burnside.jpg is due to make an appearance as Picture of the Day on September 9, 2008. If you get a chance, you can check and improve the caption at Template:POTD/2008-09-09. howcheng {chat} 04:31, 4 September 2008 (UTC)Reply

Thank you as always. :) Durova^Charge! 06:41, 4 September 2008 (UTC)Reply

I wish I'd known you were going back to the original .tif or I'd have offered the interim file sooner. Totally understand how time sets constraints. It's often possible to approach a restoration from more than one valid perspective. Thanks for your work; we'll see how people respond. All the best, Durova^Charge! 01:32, 4 September 2008 (UTC)Reply

Hehe, next time, I'll ask :) I never imagined that you kept the interim versions as separate files. That's good to know. I normally like your restorations 100%, but this one just looked kind of whitewashed on my monitor and the background was distracting, but I think my monitor is calibrated on the bright side. Kaldari (talk) 14:44, 4 September 2008 (UTC)Reply

Can you please comment at this FPC? It is another high quality image of a volcano erupting. Cheers, —Sunday ^Scribe 00:16, 5 September 2008 (UTC)Reply

Looks like it's already getting responses. Durova^Charge! 10:21, 5 September 2008 (UTC)Reply

Your Featured picture candidate has been promoted Your nomination for featured picture status, Image:DefecatingSeagull.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) 08:49, 5 September 2008 (UTC)Reply

PS: time for a new talkpage archive? --jjron (talk) 08:49, 5 September 2008 (UTC)Reply

thank you :) Durova^Charge! 10:22, 5 September 2008 (UTC)Reply

Hey Durova,

In the latest issue of Woman's Day, there are some crochet patterns for cute animals. I saw them and thought of you; I'm sure they wouldn't take you long to make, although perhaps they're not your thing? I started on the super-cute turtle myself; the pattern is easy enough for a knitter, and kind of cheery. :) Willow (talk) 11:49, 5 September 2008 (UTC)Reply

Thank you very much WillowW! Durova^Charge! 18:12, 5 September 2008 (UTC)Reply

A comment from TheBainer at RFAR regarding the Sarah Palin wheel war brought something to mind: he wondered what percentage of the vandalism at that article was coming from non-autoconfirmed editors. At a sufficiently high traffic article it may be possible to estimate that kind of data by bot. I'm thinking not so much to get hard and fast details on the Sarah Palin vandalism, but as a tool to help admins gauge whether to apply semiprotection at BLPs that get a sudden flood of traffic due to real world news. Might help simplify consensus and avoid future wheel wars. If an article gets a minimum threshold of edits within a span of time (perhaps 100 edits in 24 hours), the tool would track bot-reverted vandalism edits and the edit summaries for manual reversions (which would give a rough estimate of who's doing the vandalism), then check to see what percentage of the editors whose contributions had been reverted as vandalism were IPs and non-autoconfirmed users. Don't know whether you have time for this, but you've got a reputation for being good with coding and good with statistical data. Does this sound feasible? Best wishes, Durova^Charge! 04:58, 5 September 2008

Yes we can do a quick statistical look by doing several toolserver queries. DO you have anything specific we should look for? Basically I'm just going to run a count of how many anons and anon editors were reverted. Is there anything more to this? Has an arbitrator asked for anything more specific? I'll be around later today, probably after 2 PM EST.

P.S. Does your request stem from: Note that should this case be accepted, one useful avenue of inquiry for those submitting evidence would be to look into the sources of vandalism to the article, particularly the proportions of vandalism coming from IP editors and non-autoconfirmed accounts on the one hand, and autoconfirmed accounts on the other. I note that some of our more statistically minded editors have taken interest in this request so far, perhaps they would like to assist in this regard. --bainer (talk) 00:21, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

Oh, P.S.S. I'm not likely to check back on this page, as such, please post back on my talk page. If you like, you can copy the conversation over as I did to keep it together. —— nixeagle 14:01, 5 September 2008 (UTC)Reply

Thanks for your swift reply. Let's approach Bainer and see what his ideas are. If we count all reversions then we'll doubtless get a few edits that are POV differences rather than vandal reverts. Yet if we rely on bots, rollback, and "rvv" summaries we'll probably get an undercount. Ideally we might find someone who has enough grounding in statistics to calculate statistical significance thresholds and margins of error. Durova^Charge! 18:38, 5 September 2008 (UTC)Reply

Mmm, alright come back to me when you have a plan for how to do the analysis. As far as overcount and undercount, the best way to do that would probably be to simply show both numbers. I don't think a high degree of precision is required, we are just looking to see if there are alot of anon vandals or not compared to the rest of the article. We could then compare our numbers to some other articles and get an idea of what is "normal" and what is very high. Ie, we could run the same test and get results from a featured articles while they are on the front page to get some datapoints.

What I need to know specifically is what to look for. What numbers do we want? My guess would be both numbers above (all reverts, all reverts the tool thinks is vandalism, total edits in the time period, anything else?) What is listed there I can pull up with a few mysql queries on toolserver. Again I think the most important thing to do is to do the tests on several articles so we have an idea of how to interpret the results. If you have some suggestions for test pages tell me. I'd think a few "today's featured article"s would do well in this regard along with a few articles which have been protected because of anon vandalism and a few that have no vandalism at all. —— nixeagle 19:11, 5 September 2008 (UTC)Reply

P.S. Again, reply on my talk page. Thanks —— nixeagle 19:11, 5 September 2008 (UTC)Reply

A wikipenny for your thoughts on Image:AmericanMarramGrassKohlerAndraeStateParkLakeMichigan.jpg - is it a good idea to nominate this for FP or wouldn't you? Please don't spend much time on it. Royalbroil 18:44, 5 September 2008 (UTC)Reply

One of the first things I do with this type of image is check the file size data. This one reads as follows: 2,304 × 1,728 pixels, file size: 686 KB, MIME type: image/jpeg. Whenever a file has dimensions that large, but a file size less than 1 MB, it's pretty heavily compressed. And it may look fantastic in thumbnail but the FPC regulars are likely to turn it down. There are two ways to work around that. If it's sourced to an online archive, check out the original file. Could be, the uploader compressed it and you can upload the original uncompressed version. If a Wikimedian took the photograph, you could contact them and request a higher resolution shot. If they have one, fantastic. Even if not, it's got to put a smile on the editor's face to see that someone thought their work might be good enough to get featured. Best, Durova^Charge! 19:12, 5 September 2008 (UTC)Reply

Thanks for your honesty! I took the picture and that's the original. My photos are usually more in the 800-900 kb range, so this one must have been compressed more than normal. I'll get a better camera some day. I did see a major quality difference when I borrowed my brother's awesome expensive camera once. I won't spend any more time thinking about FPC, at least until I spend money to buy a better camera. I do need a new camera, as my camera consistently shows dots when I take a picture of a light blue cloudy or hazy sky. It works correctly with any other color. I want a camera that can take better shots of high speed auto racing while zoomed more. I've read a photography book so that I understand what manual settings and options I need to have to get better shots (once I want to spend the money). Royalbroil 19:36, 5 September 2008 (UTC)Reply

Try checking your presets when you save photographs. A lot of people don't realize their software defaults to a compressed .jpg. On good photos you may want to reuse, I recommend saving to .tif format (which is lossless) and when you convert to .jpg for upload make sure you select maximum file size. Also, convert to .jpg as the very last step before uploading in order to minimize artifacting (.jpg overwrites itself and degrades, unless you burn to DVD). Best, Durova^Charge! 19:45, 5 September 2008 (UTC)Reply

Thanks again for the advice. I learned about lossy jpegs, artifacts, advice on converting long term storage to TIFF files, etc. not long ago when I got a degree in Information Technology. My camera is a relatively inexpensive Kodak EasyShare C330 pocket-sized model. It has very limited options and none on file format. Images are set at the maximum number of pixels (4.0 MP). I think I'm pushing my current camera as far as I can. About the only manual adjustments available is ISO. I always avoid digital zooming and stay with optical zooms. I'll get a DSLR camera with my next one and things will improve. Royalbroil 20:07, 5 September 2008 (UTC)Reply

Prompted me to talk to Nixeagle about creating a tool that could help determine whether full protection or semiprotection would be more useful at high traffic articles. Please join our conversation at User_talk:Nixeagle#An_idea. It might help prevent future flareups like the recent wheel war. Durova^Charge! 18:42, 5 September 2008 (UTC)Reply

For starters I suggested comparing rev_len on revisions in order to identify reverts. --bainer (talk) 02:36, 6 September 2008 (UTC)Reply

All these were promoted:

Ludwig van Beethoven's Piano Sonata No. 28 in A major, Op. 101. Performed by Daniel Veesey from Musopen.com.

See also: Beethoven's original sketch of the fourth movement.

Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 08:27, 7 September 2008 (UTC)Reply

Thank you! :) Durova^Charge! 08:30, 7 September 2008 (UTC)Reply

Your Featured picture candidate has been promoted Your nomination for featured picture status, Image:Cowardly lion2.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) 13:26, 8 September 2008 (UTC)Reply

Thank you. :) Durova^Charge! 16:43, 8 September 2008 (UTC)Reply

 

Hi Durova,

Just to let you know that the Featured Picture Image:MarsPanoramaa.jpg is due to make an appearance as Picture of the Day on September 12, 2008. If you get a chance, you can check and improve the caption at Template:POTD/2008-09-12. howcheng {chat} 18:36, 8 September 2008 (UTC)Reply

Thank you very much, as always. :) Durova^Charge! 22:48, 8 September 2008 (UTC)Reply

I see you've been doing quite a bit of work retagging NY route articles. Would you like some help with that? Cheers, –Juliancolton ^{Tropical Cyclone} 22:44, 8 September 2008 (UTC)Reply

Nearly done, actually. If you could help with content work I'd be delighted. :) At the moment just wrapping up the last of these and getting to work on a restoration for the Finger Lakes portal drive. Best, Durova^Charge! 22:48, 8 September 2008 (UTC)Reply

Actually, something comes to mind. I'd like to use more excerpts from that 1839 map of New York highways where it's appropriate. If it's possible to get a list of the highways whose histories go back that far, I could do the edits and insertions at one fell swoop. That might help a variety of them and would save a lot of time to do the image editing as a batch. Best, Durova^Charge! 00:13, 9 September 2008 (UTC)Reply

I'm not sure if it would be possible to get a comprehensive list of such highways, but I could certainly find quite a few. Come to think of it, most state highways were once turnpikes that were alive during that time period, so it shouldn't be hard. This book should be a good starting point. I'll try to throw together a list in due time. –Juliancolton ^{Tropical Cyclone} 00:31, 9 September 2008 (UTC)Reply

Thanks. A batch of about a dozen or so would be great for starters. The Finger Lakes portal drive relates to the New York roads project, so I'm restoring images with an eye toward helping the portal get featured. Best, Durova^Charge! 00:38, 9 September 2008 (UTC)Reply

User:Juliancolton/NY routes is what I made off the top of my head. As for the Finger Lakes portal, I'd be happy to help with that, as well. –Juliancolton ^{Tropical Cyclone} 00:54, 9 September 2008 (UTC)Reply

Looks great! Cirt's leading the portal drive, so ask him if it needs anything. Durova^Charge! 01:01, 9 September 2008 (UTC)Reply

Your Featured picture candidate has been promoted Your nomination for featured picture status, Image:Wawona tree1.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) 08:43, 9 September 2008 (UTC)Reply

Thank you very much. :) Durova^Charge! 08:47, 9 September 2008 (UTC)Reply

Your Featured picture candidate has been promoted Your nomination for featured picture status, Image:Beethoven death mask4.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) 08:48, 9 September 2008 (UTC)Reply

Thank you. Now we have a full set of featured media for Beethoven. :) Durova^Charge! 08:52, 9 September 2008 (UTC)Reply

Durova, please explain to me how specific knowledge of Cirt's previous identities would be harmful. Obviously I know them. Please feel free to respond to by email. I have not yet decided what, if any action, I will take on this but I feel that full disclosure of Cirt's previous identities is important as s/he continues to edit the same articles and is not without blemish in her current incarnation. Thanks. I look forward to your prompt reply as I will want to post in the RfA soon. Please be specific in your reply or ask Cirt to reply as I am far from convinced given what you have already provided (associate harassed at work or some such - I don't see how that is applicable especially as if I know the previous IDs then it can be assumed that other interested parties do, especially as I have mentioned them on a number of occasions here.) --Justallofthem (talk) 20:41, 9 September 2008 (UTC)Reply

I think that's sufficiently explained in my answer to Athenara. Do you have specific concerns beyond that? Durova^Charge! 20:54, 9 September 2008 (UTC)Reply

Yes, I do. So Editor X collaborated with someone. What does that mean? Did they share the Editor X account or did they have separate account but knew each others IRL identity? --Justallofthem (talk) 22:24, 9 September 2008 (UTC)Reply

I have no reason to suppose they operated any role account or otherwise behaved improperly. Wikipedia is a collaborative project and editors work collaboratively whenever they edit the same articles (or at least they try to work in a collaborative spirit). Best, Durova^Charge!

I am trying to understand the specifics of the alleged privacy concern. I did not accuse Cirt of any wrongdoing though I have reason to believe that she did use the prior account in a collaborative manner. Are you willing to explain the concern or do we have to take your word for it? Because I am having a problem seeing just what the concern here is. --Justallofthem (talk) 00:49, 10 September 2008 (UTC)Reply

Well, there are limits to what I'm at liberty to discuss. It's my longstanding belief that ethical decisions where good people disagree belong in the hands of the individuals who live with the consequences. I'd certainly understand if you felt the need to oppose (reasonable adults can disagree respectfully). You may contact Jimbo for confirmaton that a concern existed. Durova^Charge! 01:05, 10 September 2008 (UTC)Reply

... to learn how the data I posted carry a security concern. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 21:17, 9 September 2008 (UTC)Reply

Please refer to my post to Athenara. Durova^Charge! 21:27, 9 September 2008 (UTC)Reply

Link? ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 21:31, 9 September 2008 (UTC)Reply

Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Cirt Durova^Charge! 21:35, 9 September 2008 (UTC)Reply

Yes, I saw that now. As for the request to delete my comments from the article history, I have to admit I have not done that in a long time. Would you do it, please? ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 21:37, 9 September 2008 (UTC)Reply

Never mind User:WBOSITG is already at it. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 21:38, 9 September 2008 (UTC)Reply

These edits have been deleted, but I leave it to you to delete your comments, as I do not know if that all what you wanted. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 21:41, 9 September 2008 (UTC)Reply

(ec, still seems relevant) Yes. :) I really would rather not have drama here (and probably neither would you). If you'd like to do some mutual refactors/strikethroughs, I'll gladly follow yours with my share. Respectfully, Durova^Charge! 21:42, 9 September 2008 (UTC)Reply

Help me out here, Durova. What do I need to refactor? ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 21:44, 9 September 2008 (UTC)Reply

Can I now remove your comments? Or there is anything else that displeases you? ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 22:04, 9 September 2008 (UTC)Reply

looking at the page (we'll sort this out) Durova^Charge! 22:05, 9 September 2008 (UTC)Reply

Okay, my share is gone. I'll leave yours to your discretion. Durova^Charge! 22:07, 9 September 2008 (UTC)Reply

As a somewhat misgiven participant on some of the relevant pages needing a refresher, I wanted to just let you know I appreciated your latest blog thread title. Keep up the good punmanship ;-) Baccyak4H (Yak!) 18:30, 10 September 2008 (UTC)Reply

Thank you. I'll do my best. :) Durova^Charge! 23:56, 10 September 2008 (UTC)Reply

Maybe you could clarify whether your !vote at Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Image:Pigs July 2008-1.jpg is a real support vote, as the condition you placed is unlikely to be met and seems mostly humorous. There has been no activity on the discussion for three days, and your clarification may enable the nom to be closed. Thank you. Papa Lima Whiskey (talk) 08:34, 12 September 2008 (UTC)Reply

Unlikely to be possible to meet either, unless pigs grow opposable thumbs (I hear tell they occasionally grow wings). Thanks for asking; I've clarified at the discussion. Best wishes, Durova^Charge! 08:39, 12 September 2008 (UTC)Reply

Thank you very much. :) Durova^Charge! 09:55, 12 September 2008 (UTC)Reply

Your post on AN (Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard#Motion_to_close) and extension of the Privatemusings mentorship is causing a bit of confusion. Clarify? - auburnpilot talk 23:16, 12 September 2008 (UTC)Reply

Handled. Durova^Charge! 01:17, 13 September 2008 (UTC)Reply

Request for clarification - amendment Best, NonvocalScream (talk) 01:23, 13 September 2008 (UTC)Reply

Thank you. Durova^Charge! 01:31, 13 September 2008 (UTC)Reply

Image:MSH82 st helens spirit lake reflection 05-19-82.jpg? Crop or edit. —Sunday ^Note 12:28, 13 September 2008 (UTC)Reply

Ooh, gorgeous. Both, actually: too much foreground and slightly unsharp. But don't waste time on that heavily compressed upload. There's a magnificent 48MB .tif at the original site. Great find! Best, Durova^Charge! 17:21, 13 September 2008 (UTC)Reply

Hmm. Fir doesn't seem to agree. —§unday His Grandiloquence 02:31, 14 September 2008 (UTC)Reply

What about this one? You like? —§unday His Grandiloquence 02:33, 14 September 2008 (UTC)Reply

I agree with his assessment. On the whole, his makes a better candidate. Be sure to have a look over the current FPs though. We've already got at least one about that volcano. Durova^Charge! 02:42, 14 September 2008 (UTC)Reply

Which one? —§unday His Grandiloquence 14:32, 14 September 2008 (UTC)Reply

This has the clearest depiction of volcanic activity. Durova^Charge! 08:24, 15 September 2008 (UTC)Reply

Your Featured picture candidate has been promoted Your nomination for featured picture status, Image:Niagara rail 2.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 04:41, 14 September 2008 (UTC)Reply

Thank you. :) Durova^Charge! 05:17, 14 September 2008 (UTC)Reply

This is nice. And the attractive layout and illustration seem familiar from other fabric articles. I have the feeling that this is because they are characteristic of your article writing? 86.44.16.18 (talk) 05:58, 14 September 2008 (UTC)Reply

Thank you very much. We had a few good images of completed sprang, but nothing that demonstrated the construction method. So I made one up on a lap frame. I've done that sort of work where needed for other textile articles. Some more ambitious examples are at smocking and bead crochet. Best, Durova^Charge! 06:41, 14 September 2008 (UTC)Reply

Ah yes. I also note the colourful Crochet thread and Stitch marker's colourful ref! 86.44.16.18 (talk) 07:29, 14 September 2008 (UTC)Reply

Thank you. :) Durova^Charge! 07:45, 14 September 2008 (UTC)Reply

Durova I was looking to see if you would help me with something. I'm a physics student in college and I was looking to find Einstein's original Annus Mirabilis Papers that revolutionized physics. However I'm unsure where that would fall under copyright policy. The papers were published in 1905 so would that be PD under the 100 year copyright policy? I'll try finding the original papers and post a link to where i got them from in case that is also important to the copyright of the papers. Thanks. Victorrocha (talk) 08:17, 15 September 2008 (UTC)Reply

Those papers were published in Annalen der Physik, which I believe falls under German copyright law? Einstein passed away in 1955, so under the life +70 rule those papers wouldn't have entered the public domain yet. Durova^Charge! 08:22, 15 September 2008 (UTC)Reply

Durova, thanks for nominating Cirt for the mop, and for trying to fly ahead of some controversy that may, unfortunately, have been inevitable. I wish I'd noticed the nom -- Cirt has been incredibly helpful to us at WikiProject Oregon, and has exhibited the skills and temperament that make for an excellent admin. Hope all's well with you! -Pete (talk) 21:38, 15 September 2008 (UTC)Reply

Thank you, Pete. I did my utmost to keep it a clean RFA and am very pleased the community chose to tust him. Most of all, though, it was Cirt's accomplishment. I don't know where he found the inspiration to go from edit warrior to sterling editor, but if I find that magic spring I'll be sure to bottle that stuff and share it. All the best, Durova^Charge! 21:50, 15 September 2008 (UTC)Reply

The September 2008 Military history WikiProject coordinator election has begun. We will be selecting nine coordinators to serve for the next six months from a pool of fourteen candidates. Please vote here by September 30!
This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 21:49, 15 September 2008 (UTC)Reply

Thank you for supporting me in my RfA, which passed with a count of (166/43/7). I appreciate your comments and in my actions as an administrator I will endeavor to maintain the trust you have placed in me. I am honored by your trust and your support. -- Durova, thank you so very much for your kind words, your patience, your respect, and your wisdom. Thank you, Cirt (talk) 01:48, 16 September 2008 (UTC)Reply

You earned it. May you use the tools well. Durova^Charge! 02:26, 16 September 2008 (UTC)Reply

Congrats! Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 05:46, 16 September 2008 (UTC)Reply

Thank you very much. :) I'll have to get another one going. Durova^Charge! 16:04, 16 September 2008 (UTC)Reply

It's the little things that count. How could you have possibly known? XF Law (talk) 00:03, 17 September 2008 (UTC)Reply

Oh dear...I was wondering if that would come up. Rofl... :) Durova^Charge! 00:08, 17 September 2008 (UTC)Reply

I felt obligated to bring it up. I'm off to P-chop a monkey's uncle and a three-dollar bill, just in case... XF Law (talk) 00:15, 17 September 2008 (UTC)Reply

Congrats! Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 01:03, 17 September 2008 (UTC)Reply

Thank you. :) Durova^Charge! 01:12, 17 September 2008 (UTC)Reply

The prose (example numbers) no longer make sense around the deleted image.[1] SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:37, 17 September 2008 (UTC)Reply

Probably the latter image and the related text should be deleted also. There's been a change in Russian copyright law. Thank you for the heads up. Durova^Charge! 04:15, 17 September 2008 (UTC)Reply

ah. Darn, that was a great example; thanks for fixing. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 04:34, 17 September 2008 (UTC)Reply

I hope someday we find another half as good. :) Best, Durova^Charge! 05:15, 17 September 2008 (UTC)Reply

On 17 September, 2008, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Sprang, which you created or substantially expanded. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

--BorgQueen (talk) 03:15, 17 September 2008 (UTC)Reply

Thank you. :) Durova^Charge! 04:12, 17 September 2008 (UTC)Reply

I have reviewed this article in accordance with the GA criteria, and have found it satisfactory. However, a few small adjustments and perhaps a slight expansion would greatly improve the articles chance of making it as a GA. Please see the talk page for my review. Thanks, --Jordan ^Contribs 14:08, 17 September 2008 (UTC)Reply

Thanks; will do. :) Durova^Charge! 16:48, 17 September 2008 (UTC)Reply

I have cleared up some of my comments, and made some suggestions. I have transcluded the page here for greater ease of access. --Jordan ^Contribs 17:49, 17 September 2008 (UTC)Reply

Commented there about WP:LEADCITE and citing format examples. Cirt (talk) 22:45, 17 September 2008 (UTC)Reply

This review is transcluded from Talk:Sprang/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

A good article, but a few improvements could be made. More references and inline citations would be great, especially in the lead section. NPOV: no problems here. The article is also stable. Though the article is short, it is concise. It sticks to the topic, while giving useful facts to keep the reader interested. All-in-all, a satisfactory article, yet one that will require some work before being passed as a GA. --Jordan ^Contribs 13:59, 17 September 2008 (UTC)Reply

Hi and thanks for the feedback. I checked with a couple of editors who have over 100 GAs between and was specifically recommended to avoid citations in the lead--as long as the information is cited in the main body of the article. That's what I believe I've done here, although any specific omissions I'd be glad to address immediately (after reading the same paragraph 20 times it gets tricky to spot these things on one's own). Regarding the rest, I've been a little old fashioned I guess in that I've followed the convention that if sentences 1, 2, and 3 of a paragraph all derive from the same source then one puts the citation at the end of sentence 3. Over at FAC some of the editors have taken to citing every single sentence despite the redundancy. Is that what you want here? Every line is already sourced--the only difference is what convention. Thank you again for your review and please clarify. Best, Durova^Charge! 16:57, 17 September 2008 (UTC)Reply

I was not aware of the "citations in the lead section" point. I think I might have to brush up on my knowledge of the finer points of the manual of style. If the reference style is fine, then you need not worry. The information is thoroughly referenced, and all the sources are valid.It's a shame there is no online resource provided for World Textiles: A Visual Guide to Traditional by John Gillow and Bryan Sentance. I looked for a PDF file, but was unable to find one. I would have been quite interested to look into that.

• There is just one sentence I would like you to clarify: it seems a bit jumbled. "Fiber manipulation is done with the fibers with the fingers, also using one or more rods to prevent unraveling." If you could fix the sentence a bit? Thanks, --Jordan ^Contribs 17:37, 17 September 2008 (UTC)Reply

It's a beautiful book if you happen to find it, and pretty good for filling in some of the gaps and expanding the substubs in our textile arts articles. I'll see what else I can do to clarify the technique section. It's the sort of area where someone who knows the field and is experienced with related media gets to a certain point and thinks Aha! I see how they did this and it's obvious why it's nearly obsolete. Created the demonstration on the loom to help convey that, but you're very right--the text itself could do better. I'll be right on that in a few hours. Thanks again. Durova^Charge! 18:43, 17 September 2008 (UTC)Reply

The relevant info regarding the lead/intro is at WP:LEADCITE. Generally if the same info is cited to WP:RS/WP:V sources later in the body of the article, it is redundant and unnecessary to cite the same info in the lead. Cirt (talk) 21:38, 17 September 2008 (UTC)Reply

See the WP:FA The General in His Labyrinth for an example of a nice way to cite using "notes", and then include the full reference in a references section. This article is shorter so it would be easier to reformat it that way. Cirt (talk) 21:41, 17 September 2008 (UTC)Reply

Have obtained a copy of 'The Techniques of Sprang' by Peter Collingwood, which is the definitive reference work on this topic and (sadly) is long out of print and used booksellers charge an arm and a leg for it. Will be expanding the article with information primarily from Collingwood. Citations will follow. Skrydstrup (talk) 17:56, 27 September 2016 (UTC)Reply

A New Voice Enters, Sept 2017

I also have and study the Collingwood book, and am also a student of modern Sprang scholar and technique revivalist Carol James, whose works on sprang are in print: ^{[1] [2]} RuTemple (talk) 01:15, 13 September 2017 (UTC) I would like to clarify and add some information to the Sprang article, and append a draft as follows:Reply

During the late Eighteenth and early Nineteenth Centuries a military fashion of decorative sprang sashes in silk known as faja in Spain gained international popularity among ranking military and distinguished civilians, the fashion spreading to northern Europe and to North America. A sprang sash worn baldrick style diagonally across from the shoulder was a distinguishing ornament of rank on the battlefield. Major General Edward Braddock was carried mortally wounded from the battlefield on his sprang sash as a stretcher, and was said to have passed this sash to George Washington who kept and used it for the remainder of his life. ^[3] The red silk Braddock Sash is held at George Washington’s Mount Vernon^[4], and has been replicated for the museum by modern sprang scholar and artist Carol James.^[5]

Some of my questions include whether video and website references may be used in citation. If no, Carol's article ^[6] may well suffice, as it includes snippets of her recreation-in-progress at the time of the Braddock Sash for Mount Vernon (photos in the article of the work in red silk).

There is, notably, a pre-Columbian sprang shirt found in Arizona, dated 700 - 1200 C.E., held by the Arizona State Museum, and whose commissioned reproduction is detailed in articles in PLY Magazine ^[7], and in Ms. James' keynote presentation to the Braids 2016 international conference ^[8] (clearly this portion is not-yet-formatted sandboxing).

I'm a long-time technical, format and style, and pre-press editor of academic dissertations, and a fiber artist interested in complex braiding and narrow wares, and would like to bring this background to strengthening Wikipedia's textile coverage. I hope to collaborate and seek advice, and will now apply myself to a close perusal of the Wikipedia:Manual of Style.

RuTemple (talk) 00:04, 13 September 2017 (UTC)Reply

Re his sockpuppet User:ShadowVsScientology - its well funny how the bloke commences to answering (and oh so vanilla) my recent talkpage edits just after I raised a Neutral with User:Cirt on her recent RfA. See Talk:Thunderbirds (TV series) for an e.g. Luv 17:31, 17 September 2008 (UTC)Reply

I've been a bit concerned by that person's participation. Do you think he's reachable? I almost tried, but the username impressed me as someone who doesn't take this project seriously at all. Durova^Charge! 22:37, 17 September 2008 (UTC)Reply

On 17 September, 2008, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Le trompeur trompé , which you created or substantially expanded. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

All the Best, --Mifter (talk) 00:22, 18 September 2008 (UTC)Reply

Thank you. :) Durova^Charge! 00:23, 18 September 2008 (UTC)Reply

This article has passed its GA review, and has been listed as a "Arts and architecture" GA. Great job: keep up the good work. If you need anything else reviewed, just contact me on my talk page. I'll also see if I can get my hands on that book of textile art. It looks quite interesting. Cheers, --Jordan ^Contribs 07:49, 18 September 2008 (UTC)Reply

Thank you very much for all your help. :) Durova^Charge! 08:05, 18 September 2008 (UTC)Reply

Can you fix up the description on WP:FS? It could use the full name of the composer, and the performer. Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 08:45, 18 September 2008 (UTC)Reply

Ooh, pretty template! Puts featured sounds on a footing with the rest of featured content. I'll see what I can do about the description. Thanks again. :) Durova^Charge! 08:56, 18 September 2008 (UTC)Reply

Hi Durova. I don't know if you've kept up with the discussion at WT:USRD, but I know you and Mitch talked quite a bit about the splitting of NYSR from USRD. As NYSR has gained nothing from the split, yet lost access to USRD's luxuries and services, I proposed the projects be re-merged at WT:USRD and WT:NYSR. As I know you've discussed the matter with Mitch quite a bit, would you mind giving your opinion regarding the matter? Thanks, –Juliancolton ^{Tropical Cyclone} 21:06, 18 September 2008 (UTC)Reply

Thank you for the heads up. I'm really more interested in the content side of things. As you may have noticed, I haven't actually joined either project so I don't think it would be quite appropriate to vote on a project level issue right now. Best, Durova^Charge! 22:15, 18 September 2008 (UTC)Reply

USA is free.  ;) weburiedoursecretsinthegarden 22:45, 18 September 2008 (UTC)Reply

Oh, ha. I just left RyRy the same message. (He told me on IRC that he wanted the USA). I guess first to get there gets it. ;) iMatthew (talk) 22:48, 18 September 2008 (UTC)Reply

It's okay. I'll represent for Mexico. :) Durova^Charge! 23:04, 18 September 2008 (UTC)Reply

Your Featured picture candidate has been promoted Your nomination for featured picture status, Image:Ijazah3.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 05:10, 19 September 2008 (UTC)Reply

Thank you. :) Durova^Charge! 05:49, 19 September 2008 (UTC)Reply

On a FPT page you said "The city was under martial law at the time and law enforcement was shooting (with bullets) at people they caught taking pictures." Do you have a source for this? There is currently a discussion on Talk:Hurricane Ike about the ongoing media blackout in Galveston and this would provide some great historical perspective. Plasticup ^T/C 01:44, 20 September 2008 (UTC)Reply

See the Library of Congress bibliographic data linked from the image upload page. It's noted there. Durova^Charge! 02:27, 20 September 2008 (UTC)Reply

how do i put forword may self to become an adminstraters because i cant work out how to add myself ono the page were you can become a hopeful

please help me! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Chloe2kaii7 (talk • contribs) 10:39, 20 September 2008 (UTC)Reply

Well, the page where you'd do this is WP:RFA. I suggest you get more experience first. Durova^Charge! 17:05, 20 September 2008 (UTC)Reply

Would you mind commenting at my editor review? —§unday {Q} 15:08, 20 September 2008 (UTC)Reply

I usually like to work with an editor firsthand before forming an opinion about whether they're cut out for adminship. I know nothing negative about you, but then I haven't seen much of your work either. Durova^Charge! 17:20, 20 September 2008 (UTC)Reply

On 20 September, 2008, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article State highways in Hamilton County, New York, which you created or substantially expanded. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

--BorgQueen (talk) 19:26, 20 September 2008 (UTC)Reply

Thank you. :) Durova^Charge! 19:36, 20 September 2008 (UTC)Reply

Hello Durova. Sure, I'll help in whatever I can. May I know what file is it? Regards, Húsönd 20:45, 20 September 2008 (UTC)Reply

Thanks. Do you need me to translate the info in Portuguese? Regards, Húsönd 20:57, 20 September 2008 (UTC)Reply

That'd help. :) Durova^Charge! 20:59, 20 September 2008 (UTC)Reply

Okay. I got some friends dropping in for coffee now, but I'll get back to it soon. Regards, Húsönd 21:31, 20 September 2008 (UTC)Reply

Thanks. :) Durova^Charge! 21:35, 20 September 2008 (UTC)Reply

Here goes:

Note on author rights:

http://www.dominiopublico.gov.br/PoliticaDoAcervo/PoliticaDoAcervo.jsp

"The contents available for consultation on this website (http://www.dominiopublico.gov.br) are composed, in its majority, by works that belong to the public domain or works that carry the respective license by the holders of the pending authorial rights.

The recent change brought to the legislation that deals with authorial rights in Brazil (Law no. 9.610, of February 19, 1998; which voided Law no. 5.988, of December 14, 1973), which changed the period of validity of authorial rights; as well as the different legislations that regulate the authorial rights of other countries; brings some difficulties in the verification of the precise period after which a work is considered as within the public domain. The Public Domain portal has strived for no authorial rights to be violated. However, if a file is found as violating, for any reason, authorial rights of translation, version, exhibition, reproduction, or any others, click here and inform the Public Domain portal team so that the situation may be immediately regularized".

I hope this helps. :-) If more assistance is needed, you know how to reach me. Regards, Húsönd 00:59, 21 September 2008 (UTC)Reply

I've searched the website and could not find any information on where exactly took place the performance (yet it most likely was in Belo Horizonte). No exact date is provided, but it occurred in 1999. I think I might send them an e-mail tomorrow and ask the needed info. Regards, Húsönd 03:09, 21 September 2008 (UTC)Reply

Your Featured picture candidate has been promoted Your nomination for featured picture status, Image:Red Jacket 2.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 07:32, 21 September 2008 (UTC)Reply

Thank you. :) Durova^Charge! 07:41, 21 September 2008 (UTC)Reply

I think it would be better if someone went to their local pig farm, put a heavy coat of lipstick on a pig, and took a picture. The photoshopping looks, well, eye-rollingly amateur (as you point out, intentionally so). Still, it hardly matters. I just put my two cents in there. Don't really care one way or another at the end of the day. ScienceApologist (talk) 14:56, 22 September 2008 (UTC)Reply

On 23 September, 2008, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article I Want to Go Back to Michigan, which you created or substantially expanded. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

--Jordan ^Contribs 12:19, 23 September 2008 (UTC)Reply

Thank you. :) Durova^Charge! 17:31, 23 September 2008 (UTC)Reply

You are the resident expert on US government PD images - do you think images on this website http://www.whitemoldresearch.com/ which is run by the USDA (Agricultural Research Service) are PD? Was hoping to use one or more in an article about sclerotinia. Viridae^Talk 05:52, 24 September 2008 (UTC)Reply

I get this from their home page: This consortium of federal and state university scientists includes 10 land grant universities and five crop commodity groups, and is led by the Agricultural Research Service, the USDA’s chief scientific research agency. Suggest you contact them and ask whether their federal funding arrangement requires that their work be public domain. Durova^Charge!

As I admit, I was not active during CSN's days and based on the general knee-jerk reactions of people, have tried to distance my idea from it. I have researched it in detail and since you asked, presented the details in a chart at User_talk:MBisanz/RfBan#CSN.3F. Since you did have a great deal of experience with CSN and do have experience in AN/ANI/etc, I would appreciate any help you could give in forming this concept. MBisanz ^talk 15:54, 24 September 2008 (UTC)Reply

Thanks. :) I'll have a look there soon. Durova^Charge! 16:35, 24 September 2008 (UTC)Reply

 

I too had looked for good (well, high-quality) images of segregation in the United States before and hadn't found much. Today though I went hunting again and came across this. What do you think? It needs perspective correction (if we're in the business of doing that with historic photos), but otherwise is in good shape. Does wikipedia have room for two FPs of this subject? Calliopejen1 (talk) 22:10, 24 September 2008 (UTC)Reply

If this one is used to illustrate an article on the history of cinema in the United States, it could be a good candidate. Perspective correction isn't my strong point. I'd suggest working from the full 30MB file with a bit of clockwise rotation and cropping, then uploading without compression. Best, Durova^Charge! 22:29, 24 September 2008 (UTC)Reply

I have nominated Category:Songs by Shelton Brooks (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) for renaming to Category:Songs written by Shelton Brooks (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs). Your opinions on the matter are welcome; please participate in the discussion by adding your comments at the discussion page. Thank you. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP)} 23:41, 24 September 2008 (UTC)Reply

Thanks for your help and apologies for any trouble it caused. I've been cleaning up the chaos of early twentieth century popular music and filled in some existing redlinks. Hadn't realized those were incorrectly named (more attention went into extracting large numbers of copyvios). The articles had been cited to Angelfire, MySpace, and even Boy Scout Troop 92--the source looked like it had been constructed by someone who was trying to earn a merit badge. So it shouldn't be surprising that the articles were also noncompliant with MOS. Sorry I didn't think of it myself. Best, Durova^Charge! 00:06, 25 September 2008 (UTC)Reply

Your Featured picture candidate has been promoted Your nomination for featured picture status, Image:Gerald Ford hearing2.jpg, gained a consensus of support, and has been promoted. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates. MER-C 06:54, 26 September 2008 (UTC)Reply

Thank you. :) Durova^Charge! 08:18, 26 September 2008 (UTC)Reply

On 26 September, 2008, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Huletts Landing, New York, which you created or substantially expanded. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

--Jordan ^Contribs 08:06, 26 September 2008 (UTC)Reply

Thank you. Durova^Charge! 08:18, 26 September 2008 (UTC)Reply

I have nominated [[Image:Wu Tingfang1.jpg]] as a FP. Thought you might want to know. See Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Wu Tingfang. Jordan ^Contribs 18:24, 26 September 2008 (UTC)Reply

Also see this. Thanks, Jordan ^Contribs 18:31, 26 September 2008 (UTC)Reply

Thanks for the heads up. We already have some Bouguereau FPs, though. I don't think the size and resolution on that one will be enough to make it. Durova^Charge! 19:07, 26 September 2008 (UTC)Reply

Is the link on this page still the correct way of joining the chat? Gary King (talk) 20:13, 26 September 2008 (UTC)Reply

If you have trouble getting in that way, e-mail me and I'll get you in. Best, Durova^Charge! 20:14, 26 September 2008 (UTC)Reply

The room is empty right now. Are you currently in there? Gary King (talk) 20:16, 26 September 2008 (UTC)Reply

I think you've gone to the vestibule. We have a couple of people who man the vestibule but they aren't online right now. E-mail me your Skype ID please and I'll add you to contacts and bring you in directly. Durova^Charge! 20:17, 26 September 2008 (UTC)Reply

Sent Gary King (talk) 20:18, 26 September 2008 (UTC)Reply

On 27 September, 2008, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article That Mysterious Rag, which you created or substantially expanded. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

Congratulations, and thank you for your contributions! -- RyRy (talk) 05:45, 27 September 2008 (UTC)Reply

Thank you. :) Durova^Charge! 05:47, 27 September 2008 (UTC)Reply

You're welcome, Durova. Nice touch with a song along with the hook by the way. :) We don't get something like that very often. Now readers can actually hear the song of the hook! -- RyRy (talk) 05:51, 27 September 2008 (UTC)Reply

Shoemaker's Holiday deserves credit for the template. He's been doing fantastic work with historic music. Best, Durova^Charge! 05:53, 27 September 2008 (UTC)Reply

Hi, thanks! That will be my first DYK ever. If you take a look at my user page you will see the types of articles I usually edit; today's article was quite different from what I normally work on. It was certainly interesting, though! Gary King (talk) 06:29, 27 September 2008 (UTC)Reply

Impressive work you've done! I was looking through Commons files the other day and noticed some good recordings of "O Canada". It'd be really good to nominate one of them for featured sound, but I'm not sure which is most appropriate. Would you help with selection? Best, Durova^Charge! 06:33, 27 September 2008 (UTC)Reply

I haven't touched Featured Sound, Featured Picture, or Featured Portal yet, and I try not to. I'd probably get sucked in pretty quickly if I started down that path, and plus, it's tough learning the criteria for each one at the beginning. I looked at some of the versions of "O Canada" that they had but wouldn't know which one is featured quality. If you guys ever want to collaborate on another article, though, then I'm in; perhaps we could work on a classical music composition instead next time? Gary King (talk) 06:40, 27 September 2008 (UTC)Reply

I would absolutely love to work on classical music with you. Next time you're on Skype I'll show you a jaw-dropping archive: digitized compositions from the great composers in their own handwritten manuscripts. Let's pick something and go to work. :) Durova^Charge! 06:44, 27 September 2008 (UTC)Reply

Alright; I'm more interested in building articles to GA or FA rather than just DYK. I worked on Mozart and Beethoven briefly before, but those are probably projects that would take quite a bit of time to complete. Gary King (talk) 06:48, 27 September 2008 (UTC)Reply

 

Funny you should mention them. With the new media restoration project I recently worked on Beethoven's manuscript sketch for movement IV of Piano Sonata No. 28. The same archive has a few of Mozart's handwritten scores and also Beethoven's handwritten and signed notes from listening to Don Giovanni. I wish I knew an encyclopedic use for that. Durova^Charge! 06:56, 27 September 2008 (UTC)Reply

How are NTWW sessions usually scheduled? I'm guessing that someone just proposes a date and topic and then it moves on from there, each time? Gary King (talk) 00:11, 28 September 2008 (UTC)Reply

(outdent) Pretty much. Our regulars are from North America, Europe, and Australia. So any spot on the clock gets two but not all three. That's one reason we switch it around. Durova^Charge! 00:13, 28 September 2008 (UTC)Reply

Your advice is appreciated, though I hesitate to debate you because I feel like my foil is much shorter than yours. Jehochman ^Talk 20:43, 27 September 2008 (UTC)Reply

No foil needed, and if one appeared to be there... (Wiki Witch looks at own broomstick and scolds a naughty flying monkey that's chuckling in the corner. Drops some toad juice on the "foil" and it returns to its natural shape.) Seriously, I agree with you completely that disruptive editors shouldn't be allowed to play the "You said no to me so now you're involved and you need to go away" game, it's equally important to be prudent about the timing. The path of greatest credibility is to let the community examine the matter while striving to keep the waters as clear as possible. Durova^Charge! 21:00, 27 September 2008 (UTC)Reply

Could you please look at this thread? Thanks, ~ Troy (talk) 21:07, 27 September 2008 (UTC)Reply

Using popups to revert someone isn't the best idea. Have you gone to dispute resolution? A content request for comment on the article might bring in some fresh opinions and clear the air. Best wishes, Durova^Charge! 21:16, 27 September 2008 (UTC)Reply

Oh crap. I broke the 3rr :/ what do I do? I already discussed it with that user, and he/she keeps typing with exclamation marks and all caps, mindlessly reverting the references and saying that they are "broken links". How many frickin' hours does it take? ~ Troy (talk) 21:22, 27 September 2008 (UTC)Reply

Suggest you post an admission of your 3RR violation to ANI, along with a promise not to repeat it and to enter regular dispute resolution instead. Durova^Charge! 21:24, 27 September 2008 (UTC)Reply

Thanks. I'll turn myself in. ~ Troy (talk) 21:25, 27 September 2008 (UTC)Reply

They're usually understanding when you're mature about it. Best, Durova^Charge! 21:29, 27 September 2008 (UTC)Reply

  Ouch! You've used a template to send a message to an experienced editor. Please review the essay Wikipedia:Don't template the regulars or maybe listen to a little advice. Doesn't this feel cold, impersonal, and canned? It's meant in good humour. Best wishes. User:Durova (talk) 01:51, 19 October 2017 (UTC)Reply

Xavexgoem (talk) 22:23, 27 September 2008 (UTC)Reply 

Whee! :) Thanks much. Durova^Charge! 23:49, 27 September 2008 (UTC)Reply

Hello, you are receiving this message because you voted in the last FAC for this article. Currently, it is undergoing a peer review and I invite you to come view the page and offer any suggestions for improvement here [2]. Over the past three months, the page has been improved with additional scholarly works, trims, two new sections suggested in and attention to concerns raised during the last FAC. Thanks in advance for your time, attention and help to bring this important article to FA. NancyHeise ^talk 23:54, 27 September 2008 (UTC)Reply

Hi there, I saw you were involved with WP:WPMR, but was left rather confused as to where to put proposals or requests, and so have decided instead to play it safe and message you with my request. It is this: would you be able to restore the quality of Image:Toreador song.ogg, namely by removing the background noise and static that is in the file?

Thanks in advance.

It Is Me Here (talk) 11:12, 28 September 2008 (UTC)Reply

Wonderful find! WPMR runs a mentorship service instead of a requests service. I suggest you post to the project talk page if you're interested in restoring the file, and one of our volunteers who works with sound will give you coaching. Maybe (if you're really lucky) one will fall in love with the file and restore it for you, but I can't make any promises--we've usually got more than we have time to do. Best, Durova^Charge! 11:39, 28 September 2008 (UTC)Reply

Well, OK, I'm glad you like the sound file, and I'll add a post at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Media Restoration, but I don't see how I'd be able to restore anything myself as I don't have any appropriate software (and will only get some if it's freeware - I don't want to spend any money on this venture; I hope you don't mind!). It Is Me Here (talk) 13:41, 28 September 2008 (UTC)Reply

There's freeware available. Try Audacity. :) Durova^Charge! 17:19, 28 September 2008 (UTC)Reply

Ooh, very nice program - thanks a lot! It Is Me Here (talk) 18:40, 29 September 2008 (UTC)Reply

Just doing my "job" on NPP, and the original was without much content or context (in retrospect, I probably should have prodded instead). --Orange Mike | Talk 18:21, 28 September 2008 (UTC)Reply

Unfortunately Wikipedia's coverage of ragtime is so weak that a moment like this is understandable. If the first post had been "X" is a blues song by Muddy Waters or "Y" is a country song by Loretta Lynn, would it have fared better? Durova^Charge! 18:24, 28 September 2008 (UTC)Reply

Not sure, to be honest. A lot of songs get in here that don't really qualify as notable, just because the singer is notable. --Orange Mike | Talk 18:48, 28 September 2008 (UTC)Reply

Not to horn in on a conversation that's not really mine, but I came here to say essentially the same thing. If the article had stated that it was second in sales and considered a landmark in the first revision, it probably wouldn't have been deleted. Just my thoughts as a rank-and-file editor. Keep up the good work! shoy (reactions) 04:03, 29 September 2008 (UTC)Reply

Thank you. If you listen to the recording I was hoping someone else would make the first edit. My hands were already full with hosting the audio, etc. so I wrote less than usual. Still, the initial edit note promised more material soon and before the speedy tag went onto it I did post four reliable sources to the talk page. Durova^Charge! 04:12, 29 September 2008 (UTC)Reply

I wonder if you could resize the main image so the infobox doesn't carry over into the biography section? Ottre 07:52, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

That looks to be a template issue. It's actually larger in the template than it is on the hosting page. If you have an alternate portrait with proportions that are closer to square then the issue should resolve itself. The system is probably sizing the thing based upon an expected number of horizontal pixels; the proportions are throwing it off. Best wishes, Durova^Charge! 07:57, 29 September 2008 (UTC)Reply

There's nothing I can do to compensate for it. I just messed up the output levels. Ottre 08:41, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

It's an aspect ratio issue. The two viable solutions would be to locate another portrait or design a second template. Durova^Charge! 16:37, 29 September 2008 (UTC)Reply

 

Hi Durova,

Just to let you know that the Featured Picture Image:17th century Central Tibeten thanka of Guhyasamaja Akshobhyavajra, Rubin Museum of Art.jpg is due to make an appearance as Picture of the Day on October 1, 2008. If you get a chance, you can check and improve the caption at Template:POTD/2008-10-01. howcheng {chat} 16:07, 29 September 2008 (UTC)Reply

P.S. Image:SteamboatBenCampbellb.jpg is scheduled for October 4. howcheng {chat} 16:31, 29 September 2008 (UTC)Reply

Thank you as always. :) Durova^Charge! 16:37, 29 September 2008 (UTC)Reply

The thread you started links to a 2006 community ban discussion. The community wasn't doing topic bans yet in 2006; do you suppose a topic ban would work in this instance as an alternative to a full siteban? The editor is prolific and appears to doing good work outside of the hot button area. Durova^Charge! 06:05, 30 September 2008 (UTC)Reply

Sure. That is in fact my position -- including during 2006 (see the 2006 poll). My AN thread title talks about a "serious topic ban/ban" in case others see problems in other areas.

That being said, I'd not support a topic ban with an appeal option. That happened before. -- fayssal - wiki up^® 15:00, 30 September 2008 (UTC)Reply

If he were topic banned instead of sitebanned, would he be able to post to the article talk pages? Durova^Charge! 17:06, 30 September 2008 (UTC)Reply

Please don't take this question the wrong way, but why aren't you an admin? I see you all over the place, on ANI, AN, and various other venues. Your comments at RFA are always good, and I see your name in practically every area that admins typically hang out. Basically, you are an admin in every area of this site except Special:ListUsers/Durova. What's up? J.delanoy^gabs_adds 01:39, 1 October 2008 (UTC)Reply

(PLEASE!!! If you don't want to answer this question, just ignore it!!!! If you don't mind answering, but would rather that every doesn't see your reply, feel free to email me. My (real) address is j.delanoy gmail [dot] com)

Simple. I was. I resigned. Durova^Charge! 02:29, 1 October 2008 (UTC)Reply

*wonders if Durova wants to regain adminship* –Juliancolton ^{Tropical Cyclone} 02:32, 1 October 2008 (UTC)Reply

I may be one of the few people at this site who actually means it when I say the tools are no big deal. Durova^Charge! 02:34, 1 October 2008 (UTC)Reply

Oh, OK. If you ever decide you want to run, give me a ring. J.delanoy^gabs_adds 02:35, 1 October 2008 (UTC)Reply

Thank you very much. It's flattering and really puts a smile on my face. Best, Durova^Charge! 02:52, 1 October 2008 (UTC)Reply

Thank you. :) Durova^Charge! 02:29, 1 October 2008 (UTC)Reply

I'm assuming at this point (I did say I'd try not to assume.. oh well) that you deliberately avoided replying on the talk page, and if so, we can leave the issue unsorted and I'm okay with that. Just wanted confirmation as you seem to go silent suddenly when presented with facts/arguments that you'd disagreed with, rather than talk them through. Diliff | (Talk) (Contribs) 21:47, 1 October 2008 (UTC)Reply

Well, your comment had nothing to do with fine art. I asked you to withdraw it and instead you elaborated upon it. Detoured the thread quite effectively. Durova^Charge! 21:51, 1 October 2008 (UTC)Reply

My comment had everything to do with the point you raised which was about how personal opinions affect voting on objective criteria, whether that be regarding fine art or any other subject that requires a degree of interpretation. And you can ask me to withdraw a comment, but if I feel it relevent to the debate, I'm not going to. Particularly if it seems more like you're just using the request to stifle my opinion on the subject. It wasn't a detour of the thread at all. In fact if you had replied, it may have served to involve more people's opinions on the subject. Diliff | (Talk) (Contribs) 22:01, 1 October 2008 (UTC)Reply

I really don't see how you can construe that out of a question about fine artworks that used Van Gogh, Cezanne, and Renoir as examples. Uncle Bungle had an interesting perspective about old master paintings; because of your off-topic comments those issues remain unaddressed. Durova^Charge! 22:07, 1 October 2008 (UTC)Reply

Even if my comment was off-topic (and I dispute that), I do think it is a huge stretch to suggest that I single handled caused everyone else to ignore your question. If anyone else wanted to comment, I don't see why they wouldn't have. Anyway, if I didn't give you my opinion, you'd only have one less reply on the thread. And in a way, I find it rude that you dismissed my opinion and asked me to withdraw it just because I related it to the question more generally than you wanted. Diliff | (Talk) (Contribs) 22:46, 1 October 2008 (UTC)Reply

In general I like both you and your work; I respect your contributions. Several months ago we happened to disagree on whether the European Convention on Human Rights was applicable to a photograph taken by a non-notable photographer who could have resolved our differences by persuading his wife to send a two sentence e-mail to OTRS. Either he could not or he would not, although he aware of the onsite discussion and participated in it. I started a thread to ask whether noteworthy paintings by major artists should be judged by their encyclopedic value independent of individual Wikipedians' artistic tastes. At best, your comment required shifting ground from artistic taste to putative moral standards and disregarding the fine art aspect entirely. When I replied that the purported moral judgment was a phantom, you contended that my reading of the human rights convention was incorrect (implicitly reasserting that morality was indeed the issue?) Well whether I understand that convention or not, it still has very little to do with the post-impressionists or any other major area of art history. I don't see new points to discuss about the old, closed FPC you continue to raise, and neither do I see feedback about the matter I hoped to discuss. So let's just let it rest. Durova^Charge! 23:12, 1 October 2008 (UTC)Reply

Hi - is your comment in relation to the block or posting the email or extending the block or ...? regards just a tad confused --Matilda ^talk 01:08, 2 October 2008 (UTC)Reply

It refers to the notion that wiki consensus could overrule copyright law even if we wanted it to. See User:Durova/Reality check. Durova^Charge! 01:11, 2 October 2008 (UTC)Reply

Ah as in When you receive an email message, remember that you do not own the copyright; that is owned by the sender, or the sender's employer. :) My confusion was that the debate was on the validity of the blocks too. --Matilda ^talk 01:46, 2 October 2008 (UTC)Reply

Yar. :) Durova^Charge! 01:50, 2 October 2008 (UTC)Reply

I've opened a request for an amendment to the Mantanmoreland ArbCom case based on today's Register story [3]. Cla68 (talk) 02:29, 2 October 2008 (UTC)Reply

Nevermind [4]. Cla68 (talk) 03:15, 2 October 2008 (UTC)Reply

Ah, I see. Well I hope this translates into an incentive for him to respect his ban. Durova^Charge! 04:16, 2 October 2008 (UTC)Reply

As a user who contributed to the discussion concerning Koavf (talk · contribs), you're invited to comment at Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard#Specific_Sanctions_-_proposals also. Thanks - Ncmvocalist (talk) 04:55, 2 October 2008 (UTC)Reply

Hi Durova - I think sanction 5 was what fitted your wording, because sanction 1 extends to talk pages too. Can you clarify which one you meant? Cheers. Ncmvocalist (talk) 05:21, 2 October 2008 (UTC)Reply

Okay, I'll follow up in a sec (wrapping up a piece of Photoshop work atm). Durova^Charge! 05:34, 2 October 2008 (UTC)Reply

Double checking now: I do specify option 1 in the post. Anything unclear? Durova^Charge! 05:41, 2 October 2008 (UTC)Reply

Yeah you specify sanction 1 (Morrocco and Western Sahara related pages- includes talk pages) but you say you'll support the version of Morrocco and Western Sahara related articles which actually corresponds to sanction 5, so wanted your clarification there. :) Ncmvocalist (talk) 05:55, 2 October 2008 (UTC)Reply

What I mean is that one significant POV in this debate believes that Western Sahara and Morocco are unrelated. So I'd support option 1 if it were worded to include both. Durova^Charge! 05:57, 2 October 2008 (UTC)Reply

Thanks for clarifying. :) Ncmvocalist (talk) 14:55, 2 October 2008 (UTC)Reply

Hi, I was wondering whether you had the original source for that FPC you're running. It's a fantastic document. If the technical side could get a boost I'd love to change to support. Not much I can to with that particular file, though. Durova^Charge! 04:18, 2 October 2008 (UTC)Reply

I think your objections to that image were valid and I'm not upset about it. I'm not sure what I can do to fix it. The document that it comes from has a lot of excellent images that I hope to nominate in the future after they are placed in appropriate articles. Cla68 (talk) 06:54, 2 October 2008 (UTC)Reply

Try Commons:Help:Scanning. Durova^Charge! 07:12, 2 October 2008 (UTC)Reply

Another canvass. YellowMonkey (choose Australia's next top model) 08:44, 2 October 2008 (UTC)Reply

I don't understand? Durova^Charge! 08:46, 2 October 2008 (UTC)Reply

The "choose Australia's next top model" link. You responded to my last photogrpahic survey. YellowMonkey (choose Australia's next top model) 08:53, 2 October 2008 (UTC)Reply

Ok, will have a look. Durova^Charge! 19:42, 2 October 2008 (UTC)Reply

Your Featured picture candidate has been promoted Your nomination for featured picture status, Image:Segregation 1938b.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 10:02, 2 October 2008 (UTC)Reply

Thank you. :) Durova^Charge! 14:47, 2 October 2008 (UTC)Reply

Hi Durova,

Just to let you know that the Featured Picture Image:Apache-killing-Iraq.avi.ogg is due to make an appearance as Picture of the Day on October 5, 2008. If you get a chance, you can check and improve the caption at Template:POTD/2008-10-05. This one needs to have a close eye on the caption; I'm worried about the complaints to arise from wing-nuts in response, so I want to make sure this is neutral. Thanks. howcheng {chat} 20:31, 2 October 2008 (UTC)Reply

Whew, you might want to reconsider whether to run this on the main page. It was the most difficult nomination for me to write. Frankly, if you held one image off that location, it would be better to run the seagull and withhold this instead. Durova^Charge! 20:46, 2 October 2008 (UTC)Reply

Hmm, the seagull image is problematic because it makes us look amateurish, whereas this is problematic because its subject matter is controversial. The latter is not an issue as far as I'm concerned, as long as it's handled fairly. howcheng {chat} 18:38, 3 October 2008 (UTC)Reply

It took about five minutes to write up the seagull nomination. This one I mulled over for a month before nominating, and as you've no doubt noticed that nomination statement wouldn't transfer well to the main page. IMO, anyone whose maturity level has progressed beyond early adolescence can see that the seagull photograph is superbly timed and depicts a legitimate topic in biology. This one on the main page gives me pause, though, because that could be construed as exploitive in a way that featured designation alone doesn't imply. I don't have an answer to that objection. Maybe a month from now I'll be able to address that tastefully, yet IMO one animal excreting waste is much less problematic than the recent deaths of three human beings. It's the most difficult subject I've ever taken on at FPC (and as you know I've tried some hard ones). Durova^Charge! 18:48, 3 October 2008 (UTC)Reply

So I was pleasantly surprised that there wasn't much reaction to the video. I saw the note on the image talk page, but there was balanced by an encouraging note on Talk:Main Page, and that discussion was mostly about the technical aspects of the video format. howcheng {chat} 02:40, 6 October 2008 (UTC)Reply

Well, that's over. Amazing the inferences some people draw, like that IP who thought it was a political anti-American thing. Durova^Charge! 02:48, 6 October 2008 (UTC)Reply

Hello, Durova. This message is being sent to inform you that there currently is a discussion at WP:ANI regarding the recent sockpuppetry case at Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/63.3.1.1 (2nd) and a user who has exercised the right to vanish. The discussion is about the topic Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#RTV revisited. Thank you. --MuZemike (talk) 00:55, 3 October 2008 (UTC)Reply

(edit conflict) I am giving you the courtesy notification because it looks like that you closed the discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive169#Right to vanish and not vanished, and I thought you may have some say in the matter. Thank you again, MuZemike (talk) 00:59, 3 October 2008 (UTC)Reply

Well, it's best to bring these to the community's attention once the suspicion has been resolved. Too early and it either gets overlooked or turns into pure drama. If checkuser comes back positive then I'd support a siteban. Durova^Charge! 01:53, 3 October 2008 (UTC)Reply

I see that you are online, so I'll ask a quick bit of advice. I encountered this image Image:TALK PAGE.JPG (rude, but no nudity) on an editor's talk page while I was there to leave a message about his misuse of fair-use images in a biography. I removed it on the basis of it being an obviously derivative image, and thus not allowed in Talk space (I won't even talk about WP:CIVIL in relation to this). Wjmummert (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has now claimed that it's his girlfriends, not a catalog scan, which I find dubious, to say the least. Anything that you can see wrong in my actions? Wjmummert just raised a no vote in my RFA, so it is of at least a little importance, even though I can't see this as being the final piece of kindling on the funeral pyre.—Kww(talk) 02:09, 3 October 2008 (UTC)Reply

An editor who was nearly indeffed for copyright violations now claims that all three of the models are his girlfriend? Okay, I'm prepared to believe one of two things. Either he uploads all three photographs with full camera metadata within the next 24 hours, or else this is his real girlfriend. Durova^Charge! 02:19, 3 October 2008 (UTC)Reply

Most young lads date Rosy Palms for a while. A comment affirming my judgment call (even if you oppose my adminship) would be greatly appreciated.—Kww(talk) 02:22, 3 October 2008 (UTC)Reply

If it made any difference I would. Please give me a heads-up if you run again. Best wishes, Durova^Charge! 02:25, 3 October 2008 (UTC)Reply

By the way, notice my IP...--172.130.132.173 (talk) 04:17, 3 October 2008 (UTC)Reply

On 3 October, 2008, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Frog Legs Rag, which you created or substantially expanded. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

BorgQueen (talk) 04:27, 3 October 2008 (UTC)Reply

Thank you. :) Durova^Charge! 05:45, 3 October 2008 (UTC)Reply

Your Featured picture candidate has been promoted Your nomination for featured picture status, Image:Yellowstone 1871b.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 07:39, 3 October 2008 (UTC)Reply

Thank you very much. Durova^Charge! 07:40, 3 October 2008 (UTC)Reply

All of these logos fall under fair use. They are all relavent. If you want to challenge these, please challenge EVERY logo on every sports team article here. Also, there are plenty of pictures of stores here on Wikipedia, and there is NOWHERE where it states that a picture of a building is not fair use. Wjmummert (KA-BOOOOM!!!!) 16:24, 3 October 2008 (UTC)Reply

Well then, relicense your images and add add fair use rationales. Durova^Charge! 16:42, 3 October 2008 (UTC)Reply

Thanks for your response. I appreciate your attempt to educate editors on this issue. Viriditas (talk) 23:35, 3 October 2008 (UTC)Reply

Thank you very much for the comment. :) Durova^Charge! 23:39, 3 October 2008 (UTC)Reply

thanks, not nearly as interesting as the other one though!! : ) Semitransgenic (talk) 02:10, 4 October 2008 (UTC)Reply

I have made all the improvements that you recommended to the Daft Punk article. The bootleg video has been removed, citations moved to the end of sentences and repeat wikilinks removed. It is ready for a second review now. Thanks. A State Of Trance (talk) 03:46, 4 October 2008 (UTC)Reply

Wow, that was fast. I'll be right there. :) Durova^Charge! 03:47, 4 October 2008 (UTC)Reply

On 4 October, 2008, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article I'm Just Wild About Harry, which you created or substantially expanded. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

BorgQueen (talk) 04:59, 4 October 2008 (UTC)Reply

Thank you. :) Durova^Charge! 05:04, 4 October 2008 (UTC)Reply

Is this image a good restoration candidate? Emmeline Pankhurst is on its way to featured status and deserves a good image. :) I can see it in History of feminism, Feminist history in the United Kingdom and other feminism-related articles. Awadewit (talk) 18:35, 4 October 2008 (UTC)Reply

The source file is a little on the small side, but I'll have a look at it. Downloading now. Durova^Charge! 18:39, 4 October 2008 (UTC)Reply

There are problems with it at full size. I could do a bit of work on it, but the file doesn't have the potential for becoming a featured picture. Durova^Charge! 18:42, 4 October 2008 (UTC)Reply

Too bad. Thanks for looking. Awadewit (talk) 20:20, 4 October 2008 (UTC)Reply

Actually the new version doesn't look half bad at thumbnail size. Might pass valued image candidacy on Commons if you feel like nominating it. Durova^Charge! 20:21, 4 October 2008 (UTC)Reply

Just keeping you abreast with developments: User talk:AGK#Re: Sceptre.
Best, Anthøny ✉ 19:08, 4 October 2008 (UTC)Reply

Hey Durova, this is IMatthew (talk · contribs), co-coordinator of the WikiCup; just informing you of the Featured List contest, starting this coming Friday. You may want to check it out; it will keep you busy for the time being before the WikiCup starts around January. Thanks for listening! iMatthew (talk) 22:02, 5 October 2008 (UTC)Reply

Oh boy... plenty busy already. I do have plans for a featured list or two, but hesitate to sign on as a formal commitment. Durova^Charge! 22:29, 6 October 2008 (UTC)Reply

Do it! ;) Gary King (talk) 23:18, 6 October 2008 (UTC)Reply

Gah, will you team up with me Gary? I'd like to start with List of compositions by James Scott, but it needs a series of supporting articles. Was planning to skim a few more DYKs from that pool...Durova^Charge! 23:49, 6 October 2008 (UTC)Reply

Maybe when I'm done some of my own lists for the contest first :) If you need help with formatting the table or anything, then feel free to let me know. Regarding prose, though, I'm probably not as useful. Gary King (talk) 23:56, 6 October 2008 (UTC)Reply

Dangit, you might just talk me into this... Durova^Charge! 23:57, 6 October 2008 (UTC)Reply

The great thing about this is that there's a definitive end for it, so it doesn't go on forever :) Gary King (talk) 00:06, 7 October 2008 (UTC)Reply

Thank you. :) Durova^Charge! 03:52, 6 October 2008 (UTC)Reply

On 6 October, 2008, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article That International Rag, which you created or substantially expanded. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

well done on the sounds, makes a nice change. Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 22:24, 6 October 2008 (UTC)Reply