User talk:Durova/Archive 71

On April 24, 2009, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Uncle Tom, 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.

Chamal ^talk 08:00, 24 April 2009 (UTC)Reply

Thank you. Durova^Charge! 17:47, 24 April 2009 (UTC)Reply

MER-C seems to have forgotten to notify co-nominators again, so, from my talk page:

Your Featured picture candidate has been promoted Your nomination for featured picture status, File:B'nai B'rith membership certificate 1876.jpg, gained a consensus of support, and has been promoted. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates. MER-C 02:54, 24 April 2009 (UTC)Reply

Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 19:15, 24 April 2009 (UTC)Reply

Thank you. Durova^Charge! 19:25, 24 April 2009 (UTC)Reply

		The 50 DYK Medal
		Looks like I have the pleasure of awarding you this medal Durova. :) Great work, and I know you will exceed this soon enough. The main page is calling. ;) Synergy 21:43, 24 April 2009 (UTC)Reply

Thank you! :) Durova^Charge! 22:37, 24 April 2009 (UTC)Reply

Congratulations. Jehochman ^Talk 00:05, 25 April 2009 (UTC)Reply

Thank you. Durova^Charge! 00:06, 25 April 2009 (UTC)Reply

An Arbitration case in which you commented has been opened, and is located here. Please add any evidence you may wish the Arbitrators to consider to the evidence sub-page, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Abd and JzG/Evidence. Please submit your evidence within one week, if possible. You may also contribute to the case on the workshop sub-page, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Abd and JzG/Workshop.

On behalf of the Arbitration Committee, Hersfold ^(t/a/c) 02:10, 25 April 2009 (UTC)Reply

Thank you for the notice. Durova^Charge! 02:12, 25 April 2009 (UTC)Reply

 

re: [1]

Nah, I believe I noticed Borobudur pop-up on my watchlist. fyi, I got busy and lost the other thread... Cheers, Jack Merridew 16:09, 25 April 2009 (UTC)Reply

Ah, that's cool. Btw Jack, I've stumbled upon a couple of older FAs that really don't seem up to snuff. Do you ever have a look at that sort of thing? I left a message on the talk page, might FAR them if no response. Durova^Charge! 16:11, 25 April 2009 (UTC)Reply

I can see how FAs could degrade; anybody editing, and all. I'm not sure where you message is, but I'll have a look-see if you leave a link here. It'll be tomorrow, as I'm hours way-ahead of you.

You have any idea just how many temples there are here? One per family compound; three per neighborhood. There are 14 neighborhoods in my small town.

Cheers, Jack Merridew 16:21, 25 April 2009 (UTC)Reply

Kammerlader and Krag-Jørgensen. Both list-heavy, citation-short 2005 promotions that appear to have been abandoned. Krag-Jørgensen contained several citations to what appear to be a Norwegian collector's Geocities page and another non-notable homepage. Very surprising for an FA, and the other one has been tagged for lack of citations for nearly two years. I figure I'll give a reasonable time for the original editor to respond (he's not quite completely inactive). Thoughts? Durova^Charge! 16:25, 25 April 2009 (UTC)Reply

Standards were far lower back then. I know nothing about rifles, extra-nothing about Norwegian ones. Have they needed them since The Moon Is Down? I'll take a peek tomorrow.

Seen this: Mother Temple of Besakih? Just one sentence. It's by far the biggest deal temple on Bali. I've not gone because it's also the biggest tourist trap.

Cheers, Jack Merridew 16:39, 25 April 2009 (UTC) (+Goodnight)Reply

Yep, back in 2005 that probably was the best this site had. So much to do... Durova^Charge! 16:41, 25 April 2009 (UTC)Reply

Really gotta go, but just noticed a new user helping out: Special:Contributions/Mara Lover. Cheers, Jack Merridew 16:51, 25 April 2009 (UTC)Reply

The WikiCup Newsletter

The WikiCup Newsletter Round II, Issue 4 - April 26, 2009   Archive before | Archive after   Content Leaders As of this newsletter, the following is a list of participants in this round with the most:   Featured articles   Ceranthor,   Ottava Rima,   Sasata and   the_ed17 have all had 1 successful featured article nomination.   Featured lists   Rlevse and   Wrestlinglover have both had 3 successful featured list nominations.   Featured topics   Rlevse has had 1 successful featured topic nomination.   Featured pictures   Durova has had 10 successful featured picture nominations.   Featured sounds   Shoemaker's Holiday has had 2 successful featured sound nominations.   Featured portals No contestant has yet had a successful featured portal nomination.   Good topics No contestant has yet had a successful good topic nomination.   Good articles   Mitchazenia and   Theleftorium have both had 6 successful good article nominations.   Did you know? items   Sasata has had 23 successful "Did you know?" nominations.   In the news items   Candlewicke has had 8 successful "In the news" nominations. For Round 1 stats, see Newsletter 10. Biggest Jumps This week, the players with the biggest difference between their points last week, and their points this week are: Rank User LF TF D 1   Sasata 202 464 262 2   Durova 182 434 252 3   Mitchazenia 79 202 123 4   Useight 73 178 105 5   Paxse 87 174 87 LF = Last Week's score, TF = This Week's score, D = Difference between last week and this week's scores A full list is located at Wikipedia:WikiCup/Jumps From the Judges Another big week sees new leaders in many of the pools. Many of the wildcards are in triple figures so others might want to pick up the pace to make it through!  GARDEN , iMatthew // talk, and The Helpful One WikiCup At a Glance As of this newsletter, the WikiCup participants have collected a Round 2 total of: 4   Featured articles 9   Featured lists 1   Featured topic 17   Featured pictures 3   Featured sounds 0   Featured portals 0   Good topics 25   Good articles 64   Did you know? items 11   In the news items This combines with the Round 1 totals to make a grand total of: 24   Featured articles 41   Featured lists 3   Featured topics 152   Featured pictures 24   Featured sounds 1   Featured portal 2   Good topics 168   Good articles 368   Did you know? items 60   In the news items Pool leaders In this round of the WikiCup, the top contestant from each pool, along with six wildcards, will advance to the next round. As of this newsletter, the current pool leaders are: Pool A   Shoemaker's Holiday (346) Pool B   Mitchazenia (202) Pool C   Theleftorium (232) Pool D   Paxse (174) Pool E   Durova (234) Pool F   Sasata (464) Current Wildcards   Rlevse (227)   Wrestlinglover (186)   Useight (178)   the_ed17 (154)   Candlewicke (142)   Scorpion0422 (130)   Ottava Rima (123)   ThinkBlue (104)   Ceranthor (92)   Gary King and   Juliancolton (71) All scores are accurate as of 12:33, 26 April 2009 (UTC) If you don't wish to receive this newsletter in the future, remove your name from this list. If you are not a participant, but would still like to receive this newsletter, feel free to add your name to the list.

Delivered for the WikiCup by  ROBOTIC GARDEN  at 14:26, 26 April 2009 (UTC). To report errors see the talk page.Reply

Is there any new evidence for the JzG case, or will it just be a summary of what's already been presented elsewhere? To answer your question, I proceed to the workshop because I've already seen the stuff that's been presented to date. I don't need to see it presented again. Jehochman ^Talk 23:29, 26 April 2009 (UTC)Reply

My general request to arbitrators has been to wait one week for evidence before moving to a proposed decision. There's no particular reason why things should be different here. You requested this case at your convenience. It may not be equally convenient to other parties. Durova^Charge! 23:35, 26 April 2009 (UTC)Reply

Fair enough. I am not in any rush. I did not think my proposals would elicit so many responses! Normally people pretty much ignore my amateurish workshop proposals. Jehochman ^Talk 23:37, 26 April 2009 (UTC)Reply

 

Hi Durova,

Just to let you know that the Featured Picture File:Ijazah3.jpg is due to make an appearance as Picture of the Day on April 28, 2009. If you get a chance, you can check and improve the caption at Template:POTD/2009-04-28. howcheng {chat} 03:43, 27 April 2009 (UTC)Reply

Beautiful caption, I wouldn't change a thing. Thanks! Durova^Charge! 03:44, 27 April 2009 (UTC)Reply

Hi. I answered to your talkpage message, I think we basically agree, though I feel that the evidence I present hooks into a different part of the situation. Also, I believe that I recused to 'decide' on the de-blacklisting request, but that to me does not mean that I am not allowed to expand on the issues involved if I believe that those issues were fully presented in the case.

I am a bit troubled by your "The one alteration I actually encouraged has not been made: removal of the ambiguous suggestion that I share Abd's content POV.". I do not see where I make that ambiguous suggestion. If I do so, could you please point me how I do that, as I have no reason to suggest that. I have also responded to your sentence where you suggest I have altered evidence, I hope there that you meant that I altered the representation of the evidence, there is for me no way I can alter evidence, that is in the diffs. I don't want us to go into dispute over these things, and I'd rather remove the response as it is not part of the case. --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 10:30, 27 April 2009 (UTC)Reply

P.S. I will be really away for the approx. next two days, may not respond quickly to other concerns and remarks or be able to adapt evidence. --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 12:04, 27 April 2009 (UTC)Reply

Fair enough: I hadn't seen your query to the talk page when I wrote that. Will amend. Durova^Charge! 16:12, 27 April 2009 (UTC)Reply

 

Hi Durova,

Just to let you know that the Featured Picture File:Red Jacket 2.jpg is due to make an appearance as Picture of the Day on April 29, 2009. If you get a chance, you can check and improve the caption at Template:POTD/2009-04-29. howcheng {chat} 23:10, 27 April 2009 (UTC)Reply

Thank you, looks fine. Durova^Charge! 23:15, 27 April 2009 (UTC)Reply

Your Featured picture candidate has been promoted Your nomination for featured picture status, File:Midsummer Night's Dream Henry Fuseli2.jpg, gained a consensus of support, and has been promoted. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates. MER-C 11:56, 28 April 2009 (UTC)Reply

Thank you. Durova^Charge! 15:16, 28 April 2009 (UTC)Reply

I don't know if you saw, but this has passed on commons. I shoved it into the POTY queue for the first day of Rosh Hashanah, 19 September, since Shavuot was already filled. Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 12:16, 28 April 2009 (UTC)Reply

In other news, kind of annoyed at FPC: The stupidity of opposing the Grant image for using a Victorian format, combined with having to practically beg people to review any literature-related FPCs are starting to annoy me. Thinking of taking a long break. Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 12:18, 28 April 2009 (UTC)Reply

 

One of the things I discovered long ago is that FPC reviewers like variety. The provenance on the image at right is incredible: embroidered by Elizabeth I herself in her youth as a gift for Queen Catherine Parr. But it didn't pass FPC because reviewers didn't want too many embroidered book covers. Wikipedia has exactly one embroidered book cover FP, which had recently passed when this was nominated. I fail to see the logic is assigning a quota system to prevent more than one example of a medium from getting promoted (could you imagine if people tried that with oil paintings? with digital photography?) but there's the way them folks thinks. Change it up. Ultimately it is a good thing to learn more styles and media. Durova^Charge! 15:13, 28 April 2009 (UTC)Reply

I note that you reverted Bob's removal of a paragraph at WP:NOR (saying that it was a long standing concept in the policy). Please note that Bob had discussed the reasoning behind his edit on the NOR talk page. While you are absolutely within your rights to object and revert, please do him the courtesy of explaining why you reverted on the talk page. Blueboar (talk) 15:34, 28 April 2009 (UTC)Reply

I see you already have... thanks. Blueboar (talk) 15:36, 28 April 2009 (UTC)Reply

It's a concept that's been very useful for years, when interacting with difficult newcomers. Durova^Charge! 15:46, 28 April 2009 (UTC)Reply

Hi! I stumbled upon File:Nagasakibomb.jpg, which was featured in August 2007, and includes a number of scratches and dust particles. I'm sure WP:GL could handle it, but given that you have such expertise in this sort of restoration, and it's already featured, I thought I'd ask if you could please clean it up. Thanks!--HereToHelp ^{(talk to me)} 19:21, 29 April 2009 (UTC)Reply

Actually the graphics lab doesn't do restorations. Can't make any promises when I'd get around to it, but thanks for the pointer. Durova^Charge! 00:48, 30 April 2009 (UTC)Reply

The main issue is time, and the fact that just ain't much in the way of good references available. I have laid my hands on a copy of a book on US Krags and hope to be able to use that for referencing that section, but Real Life is keeping me busy. WegianWarrior (talk) 22:55, 29 April 2009 (UTC)Reply

Thanks for the reply. At least the article isn't being abandoned. Good luck with the improvements. :) Durova^Charge! 00:47, 30 April 2009 (UTC)Reply

Your Featured picture candidate has been promoted Your nomination for featured picture status, File:Richmond Virginia damage2.jpg, gained a consensus of support, and has been promoted. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates. MER-C 11:26, 30 April 2009 (UTC)Reply

Thank you. Durova^Charge! 14:19, 30 April 2009 (UTC)Reply

You are doing this prematurely. You have no idea what plans Yahoo has for these pages. They are unlikely to be trashed. Please stop this campaign. ► RATEL ◄ 15:10, 30 April 2009 (UTC)Reply

So we should keep contributory copyright infringement and unreliable citations? Please explain what you think I should change. Durova^Charge! 15:12, 30 April 2009 (UTC)Reply

How do you know that copyright is infringed and that that site's extracts are not there with permission? ► RATEL ◄ 15:17, 30 April 2009 (UTC)Reply

The burden rests with people who host copyrighted material and link to it, to demonstrate that they're compliant. I've been removing contributory copyright infringement links to YouTube and lyrics sites for ages. Geocities is not a sanctuary from the law. Durova^Charge! 15:23, 30 April 2009 (UTC)Reply

Where in the rules or guidelines are ELs stated to be under this deletion caveat? You seem so sure of it that you must be able to point me to the paragraph with ease. ► RATEL ◄ 15:26, 30 April 2009 (UTC)Reply

WP:LINKVIO Durova^Charge! 15:28, 30 April 2009 (UTC)Reply

Ok, thought you might post that. The site uses extracts of books, not "lyrics of many popular songs without permission from their copyright holders". So this is not an open-and-shut case. Let me ask you something: If I can contact the owner of that site and ask them to clarify copyright, and they state —on the site— that copyright permission was given, will that satisfy you? ► RATEL ◄ 15:34, 30 April 2009 (UTC)Reply

Absolutely, that'd be fine. Apologies if my tone seems abrupt. It's a thankless task. After enough interactions with people who just don't care, one gets a little jaded. It once even went to arbitration when negative information was being sourced to copyvio/unreliable hostings at a BLP. Best wishes, Durova^Charge! 15:39, 30 April 2009 (UTC)Reply

Ok, thanks, let me see what I can do. I think I can deduce an email address. Give me a couple of days. BTW, no offence taken. I hope we don't lose all geocities sites, since many are unique. I expect Yahoo will sell them to another provider, even if only for the ad revenue they bring. ► RATEL ◄ 15:43, 30 April 2009 (UTC)Reply

It'd be a shame to lose them all. Some of those links are the official sites of museums in the developing world, which apparently have to operate on a limited budget. Durova^Charge! 15:45, 30 April 2009 (UTC)Reply

Could you list this image at WP:PUF? It would look more credible if you listed it since it's on a blacklisted domain. Blueboy96 22:12, 30 April 2009 (UTC)Reply

Sure, a bit later on. Durova^Charge! 22:19, 30 April 2009 (UTC)Reply

Apologies, Durova. I can't say that I was entirely unaware of the mentorship; it just hadn't occured to me. -- Levine2112 ^discuss 03:31, 1 May 2009 (UTC)Reply

You're human. We all are. Durova^Charge! 04:31, 1 May 2009 (UTC)Reply

Hi, I noticed you special edition section and wanted to ask about a group of editors that have contributed to the WikiProject Video games. Some have contributed to several video game related articles, and I picked the ones below somewhat arbitrarily. They may have a different article that they may favor more.

• Deckiller was awarded a regular triple crown for the below articles, but has significantly contributed in improving numerous video game articles to GA and FA. For example, he pushed Characters of Final Fantasy VIII through GA and FA. Not sure if he would still count or not?
  • DYK: World of Final Fantasy VIII
  • GA: Tom Brady
  • FC: Battle of Dien Bien Phu

Do they meet to criteria to start a VG project section? (Guyinblack25 ^talk 19:26, 1 May 2009 (UTC))Reply

Yes, you have enough for a project crown. The question is whether Deckiller supplied at least ten inline citations to the version of Characters of Final Fantasy VII that passed GAC and FAC. If so, he'd be included in the award. Durova^Charge! 02:51, 2 May 2009 (UTC)Reply

The edit history shows his contributions. Prior to his contributions, the article was in very poor shape. A few weeks later, the article was well written and sourced. Dates of the work done to the article corresponds to the GAN and FAC dates in the article history on Talk:Characters of Final Fantasy VIII. He was also the one who nominated the article in both instances. (Guyinblack25 ^talk 03:45, 2 May 2009 (UTC))Reply

I'm sure the nomination was very good. Key question here is how many of those citations this editor added. It may be an arbitrary threshold to use that as the metric and set it at ten, but it's the most fair and verifiable thing I could do to draw a threshold between minor and major contributors. Durova^Charge! 05:11, 2 May 2009 (UTC)Reply

Here are two example edit differences [2][3] that show some of the his rewrites and sourcing; all the intermediate revisions between the differences are Deckiller's. So basically, almost all the citations in this version were added by him. (Guyinblack25 ^talk 17:30, 2 May 2009 (UTC))Reply

On May 2, 2009, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article José Sabogal, which you created or substantially expanded. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

Shubinator (talk) 00:54, 2 May 2009 (UTC)Reply

Thank you. :) Durova^Charge! 02:56, 2 May 2009 (UTC)Reply

This is just a ping to see if the USRD special edition TC has ever been designed. It was last mentioned in October at WT:USRD, and that discussion was archived in archive #14. Imzadi1979 (talk) 06:39, 2 May 2009 (UTC)Reply

Oh dear me. Apologies! (trouts self). Yes, of course. Do you have a request for the logo? Durova^Charge! 06:19, 3 May 2009 (UTC)Reply

Nothing concrete came of it... There were a few suggestions, all along the lines of making it look like a road sign of some kind. Imzadi1979 (talk) 07:24, 7 May 2009 (UTC)Reply

I've been suggested to you, as someone who might be able to help out with this... Do you think you could spare a minute to glance at it? Thanks in advance/no hard feelings!! ╟─TreasuryTag►contribs─╢ 15:20, 2 May 2009 (UTC)Reply

It's a reasonably good scan of a cheap color printing method that really doesn't hold up at high resolution. If you want to get a better file version, the thing to do really would be to search for an older book source. Preferably mid-nineteenth century through about the 1920s, when production standards were higher (they hadn't yet figured out how to do it cheaply). Generally I shy away from coats of arms because local laws unrelated to copyright may attach to them. Legally and policy-wise these things have no protection here at en:wiki if the copyright has expired, but this is an international project so at rare moments someone shows up from another country who's very sensitive and takes offense. Culturally that's quite a surprise to an Ignorant Yank like myself, but I don't actually want to give offense and have learned to tread lightly. If other editors can provide a better source copy and give assurance that it wouldn't offend anyone's civic or family pride, I'd be glad to help out. Please provide a TIFF file 10MB or larger from a clean scanner. If that's feasible then talk to me and we'll work out the details. Durova^Charge! 15:52, 2 May 2009 (UTC)Reply

Hmm, I'll look into getting a better source copy then, thanks. ╟─TreasuryTag►contribs─╢ 16:26, 2 May 2009 (UTC)Reply

I found several images at Commons but wasn't sure the correct way of dealing with them. The first two (File:AFClogo.jpg and File:AFC blue logo.jpg) are logos so I assume they are speedy deletes. File:AFC arieal.JPG, File:AFCGrade1.jpg and File:AFC TD.jpg are to be found at http://www.alfalaah.org.za/?pg=117 while File:AFC JGym.jpg is at http://www.alfalaah.org.za/?pg=112a&resp=learner. However, the images at Commons are better quality than the ones on the Al Falaah website. This leads me to think that User talk:Abdulmirza has taken or has access to the originals. I was unsure if the images should be tagged as speedy, regular deletion or some other process. There was another, File:AFC Lab.jpg, that I couldn't see on the Al Falaah site. Cheers. Enter CambridgeBayWeather, waits for audience applause, not a sausage 17:29, 2 May 2009 (UTC)Reply

Have you communicated with the uploader? Durova^Charge! 17:47, 2 May 2009 (UTC)Reply

I got called away just after I left this note. I just left them a message now. Thanks. Enter CambridgeBayWeather, waits for audience applause, not a sausage 22:18, 2 May 2009 (UTC)Reply

You have mail that relates to the permalink you just made. Risker (talk) 01:29, 3 May 2009 (UTC)Reply

Thank you. Could you point me to the policy or guideline statement onsite that states featured articles are exempt from templating? If I've missed a clause somewhere I'll gladly retract. Durova^Charge! 02:21, 3 May 2009 (UTC)Reply

== POTD notification ==

 

Hi Durova,

Just to let you know that the Featured Picture File:Beethoven opus 101 manuscript.jpg is due to make an appearance as Picture of the Day on May 4, 2009. If you get a chance, you can check and improve the caption at Template:POTD/2009-05-04. The audio files are included too, but I'm not sure how I'm going to get those on the Main Page yet. howcheng {chat} 02:31, 3 May 2009 (UTC)Reply

On September 11 last year we ran an audio file George W. Bush's address of 9/11/2001. Perhaps borrow the formatting from there? Durova^Charge! 02:37, 3 May 2009 (UTC)Reply

I know, but that was just one; this a group of three files. I'll probably forgo the big "play" button. howcheng {chat} 02:58, 3 May 2009 (UTC)Reply

There's a group audio file template; Shoemaker's Holiday constructed it I think. He's been very talented about that sort of thing. Durova^Charge! 04:47, 3 May 2009 (UTC)Reply

I think I made it look OK (see Template:POTD protected/2009-05-04). Also, File:Searching for bodies, Galveston 1900.ogg will be POTD on September 8, 2009 (anniversary of the hurricane's landfall). howcheng {chat} 04:57, 3 May 2009 (UTC)Reply

Another one: File:Gerald Ford hearing2.jpg will be going on June 17 (anniversary of the Watergate burglaries). I would have done it on the anniversary of the pardon itself, but that was on September 8, same day as the Galveston hurricane, so oh well. howcheng {chat} 05:44, 3 May 2009 (UTC)Reply

Hm. I've done Nixon's resignation speech. Featured sound nominations often go slowly, but would you like me to search for Ford's announcement of the pardon? Durova^Charge! 06:17, 3 May 2009 (UTC)Reply

If you think you can get it promoted in time, sure. howcheng {chat} 07:19, 3 May 2009 (UTC)Reply

It should be doable. I'll have to push people to vote again (Don't worry, I won't canvass, just point large groups of people at Featured sounds), but... Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 08:09, 7 May 2009 (UTC)Reply

Your Featured picture candidate has been promoted Your nomination for featured picture status, File:Salem witch2.jpg, gained a consensus of support, and has been promoted. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates. ~ ωαdεstεr16«talkstalk» 18:34, 3 May 2009 (UTC)Reply

Your Featured picture candidate has been promoted Your nomination for featured picture status, File:Borobudur lantern slide2.jpg, gained a consensus of support, and has been promoted. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates. ~ ωαdεstεr16«talkstalk» 18:34, 3 May 2009 (UTC)Reply

Thank you. :) Durova^Charge! 15:36, 4 May 2009 (UTC)Reply

The WikiCup Newsletter

The WikiCup Newsletter Round II, Issue 5 - May 3, 2009   Archive before | Archive after   Content Leaders As of this newsletter, the following is a list of participants in this round with the most:   Featured articles   Ceranthor,   Ottava Rima,   Sasata and   the_ed17 have all had 1 successful featured article nomination.   Featured lists   Wrestlinglover has had 4 successful featured list nominations.   Featured topics   Rlevse has had 1 successful featured topic nomination.   Featured pictures   Durova has had 13 successful featured picture nominations.   Featured sounds   Shoemaker's Holiday has had 2 successful featured sound nominations.   Featured portals   J Milburn has had 1 successful featured portal nomination.   Good topics   ThinkBlue has had 1 successful good topic nomination.   Good articles   Theleftorium has had 7 successful good article nominations.   Did you know? items   Sasata has had 24 successful "Did you know?" nominations.   In the news items   Candlewicke has had 14 successful "In the news" nominations. For Round 1 stats, see Newsletter 10. Biggest Jumps This week, the players with the biggest difference between their points last week, and their points this week are: Rank User LF TF D 1   Sasata 464 800 336 2   Candlewicke 144 236 92 3   Paxse 175 259 84 4   Shoemaker's Holiday 381 455 74 5   Ottava Rima 123 184 61 LF = Last Week's score, TF = This Week's score, D = Difference between last week and this week's scores This was generated from this diff. From the Judges A great week for Sasata with the biggest jump in score for a long while - 336 - so well done! It's nearing the end of this round, remember, which will end on May 29. It would it your best interest to nominate GANs now to avoid missing out.  GARDEN , iMatthew // talk, and The Helpful One WikiCup At a Glance As of this newsletter, the WikiCup participants have collected a Round 2 total of: 4   Featured articles 11   Featured lists 1   Featured topic 24   Featured pictures 3   Featured sounds 1   Featured portal 1   Good topic 25   Good articles 87   Did you know? items 17   In the news items This combines with the Round 1 totals to make a grand total of: 24   Featured articles 43   Featured lists 3   Featured topics 159   Featured pictures 24   Featured sounds 2   Featured portal 3   Good topics 168   Good articles 391   Did you know? items 66   In the news items Pool leaders In this round of the WikiCup, the top contestant from each pool, along with ten wildcards, will advance to the next round. As of this newsletter, the current pool leaders are: Pool A   Shoemaker's Holiday (455) Pool B   Mitchazenia (208) Pool C   Theleftorium (279) Pool D   Paxse (259) Pool E   Durova (291) Pool F   Sasata (800) Current Wildcards   Rlevse (244)   Candlewicke (236)   Wrestlinglover (226)   Useight (224)   Ottava Rima (184)   the_ed17 (161)   Scorpion0422 (143)   ThinkBlue (134)   Ceranthor (104)   J Milburn and   Juliancolton (99) All scores are accurate as of 08:15, 4 May 2009 (UTC) If you don't wish to receive this newsletter in the future, remove your name from this list. If you are not a participant, but would still like to receive this newsletter, feel free to add your name to the list.

Delivered for the WikiCup by  ROBOTIC GARDEN  at 08:33, 4 May 2009 (UTC). To report errors see the talk page.Reply

On May 5, 2009, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Amalia Mesa-Bains, 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.

Nice one. Paxse (talk) 14:32, 5 May 2009 (UTC)Reply

Thank you very much. :) Durova^Charge! 15:04, 5 May 2009 (UTC)Reply

Dear Durova, you are an image expert, so I think you can answer my question. I've started the bio of Ismail Shammout, a Palestinian artist, who painted Where to ..?. SlimVirgin uploaded File:Ismail Shammout's Where to ....JPG. The image is copyrighted and unlicensed. If I use the image in the bio, does it qualifies as fair use under U.S. copyright law? Have a nice day! AdjustShift (talk) 15:17, 5 May 2009 (UTC)Reply

You should be able to use it in the artist's biography if you write a separate fair use rationale at the image hosting page for the biography. Durova^Charge! 15:21, 5 May 2009 (UTC)Reply

Thanks. :-) AdjustShift (talk) 15:24, 5 May 2009 (UTC)Reply

The April 2009 issue of the Military history WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you.
This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 22:55, 5 May 2009 (UTC)Reply

Durova, can you have a word with this fellow? He deleted one of the archival versions of an FP, and when I complained, he got very, very rude. If we're going to maintain proper restoration archives, random deletions of the files are going to be a major problem.

Either that, or use your contacts to get the coders off their arses so that they'll finally support decent-sized PNGs. Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 16:38, 6 May 2009 (UTC)Reply

Which file did he delete? Durova^Charge! 17:29, 6 May 2009 (UTC)Reply

... I meant to do this on commons, which is where he did it, but, anyway: commons:File:Ulysses_S._Grant_from_West_Point_to_Appomattox.png. The lossless version of a Commons FP, no less. Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 18:55, 6 May 2009 (UTC)Reply

I've commented at that editor's user talk. We really ought to start a writeup of best practices for image editing. Would you like to begin a draft? Durova^Charge! 19:58, 6 May 2009 (UTC)Reply

I've agreed to do a signpost series on it. Would you care to join me after the first one (The first one is on finding and scanning images, which I believe is not exactly your thing, though if you wanted to suggest non-LoC sites for the list...)? Probably easier to work from there Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 22:44, 6 May 2009 (UTC)Reply

Thought I'd try this once more (though I still say that it's demeaning to have to literally beg to get people to review literature FPCs). However, do you think it's alright not to show the original scan on the FPC when the changes are so minor (since I was able to scan a good-quality copy myself) that I don't think they'd be at all noticable at thumbnail, save the minor levels adjustment? Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 18:58, 6 May 2009 (UTC)Reply

Basically if the changes are so minor they don't deserve a separate filename (.2 degree rotation, remove half a dozen dirt specks) then there's no need for documentation beyond a few words at the upload file. But it really does make a difference with museum negotiations to uphold best practices: you and I set the standard in that regard since we've been prolific for a long time. So I err on the conservative side. Long experience with digital editing of any sort has been that most people hate to document their work. One really has to walk the straight and narrow in order to maintain credibility when asking others to do it right. Durova^Charge! 20:03, 6 May 2009 (UTC)Reply

Heh. Actually, that's a pretty accurate description of what I did, except the levels adjustment (and, had I done that when scanning (I tuern auto-levels off as I find it gives sub-par results), not even that). Maybe more like a dozen specks. Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 20:47, 6 May 2009 (UTC)Reply

Please join the arbitration against me. All negative comments are welcome at Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration under my name. Regards, —Mattisse (Talk) 20:36, 6 May 2009 (UTC)Reply

 

Durova, I hate to be a pain, but does this look a bit pink to you, or is it just my monitor (LCD displays can be a little angle-dependant). Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 22:41, 6 May 2009 (UTC)Reply

En:wiki's background is slightly blue. That affects color perception. Durova^Charge! 23:25, 6 May 2009 (UTC)Reply

I know this is almost a month old, but viewing this image on a white background using a colour calibrated (using an x-rite i1) PVA panel (a Dell Ultrasharp 2408wfp to be precise) this image does indeed have a pink hue. The centre of the largish cloud (the bit that should have been the whitest) just to the right of the left hand mast shows a colour of #f8f2f6 when sampled in PS CS3. Whether that relates to the original 30mb file I don't know as I only used the 800px sample version. Just thought you may like to know :) --WebHamster 17:15, 1 June 2009 (UTC)Reply

On May 6, 2009, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Rigoberto Torres, 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.

rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 23:26, 6 May 2009 (UTC)Reply

Thank you very much. :) Durova^Charge! 23:27, 6 May 2009 (UTC)Reply

In these two edits, 64.124.12.253 (talk · contribs) uses two images uploaded to Commons by commons:User:KPAsucxs to effectively defame two unidentified young women. The provenance of the images is...obviously questionable, at best. I've no experience handling this sort of thing on Commons; could you help? Maralia (talk) 02:11, 7 May 2009 (UTC)Reply

By the caption of one of the images, I'd say 64.124... = KPAsucxs per WP:DUCK... —Ed 17 ^{(Talk / Contribs)} 02:20, 7 May 2009 (UTC)Reply

The second photograph is an obvious personality rights violation. Since the first was not taken outdoors, it's a bit less straightforward to act upon. I've got an idea though: the useful encyclopedic element there is a waterfall. Maybe I'll do a little editing and recaptioning. Durova^Charge! 02:26, 7 May 2009 (UTC)Reply

No recent uploads by that account remaining at Commons. If someone would like to report this as en:wiki vandalism you may. My sysop rights only help us with half of this problem. Durova^Charge! 02:36, 7 May 2009 (UTC)Reply

Thanks very much for handling the Commons end; I've a pounding headache and couldn't face the thought of digging around there for warnings and deletion templates and such. Have warned the enwiki account; will keep an eye on it. Appreciate the help. Incidentally, I am the one bugging Shoemaker's Holiday about a Signpost series on image editing, so I may be pestering you again soon :) Maralia (talk) 03:09, 7 May 2009 (UTC)Reply

Your Featured picture candidate has been promoted Your nomination for featured picture status, File:Under the horse chestnut tree2.jpg, gained a consensus of support, and has been promoted. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates. ~ ωαdεstεr16«talkstalk» 03:07, 7 May 2009 (UTC)Reply

Thank you. :) Durova^Charge! 03:12, 7 May 2009 (UTC)Reply

Hi Durova,

Just to let you know that the Featured Picture File:Shooting Captured Insurgents - Spanish-American War.ogv is due to make an appearance as Picture of the Day on May 9, 2009. If you get a chance, you can check and improve the caption at Template:POTD/2009-05-09. I noticed that there was a Featured Sound from the same article, so I threw that in there as well, although that music file really could use more context in the article. howcheng {chat} 03:41, 7 May 2009 (UTC)Reply

Thank you. Made a small fix. Durova^Charge! 04:26, 7 May 2009 (UTC)Reply

Hi Duvora,

I noticed your comments on this case. I am not sure that you understand that arbcom has given the users who initiated this case the item at the very top of their wish list: sanctions of Jayjg.

I have been restricted from making further comments on this case, but my own view is that years of blocks and bans have done nothing to improve the difficulties of editing I/P articles, and this will likewise accomplish nothing good. Also, since WP:NPOV assumes that a balanced result will eventually work out from discussions between editors with differing POVs, sanctions like this only further encourage editors to disguise the process. Because some conflict is inevitable when editors really do have strongly held, and opposing, POVs, it seems better to allow some friction. Arbcom is making an effort to have things look harmonious when they really are not harmonious. That will only further encourage and reward those users who dissemble most effectively. Malcolm Schosha (talk) 12:02, 7 May 2009 (UTC)Reply

See WT:WikiCup =P Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 12:35, 7 May 2009 (UTC)Reply

I know you've withdrawn the proposal but shouldn't the part dealing the other Grockl (talk · contribs · logs) SPA still stand? It's obvious that user has an issue with WP:OWN and WP:SPA. - ALLST✰R▼^echo _{wuz here @} 20:24, 7 May 2009 (UTC)Reply

Oh, absolutely. I've only withdrawn the part about the newly registered IP editor. Think we should follow up to remind the community that there's still a POV pushing SPA to deal with? Durova^Charge! 20:37, 7 May 2009 (UTC)Reply

Yes, because the way it looks now, it's as if it's been closed and we've moved on. - ALLST✰R▼^echo _{wuz here @} 21:04, 7 May 2009 (UTC)Reply

Ok, will do. Durova^Charge! 21:04, 7 May 2009 (UTC)Reply

Please see User talk:Steve Crossin#Mentor. Thanks. - ALLST✰R▼^echo _{wuz here @} 10:41, 8 May 2009 (UTC)Reply

Hello Durova. I thought it best to ask for your opinion, in regards to the above thread, as i've had a somewhat checkered past. What are your thoughts on me mentoring this user? Steve Crossin ^Talk/_{Help us mediate!} 10:49, 8 May 2009 (UTC)Reply

I guess I should explain my reasoning here, for Durova, as I realize Steve's past would cause some to question why I did it. I asked Steve to do this because of his past and how he's learned a great deal from it. I think it's a good idea that someone who's "been there", can help out another user who is making a good faith effort at becoming an asset to the Wiki. - ALLST✰R▼^echo _{wuz here @} 10:57, 8 May 2009 (UTC)Reply

Very flattered you both ask me. Really, it's between Steve and the prospective mentoree. Basically I'd just ask that he be adequately informed about your past. Namely that your content work is good enough that you've earned a triple crown for it (he might not understand fully what that is but the name kinda conveys the idea), and that you've been a mediator. For unrelated reasons you also had a serious misstep and were sitebanned in all but name for half a year. So you could be the perfect mentor for a person like this because you know how to make a comeback or else maybe he'd want someone with a cleaner slate. If he's cool with that, then thumbs up from this end. Best, Durova^Charge! 17:02, 8 May 2009 (UTC)Reply

Re your message: Thanks. I left my opinion on the copycat/IP account, but I haven't quite formed my opinion on the other yet. -- Gogo Dodo (talk) 02:54, 8 May 2009 (UTC)Reply

I'm sorry I didn't contact you! I wasn't sure whether you were still his mentor; then I got involved in writing that proposal, and I forgot to check or drop you a note anyway. My apologies. Obviously, your opinion would be very valuable. SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 18:03, 8 May 2009 (UTC)Reply

Thank you very much for the followup. You understand the content side of this far better than I do. I'd be glad to engage in a three way conversation about any element that needs revision. BLP as priority of course. Durova^Charge! 18:18, 8 May 2009 (UTC)Reply

I suspect user:Gwinndeith to be someones sock. At Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Molobo, user:Sciurinae says he has definite proof that Gwinndeith is a sock of user:Molobo, but wants an impartial admin to have his evidence reviewed confidentially. Weren't you the one who did the sleuthing? If you are interested, please contact Sciurinae and have a look. Thank you, Skäpperöd (talk) 19:36, 8 May 2009 (UTC)Reply

 

Hello, Durova. You have new messages at MediaWiki_talk:Bad_image_list.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

╟─TreasuryTag►contribs─╢ 20:37, 8 May 2009 (UTC)Reply

Replied, thanks. Durova^Charge! 20:45, 8 May 2009 (UTC)Reply

 

Hi Durova,

Just to let you know that the Featured Picture File:Segregation 1938b.jpg is due to make an appearance as Picture of the Day on May 12, 2009. If you get a chance, you can check and improve the caption at Template:POTD/2009-05-12. I'm not altogether happy with this one. I didn't want to use racial segregation as the bolded article because there's another FP in there, but even though it's the only photo in state racism, I'm not sure it's a great fit. Personally I think File:DurbanSign1989.jpg probably works better in that article, as it shows a government sign. howcheng {chat} 04:27, 9 May 2009 (UTC)Reply

Thank you. :) Durova^Charge! 04:30, 9 May 2009 (UTC)Reply

Your Featured picture candidate has been promoted Your nomination for featured picture status, File:Stocking factory2.jpg, gained a consensus of support, and has been promoted. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates. ~ ωαdεstεr16«talkstalk» 06:33, 9 May 2009 (UTC)Reply

Note: please feel free to rename this; I was unsure what to go with... ~ ωαdεstεr16_«talk^stalk» 06:33, 9 May 2009 (UTC)Reply

It's fine, thank you. Technically this is Hamlet's FP. He's very interested in the general topic of hosiery and will keep an eye out for more images of sock history. Durova^Charge! 15:02, 9 May 2009 (UTC)Reply

I believe WP:ELEM qualifies for such a crown since user:Mav, user:Cryptic C62, user:Itub, user:Stone and me have all have had an FA and a GA within the scope of the project and each of us have had at least one DYK. Nergaal (talk) 01:57, 10 May 2009 (UTC)Reply

bump. Nergaal (talk) 02:05, 15 May 2009 (UTC)Reply

Yes, it was; new requests should be going to one of the subpages rather than the main page, and protecting it seems like a decent way of minimizing the number of editors mistakenly pasting things onto it. If you have a better idea, of course, please don't hesitate to suggest it. Kirill ^[talk] [pf] 05:41, 10 May 2009 (UTC)Reply

Could be off-putting, especially for people who don't know the ropes. Durova^Charge! 05:43, 10 May 2009 (UTC)Reply

True, but I don't think the protection is as big of an issue as the generally confusing format of the page(s) in and of itself. I'm considering setting up preload templates for the requests, so that we can have a simple entry form at the top of the page; do you know if preloads can be done on a section edit, or only on a page edit? Kirill ^[talk] [pf] 05:45, 10 May 2009 (UTC)Reply

I mean, follow the instructions to create a new case request. If you don't have sysop rights the link takes you to a section you can't edit. A clever way to cut down on new cases, but other than that... Ooh, pretty little bubbling brook along this path. Could it be a trout stream? Durova^Charge! 05:47, 10 May 2009 (UTC)Reply

Which link is this? The one in the box at the top of WP:RFAR#Requests for arbitration points to a (freely editable) subpage, not the main page; is there another link that I didn't change? Kirill ^[talk] [pf] 05:50, 10 May 2009 (UTC)Reply

Start from the pretty pink box at the top of the page on a non-sysop account, and follow the instructions. One has to then intuit that the header title is a link to a new editable page. Essentially keeps the uninitiated from requesting cases. And if there's an overriding need for this innovation it escapes me. Isn't page management what you have clerks for? Could that be a flash of rainbow-colored fish beneath the water? Durova^Charge! 05:52, 10 May 2009 (UTC)Reply

I just followed the instructions in the pink box with no problems ([4]), although, as I've said, the mess of text is admittedly confusing. Are we looking at the same instructions? I'm following the ones with the big, bold "Click here to edit this page's arbitration request section" link in them. Kirill ^[talk] [pf] 05:58, 10 May 2009 (UTC)Reply

There's no clear instruction at the destination location stating that the header title points to an editable page. And again, why? The process is bureaucratic enough already. Is there some pressing need for which clerks are unsatisfactory? Durova^Charge! 06:02, 10 May 2009 (UTC)Reply

But I'm not talking about the header title (which is, of course, a very subtle and obscure thing); I'm talking about the explicit link in the instructions. I expect that most of the "uninitiated" will follow the written instructions, not look around for other edit links.

As for why, it's mainly to make our watchlists more useful. Kirill ^[talk] [pf] 06:04, 10 May 2009 (UTC)Reply

Well, if I'm the only one who's scratching their chin then let it be. See if others speak up. I'm wary of innovations that make matters marginally more convenient for the arbitrators at the expense of community accessibility, especially for our less experienced users. Durova^Charge! 06:07, 10 May 2009 (UTC)Reply

I'm well aware of the potential problems with changing the page structure; but I think we're (slowly) moving towards something that'll be easier to use than the traditional one-page approach, even if we're not quite there yet. Kirill ^[talk] [pf] 06:12, 10 May 2009 (UTC)Reply

Easier for whom, Kirill? Durova^Charge! 06:13, 10 May 2009 (UTC)Reply

People making (and commenting on) requests, primarily, and the arbitrators and clerks as a secondary objective. I'd like to think that we can come up with something that doesn't make anyone want to pull their hair out. Kirill ^[talk] [pf] 06:15, 10 May 2009 (UTC)Reply

If it's for the benefit of the people making and commenting upon requests, then how many of them supported the change? Or were they even consulted? The mediators aren't especially pleased that ArbCom's content RfC went live without prior consultation, or even notification. Durova^Charge! 06:19, 10 May 2009 (UTC)Reply

I want to apologise for thinking anything could really be that simple when I made my little comment re plagiarism. It goes back to one of my earliest edits: nothing gets done on Wikipedia without a good old-fashioned 100kb debate. Still, I guess it's better than the Milgramesque cult of personality certain sources portray it as. Recognizance (talk) 06:15, 10 May 2009 (UTC)Reply

Is there a reference I should be catching here? I don't edit that article... Durova^Charge! 06:20, 10 May 2009 (UTC)Reply

You had said my comment at Wikipedia talk:Plagiarism was "brilliant" and I responded that I was glad to see something was getting done without a 100kb debate. I'm just saying it was more naïve than brilliant. Recognizance (talk) 06:30, 10 May 2009 (UTC)Reply

Ah, right. Well, it's amazing how obstructionist a few individuals can get. Durova^Charge! 06:31, 10 May 2009 (UTC)Reply

  Hello! Your submission of Raquel Forner at the Did You Know nominations page has been reviewed, and there still are some issues that may need to be clarified. Please review the comment(s) underneath your nomination's entry and respond there as soon as possible. Thank you for contributing to Did You Know! Paxse (talk) 12:05, 10 May 2009 (UTC)Reply

Thanks, got it. :) Durova^Charge! 00:39, 11 May 2009 (UTC)Reply

 

Hi Durova,

Just to let you know that the Featured Picture File:Yellowstone 1871b.jpg is due to make an appearance as Picture of the Day on May 15, 2009. If you get a chance, you can check and improve the caption at Template:POTD/2009-05-15. howcheng {chat} 04:14, 11 May 2009 (UTC)Reply

Perfect caption, thanks very much! Durova^Charge! 14:01, 11 May 2009 (UTC)Reply

An Arbitration case in which you commented has been opened, and is located here. Please add any evidence you may wish the Arbitrators to consider to the evidence sub-page, Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Mattisse/Evidence. Please submit your evidence within one week, if possible. You may also contribute to the case on the workshop sub-page, Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Mattisse/Workshop.

On behalf of the Arbitration Committee, [[Sam Korn]] ^(smoddy) 08:25, 11 May 2009 (UTC)Reply

Your Featured picture candidate has been promoted Your nomination for featured picture status, File:Ramallah spinner2.jpg, gained a consensus of support, and has been promoted. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates. MER-C 10:33, 11 May 2009 (UTC)Reply

Thank you. :) Durova^Charge! 13:55, 11 May 2009 (UTC)Reply

Dear Durova, I wonder if I might have your advice on the following Wiki image-related matter. Suppose the copyright owners of a topographic map were to upload a low resolution image of their map to Wikimedia Commons, naturally under some free license (say CC-BY-SA-3.0 and GFDL). Would that affect their copyright on the map itself, and if yes, in what way? Particularly, would it then be legal for anyone to publish ans sell a version of the map that otherwise would have been a violation of copyright? Best, Apcbg (talk) 11:34, 12 May 2009 (UTC)Reply

Actually that's the approach the Bundesarchiv has taken. When they donated 800,000 low resolution images to Commons half a year ago, they put the low resolution versions under copyleft license while retaining full copyright to the full resolution images. If you know another organization that is considering a substantial donation under similar license structure I'd love to put you in touch with the people who organized the Bundesarchiv donation. Warmest wishes, Durova^Charge! 21:01, 12 May 2009 (UTC)Reply

Many thanks for your prompt and kind response. It’s nothing of that scale, just a single item like I wrote; namely, the 2008 topographic map quoted e.g. in the article Smith Island (South Shetland Islands). The Bundesarchiv case seems to differ in that the original photos are kept with them. One is neither at liberty to make high resolution scans in the archive, nor could one produce high resolution images from the low resolution ones they have released. In the case of a map though, one might conceivably take a hard copy of the published map, then copy, print and sell it, claiming that to be a legitimate ‘derivative work’ based on the low resolution image uploaded in the Commons. Would that be legal? Do you think some of the Commons admins might know more about such copyright aspects pertaining specifically to map images? Best, Apcbg (talk) 08:18, 13 May 2009 (UTC)Reply

You could ask; I'm not certain who would. Might be the sort of issue you'd want a professional legal opinion on. Durova^Charge! 15:19, 13 May 2009 (UTC)Reply

Sincere thanks, I'll think about it. Best, Apcbg (talk) 15:24, 13 May 2009 (UTC)Reply

In real life, you get mail. On Wikipedia, mail gets you. Cheers, Dlohcierekim 04:06, 13 May 2009 (UTC)Reply

Received and replied. Durova^Charge! 04:28, 13 May 2009 (UTC)Reply

 

Durova, I think I may have been somewhat under-appreciative of your long-term good-faith efforts the other day, and reckon I owe you a bit of an apology. It is herewith offered. Jayen466 22:06, 13 May 2009 (UTC)Reply

Olive branches are good, thank you. Durova^Charge! 22:09, 13 May 2009 (UTC)Reply

The olive branch comes from the Noah's Ark story. It was delivered to Noah by a dove. So presumably the user who gives you an olive branch is acting as the dove. And if the olive branch is denied, the dove becomes a pigeon. :) Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 22:41, 13 May 2009 (UTC)Reply

I think you might be speaking from experience. :) And I would say that's part of the reason my RfA was defeated. Which is why I've started making the point that I can be just as effective a vandal-hunter without being an admin. Maybe more effective, because no one can ever say I abused my (non-existent) admin authority. :) I do have rollback, but I use it very cautiously - typically against obvious vandalism from drive-by IP's and redlink users. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 22:39, 13 May 2009 (UTC)Reply

The tools are overrated in importance anyway. It isn't hard to get a block, page protection, etc. done whenever it's actually needed. Walking away from the tools had three enormous advantages:

1. No longer getting resented as an authority figure.
2. The perfect excuse to shuffle off endless requests for assistance. I was wronged! Can you unblock me and waste the next two weeks detangling my dispute? No, sorry. Not an admin anymore. Try the unblock request template.
3. Not being obligated to act as a representative of anything other than myself.

Of the three, the first is most important. Because a substantial amount of offsite harassment had its roots in that. Took a while for that to subside. Even opened an FBI case half a year after walking away from the bit: threats of death, rape, and disfigurement are the thanks a lady gets for halting a vote stacking sockfarm at the biographies of gay porn stars. That silliness didn't actually frighten me, of course, but am not the sort of person to let someone get away with low behavior. Of course not every admin sees that; it depends on whether one takes on the ugly stuff or not. Best regards, Durova^Charge! 22:55, 13 May 2009 (UTC)Reply

Conversely, when an editor is a little too eager to become an admin, I get suspicious. My assumption is they want to be an admin so they can block anybody they disagree with. RfA's hopefully nip that in the bud, but a few of them sneak through. I see an admin's job, if done properly, as being thankless work. At least with editing and non-admin-based vandal hunting, there's some feeling of satisfaction. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 23:43, 13 May 2009 (UTC)Reply

Being a little too eager for it is definitely a problem. But I tend to be a pushover at RfA. The few times I see a nomination I'd really want to oppose, I tend to notice it after it's already snowballed. Durova^Charge! 23:52, 13 May 2009 (UTC)Reply

Re: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard&diff=prev&oldid=289894979.

Durova,

AN is precisely the venue Kittybrewster ought to use to appeal his topic ban. An appeal would be filed with the Committee against the additional restrictions they "topped up" the community-placed topic ban with, but otherwise, the venue was quite correct. I would understand an archival of the thread on the basis of it wouldn't go anywhere, but I don't appreciate your closing the thread with the summary you used after my, Tiptoety, and KnightLago commenting that it's in the correct venue. Furthermore, arbitrator Vassyana confirmed this morning—over clerks-l, which is annoyingly a private mailing list—that any appeal of the topic ban would be directed through AN.

AGK 19:02, 14 May 2009 (UTC)Reply

I disagree. After ArbCom endorsed the community ban it became an arbitration sanction. ArbCom may overturn community sanctions, but not vice versa. Durova^Charge! 21:03, 14 May 2009 (UTC)Reply

Well then, in light of Risker's statement there's a new wrinkle. That's the first time I've seen an arbitrator making such an assertion. Durova^Charge! 21:04, 14 May 2009 (UTC)Reply

Well, it's not all that common that the community comes up with a resolution that only needs endorsement, and a bit of supplementation by ArbCom. A few years ago, the community would not have been able to have resolved this situation as far is it has; I think it's a sign of growth and increasing maturity that the Committee only had to address a few points. Risker (talk) 21:19, 14 May 2009 (UTC)Reply

The community had discussed the matter ad nauseum, that means everyone was sick of it. If Durova had not closed it, within a couple of hours I would have done. Durova's close was the least contraversial, and as such was a good move - no matter what anyone says! Giano (talk) 21:28, 14 May 2009 (UTC)Reply

I agreed with the close, just not the reason. Risker (talk) 23:36, 14 May 2009 (UTC)Reply

(ec) There have also been occasional community-based efforts to overturn arbitration decisions. For example, the near-lifting of Poetlister's ban at an admin board in summer 2007. It runs the risk of turning ugly if the scope isn't carefully defined: when I reminded the participants that Poetlister had been banned by ArbCom (in May of that year) and it was up to ArbCom to do a review, Sarah accused me of making a preemptive threat to wheel war. You'll probably agree that leaving that decision clearly in the Committee's hands was the better thing to do. Durova^Charge! 21:30, 14 May 2009 (UTC)Reply

Indeed. I seem to remember some in the community wanting to ban Mantanmoreland after the Arbcom case. Seems ultimately that opinion was correct. The topic ban was not put into place by Arbcom, although certainly supported by the Committee. Poetlister, on the other hand, was banned by the Committee, a ban that was conditionally rescinded by ArbCom in part because of the good work done on other projects, and ultimately reinstated by ArbCom. I wouldn't want to consider Poetlister a precedent-setting case, since one of the main considerations was work on other WMF projects; otherwise, we'd have to refuse to take such efforts into account when reviewing unblock/unban requests. That would be most unfortunate. Risker (talk) 23:36, 14 May 2009 (UTC)Reply

My understanding has been that the community can supplement arbitration rulings, but not detract from them. Here's the crux of it: there have been a few instances where the community has sitebanned while arbitration is ongoing. If the Committee subsequently sitebans under its own steam, then it would appear by your reasoning that the community could then undo ArbCom's ban. Potentially, that opens the process to gaming by disruptive cliques who hold mini-discussions to community ban someone under imminent danger of arbitration banning, in order to use the local process as a loophole and lift the ban shortly afterward. A more likely scenario is the community getting confused and lifting a well-placed arbitration ban because community members aren't fully aware of the circumstances. Bear in mind that was what nearly happened with Poetlister. Durova^Charge! 23:45, 14 May 2009 (UTC)Reply

• Giano: you misunderstand my qualm. I objected to the closure of the appeal on the basis that it was filed at the incorrect forum, despite the fact I, and other editors, had argued that it was; but, I otherwise did agree that the closure was justified—as the appeal was going nowhere. At no point did I seek to have the closure overturned; I simply wanted to make my displeasure known. AGK 08:38, 15 May 2009 (UTC)Reply

I am not commenting on this any more, I am sick to the back teeth of endlessly discussing Kittybrewster, he needs to shut up and keep his head down for a few months, then the rest of us may feel more kindly disposed. Giano (talk) 08:56, 15 May 2009 (UTC)Reply

Very well; my original comment was directed at Durova, but it's largely a moot issue now. AGK 09:31, 15 May 2009 (UTC)Reply

Hi Durova.

I've noticed that the evidence that you've submitted to this case is currently in the region of 2,500 words long. You're probably aware that there is a requirement that evidence be kept to around 1,000 words. I understand that part of the reason for the length of your statement is that you have quoted extensively rather than simply pointing to diffs, but nonetheless it would, I am sure, be appreciated if you could attempt to shorten it. If you feel it is necessary to present evidence of this kind of length, you could do so in a subpage of your user page and link there from your main statement.

Thanks, [[Sam Korn]] ^(smoddy) 18:27, 15 May 2009 (UTC)Reply

You have a point. It surprised me as much as anyone that it came out to that length, especially since my interaction with Mattisse has not been very extensive. The dilemma is that a lot of the problem is context-driven. In January when Mattisse offered to withdraw from FA processes at her third RfC and other participants there expressed skepticism, I thought AGF, please. Then when she returned to FA processes the same people rolled their cyber-eyes as she explained that she had been invited back, I thought AGF, please again. It would have taken a lot of text and diffs to have demonstrated that it was pattern behavior. If we're sticklers for word count then it never becomes possible to set forth the context in sufficient detail. And Mattisse does make so much good contributions that she receives a steady stream of good faith support from people who haven't seen the problematic side firsthand. What do you suggest is the best solution to that? A substantial part of my evidence is quoted material. I could replace the quotes with diffs (which would render it harder to read) or move to a subpage in user space. Whichever you prefer. Durova^Charge! 19:58, 15 May 2009 (UTC)Reply

I do understand that your evidence seeks to give context to the dispute -- it's obviously germane and necessary. I would suggest that, in order to get closer to the word-limit (you recently added what I think was an additional 800 words!) you might place the version currently on the evidence page in your userspace and provide an abbreviated version on the evidence page, with a link to the detailed version if members of the Committee wish to use that. [[Sam Korn]] ^(smoddy) 20:12, 15 May 2009 (UTC)Reply

Ok, will do promptly. Durova^Charge! 20:17, 15 May 2009 (UTC)Reply

Hate to tell you this, but, technically, you aren't a party in this arbitration. You might want to move your comments to the "Others" sections. I don't know how persnickety the ArbCom gets, but if they do get rather picky, it might not be taken very well that you placed yourself in the wrong section. John Carter (talk) 20:51, 15 May 2009 (UTC)Reply

Good point; will fix promptly. Durova^Charge! 20:55, 15 May 2009 (UTC)Reply

Wikipedia:Featured_picture_candidates/Suttungr: When would be a good time to take this live? Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 00:41, 16 May 2009 (UTC)Reply

I don't know what you mean to suggest, but a link is broken there. Durova^Charge! 01:09, 16 May 2009 (UTC)Reply

Acknowledged, I will be more careful next time. Apologies, Otisjimmy1 (talk) 03:09, 16 May 2009 (UTC)Reply

Thank you. :) Durova^Charge! 03:11, 16 May 2009 (UTC)Reply

We over at MILHIST are discussing the project Triple Crown again; would you be able to weigh in here? Thanks and cheers, —Ed (Talk • Contribs) 06:38, 16 May 2009 (UTC)Reply

Poke... —Ed (Talk • Contribs) 03:12, 21 May 2009 (UTC)Reply

I've rang your bell over on Commons. - ALLST✰R▼^echo _{wuz here @} 07:03, 16 May 2009 (UTC)Reply

Requesting the ban of someone for basically raising valid points regarding an article hardly strikes me as being moderate. And, as others have already said elsewhere, I'm in the process of trying to find the quote today, there is at least some reason to think that the extremists may already have the upper hand in this case. Certainly, the first two RfCs were so fundamentally flawed that I personally find it hard to believe that anyone would consider them evidence of anything but what they were, persecution of Mattisse. And, I suppose, one real demonstration of good faith is to apologize for actions which may have been, well, excessive. In fact, I think that is among the most basic such steps. I wonder how many of them I've seen? John Carter (talk) 14:26, 16 May 2009 (UTC)Reply

The proposal is not a ban. Please slow down, take first things first, and look this over when you have time for it. Durova^Charge! 15:13, 16 May 2009 (UTC)Reply

I'd really appreciate your input here to get this thing started right. -- Brangifer (talk) 21:40, 16 May 2009 (UTC)Reply

A wonderful idea; an exhausting undertaking. Durova^Charge! 21:44, 16 May 2009 (UTC)Reply

I agree on both counts! This would be a labor of love for those who participate. We use inordinately huge amounts of energy on fighting vandalism and various forms of disruption, but how much effort do we use to rehabilitate the few editors who are worth saving? It should be used only for those who wish to return and who unequivocally desire to submit to the community's norms. SA would be a good first case. I see this as a viable option for reentry, instead of vanishing, returning as a sock, or only editing as an IP, which are the methods now being used. -- Brangifer (talk) 21:50, 16 May 2009 (UTC)Reply

Have a look at Wikipedia:Standard offer. Durova^Charge! 21:53, 16 May 2009 (UTC)Reply

Good. I have added it to the See also section. -- Brangifer (talk) 22:01, 16 May 2009 (UTC)Reply

I have proposed this project here. Where else should it be announced to help get more attention and get this up and going? We need more editors to help this off its feet. -- Brangifer (talk) 22:03, 16 May 2009 (UTC)Reply

Well to be frank I have other existing commitments and have been de-escalating my involvement in this area. Not accepting any new mentorships, for instance. So while I support your initiative it wouldn't be realistic to make extensive promises. Durova^Charge! 22:06, 16 May 2009 (UTC)Reply

On May 16, 2009, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Raquel Forner, 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.

Orlady (talk) 23:22, 16 May 2009 (UTC)Reply

There you go; I suppose I would have got much the same at one of the more familiar venues but, with the exception of RfAR, would it have provided such food for thought? Thinking about it, though, I would agree that I extend greater faith toward the unloved than the established order - but that is both my nature in life and also a balance against the majority whose bias' work the other way. Something to bear in mind, anyway. LessHeard vanU (talk) 01:52, 17 May 2009 (UTC)Reply

You may or may not have kept track, but the principal 'reward' I got for stepping forward with that offer to share evidence was the sustained wrath of the entire Poetlister sockfarm. For over a year I was his number two target after SlimVirgin. He never seemed to go after the men who blew the whistle. In light of the Taxwoman impersonation, that arguably constitutes a pattern of gender bias attacks. You lent your good name to the man who created those smear campaigns, and even after other people got to the bottom of it there was no instance I could locate at all of you visibly stepping back from the mistake, or expressing regrets toward the honest whistleblowers who paid the price during Poetlister's comeback. Think of the other young ladies whose photographs were abused, and who aren't at liberty to share their opinions. Imagine one of them were your daughter. Would you endorse the administratorship of a person who acted as you have? Durova^Charge! 02:06, 17 May 2009 (UTC)Reply

Yeah, I found it hard to accept that I had been duped by the person behind a myriad of accounts - or not so much to accept, but to acknowledge the fact. I have made my feelings known elsewhere, but it isn't a place I guess you would feel happy to trawl through. There is, to be blunt in return, also a matter of timescale; before your Road to Damascus event you were someone whose pursuit of "evil doers" - and sometimes even their definition - did seem to be driven by agenda's and processes that I was uncomfortable with. Since then your appreciation for the need for transparency has been commendable - but this was not the case with Poetguy. You were, in my opinion, in those days something of a totem of how unaccountable some people were (and are, even now) to the general editorship in the manner and method of the work you conducted. Now, obviously, this is as much my problem as it is as I percieved it yours, but it did not dispose me toward sympathy toward your sensitivities where I was not aware of you extending same toward those in your own sights.

Could I endorse the adminship of someone who had once acted in what I perceived to be contrary to good conduct and due consideration to the real situation? Well, of course I could because I have (or at least would do if permitted) but then I have had the benefit of seeing a major change of heart and conduct, whereas perhaps you haven't in my case. Perhaps another failing (or part of the same failing) of my part. LessHeard vanU (talk) 03:14, 17 May 2009 (UTC)Reply

The impulse to defend underdogs is commendable when it's undertaken responsibly. It takes research and a willingness to look at both sides with an open mind, as well as followup. You've been a fine administrator with the easy stuff: obvious vandalism, etc. Yet when a difficult discussion arises you're one of the signatures I'd rather not see because the input is often unhelpful: it usually amounts to superficial support of whoever seems to be the underdog, sometimes followed by a reluctant acquiescence that perhaps the people who'd been hard at work for weeks or months might not have lost their senses. But what happens afterward? Where are you then? I made one twelve hour block while Mantanmoreland had me taken in, and afterward when that appeared to have been a mistake spent months sharing the techniques I had developed with Poetlister in order to set things right with the naked short selling dispute. Show me one occasion where you've walked that walk and I'll switch to support. Durova^Charge! 03:39, 17 May 2009 (UTC)Reply

Another thing first - rereading your !vote I am not certain you meant to go in the neutral section, I don't see any reasons which temper the oppose language to place it there. If it was your intent, though, then that is fine.

To the comments above; I often take the underdog's position because I believe I am testing the findings in a public forum - it may be that the concerns have already been addressed and found wanting, or it may be something that hadn't been considered. Where are the limits to AGF? If I am to assume that the investigators have been diligent and fairminded in their task - and I do - then it behoves someone to pick at the arguments (not the facts relied upon) just to ensure that it can be seen that the case is sound. It isn't part of the remit of a senior contributor, in my view, to make things easy on the process side (as a minimal content contributor, I do see part of the admin role is to make it easy for content writers) but to make sure that process serves the intended purpose. The Mantanmoreland matter was a case in point - I was very much part of the faction that were certain that the evidence pointed toward long term socking with the purpose of creating bias within a raft of articles and I was very vocal in my frustration at ArbCom not taking what seemed incontrovertible evidence at face value. Those who opposed or questioned the findings were generally painted as co-conspirators or having some other ulterior motive for their position. However, ArbCom were not minded to proceed in the manner the majority thought most appropriate. They gave measured responses which left open the possibility that Mantanmoreland was not the POV SPA it was claimed. When, after the case concluded, MM was found to be socking in exactly the manner that had been evidenced earlier the ArbCom acted swiftly and comprehensively. Well, although I do not have the gravitas of ArbCom and not even a hint of the experience and diligence they apply to their cases, it seems it isn't an inappropriate method of conducting oneself.

Last, I am not seeking to change your !vote - you proceed as you see fit; I don't have to agree with it to recognise your right to your views, it is after all exactly that which I am defending myself of above. But if you want examples, I would suggest the editor Mattisse, and the subject of Freemansonry. I have a Barnstar from Mattisse from the time I assisted her in a dispute she was having with another editor over some architectural articles yet within a year I was involved in an ArbCom case on behalf another editor who was in much the same situation with Mattisse over some psychological articles - and yet currently I have declined to take part in the Mattisse ArbCom (I don't know if it has been accepted, even) because I am far too conflicted to able to participate appropriately, plus Mattisse and I have an understanding that we do not involve ourselves with each other. As regards Freemasonry, I participated in the rash of AfD's for the article Jahbulon arguing that the Freemasons views regarding the "misconceptions" over the historical use of the phrase/concept was not grounds for the deletion of the article - that the controversy of itself made the subject notable. No matter that I stood against those pro Freemasonry editors in that matter, quite possibly informed by my distaste for the secret society, I now appear to be the admin of choice when those same editors require the services of a sysop - and I do my best within my understanding of policy for them. I don't know, reading back, if these are the examples that would provide you with reason enough to change your mind - and I don't even know if it would be for the best if you did. LessHeard vanU (talk) 10:10, 17 May 2009 (UTC)Reply

• Ottava Rima has very kindly provided a link to my commenting upon the Poetlister situation while at Wikipedia Review - it is in his question #3 in his Question to the Candidate (No.15). The entire WR thread gives better overview of my opinion regarding the Poetguy affair, but it is very large (this was unlikely to be OR's purpose in posting it, BTW). In keeping with my ideal of accountability, you are a focal point of a WR comment that OR links at #7. My post was to see if this was part of a pattern or not, but never having a definitive response I did not take it up with you. I can do now, if you wish. LessHeard vanU (talk) 11:56, 23 May 2009 (UTC) Edit comment - it isn't this thread where I commented at length on Poetguy, on checking it is in the "Members Only" restricted section. In which case this gives only a taster of my viewpoint. LessHeard vanU (talk) 12:09, 23 May 2009 (UTC)Reply
  • Not particularly. The world doesn't revolve around Wikipedia Review. What you do there you're answerable for there. What you do here you're answerable for here. Normally WR members wish to retain that distinction? I haven't the slightest interest in a Jahbulon AfD, and declined to answer because the segue is beyond comprehension: I was talking about a fellow who--if reports are correct--is now being dealt with by the law. That's an entirely different plane of discussion. The less said about the impression this leaves, the better. Durova^Charge! 16:19, 23 May 2009 (UTC)Reply

Your Featured picture candidate has been promoted Your nomination for featured picture status, File:Let alone2.jpg, gained a consensus of support, and has been promoted. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates. MER-C 03:57, 17 May 2009 (UTC)Reply

Thank you. :) Durova^Charge! 03:58, 17 May 2009 (UTC)Reply

On May 17, 2009, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Hector Hyppolite, 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.

Royalbroil 05:07, 17 May 2009 (UTC)Reply

Thank you. :) Durova^Charge! 05:09, 17 May 2009 (UTC)Reply

 

Hi Durova,

Just to let you know that the Featured Picture File:Cedar Key 1884b small.jpg is due to make an appearance as Picture of the Day on May 19, 2009. If you get a chance, you can check and improve the caption at Template:POTD/2009-05-19. howcheng {chat} 07:40, 17 May 2009 (UTC)Reply

Very good caption, thanks. Durova^Charge! 16:26, 17 May 2009 (UTC)Reply

I am one of the editors who support SA being allowed to edit the Optics article. I never thought to talk to you first never mind to SA. To me it's just common sense to allow him to edi the article as stated by the many editors who spoke up for it. Please except my apology, also please let SA know that I for one didn't realize I should have spoken to either of you first before giving my opinion on this which I now realize I should have. Thanks in advance, --CrohnieGal^Talk 12:05, 17 May 2009 (UTC)Reply

Thank you very much; that's very decent of you. Durova^Charge! 16:26, 17 May 2009 (UTC)Reply

I checked that you had already posted in the thread, Durova, before I commented. I figured you would take care of notifying SA.

I've started a thread at Talk:Optics#Request to port article from Wikisource, and have also invited Moonriddengirl to comment on copyright issues. Just trying to be helpful, hope I didn't overdo it. ☺Coppertwig (talk) 23:04, 17 May 2009 (UTC)Reply

Durova, I've now made a more specific proposal here involving transwikiing the material in several steps. Since step 1 is to find out whether you approve of the proposed procedure, I would appreciate it if you would comment in that thread. ☺Coppertwig (talk) 14:15, 18 May 2009 (UTC)Reply

And I've just set up a few polls at Talk:Optics. Hope that's OK with you. ☺Coppertwig (talk) 00:49, 19 May 2009 (UTC)Reply

You might want to ask Anthony Appleyard for advice or assistance. I believe he's an expert on merging page histories. ☺Coppertwig (talk) 01:41, 23 May 2009 (UTC)Reply

Wikipedia:Featured_picture_candidates/The_Punishment_of_Loki - Have a read of Banaticus' comment - I think he makes a good point that we should probably take to heart when setting up restored/unrestored pairs. Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 16:40, 17 May 2009 (UTC)Reply

The template is boneheaded; we've known that a long time. Durova^Charge! 16:42, 17 May 2009 (UTC)Reply

Pointed out here by an anonymous IP. I moved it to a lower place in the thread so it could be easily seen and responded to without interrupting the year-old thread.

1. I get dragged kicking and screaming into some kinds of technology. I have not yet familiarized myself with Twitter, or know if it can be used as a reliable source.
2. If the anon IP is accurate, that Sanchez has posted this on Twitter, it suggests he is encouraging others to edit his article in his favor.
3. Before I ring some kind of freakout bell, I'd like to get some input on Twitter and read how old his post was about his article. If it has been since his return to Wikipedia, that is cause for concern. --Moni3 (talk) 16:49, 17 May 2009 (UTC)Reply

Thanks for the heads up. I'll be out at the movies for a couple of hours. Matt didn't inform me of Twittering. Will look into it upon return. Durova^Charge! 16:55, 17 May 2009 (UTC)Reply

Matt says there's nothing to it. Here's the link to his Twitter.[5] Durova^Charge! 04:56, 18 May 2009 (UTC)Reply

Was the above comment meant for some place else? lol - ALLST✰R▼^echo _{wuz here @} 04:59, 18 May 2009 (UTC)Reply

Yes, quite so. Thanks for the heads up. ;) Fielding multiple windows atm. [moving] Durova^Charge! 05:02, 18 May 2009 (UTC)Reply

Would you be willing to help me with a little work from a German source? It's for Ero e Leandro, a minor work of Handel's which was only published a decade ago. I recently acquired the only major source I lacked for discussion of the work, so I believe that it should be relatively easy to push it up to GA or FA if you're willing to help with the German. Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 17:43, 17 May 2009 (UTC)Reply

Can't make a firm time commitment. A bit behind atm. Durova^Charge! 00:24, 18 May 2009 (UTC)Reply

The piece is in Italian. Durova^Charge! 15:23, 18 May 2009 (UTC)Reply

On May 17, 2009, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Edouard Duval-Carrié, 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.

Royalbroil 22:28, 17 May 2009 (UTC)Reply

Thank you. :) Durova^Charge! 00:28, 18 May 2009 (UTC)Reply

Hi,

You responded to the message I left on the administrators' noticeboard yesterday in regards to User:Electroide, so I wanted to share this with you, just in case you didn't see my reply on the noticeboard entry, which is now archived. Thanks, —BMRR (talk) 00:50, 18 May 2009 (UTC)Reply

Hi, thanks very much for the link. :) Durova^Charge! 00:52, 18 May 2009 (UTC)Reply

Would you be interested in joining this project? We need more editors who share a burden for rescuing promising editors who have gotten into serious trouble because of behavioral issues. IF (a fundamental condition!) they are interested in reforming and adapting to our standards of conduct, and are also willing to abide by our policies and guidelines, rather than constantly subverting them, we can offer to help them return to Wikipedia as constructive editors. Right now many if not most users who have been banned are still active here, but they are here as socks or anonymous IPs who may or may not be constructive. We should offer them a proper way to return. If you think this is a good idea, please join us. -- Brangifer (talk) 04:24, 18 May 2009 (UTC)Reply

As you're his mentor, according to the last action at the Arbcom page, see Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Banned user editing. Thanks. - ALLST✰R▼^echo _{wuz here @} 04:58, 18 May 2009 (UTC)Reply

Thank you for the heads up. Durova^Charge! 05:16, 18 May 2009 (UTC)Reply

I've declined an unblock request as it's not the way to request things in his case, and it clears him from the category. --Stephen 06:08, 18 May 2009 (UTC)Reply

Right, thanks. Pursuing this at the admin boards. Apologies for that; too many balls in the air tonight. Durova^Charge! 06:29, 18 May 2009 (UTC)Reply

Lies, every bit of it. He better have proof (he doesn't because it's all lies). I missed that edit and you undone it. Luckily I found it. - ALLST✰R▼^echo _{wuz here @} 12:05, 18 May 2009 (UTC)Reply

I plan to archive this thread soon seeing that the circular discussion won't cease. Being that the involved parties have stated that they believe another go at mediation would be a waste of time, I am hopeful you will still assist in drafting. Thanks for you insight and help in this issue. Nja²⁴⁷ 07:36, 18 May 2009 (UTC)Reply

Thank you, D, for your arbitration notice. It is scary - I've not been involved there before. Shouldn't the present AN/I discussion be listed under "Confirmation that other steps in dispute resolution have been tried"? Now I'll go read up. - Hordaland (talk) 23:59, 18 May 2009 (UTC)Reply

AN/I isn't actually dispute resolution. That's why it isn't listed. There's a stable link to the ANI thread in the first line of my statement, though. Sometimes it helps when an uninvolved party initiates the request; that makes it easier to start on neutral terms. I'll be around to answer questions if you (or any other named party) have them. A few basic suggestions: whatever you assert, back it up with evidence. If you've made a few mistakes, step up and take ownership of them. A calm, dry, just-the-facts-ma'am approach usually fared much better than overstatement. It helps to review a few past cases and follow the best examples. Best wishes all, Durova^Charge! 00:15, 19 May 2009 (UTC)Reply