User talk:Durova/Archive 56

Wikipedia:WikiProject_Durova[edit]

Our anoited queen, the saver of Wikipedia!

Please sign bellow if you are interested in joining the project!

Would not miss it for the World. Igor Berger (talk) 16:37, 12 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Sign me up.--Filll (talk) 16:59, 12 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Lol, thanks for the chuckle. :) Durova^Charge! 16:58, 12 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

DYK[edit]

On 13 April, 2008, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Bli Sodot, which you recently nominated. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

Congrats, --Gatoclass (talk) 14:38, 13 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! Durova^Charge! 18:04, 13 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Nice Chatting with you![edit]

Anthøny has smiled at you! Smiles promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. Spread the WikiLove by smiling at someone else, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend. Cheers, and happy editing!
Smile at others by adding {{subst:Smile}} to their talk page with a friendly message.

Hope you'll be on Skype another night soon—it was fun ;) Regards, Anthøny 15:04, 13 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, it was good. :) Durova^Charge! 18:04, 13 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I see you're online now. Come on Skype :) We need a conversation starter. Also, I got Martha Logan to B class. Have a look at it. :) Steve Crossin (talk) (anon talk) 18:09, 13 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Can someone give me a smile? The only thing I am getting are dirty socks..:( Igor Berger (talk) 19:06, 13 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Cool, but I actually have some stuff to do this afternoon out in the real world. Remember that? Psst: try a search for my blog on Blogspot; I've just posted. ;) Durova^Charge! 19:38, 13 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

DYK, I wokr for Mossad Igor Berger (talk) 20:35, 13 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If you're back soon, we're having a conference ;) Anthøny 22:45, 13 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I'm me. Durova^Charge! 16:26, 14 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Responses or lack of[edit]

I was reading this and noticed the lack of response to that (and to my section below). There was also little response to this. I was wondering if the Tango-MONGO drama had the effect of sucking the light out of other debates and turning it into heat over there? I'm also a bit disappointed with the slow-moving nature of Commons, with little response to my post here. Similarly here. Is that par for the course on Commons? Carcharoth (talk) 21:04, 13 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, sometimes that happens. Particularly with the drama-of-the-week effect (sigh). Apologies that I haven't been more active this month so far. Everyone needs a mini-breather sometimes. Durova^Charge! 05:26, 14 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

My interview[edit]

I trust it is coming along and will appear? I am getting a few responses but it wouldn't hurt to get some more publicity for the User:Filll/AGF Challenge and get a few more willing to try the exercises.--Filll (talk) 18:30, 14 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Wow thanks. I almost look rational in that interview.

--Filll (talk) 22:04, 14 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hehee. :) Thanks for the interview! Durova^Charge! 22:06, 14 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I think I may have misunderstood you[edit]

Hi Durova - I just caught your self revert here and it was only then that I realised you might not have caught the link to my brief analysis in the section above. I am sorry if I was misunderstanding your request for further information as being more information than that analysis. In an ideal world, I would have written up a full-scale investigative report; however, with a computer that was freezing on me every half hour and a six–inch stack of RL work sitting on my desk I had to be realistic in what I could accomplish. My Arbcom submission is already well over the usual 500 words and I am not convinced that the case will be accepted there, so I hope you understand my hesitation in focusing on a diff-by-diff description of each of the blocks at this point. If anyone knows the frustration of developing evidence without knowing what Arbcom really wants, it's probably you. As I've mentioned in Tango's RfC, I have doubts that the forum as it is designed is all that helpful in resolving issues when it comes to patterns of behaviour as opposed to specific incidents; your mileage may vary, however, and I would never suggest that others stop participating if they believe there is an opportunity for a good outcome. Again, I'm sorry that I misunderstood you. Best, Risker (talk) 04:09, 15 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. I've also amended my statement at RFAR and changed my userpage. Durova^Charge! 04:47, 15 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

What an evocative photograph. I remember those days only too well; for those of you who have been personally affected by 9/11, this situation must tear at those barely-healed wounds. Risker (talk) 04:53, 15 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. Back on 9/11 I got in touch with my cousin, who had just found out his father was still alive, and the two of us made a telephone tree together so that everyone in the family would get the news without any duplicate phone calls, because we wanted to be careful not to tie up the lines. The lines did indeed get a lot of use that day: millions of people who had nothing much at stake were talking. Durova^Charge! 06:18, 15 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

A study to test sock puppetry[edit]

Durova, perhaps you might be interested in Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/Fredrick day (2nd), which I filed because some IP evidence tended to implicate what would be a good hand account -- no problems or known associations with a blocked user, and I had loaded all edits of involved users into a spreadsheet to study the time sequence, which I found unmistakably associating the accounts, in spite of some probable effort to conceal it (such as occasional ping-ponging of two accounts, possibly with two computers). Thinking you might have some experience with this, would you mind looking at Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/Fredrick day (2nd)/Evidence, which is a wikified version of my spreadsheet? If I've made some dreadful error, the sooner an innocent editor could be exonerated. On the other hand .... I also have ideas about how to improve the method, which I'd prefer to discuss off-wiki. May I email you?--Abd (talk) 04:40, 15 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yes. Durova^Charge! 04:46, 15 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That essay[edit]

I get the feeling I kind of hijacked the Wikipedia:Apology essay. If I took it in the wrong direction, please let me know, and I will put my version under a different title. Carcharoth (talk) 10:44, 16 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It isn't my own namespace. Thanks for the links and the pic. Not sure either of us nailed the right tone yet; we'll try to get there. Durova^Charge! 16:01, 16 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

SSP[edit]

Thoughts?[1] --El on ka 23:54, 16 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

What's disruptive about wikilinking? Durova^Charge! 00:05, 17 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It looks to me like a secondary account that was "built" for a year or so, and then handed off to someone else. The topic areas of interest received a dramatic change within the last day, as well as the frequency of editing. It's also interesting that the controller of the account removed the "Romanian" babel boxes from its userpage. And the areas of editing definitely had nothing to do with Romania. In particular, look at the article creator on the 15:13 edit. --El on ka 00:22, 17 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I think that has more to do with Gypsies, who aren't necessarily Romanian. Anyway, if the account isn't disruptive there isn't much to be said. Or has it edited during PHG's blocks? I'm dubious... Durova^Charge! 02:05, 17 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Giovanni33[edit]

I think you are familiar with this user. If you feel like it, maybe you would look at User talk:Giovanni33 and follow the trail to see if I have done the right thing. Jehochman ^Talk 02:07, 17 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Looks like it's already handled. Durova^Charge! 19:53, 17 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

A little something[edit]

SNOOD

This user is a snood model

--Filll (talk) 23:51, 17 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Aw, cute! Durova^Charge! 23:52, 17 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Rollback please[edit]

Since you have this ability, Dragon has been completely trashed--mrg3105 (comms) ♠♥♦♣ 00:26, 18 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Done. Although you could just do the same thing in one extra step. :) Durova^Charge! 00:33, 18 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Woohooo...speedy rollback! What do you mean by "you could just do the same thing in one extra step"?

Just curious, do you have a hussar uniform hanging in the closet? ;o)--mrg3105 (comms) ♠♥♦♣ 00:47, 18 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well, you could go to a recent historical version of the article and save that with a reverting vandalism summary. And I don't have a hussar uniform, but I do own another period costume. Durova^Charge! 02:59, 18 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Kloster Wienhausen[edit]

Ok, the basic translation is done. Dorftrottel (bait) 02:19, April 18, 2008

Wunderbar! Ich lese gerade aus. Danke sehr. :) Durova^Charge! 03:00, 18 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I've added a section on literature which I found via Google book et.al. All that's left now is adding inline citations and some more language tweaks. Dorftrottel (harass) 15:58, April 19, 2008

Durova, User:Franamax has made some suggestions at Talk:Kloster Wienhausen. Dorftrottel (ask) 08:08, April 21, 2008

Runhardt Sander[edit]

Hi Durova - I'd like to ask you to take a look at this article, which is now on AfD. Coppertwig and I had been keeping an eye on for a little bit, but it just didn't feel quite right, and finally Coppertwig put it on PROD. The tag was removed so off to AfD we went. We noted that the German Wikipedia had deleted an article on this man, apparently because of original research and lack of notability. As best I can figure, this English version has more sources, but since neither of us is able to read German, we can't really venture to guess if they are supporting the statements in the article. If I remember correctly, you're conversant in German, and I wonder if you might be able to give the references a once-over from a more informed point of view. Thanks. Risker (talk) 03:18, 18 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You've done the right thing. Although I suppose you could have reached this decision without reading German. This is almost entirely dependent upon primary sources. I've voiced my opinion at the AFD. Durova^Charge! 05:36, 18 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your input, Durova; it's reassuring to know my gut instinct was correct. Risker (talk) 12:37, 18 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Converting and editing audio files[edit]

Hey Durova, I saw your message here about editing the NTWW audio and converting to ogg. I think this should be pretty easy if you use something like Audacity. You probably have already found some type of program, but in case you haven't, that is a good one to use. Take care, daveh4h 03:40, 20 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you very much. Durova^Charge! 03:46, 20 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The great triple crown race of 2008[edit]

Hi Durova,

Wouldn't I also qualify for this award, based on:

- DYK: Towson United Methodist Church Created 9 January, ran on main page 14 January
- GA: Hampton National Historic Site Revisions 10 January-11 February, promoted 11 February
- FC: E. Urner Goodman Revisions 15 January-1 February, promoted 2 February

JGHowes ^talk - 11:04, 20 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hm, I'll give this a look. Maybe we can swing this for you. Durova^Charge! 20:05, 20 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That's very appreciated, would it help if I threw in a Cessna 310 ride?

JGHowes ^talk - 20:26, 22 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Arbitration case[edit]

An arbitration case has been filed involving you: Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration#User:Benjiboi:_appeal_of_topic_ban_on_Matt_Sanchez. Banje boi 13:04, 21 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Josh[edit]

Through your various comments, you have seen that he used socks abusively to double-vote on Brandt DRVs, right? Lawrence Cohen § t/e 17:38, 22 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

He disputes that and claims that his computer was hacked, and has been gathering evidence to mount an appeal. Although normally I've assumed ArbCom's conclusion is correct until proven otherwise, since the Mantanmoreland case I'm more apt to reserve judgement. Durova^Charge! 17:45, 22 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

My information is that he ran into some terrible hacking trouble a while back. --Filll (talk) 17:49, 22 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Re[edit]

Sorry, yes, and I reposted it...! No, the point was to demonstrate that the usual pains we take and good faith we assume and so on cannot deal with this sort of thing, in response to MastCell's "no problem, carry on" statement. (We can consider asking for volunteers to mentor one Jaakobou, but not fifty colluding ones.) I'm sorry if it startled you. --Relata refero (disp.) 07:03, 23 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the clarification. Text can be a frustrating medium. To Jaakobou's credit, he sought out mentorship without any prompting. Does it seem to you like the editors who ask for mentors on their own do better than the ones who have to be led to it? Durova^Charge! 07:34, 23 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

There is a small danger of misleading people with "To Jaakobou's credit, he sought out mentorship without any prompting" since Jaakobou (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) was identified as the chief culprit turning I-P conflict articles into a battlefield. He chose not to defend himself.

He was also and immediately then challenged on whether he had been practicing abusive sock-puppetry. He refused to answer this question, and although he was later cleared of operating MouseWarrior and Paul_T._Evans (it was coincidence they opened on the same day and immediately acted to support his edits), he never denied that he might be operating other accounts. It was under these conditions that you, a specialist on difficult sock-puppet cases, came forwards to help him with policy issues.

On a separate topic, it would be interesting to know how you feel about the danger of editors who hold (and see nothing wrong with) hostile and/or derogatory views in regard to other ethnicities. PR^talk 10:33, 2 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Is there a specific reason why you raise this now? I do credit Jaakobou for seeking mentorship entirely on his own initiative. That seems unrelated to the other points you raise. I thought these sock questions were answered months ago; am I mistaken? And of course I deplore bigotry in all its forms. PR, please be more specific. I don't understand these references you're making, and they come without diffs. Durova^Charge! 10:54, 2 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Jaakobou RfC[edit]

Please see Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Jaakobou. <eleland/talkedits> 20:19, 23 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for letting me know. I wish I had better solutions. Durova^Charge! 15:10, 24 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Portal:Textile Arts[edit]

A portal with which you were recently involved has become featured. You may view eventual comments at the discussion page. Well done. Regards, Rudget 13:38, 24 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you! :) Durova^Charge! 15:27, 24 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Durova, thank you for your tireless drive to make this happen. - PKM (talk) 03:06, 25 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

¿Qué Pasa?[edit]

Inquiring minds want to know.--Filll (talk) 16:26, 24 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Heh, I've just e-mailed you. Please log on Skype. Durova^Charge! 17:18, 24 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Award[edit]

If I had the skill and knowledge to make good awards or barnstars I'd have to give you one for your /Dark Side page on wikisleuthing and such. Its sadly very rampant. You deserve a Kicking Ass Barnstar. Hooper (talk) 04:56, 25 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you very much. :) Durova^Charge! 06:38, 25 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

DYK[edit]

On 25 April, 2008, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Kloster Wienhausen, 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.

--Wizardman 05:52, 25 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. :) Durova^Charge! 06:45, 25 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/African-American soldiers[edit]

Your Featured picture candidate has been promoted

Your nomination for featured picture status, Image:DutchGapb.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) 07:37, 25 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

At last! Thought it was time to get this thing closed. --jjron (talk) 07:37, 25 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you very much; it was looking like a permanent fixture on FPC. Of course now I'll have to go finish another restoration to replace it... :) Durova^Charge! 08:01, 25 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/The Trumpet Calls[edit]

Your Featured picture candidate has been promoted

Your nomination for featured picture status, Image:Trumpetcallsa.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) 09:03, 25 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

And another one - yep, better get something else up there! Pretty appropriate to put this through on ANZAC Day though.

BTW, two things about this. I replaced another version of this in the Norman Lindsay article - see Image:Lindsay trumpet calls.jpg (I'm guessing you probably weren't aware that Lindsay was a noted Australian artist). While doing so I noticed the colour balance was considerably different, I'd say your version has far more reds in it. To me the colours in the other version looked a bit more realistic for images from this time. Any ideas? The other version also had a bit of extra information on the image page that perhaps would be worth adding to yours.

Second thing, I recommended to Howcheng that this be kept as POTD for ANZAC Day next year, unfortunately we just missed this year (I know this is a long way off). See here. You may like to go and drop him a note as well if you agree or disagree with this. Cheers, --jjron (talk) 09:03, 25 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. I'll defer to the Australians about any date that works best for them. :) Durova^Charge! 09:38, 25 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Plants[edit]

Be kind to plants.--Filll (talk) 23:41, 25 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Dear oh dear oh dear...it's real. Durova^Charge! 03:10, 26 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I found this one and suggested it to Filll, & in in turn suggested it to you. and like you, I did not believe it until I went to the official links. I don't trust myself to do it with the solemnity it deserves. DGG (talk) 03:35, 27 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Improper grounds[edit]

Durova, on what grounds do you have the authority to restrict my contributions without it going through Arbcom? It would seem that process is most important, especially seeing as how there are two and only two people who get to decide if a comment/oppose/support is accepted in deciding the outcome of an FAC: Raul and Sandy. I believe that your comments may be biased towards Awadewit and ignore the process of the FAC. I have not violated any Wikipedia policy, and if I have violated procedure at the FAC, then it is for Raul and Sandy to decide. I take this matter very seriously, and the fact that this is resulting from an editor unwilling to produce more citations is almost laughable. Ottava Rima (talk) 04:35, 26 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The community has been doing topic bans for over a year without ArbCom. Your suspicions that my comments might be biased ought to be tempered by this site's assume good faith policy. I intend this for the best interests of the site only, and with no malice. Durova^Charge! 04:39, 26 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

"Don't blame her for this thread, please. I urged her to initiate it." That is enough grounds to suggest a potential bias. You told her to perform the action, therefore, you probably back her up in such a case. I have no stated that you do this with malice, but I do state that there is no grounds for this, unless you are willing to posit that I have violated a Wikipedia policy. My "incivil" comments resulted in the agreement that I should not use such things, as the community has interpreted them to be "rude". However, there is nothing in the FAC which says I am not to posit such opinions, and opinions can only be judged by Raul and Sandy, whose authority you are currently usurping. Ottava Rima (talk) 04:52, 26 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Wikilawyering - you need to read this...now, not later. Doc Tropics 04:57, 26 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If I meant to do anything improper, I would have concealed that fact rather than disclosing it immediately. It's quite simple from my perspective: Awadewit is one of this site's most prolific contributors of featured content. I am concerned that your unusual interpretations of FA standards place undue burden upon her and others, and that this situation has reached the point where it is in danger of both reducing FA writers' productivity and damaging the morale of our most productive editors. Regarding civility, I let the block log speak for itself. Since you place this much esteem in SandyGeorgia and Raul654, I'll go ahead and offer them both links to the ANI thread; I agree their input would be valuable. Durova^Charge! 04:58, 26 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I am not saying that you have abused your authority. You have not actually used your authority, so there cannot be an abuse. However, I must object - how can it put an "undue burden". If she thinks it is non-applicable, she can ignore it, and if Sandy agrees, she will too. But please explain how adding a few "ref name=" templates to show that some of the important details are referred through the next citation is a "burden". Now, regarding civility and my block log, I have been blocked for 3RR. Not for civility concerns. I have always taken the utmost care to speak in an objective, scientific, and fair manner without using insults, slurs, or anything else that would be disrespectful to the character of the other. I do not cuss, nor do I enjoy vulgarity. I do not believe in describing anyone's level of intelligence or anything close. I believe that everyone here is equal, regardless of what they have contribute, or what their status may be. The interesting thing is that I had a conversation with Kim Bruning yesterday and you came up. It is a strange coincidence that this would happen, with you, involved, today. But she will sure get a good laugh (most likely at my expense, as usual). Ottava Rima (talk) 05:08, 26 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Though having said what I have just said (below and at ANI), once again I urge Ottava: here as elsewhere your way of dealing with disagreement really does not help your cause. --jbmurray (talk|contribs) 05:20, 26 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I was born without a soul and I never learned how to laugh, so I tend to be loathable, especially when clouded behind the cold bleakness of this ever oppressive text. Ottava Rima (talk) 05:24, 26 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that something doesn't look good here, and have left a note to that effect at ANI. And I say this as someone who has had problems with Ottava's style of engagement (as I have also repeatedly detailed at ANI). Some clarification might be in order. --jbmurray (talk|contribs) 05:17, 26 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I really don't think that my participation in this discussion is the kind of thing that merits minute examination. For what it's worth, I have respected Awadewit's contributions for months; she is one of only two editors who have earned the most competitive triple crown award: Alexander the Great edition. Other than that, my interaction with her is limited to the following: she is conducting an academic survey of Wikipedia editors and I am one of the respondants to her survey. She joined yesterday's Not the Wikipedia Weekly Skypecast recording, and returned to Skype today to ask for advice about how to handle this problem. I looked over the situation independently and reached my own conclusion about it. I really don't know her very well at all. And now this is three detailed responses, which I think is quite enough. Durova^Charge! 05:26, 26 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I, too, have nothing but the highest respect for Awadewit. That's not at issue for me. I, too, have problems with the way in which Ottava sometimes conducts him or herself at FAC. But I remain a little surprised at your role here. --jbmurray (talk|contribs) 05:31, 26 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Durova, I could never have hard feelings towards you. Plus, now I have a great story for Kim Bruning to make fun of me even more over. I am sure she will be surprised that I didn't get banned over this. However, I believe that she is surprised every day that I am not banned. Everything I say and do seems to surprise her. :) Ottava Rima (talk) 06:26, 26 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't know you knew Kim Bruning? Anyway, if he makes any joke over this I'll throw something else at him one more time (I've got one on him that I'm milking for all it's worth). Best wishes, and I hope things go better upon your return. Durova^Charge! 06:40, 26 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Eastern Gray Squirrel[edit]

It is not an edit war. The image name uses 'grey' so if you change it to 'gray' the thumb code will render the iamge link dead and the image will not show. Do you understand? UNI^|SOUTH 15:22, 26 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Unisouth, check the last two years' history on the page. And I'm an admin on Commons; I fixed the image title as soon as you brought it to my attention, which you might have done without all caps and a premature 3RR alert. Do you understand? Durova^Charge! 15:31, 26 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Therefore there was no need to message me in the first place! Do you not understand? Also replying on your own user talk pages means I might have not replyed again if I didn't look on my Watchlist by chance. UNI^|SOUTH 15:34, 26 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well, apparently I don't; exclamation points and angry responses mystify me in this context. I'd been watching the page for two years, saw the humorous side of things, and hoped that we'd both be able to chuckle at ourselves a little bit. Durova^Charge! 16:00, 26 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well in my view all issues need to be taken seriously. Thankfully this issue has been sorted so thank you very much for your co-operation, hopefully we both understand now. UNI^|SOUTH 16:07, 26 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Durova's DYK advice[edit]

Hi there Durova, whilst putting the finishing touches to the DYK Signpost dispatch it has been pointed out that your DYK advice says the articles need to be 2000 characters. The official DYK advice disagrees and says it is 1500. Would you mind if I amended it to the "official" number to remove the discrepancy. I say this as we don't want people reading it to get confused. Thanks and best regards. Woody (talk) 22:14, 26 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, right. They upped that for a little while. Time to fix it back. Durova^Charge! 22:34, 26 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for fixing that. According to the DYK page history it seems to be changed quite regularly depending on backlogs. Thanks again. Regards Woody (talk) 22:39, 26 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks there. I try to keep it up to date, but I don't get onto DYK quite every week. I try, though. :) Best wishes, Durova^Charge! 04:17, 27 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Robert F. Kennedy assassination - clarification[edit]

Hi Durova. I massively reduced the content of the conspiracy theories section during my rewrite the other day, and attempted to included sources to balance these sections back to the majority viewpoint. Can I just clarify: do you think there is a problem with the section as it stands, or are you just concerned that there is a tendency for this section to become massively full of wild fringe theories? Fritzpoll (talk) 09:22, 27 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well, what percentage of the leading experts suppose that alternative theories hold water? Right now the space in the article is about evenly split between conventional and alternative. Unless this is really an open debate with no firm expert consensus, which I doubt is the case, then per WP:UNDUE the alternative stuff is still getting way too much weight. Durova^Charge! 09:37, 27 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I think what is actually lacking is sufficient content about the event itself. I will reduce the content again in the CIA involvement section, since yours is essentially the second concern I've seen, but ultimately, more information in the Event section or in the perpetrator section will probably balance this article out. I hope you won't object, but I'm going to put a copy of this discussion on the article talk page so it is more visible Fritzpoll (talk) 09:48, 27 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. Durova^Charge! 17:48, 27 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you![edit]

Thank you for all your recent advice! I appreciate your willingness to help me out! Awadewit (talk) 16:56, 27 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It's about doing the right thing. I'd do this for anyone who deserved it as much as you do. Keep creating more featured content; your work is fantastic. Durova^Charge! 17:50, 27 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

JDAM tagging[edit]

Hey, I see you tagged the JDAM article, that I added a significant amount of material to, as sounding like an advert. I have to say that you are probably 75% correct, considering that the source for most of the material were USAF, Boeing, and other industry press releases. Overall the article has a good start IMHO. I appreciate you tagging the articel, why don't you help clean it up to make it Wiki worthy? Thanks. Andrew (talk) 00:40, 28 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If I had enough expertise in that particular subject I would have done so. Thanks for commenting; I'll give it another look. Not sure if I'll have any more to offer than what I've already posted to the talk page. Durova^Charge! 00:48, 28 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Napoleon[edit]

Hi there Durova. I'm applying.... how shameless....

Ian Thorpe - Australian swimmer, first person to win six gold medals at one World Championships, first person to win 11 world titles, first swimmer to be world swimmer of the year four times
Harbhajan Singh - Indian off spinner, the first Indian to take a hat trick in Test cricket
Pham Ngoc Thao - Colonel in the Army of the Republic of Vietnam who was actually a communist spy.
Charlie Macartney - An Australian cricketer of the early 20th century, inductee of the Australian Cricket Hall of Fame
Arrest and assassination of Ngô Đình Diệm - The arrest of the first President of South Vietnam in 1963 after a coup and his subsequent assassination
Thich Quang Duc - Vietnamese Mahayana Buddhist monk who self-immolated to protest discrimination against Buddhists by the Catholic regime of Ngo Dinh Diem
Arthur Morris - An Australian cricketer of the 1940s and 1950s, inductee of the Australian Cricket Hall of Fame, Australian Cricket Board Team of the Century and member of the Invincibles
1960 South Vietnamese coup attempt - A failed coup attempt by ARVN paratroopers against Ngo Dinh Diem
1962 South Vietnamese Presidential Palace bombing - A failed assassination attempt by two Vietnam Air Force officers against Ngo Dinh Diem
Ernie Toshack - left arm fast bowler of the Invincibles
Ian Craig - Australia's youngest ever Test cricketer and captain
State of Vietnam referendum, 1955 - A fraudulent referendum in which Ngo Dinh Diem proclaimed himself the President of the newly-created Republic of Vietnam, after gaining 133% of the vote in Saigon
Nguyen Ngoc Tho - Vice President of South Vietnam under Ngo Dinh Diem. Served as Prime Minister under the junta of Duong Van Minh.
Double Seven Day scuffle - An attack by the secret police of South Vietnam against a group of American journalists.
Don Tallon - Wicketkeeper of the Invincibles

GA:Irfan Pathan, Stan McCabe , Dinesh Karthik, Murali Kartik, Bill Woodfull, Jack Fingleton, Bill Johnston (cricketer), Norm O'Neill, Neil Harvey, Kaundinya, Ngo Dinh Can, Hue Vesak shootings, Alan Davidson (cricketer), Brian Booth, Bill Brown (cricketer), Jack Marsh, Ray Lindwall, Ian Meckiff

DYK:Irfan Pathan, Stan McCabe , Dinesh Karthik, Murali Kartik, Bill Woodfull, Jack Fingleton, Bill Johnston (cricketer), Julien Wiener, Neil Harvey, Kaundinya, Ngo Dinh Can, Hue Vesak shootings, Alan Davidson (cricketer), Xa Loi Pagoda, Bill Brown (cricketer), Jack Marsh, Ray Lindwall, Ian Meckiff among others (I was lazy so I just listed the same GAs that were also DYKs, but there are many others). Blnguyen (bananabucket) 03:34, 28 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

ah ha ! Just came over here to check on this, per this week's Dispatch (goes out soon): WP:FCDW/April 28, 2008. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 13:41, 28 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Great :-) Had I realized before, I would have put the DYK off 'til another date, since we like to feature individual achievements. I got caught by surprise on that one, since I didn't really know what they were! SandyGeorgia (Talk) 03:14, 29 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Community petition link[edit]

Above seems to be broken.--Filll (talk) 12:46, 28 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Advice?[edit]

205.56.145.36 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is blocked for vandalism to various military articles, for example USS Chosin (CG-65). But looking at that article's history, you also see vandalism by 205.56.145.34 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), separately blocked for vandalism.

Both IP's talk pages say they are registered to... Navy Network Information Center. I sense the need to tread carefully here. I don't think it should necessarily go to ANI. What do you advise?

Yes, this would be an embarrassment. Whether you alert ANI is your own decision. I've found that in situations like this a little polite feedback often solves the problem. I could give them a heads up. Durova^Charge! 03:06, 29 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If in your opinion a quiet email (for example) would be most productive, I'd appreciate that. I know you have experience dealing with these situations. SHEFFIELDSTEEL^TALK 15:04, 29 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. Durova^Charge! 16:26, 29 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Idea[edit]

Dear Durova. That's a beautiful story. I also appreciate the sentiment behind the suggestion, but I don't use Skype or any other messaging/chat programs since they slow down my computer (it's ancient) and as a general rule, I don't meet with other Wiki editors in person. When you are a minority that is viewed as a "fifth column" despite your citizenship, in a state that has no qualms about locking people up to protect its "national security", you tend to kind of value your anonymity, as you might imagine.

Please do note, I harbour no resentment towards Jaakobou. I decided to "unilaterally disengage" (so to speak) and stop editing at pages he edits at for a while to allow for a cool down period after that last encounter we had on AE. I think it's unfortunate that he has again stirred up a hornet's nest with his latest poking and prodding, and that he would do better to take some distance of his own from the editors he seems to find so offensive. Anyway, I appreciate your efforts to find a resolution here and can commit to pursuing whatever on-wiki remedies you think would help. Warm regards, Tiamut^talk 06:47, 29 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you very much for that candid reply. I don't have a magic solution for the wiki dilemma, much less the real life one, but I'm committed to trying. I don't think every editor in Serbia or Croatia crossed the border to shake hands. Some of them did, and apparently that was enough. Best wishes to you. Durova^Charge! 06:59, 29 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

While there is no physical border between Jaakobou and I (remember, we both live inside Israel), you are certainly correct in noticing that there is some kind of obstruction inhibiting our ability reach out to one another. I appreciate your good wishes and good faith and remain hopeful that an on-wiki shaking of hands and even good hearted back-slapping will one day be possible. Tiamut^talk 07:24, 29 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Durova. your ideas sounds interesting. I have read some information about it on others' talk pages. please keep me posted on this as things go on. thanks. --Steve, Sm8900 (talk) 15:40, 29 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Reply by Nishidani to note on his page[edit]

That's not a bad idea, Durova. I'm the sort of bloke who jumps planes to meet people - I once flew from Tokyo to Toronto merely to honour an undertaking to have a cup of tea with a person on a certain date 5 years after the promise was made - but hates telephones. The only function of a telephone line at my age is to have an internet connection (and of course to call an ambulance if my ticker plays up, which it probably will shortly if these endless recriminations of kindergarten-level bitching don't end!). I hope some of the younger people in here think it over. I don't have Skype. Still, I hope you and a few other admins haven't taken the extensive, and for my part wholly frank, outlining of deeper problems surrounding these conflicts too badly. I have seized on that particular suit with some recklessness in order to talk, indirectly, to Jaakobou and about him, before other editors he is in constant conflict with, and before some admins or ex-admins, in the confidence that when a problem is recurrent, it is wise, as in all forms of negotiations, to drop the extreme niceties of formal etiquette and get things off one's chest. This is my form of telephoning. Just one more ruling, punishment, victory or defeat is not going to help. I don't know if you are familiar with the role Omar Sharif plays in James Clavell's 1969 film, The Last Valley, but the message was: when tit-for-tat warring and defence is the problem, deciding for one side is not going to solve the problem, but only feed the inertial momentum of attrition. One must use a higher logic, expect tensions, but see a way round the reciprocal logic of aggression and defence that lies at the heart of this darkness. The point is true of the conflict whose history we are editing, as it is true of the editing-conflicts that mirror these realities. Etiquette is essential, (but not the prerequisite, as the rules often suggest to harassed administrators, since that is too often a lip-service formality belied by a certain cold ambition to 'win'). Rather a change in the logic of aggressive pushing of a unilateral vision, by whomever, is the key.

I don't think our mutual aquaintence has yet the slightest idea of the impact both his treatment of Tiamut, who is a very fine, precise and accommodating editor indeed, and his general outburst on the Islamic-culture of violence responsible for all the woes of Israel, had on many people here. The former spoke of a cast of mind I have documented on Nickhh's page, the latter of a fixed mindset that has absolutely no ear for the 'Other'. One doesn't lose one's wariness with others by a change in their formal tone, but when one observes a change in outlook, from self-assured personal conviction to attentive listening to others who cannot understand you. If he checks my record, he will see that I do work well with many other editors 'on his side', some with strong Zionist commitments, and have devoted quite a lot of effort to improving pages on the great thinkers and scholars from his particular tradition. Hardly evidence then that I have some animus for his country, as opposed to the very strong interests I have in human rights and justice, for which Jewish thinkers and activists have long been in the forefront. Thirdly, writing these dossiers did him great harm. Whatever our differences, the rest of 'us' (I presume) hail from a cultural and historical context where profiling and dossiers are regarded with extreme reserve, as abuses one associates with the degradation of civil society by authoritarian power-mongers. I think had I pursued, in formal arbitration, the way he got off that 3RR rap by contacting User:Swatjester offline, it would have shown him in a very poor light and the administrator as well. It certainly worries other editors that he, who complains much of minor transgressions of procedural formalities, lives a charmed life, by now notorious, when he himself has infringed them, whereas others, less enamoured of litigiousness, usually take a hard rap. Administrators, caught up in endless cases, can't be expected to note what editors on a page see. They will tell you, 'take it up in a formal complaint'. But a lot of us dislike complaining. I didn't pursue the case because I hate whingeing, and I should think that he would do well to renounce this kind of administrative option himself, except when some serious, I mean, serious abuse of wiki editing procedures occurs that damages the growth of the pages he is working on. These finicky recourses to 'the law' are fascinating - they read like new episodes in Kafka's The Trial, where recourse to justice is constant, and nothing but the weirdest outcomes result. Ultimately, it all sounds to many like political gaming. He must be tough to edit with the intensity he does. If he learnt to wear a tough hide as well (and listen closely to what others argue for - they are not irrational) things would run improve notably. I have no illusions, this place ranks among the hardest to edit, and the pages are, both sides concur, shamefully riven with textual politicking (compare any article with the Encyclopedia Britannica) but every now and then, surprises do occur, and the world changes. Like it or not, these articles have to be written so that a rationally-minded Israeli and Palestinian would not take exception to them. That is the rule he, like the rest of us, must keep ever-present when editing. Take this also as a public email to Jaakobou, in lieu of a Skype monologue! p.s. Serbians and Croats have their own countries, share a common language, more or less, share a similar religion, and often, can offload their differences on the third group in the area, which happens to be Muslim (and unfortunately they don't drink as often as the former!). Still, point taken. Best regards, apologies for long-windedness and take it easy Nishidani (talk) 07:50, 29 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, thank you. I was reading this on your talk page while you cross posted. Durova^Charge! 07:57, 29 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

NYB[edit]

I agree with the barnstar of Peace in the above case. I was wondering whether you, who have substantially more military experience than I do, think that the Purple Barnstar might also be merited for this estimable colleague who fell as a result of our ongoing battle against stupidity. John Carter (talk) 20:50, 29 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

A couple of people tried to give me one. Maybe it would be different for Brad; I don't know. I served in a war. My grandfather served in an earlier war and got a purple heart--and I wouldn't want to cheapen his sacrifice by accepting an award patterned after it. Sticks and stones may break my bones...nothing on Wikipedia comes close. Durova^Charge! 02:11, 30 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

an idea ...[edit]

Hi, here's a thought that might do some good. Today I was chatting with an editor from Serbia. Mentioned the Serbian-Croatian ethnic disputes on en:Wiki and he surprised me by telling me the Serbian and Croatian Wikipedias actually get along pretty well. Basically what happened was some guys packed into a car, drove to Zagreb, and shook some hands. Then some other guys packed into another car, drove to Belgrade, and shook some hands. Once they saw that they were all pretty normal people, things calmed down a lot.

Maybe there's a way we can replicate that. Would you be willing to try a voice chat on Skype? I've noticed that when Wikipedia editors get into a conference call, with voices instead of just text, it's easier to find common ground. Wishing you well, DurovaCharge! 06:28, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

I think that's an excellent idea, actually. Unfortunately, my schedule is insane, so I am pretty much only available on weekends. Time zone coordination might also be an issue -- I'm in CE(S)T, local time in Germany, which will be much closer to the time for any users actually in the Balkans as are any users who might be in the states. These are just details, though, I guess -- I laud the idea itself. - Revolving Bugbear 22:52, 29 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That might work, actually. Would Saturday be good for you? Danke sehr für diese Antwort. Ich möchte es versuchen. Durova^Charge! 03:29, 30 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Podcasting for luddites[edit]

This site has free telephone conferencing. It's a long-distance call in the US, but otherwise there's no charge. All the reviews online seem to be good, and that it's not a scam (it appears to be promotional for the company's other services). Here's a podcast that uses this service (the service includes a recording function). This could be a way for NotTheWikipediaWeekly to tap into some of the great mass of people who are not on Skype. I wonder if it would be difficult to hook people on the telephone conference and Skype together on air at the same time...--Pharos (talk) 01:18, 30 April 2008 (UTC)--Pharos (talk) 01:18, 30 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sounds really interesting; thank you for the link. :) Durova^Charge! 03:25, 30 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I think we could dial in to this service from a Skype conference call, linking the Skype group together with a dial-in group on regular POTS (plain old telephone service) for people who did not want to give their phone number out.--Filll (talk) 13:03, 30 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

AGFC=99[edit]

Only one more to go before triple digits on the User:Filll/AGF Challenge!--Filll (talk) 13:00, 30 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

'Grats! Durova^Charge! 15:28, 30 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Re: An idea worth trying?[edit]

Hi, here's a thought that might do some good with the Israeli-Palesinian dispute on AE. Today I was chatting with an editor from Serbia. Mentioned the Serbian-Croatian ethnic disputes on en:Wiki and he surprised me by telling me the Serbian and Croatian Wikipedias actually get along pretty well. Basically what happened was some guys packed into a car, drove to Zagreb, and shook some hands. Then some other guys packed into another car, drove to Belgrade, and shook some hands. Once they saw that they were all pretty normal people, things calmed down a lot.

Maybe there's a way we can replicate that. Would you be willing to try a voice chat on Skype? I've noticed that when Wikipedia editors get into a conference call, with voices instead of just text, it's easier to find common ground. Wishing you well, Durova^Charge! 06:33, 29 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I am very open to the idea and find it very interesting. I congratulate the Serbian and Croatian Wikipedians for such a big step - though it took only a few steps. I am thinking of proposing it at Wikipedia:IPCOLL and Wikipedia:SLR as well. -- FayssalF - ^{Wiki me up®} 06:58, 1 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well, let's see how far it goes. I can't say that everyone in this dispute welcomes the idea. Thank you, though. Would you like to meet me on Skype as a preliminary? Durova^Charge! 07:03, 1 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Picture request[edit]

Hi Durova. Have you seen Talk:Learned Hand#Cleaning up the picture? Would you be interested, and would you have the time, to clean up Image:Judge Learned Hand 1924-12-02.jpg? Carcharoth (talk) 08:34, 1 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Abner Doubleday, before...working on getting to *after*.

Hm, I could do a few things to that one but it won't work miracles. It's got a very shallow depth of field so that his shoulder is the only thing in sharp focus, not his face. Wouldn't be too tough a job to do the things that can be done, though. Is this urgent? I'd like to finish a toughie first. I've been on this for days. Durova^Charge! 08:42, 1 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I did a quick look at yours. It's been downsampled from the original Library of Congress file, and hasn't been handled particularly well. It's not worthwhile to try to fix the .jpg artifacting on the current Commons file, but I might download the original 63 meg file. Don't expect miracles: it's got composition problems and lighting problems on top of the focus issue. I might be able to do a selective sharpen on that face. Will give this a look-see, but it's actually more work than I expected at first. Durova^Charge! 09:35, 1 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The LoC have other Learned Hand pictures, but only one other one from the Bain collection (ie. the others are not free). Doesn't need to be featured pic standard, just featured article pic standard, if that makes sense! :-) No rush. It will probably take a while before the article goes to FAC. Carcharoth (talk) 10:09, 1 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

OK. Try this one and this one. Probably no better (the first one is another scan of the same negative, the second one is a different picture). Would be nice to have both, but if you only have time for one, no problem. Carcharoth (talk) 10:17, 1 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Heh, I'm getting stretched pretty thin with so many hands pulling on my sleeve. Still not done with lil' Abner, but you're next. :) Durova^Charge! 04:44, 3 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Gah, I just realized what this is for. I'll be right on it. Unfortunately this is the only archival image that's at high enough resolution to work on. Will do my best. Durova^Charge! 17:00, 3 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

FYI[edit]

I have made a proposal re Jaakobou here --NSH001 (talk) 17:07, 1 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]