Durova, would you be open to discussion on the MZM RfA? I have no desire to "badger", but if you are open to discussion I would enjoy the conversation. — Ched : ? 00:04, 30 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Not sure what there is to discuss. I'm usually slow to form an opinion, firm (but not stubborn) about keeping it. Is there relevant evidence I'm unaware of? The main problem is communication skills, which seldom resolve at the swift interim since he walked away from the tools. Check the Soxred report: I've opposed at RFA less than 10% of the time. So if you have something, do tell, but unless it's seriously eye-opening don't expect me to be easy to persuade. Time has more silver on its tongue. Durova30600:17, 30 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Durova, somewhat bemused by your suggestion that Screenonline links are somehow 'spam' or 'advertising'. You may not know that Screenonline is a non-profit website run by the British Film Institute, the organisation charged with presiding over Britain's film and TV heritage. The site is heavily used across UK education, and widely recognised as an authoritative source - often a primary source - on the history of British film and television (indeed a source frequently cited - and on occasion plagiarised - in Wiki entries), and offers expert and substantial contextualisation as well as, for users in UK educational establishments or public libraries, hundreds of hours of moving image material. As such it represents an excellent resource for Wiki visitors who wish to explore a subject in greater depth - rather more so, I would say, than IMDB or AllMovie, which are routinely linked to from Wiki film entries.
I'm a fan and regular Wikipedia user, and contribute entries myself, and I'm well aware of Wiki's strengths, but also of its weaknesses. Wiki is strong - or at least can be - on factual information, but understandably and necessarily limited on subjective but authoritative assessment or analysis. Unless you believe there's no place on WP for linking to informed, intelligent analysis elsewhere, I hope you'd acknowledge that it's worthwhile to refer visitors to sites where such trustworthy content exists.
If you look elsewhere on my discussion page, you'll see that your fellow editor Steve Crook, an acknowledged expert on British cinema actually created the tool to enable easy addition of these links in recognition of Screenonline's value to Wiki users. Can I therefore respectfully ask that you reconsider your position? -- Cheesemite (talk) 16:06, 12 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Somewhat bemused by your out of section post which either hadn't read the existing discussion about your edits or ignored it. Nowhere did I suggest that the site itself is not reliable. It's your behavior that's the problem. For several months you did nothing other than add one particular site as an external link to a large number of articles. That is spamming. See WP:SPAM. You are very welcome to expand the articles and use that site as a reference. But that wasn't what you were doing. Durova36216:15, 12 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
That sounds good. But how I go about getting the review? Do I feel it out myself or do I need someone to nominate the picture? I guess I should ask Franamax if he/she would nominate my pic? Igor Berger (talk) 19:44, 31 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Once in a blue moon somebody who has no hands-on experience with this work develops very strange ideas about it, usually declaring very loudly that what we're doing is wrong and attempting to dictate a specific set of parameters that don't work. It's been several months since the last so perhaps we were due. This is the first occasion it's landed at Jimbo's user talk. Apologies if the response isn't quite on the ball; someone pinged me as soon as I logged on this morning. Am composing this while drowning in the first cup of morning coffee.
from Jimbo's page, I would like to respond here rather than there to avoid broad advertisement of what some might perceive as a developing conflict between us. I first need to explain that I am not "somebody who has no hands-on experience with this work" and then you can tell me what you think those strange ideas are. I have been working from the commercial printing side of this issue since really the late seventies, when I first worked as a night production manager at The Observer, the student daily at the University of Notre Dame. I made a few cropping decisions, nothing major and of course all the work was done through the use of a large production camera with the copyboard at the lens end and the exposure system film holder within the darkroom. I tried briefly to find an article or image to better describe one but you probably understand the equipment I am discussing. Over the course of the following thirty years I have progressed from using those type of large cameras well into the nineties to using Photoshop on the Macintosh starting in the eighties until now, and I also have begun working with GIMP. My work included making many of the decisions you discuss at Jimbo's page about exposure, scratches and the like with both monochrome and color images. I have an expert level understanding of the work involved in restoration with years of hands-on experience. Within the past ten years I have actually worked with art directors at major Boston advertising agencies (Arnold Worldwide, Hill Holliday) on several projects involving nationally published images for products including Volkswagen, Acushnet Company, John Hancock Insurance, you get the idea. I just need for you to understand that I am appreciative of your work on a professional level and have done quite a bit of it myself when working with client markups of modern images. I could go into further detail if needed. Bottom line: I know that much more than a few minutes of passing an image through a few preset filters is involved.
Regarding specifically your statement "attempting to dictate a specific set of parameters", I don't think that is a fair assessment of what I was doing by asking for Jimmy's opinion and I disclaimed anything outside of wanting the community to establish a strong opinion as a whole. I would very much like to work with you to help establish something that will nip in the bud an effort to promote work similar to what was done at the John Quincy Adams page, which I linked and am debating here. I view your efforts as degrees of magnitude superior to what I first saw at the JQA page. The image was fundamentally altered in tone, exposure, contrast, detail, and finally to my eye appears almost like an engraving rather than a photograph. If all that happens currently is, editor X decides a historic photograph is too scratchy and sends it over to the Commons Graphic Lab School where anyone can pick it up and do what they will to "enhance" or "clean" an image, we're in for a load of good intentions turned into bad results. Now I did link to the discussion of the FPC which Shoemaker is handling, but he isn't doing the actual restoration. That discussion is much more in line with what I would like to see before any work is even attempted. Again I stress a commitment to work with you not only on the establishment of principles but also from time to time on the work itself, offering my talents where needed. I am going to mention this response in a brief note at Jimbo's page, and look forward to your response to my offer here. Sswonk (talk) 21:46, 1 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Your initial post stated: "I will say that my opinion is that no Photoshopping or Gimping should be done to these historic photographs outside of possibly adjusting the levels a small amount to allow for clearer display on a computer display if an image is too dark to be easily viewed on such a device." Actually a straightforward levels adjustment can introduce problems to an otherwise unedited original. Any mounting background, damage, or subsequent physical alteration (such as writing on a print) affects the 0 to 255 brightness distribution upon which a levels adjustment is based. If discoloration has occurred, levels alteration usually gives the appearance of enhancing the discoloration. Some of the worst image edits at Wikipedia have been levels changes. Contact me privately for examples. Histogram alteration is a powerful tool. Your suggestion to permit that and disallow everything else would generate--well--the results would be amusing in an abstract sense. ;) Durova30822:02, 1 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
No doubt, the foot in mouth and train left the station defense is inadequate but I was thinking Jimbo would understand what I meant and that was an attempt to describe something in layman's terms. Bad attempt. Professionally "levels" is indeed a third-rail of image manipulation, so suffice to say I am glad no one thinks Jimbo's talk is policy. I hope we can get past that error quickly, I'll contact you in a minute. Sswonk (talk) 22:08, 1 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
With regard to the John Quincy Adams daguerrotype, I suspect the Library of Congress notes are incomplete and their image is a second generation duplicate rather than a scan from the original daguerrotype. Have given it a few close looks because of its historic importance, but there wasn't much that could be done with it. Ended up restoring this version intead, and getting this from it. Sad thing is, even when I explain in advance that the crop removed a librarian's notes and the mounting card, a steady trickle of comments wonder whether the writing on the sides was part of the original artist's intention. It's legible; you decide. ;) Durova30822:16, 1 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I took some time last night to attempt to clean up the text that has been added regarding early photographs of JQA both on en:wikipedia and Commons. I haven't yet tackled any other language pages that may link to the associated files. Here is the background: one scan on Commons was originally labeled[1] as "The first-ever photograph (daguerreotype) of an American President, taken after his presidency in 1848". This was later challenged and the history reveals the result was the placement of a {{fact disputed}} tag on the Commons page and an unresolved discussion of the dispute. I had read somewhere long before that JQA was the first president photographed and decided last night to look into the fact. Unfortunately, performing Google searches such as >> "John Quincy Adams" first president photographed and variations revealed a list dominated by collections of unsourced trivia pages, school "fun facts" pages and worse, mirrors of Wikipedia. Searching only within Google books at least revealed several mentions of a sitting in 1843, so narrowing the search down to pages with that year and the word "earliest" finally brought me to this well sourced history. The text of the magazine article details that the first president photographed was William Henry Harrison on his inaugural day in 1841, but that the image is lost. According to several book sources citing his diary, Adams, while a congressman following his presidency, was photographed on several occasions in 1843 and the "earliest known photograph of a president of the United States is a faint and scratched daguerreotype" now in the National Portrait Gallery, Smithsonian Institution.(direct URL to image not possible, one additional click on JQA name needed. Using those two sources and a comment you made elsewhere about the process involved, I made edits to the John Quincy Adams page and the summary information at two Commons images, one of which still listed a later 1843 image by Philip Haas: File:John_Quincy_Adams_1824.jpg and File:John_Quincy_Adams.JPG. The second of those had still listed the image as "The First Photograph of a President of the United States of America", without a disputed tag on the description page. Can you please check my edits to those three pages, John Quincy Adams, File:John_Quincy_Adams_1824.jpg and File:John_Quincy_Adams.JPG for accuracy and prose, and remove the disputed tag from the first image if it is now correct (see the file talk page)? The previous texts unfortunately were all incorrect and mirrored, and are likely in use across multiple projects. I am hoping the pages are now at least accurate, although the odd title of File:John_Quincy_Adams_1824.jpg should probably be changed as well, and I am not sure how that will affect linking pages. The commonly mentioned trivia item, "The first president photographed was John Quincy Adams", appears to be wrong based on the William Henry Harrison anecdote (with citation in the PDF), yet it is found in several places on the internet, which likely added to the confusion here in the first place. Sswonk (talk) 13:05, 4 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Question: There is a lot of data and linking above which concerns the now disproved statement "The first president photographed was John Quincy Adams", and I made edits and provided sources for several changes on Commons and en:wikipedia. The one edit I really want to confirm is shown here, where I changed the infobox photo caption from "Daguerreotype of John Quincy Adams in 1847 or 1848, by Mathew Brady" to "Glass collodion negative copy c. 1860 of a daguerreotype of John Quincy Adams in 1847 or 1848, attributed to Mathew Brady" (edited to lowercase "D" for "daguerreotype" since diff). I'm still not entirely sure that is correct, you have commented on the process and attribution previously so: is the second caption text correct, or would you phrase it differently? I'm hoping we can establish a completely accurate and definitive description of this image for use as a good caption for all projects where it is used. The check usage toolserver was down when I wrote this but I seem to remember that the image is used on several wikis. Thanks – Sswonk (talk) 17:39, 8 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Wow, you've certainly done a lot of hard work on this captioning! I suspect it's rephotography with manual retouching added. This makes sense in context: there would have been a market for reproductions of Adams's portrait and the options were limited when the original was a daguerrotype. There was a substantial loss of quality (which is evident at high resolution), so manual retouching would have attempted to reconstruct important detail. Adams was an important enough subject to merit the extra effort, but early retouching often looks crude. One of the reasons I've steered clear of this matter is because it would definitely cross the NOR line to state those inferences in article space. The alternative--if you're dedicated enough--would be to contact the LOC staff and the Smithsonian staff to investigate this, and then if it seems to check out seek publication at an offsite venue. Am reminded of this example. Durova31218:24, 8 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I understand the importance of what you describe here, but I am confused about how it applies to the discussion at hand and/or if it was directed at me specifically for some reason or was just a general statement being appended to the thread.
I don't believe that I have advocated for anything that violates the concerns you have raised. Do you believe that I have somehow? --GoRight (talk) 17:06, 3 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Not to the best of my knowledge, no. Haven't been following the details of your recent dispute. There are two types of pitfalls to avoid:
Editors who have justifiable reason to restore or proxy make it convenient to do so by altering policy in ways that weaken the safeguards against abuse.
Editors who have a strong POV on a controversial topic leverage strict policy language in the hope of precipitating additional sitebans and gaining a monopoly over editorial POV.
Somewhere in between there is a happy medium where minority views are represented fairly and malicious abuse is minimized. The best compromise I've found in four years as a Wikipedian is advance public notice. The inconvenience for the editor who wishes to do a legitimate proxy is much less than dealing with the fallout after a matter goes haywire. Durova31017:27, 3 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, just following up on a previous discussion about a special editiion triple crown for the WikiProject Video games. Since the last discussion, three more VG project members have earned triple crowns: Drilnoth, Nomader, and myself.
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. He pushed Characters of Final Fantasy VIII through GA and FA. 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. Almost all the citations (more than 10) in this version were added by him.
Just out of curiosity, do you create the image used or is that something we're responsible for? The only reason I'm asking is because we have a number of editors that I'm sure would jump for the opportunity to create it, myself included. :-p Let me know at your earliest convenience. Thank you. (Guyinblack25talk21:03, 3 September 2009 (UTC))[reply]
An image you might be interested in...
Hi, Durova. It was suggested to me that this image might be worth trying to restore and nominate for Featured Picture, and I immediately thought of your excellent image work. Are you at all interested in working your restoration magic? If not, that's fine too, I just thought I'd ask. Regards, Parsecboy (talk) 00:07, 4 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
contact
Yes, I had disabled my email following an unwanted mail incident. You can use it now if you want (I'd rather not post it publicly on wiki, even though it's not hard to find >__>;;). Circeus (talk) 00:22, 4 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
You should have got these a month ago, but someone botched the closings. Anyway, better late than never... BTW, feel free to check and adjust how I've categorised them as it was a bit of rush job, as cleaning up after someone else can be. --jjron (talk) 08:52, 4 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
New page patrol
Hi, it looks like you're (like me) on newpage patrol tonight -- if so, please remember to patrol each page by clicking the "Mark this page as patrolled" link in the lower right-hand corner. Makes it easier to avoid duplicating effort. :-) Thanks! Tim Pierce (talk) 02:38, 5 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Howdy. Just wanted to leave you a note letting you know I've removed your PROD tag from the article as it recently survived an AFD [4]. Cheers. L0b0t (talk) 16:40, 5 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
My removal of the tag was purely procedural and in no way an endorsement of the article's existence. If you would like to AfD it again I certainly wouldn't object (though I do like to think I've cleaned it up some). Cheers. L0b0t (talk) 00:46, 6 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
No need; just something that turned up on the back end of new pages patrol. While Dragonfire is taking a break it's an area that needs help. Durova31101:10, 6 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Tricepalous seems to be important in the Mole Man's plot in his appearance. Besides, Tricephalous is going to appear in The Super Hero Squad Show. Perhaps it can be rewritten in your own words. I added a discussion page for any objections for AFD. Rtkat3 (talk) 7:24, 5 September 2009 (UTC)
If reliable third party reviews discuss Tricephalous as important then that would probably establish notability. For an example of a notable fictional character, see Martha Logan which is a good article. Unfortunately I will be unable to assist you in the improvement drive for your article; came across it while patrolling the back end of new page creations. Wikipedia has less than one day lead time on that right now and the most active editor in that area is taking a well deserved break. If the article improves I'll gladly withdraw the nomination though. Best wishes, Durova31100:09, 6 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Digital Restoration
Hey their Durova, I saw your offer at WT:CUP about learning about how to restore historical images, and if you have the time, I would be love to learn how to be able restore historical images. Thanks and All the Best, Mifter (talk) 00:14, 6 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Wonderful. The best online client for coaching image restoration seems to be Skype. It's very good for file transfers and it supports both text and voice chats. If that works for you too then contact me offsite for my Skype ID. Will be glad to get you started with beginner projects. Best regards, Durova31100:31, 6 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy deletion of Vishal (name) for blatant copyright infringement
Could I see the notice of where Vishal (name) was copied from please? I'm quite willing to believe the deletion is correct as I copied it from Vishal when I turned Vishal into a disambiguation page. However the article disappeared very quickly before I had any chance to see what was being complained about and a quick scan on the web didn't turn up anything for me. Thanks. Dmcq (talk) 13:09, 6 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
By the way what's the point of the message about hangon in the message I was given? I obviously would not have had the slightest chance to do that. Dmcq (talk)
It looked a bit questionable so I copy/pasted a paragraph into a Google search. If memory serves, that looked like a non-mirror exact match. Durova31213:54, 6 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Ah. Was comparing the post date of that site to the creation of the WP article; hadn't considered that the new article could have been branched off from a previous article. If that checks out with the page histories then I withdraw any complaint against the page. Consider yourself welcome do show this post to any administrator. Would be perfectly valid restore. Durova31216:13, 6 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the heads up; I'll have a look. Probably that was uploaded and nominated before Commons started accepting TIFF files. Durova31216:08, 6 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Can you please explain why links to this site are removed ?
The article linked to contains very many valid points regarding control tables (although I dont necessarily agree with all of them)ken (talk) 07:51, 9 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Hard to answer without knowing which article you're referring to. Generally speaking, there are very few situations where Geocities sites satisfy WP:RS. Durova31217:46, 9 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Clickteam articles
I seconded some of your prods, but I notice that one of the articles (The Games Factory) was redirected by another editor after your prod. I wonder if that might not be the simplest solution for all of them. If the product articles were redirected to the company article, then the TfD for the products template would be a slam-dunk. --RL0919 (talk) 19:20, 9 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
All done. Some of the material from the product articles could probably be merged into the company article, but it isn't really an interest area of mine so I'm going to leave it at redirecting for now. --RL0919 (talk) 20:19, 9 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Hi there! I'm prepping Trans-Alaska Pipeline System for a run at FAC and was wondering if you might have a minute or two to take a look and let me know if you have any questions about the subject that aren't answered by the article. Since so much has been written about it, I'm particularly concerned about undue weight and providing enough information about different aspects of the topic. It's kind of like colorbalancing a photo. Well, it's not like that at all, but you get the idea. Any comments or questions you have would be helpful. Thanks. JKBrooks85 (talk) 08:36, 10 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Dear Durova, with regards to your suggestion we delete the Naked Heart Foundation page I wrote. I have added a couple of references to the Daily Telegraph and to the Observer (major UK broadhseet papers). Is this sufficent? If so would you remove the delete tag or let me know so that I can? If it is not Ok then let me know and I will look for more. Best wishes (Msrasnw (talk) 09:49, 10 September 2009 (UTC))[reply]
Yes, that's fine. I hate to prod that type of article, but sometimes it's necessary. No time to undertake expansions on the back end of new pages patrol when the margin is just a couple of hours. Kudos to your fine work. :) Durova31418:50, 10 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Just an FYI I won't be on Skype for a couple days because, as I feared, I went over my bandwidth limit and thus the connection in my room will be severely choked for a couple days. Staxringoldtalkcontribs17:28, 10 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Ouch! Yes, bandwidth issues can be serious. Have you considered contacting your provider and informing them what your bandwidth use is for? Most bandwidth limitations get imposed to control the provider's costs of transmitting unsavory material. If you talk one-on-one with the right person and show them your growing portfolio, you might be able to negotiate an exception. Make sure they understand this is unpaid volunteer work for an educational nonprofit. And good luck! Durova31418:48, 10 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Nah, it's the UITS guys at UConn, not a paid service provider. Plus a lot of the consumption was from playing games (not Wiki work), and it'll cool down in a couple days (my total for 7 days cannot exceed 10 GB, I just barely went over that last night, so I'm choked until my 7 day total drops back to 7 GB or less, probably on Sunday). Staxringoldtalkcontribs19:04, 10 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, BTW, if you have any FPCs you're thinking about nominate them NOW. By my count any current nomination will be right in the running for #2000. It all depends how a couple that are up right now shake out. Staxringoldtalkcontribs19:06, 10 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Am really not the greatest at denoising. It's an art: you always lose detail. Requires a few kicks and tweaks to optimize. Ask one of the digitial photographers; they're a lot more practiced at it. Durova31516:37, 11 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
dePRODing of articles
Hello Durova, this is an automated message from SDPatrolBot to inform you the PROD templates you added to a number of articles were removed:
PROD removed from Independent Lutheran Diocese, by User:Hartvika, with summary '(added more information on page. on the page's talk page, gave Registry number of the Diocese along with address for verification. Also provided sites that have their web page links to the ILD.)'
Please consider discussing your concerns with the relevant users before pursuing deletion further. If you still think the articles should be deleted after communicating with the 'dePRODer,' you may send them to WP:AfD for community discussion. Thank you - SDPatrolBot (talk) (Learn how to opt out of these messages)
Centijimbos
Thank you so much for posting that link on Jimbo's talk page. Your blog is great, nice to read about TIFF support and that watcher tool is a great deal of fun (I'm at aprox. 1.3 centijimbos). Cheers. L0b0t (talk) 23:02, 11 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
If MZMcBride can be persuaded to incorporate cj units into userspace checks at his tool, someone could probably write a script to transclude to a userbox? Durova31723:50, 11 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Good for you. Things got down to 2 hours last evening so I left Photoshop to bring the back end to a 14 hour window. You really do awesome work here; a lot of people appreciate it. Am so glad you're returning. :) It makes a difference. Durova31815:38, 12 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
In this round of the WikiCup, the bottom four contestants of the top eight will be eliminated on September 30th, while the top four will continue with the same score for an additional month. On October 31, a winner will be announced.
Top 4
Durova (875)
Ottava Rima (650)
Theleftorium (618)
Shoemaker's Holiday (441)
Bottom 4
Sasata (426)
Candlewicke (277)
Mitchazenia (257)
Juliancolton (253)
All scores are accurate as of 18:57, 12 September 2009 (UTC).
Content Leaders
As of this newsletter, the following is a list of participants in this round with the most:
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.
Out of curiosity, how hard is it to learn how to restore images? Do you need any special skills or specific computer programs? And do you know where I could find a place to read up on the process? TomStar81 (Talk) 06:48, 13 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Anyone who's computer literate can do the basics and collaborate on an easy restoration. Some restorations are simple, others very difficult. Helps to have an experienced person screen material and coach. Photoshop is great if you already have it, GIMP is free if you don't. Very few books have been published on this subject. Digital Restoration from Start to Finish is somewhat helpful, but its main focus is family photographs from the mid-twentieth century and never mentions GIMP. Shoemaker's Holiday and I mostly developed our own techniques. We've been making headway with museums because we don't lean on plug-ins and our work exceeds current professional standards. There's a particular example we may be able to share the details of publicly soon, where a museum owned a separate copy of a mass produced nineteenth century image that has been featured at Wikipedia. The museum had already commissioned a local graphic artist to restore their copy. When Wikimedians approached them they compared their restoration to ours and decided ours was superior; that was one of the elements that led to serious negotiation.
Anyway, the best way to get your toes wet is to email me for my Skype ID. It's an excellent client for media collaboration. There are quite a few files from WWII and the Crimean War that would make good novice projects. Normally for a first restoration I coach, you do the easy parts, and when the hard stuff comes along I step you through it or pitch in and show you how. When it's finished we conominate. Sounds fair? Durova31807:13, 13 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry for my delayed response; In what may be a bizarre twist of fate my internet here has been fading in and out all weekend, and I fear I may soon be limited to school based internet editing exclusively. At any rate, your proposal sounds fair. Owing to my upcoming leave of absence I am a little wary about starting this immediately, though I know this is not fair to you I have to ask if you would be willing to wait until December to take me on as a student for this particular skill, though this may also work to both your and milhist's advantage: If I can find a few more good users would you be willing to take on a small group and show us the ropes, or would this skill be better leaned in a 1-on-1 approach? TomStar81 (Talk) 08:09, 14 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Whenever the time and connection are both available, fine. Usually newcomers join the WikiVoices channel. We augment text with voice chats when enough people are online who want it. A fair number of the WV regulars do some media editing, so whether it's one or a group things fit in. Best regards, Durova31901:41, 16 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
"Congregation Emunath Israel"
Durova, Thank you for asking. The photograph is great. I like the expressions on the people's faces. But a quick search turns up little on the synagogue. This is the best name and address I can get for it: "Congregation Emunath Israel" "236 W 23rd St, New York, NY, 10011 " I'll keep on looking, but I am not sure that there is enough for an article. Bus stop (talk) 14:00, 13 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for looking into it. Interesting how the two women are walking in step elbow to elbow, but looking in different directions lost in thought. Durova31818:21, 13 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : XLII (August 2009)
The August 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) 19:40, 13 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Moved from user page
I have removed the {{prod}} tag from Gridrunner Revolution, which you proposed for deletion. I'm leaving this message here to notify you about it. If you still think the article should be deleted, please don't add the {{prod}} template back to the article. Instead, feel free to list it at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion. Thanks! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Quinling (talk • contribs)
Hi Durova, I'm working on images in the academy. We would like to include a section on image restoration in the adavanced or intermediate course that explains briefly how to obtain freeware or cheap software to enhace images like photos taken at a museum or improve old black&white images. I would very much appreciate your contributions. Thanks a lot. Greetings Wandalstouring (talk) 11:15, 14 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
For all of your extremely hard work in restoring and improving photographs and other images, and therefore bettering all of wikipedia. Skinny87 (talk) 18:17, 14 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I've been following your conversation with Roger and the others, and I just wanted to give you this barnstar for all your hardwork. I don't think I'm a Coordinator anymore, so this isn't really official, but then who cares? The main thing is that you deserve, especially for the Wounded Knee restoration that you did. And I'm sorry that MILHIST hasn't been the receptive area that you'd hoped it would be; if I could offer some explanation, then for me it would be that the project just doesn't have the members with the interest in imagery that other wikiprojects, such as WP:Baseball, does. Perhaps there are projects that would be even more enthusiastic - and projects that might be even less? Again, I don't know, but I do hope you don't take it personally. Thank-you very much for all the hard work that you've done for MILHIST, and the entire of wikipedia in particular. Yours, Skinny87 (talk) 18:17, 14 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Richmond, Virginia. 1865
Thank you very much. It really is heartwarming to see that you care. May I be candid? It's a bit hard to hit the right note with this, so please be understanding. Our sights should be set on a different horizon. We've reached the level where it really becomes possible to establish partnerships with offsite cultural institutions. The Tropenmuseum has already donated over 2000 images to Commons about the cultural history of Suriname. They've committed to 100,000 images about the former Dutch colonial empire. Imagine if we built upon that type of synergy with collections of military history?
Last week while I was at the blood bank an old copy of Smithsonian was on the table. In 2002 a bank in Alexandria, Virginia discovered old trunks in its basement; the contents had been neglected and forgotten for 85 years. They contained family archives that Robert E. Lee's daughter had deposited for storage the year before her death. The bank donated the collection to the Virginia Historical Society. If you really want to express appreciation for my work, please find a MILHIST volunteer in northern Virginia. There are several restorations they could show the historical society such as the one at right of the destruction at Richmond. Most nonprofits don't have the budget to commission this type of work (at least not at high quality). There's a synergy to be built here. Let's pursue it. Durova31818:40, 14 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Actually one of the UK editors and I were kicking around fundraising ideas about a month ago and an idea arose which might be feasible next year. Apparently a lot of British charities sell wall calendars for fundraising. It's always a challenge to find good presents for men. So we were thinking a calendar of featured pictures about British military history such as here where y'all burned our capitol and darn near turned us Yanks back into a colony. The UK chapter has a bit of organizing to do first. Once the paperwork is in place, does this seem tempting? Durova31821:39, 14 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Well, I'd buy something like that - seems like a great idea. Over here you get a lot of military aircraft calendars and maybe some of vehicles, but something like you're suggesting I haven't seen much of, if at all. Skinny87 (talk) 08:13, 15 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Wonderful. WMF UK is arranging preliminary events in London, if that's not too far out of your way. In the meantime, will deliver something to your wiki-door. Durova31901:34, 16 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Hello
I am writing this to you because I notice from the Joseph Priestley talk page you are a) an admin and b) neutral on the subject of left aligned images.
I am writing about an interminable dispute on this page over a lead image.
About 3 months ago an editor (User:Srnec) changed the lead image to a picture of a statue with a corona; this caused quite an argument and was eventually rejected
He then started a nagging campaign to have the original image (another statue) removed.
He was joined in this 6 weeks ago by another editor (User:Ekwos) saying much the same thing.
The upshot is the article now has a left aligned image of yet another statue.
A fortnight ago I referred it for comment, though that was probably the wrong thing to do; what it needs is someone neutral (ie an admin ) to make a summary and close the discussion.
Which brings me to you: Can you do that? Or comment? Or advise? Swanny18 (talk) 21:03, 14 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
PROD removed from UTStarcom CDM1450, by User:ShawnIsHere, with summary '(Noteworthy because it is a currently manufactured phone, an improvement on the UTStarcom CDM1400. Also added information involving multiple carriers)'
Please consider discussing your concerns with the relevant users before pursuing deletion further. If you still think the articles should be deleted after communicating with the 'dePRODer,' you may send them to WP:AfD for community discussion. Thank you - SDPatrolBot (talk) (Learn how to opt out of these messages)
Multimedia Usability Meeting in France
Hello Durova, I've sent you an email about the multimedia usability meeting, but I'm not sure it ever got to you. If you haven't received it (and if you have too, actually), could you drop me a line at delphinePUNTOmenardATwikimediaPOINTfr? It would be great if you can make it to Paris. Thank you! notafishtalk on meta—Preceding undated comment added 23:43, 15 September 2009 (UTC).[reply]
Today, I received a barnstar for stalking someone's talk page. I then realized it's the first barnstar I've gotten in over a year. FML iMatthewtalk at 02:16, 16 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I must have sent you a message at one time, although I have no idea when or why. I never took this age off my watchlist (I rarely do). So, yeah, I lurk to a certain degree, as in I saw your edit summary and was curious to see what you meant. I hope you believe me that there's nothing sinister in this. I've got lots of user talk pages on my watchlist. Cheers. freshacconci talktalk01:50, 16 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I decided to watch this page due to our interactions via E-mail where you were very helpful and kind to me. I also consider you a friend (and a friendly person overall), and that's the other reason why I watch your pages. Best. Acalamari01:56, 16 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I lurk. I just lurk. I'm a lurker. I was a lurker in a previous lifetime. I lurk out of a sense of not wanting to miss anything. I suffer deep pangs of shame for my lurking propensities. But I am learning to cope. Bus stop (talk) 02:11, 16 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I lurk because the host posts interesting pictures, gives out free barnstars and does craftwork with socks ( so clearly they need to be watched! ;p ) –xenotalk02:18, 16 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
with respect to Hb of coastal & ocean engineering, are you startled at the price? $198 for a 1300 p. volume of this sort is quite ordinary. If anything, it's a little on the low side, and my guess as a librarian is that it implies either expected wide sales, or rather low quality. BTW, the book might conceivable be notable, but it's hard to tell as it's just out so I can't judge by holdings or reviews. The article of course is ridiculous, not just the table of contents, but the irrelevant puffery at the start about the importance of the subject. DGG ( talk ) 05:32, 16 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Can you help me with this?
I was wanting to add a map to this page, on the lines of the one here. Can you tell me how to do it? or where to look for advice on how to do it? Thanks Swanny18 (talk) 15:32, 16 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I don't create maps, just restore old ones. There's a whole mapmaking culture in Wikipedia somewhere...try checking out the creator on a few maps you like. Durova31915:39, 16 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
You added two tags to my page, and I'm wondering what your specific reasons were. The tag asking me for reliable sources I removed because I have no idea what would be a more reliable source for what happened on the episodes of the show than the DVD collection for all four seasons of the show, which I personally own and can verify the information on the page with. The tag asking me to "wikify" the page I left up, but mainly because there are indeed deviations from the typical episode list on the page - owing to the fact that Soap episodes have no names (so I can't include episode titles) and that they have multiple plotlines in a show (so I can't use the conventional "short summary" to summarize one unified plot). Outside of those two things, my episode list looks pretty much the same as everyone else's on here for the most part. I did use the "title" box to show what new characters were introduced in particular episodes (which was a handy thing to do for Soap specifically because it has a huge ensemble cast, with new characters being introduced often on the show). But generally, I did try to keep to the normal format - it was just difficult to do this for Soap because so much about the show is different than other shows.
I do see that other episode list pages include information about the DVD sets for a show when they are available, and I was thinking this might be something I could do to update the page. But outside of that, I really think the page is fine the way it is...the "wikify" tag really seems to point to the fact that I've deviated in a few places from the normal format, but I feel I did have to do that in certain areas. Zachary Klaas (talk) 23:17, 16 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Three of the sources for this article are Geocities homepage, the Internet Movie Database, and a page by someone called Dean Adams. IMDB is not acceptable per Wikipedia:Reliable sources, and the Geocities and Dean Adams homepages would not be acceptable unless some unusual reason applied (such as being the personal page of a producer of the show). Please wikilink the introductory section to other articles. Durova31902:13, 17 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The Geocities homepage has the liner notes for the DVD collection. Because I have the DVD collection with those liner notes, I recognize that information comes from there. I'll update that reference to indicate this, though if I already have the DVDs themselves identified as as source, this seems a little perfunctory. IMDB and Dean Adams had the dates the shows ran, and I didn't have any other source for that information. What do you want there, an indication on the Talk page that if anyone can find this information in the New York Times, that would be appreciated, because all I have is IMDB and a guy named Dean Adams? Or is there someplace I can look for these dates that you'll accept? Zachary Klaas (talk) 15:03, 17 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, a little looking around shows me why you're ragging on IMDb while at the same time leaving my TV.com reference alone. Apparently, IMDb is unacceptable because they let anyone edit it (kind of like Wikipedia...) whereas TV.com only allows its "top contributors" to edit it (could be idiots with a high posting ratio, but presumably the assumption is that the top contributors are more reliable, whereas some stray poster could mislead IMDb). Since that seems to be the bone of contention with IMDb, I will do as was done on the "How I Met Your Mother" episode guide and move IMDb to an "external links" list and out of the "reference" list.Zachary Klaas (talk) 15:32, 17 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Random Geocities sites aren't reliable even when they reproduce reliable sources. I could start a Geocities site that reproduces The New York Times election results, which is faithful in every respect except for the minor typographical error that ends the story "President McCain". Durova31914:47, 18 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I don't mean to be disrespectful, but I have the DVD liner notes. Physically. On my person. The site shows what I have in hard copy version. This is a computer, and people can't download my hardcopy liner notes, but someone out there has transcribed them, and I can direct people to that with a simple point-and-click. Am I to understand that you would prefer that instead I make a PDF of my liner notes and post them to the Commons? That seems like a tremendously pointless hassle to go through just because people don't like Geocities. I do cite the hardcopy version separately, so what do you think I should do? Should I move that down to be an "external link" as well? Is it just a problem that it appears as a "reference"? I think it's kind of user-hostile not to have any link to that site. Zachary Klaas (talk) 15:42, 18 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Citing the liner notes directly is fine. Bear in mind that liner notes count as self-published sources for this purpose. Third party sourcing such as critical reviews would help. Durova31916:13, 18 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, Durova I have a question for you. I just found your Triple Crown subpage, and I am having trouble comprehending the rules (probably because it is 5 am here and I'm tired, but refuse to go to bed). I feel like an idiot for asking, but instead of me wasting time reading the page over and over again until I figure out if I qualify for one, just thought to ask you. What do you think, do I qualify? Thank you for your time.--WillC08:59, 19 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I've gone ahead and proposed deletion. There's also a theoretical possibility that with expansion and additional sources both biographies could be kept as Wikipedia articles. Was the discovery discussed extensively in the South African press? Have they made other noteworthy achievements that received third party coverage? Passing mention of a co-patent isn't enough to justify a biography by itself, but if these are notable scientists then it would be fine to have fleshed-out articles for both of them. Best regards, Durova32018:01, 20 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I'm here to address the reason you deleted my article on Wes Straub. You stated:
Fails WP:MUSIC. Dubious assertions of notability, such as claiming to have played at the Burning Man festival. Burning Man has no signed acts.
While my list of notable performances may have appeared "dubious," each performance was cited in at least once by a source. I challenge you to go back and check it out for yourself. If I said he played Burning Man, it's because a source stated he played Burning Man ([5]). And if that's not good enough, then delete that part, not my entire article. So would you please restore my article?
A couple of weeks ago, you marked Blok (Furniture) for speedy deletion as a copyvio and I deleted it. When asked about it on my talk page, I took a second look and the text of the deleted article does not seem to match what is on the webpage it was marked as a copy of. Normally, I check closely before deleting, but maybe I didn't notice that they didn't match. Or maybe the website has since changed. I have undeleted the article for now, but can you please take a second look? -- Ed (Edgar181) 12:49, 23 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The entire introduction is a direct cut and paste from the site I linked in the CSD template. Not a single word was changed. The editor does not use quotation marks and cites only half of that text to a source. Durova32020:07, 23 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Sigh...I'm getting old. That should have been obvious to me. I have removed the cut-and-pasted portion and proposed deletion of the article because I don't see any evidence that it meets Wikipedia's notability guidelines. Thank you. -- Ed (Edgar181) 20:19, 23 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Fair enough. It can be a close call when part of the article is direct cut/paste and the rest is barely reworded from a catalog. Best regards, Durova32020:28, 23 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Howdy. I was wondering if you might be able to take a look at this image, the licensing info claims 1940 (therefore public domain and free from Crown Copyright) but the image itself shows a theater marquee advertising 2 films that weren't released until 1954 or so. Working with images is something that I have very little experience with and am unsure if being produced after 1949 would have any fair use/copyright implications. If you have a moment would you be so kind as to give me a pointer on actions that may or may not need to be taken? Cheers. L0b0t (talk) 16:32, 24 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
No worries. User:Ccrashh was kind enough to mosey down to the City of Ottawa Archives (IIRC the original source of the image in question) and consult the fine folks therein. From there it's off to the copyright question board. Thanks. L0b0t (talk) 01:02, 26 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
2009 flu pandemic is read by ~750,000 people per month. We've done a major overhaul to go for WP:GAC. If you have time could you take a look? It's very important, possibly the most important article on Wikipedia at the moment. Best regards, JehochmanTalk00:28, 26 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I'm stretched as thin as can be with existing commitments. Held a telephone interview this afternoon with a special collections curator from the University of California, Santa Barbara. Writing a piece for Signpost while the notes are fresh. Need to return to Tropenmuseum restorations, and then there's the mailing list monster. Can't help you, sorry. Durova32000:33, 26 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
In this round of the WikiCup, the bottom four contestants of the top eight will be eliminated on September 30th, while the top four will continue with the same score for an additional month. On October 31, a winner will be announced.
Top 4
Theleftorium (938)
Durova (914)
Ottava Rima (910)
Sasata (849)
Bottom 4
Shoemaker's Holiday (679)
Candlewicke (370)
Mitchazenia (347)
Juliancolton (306)
All scores are accurate as of 20:05, 26 September 2009 (UTC).
Content Leaders
As of this newsletter, the following is a list of participants in this round with the most:
I can't image any way that something you nominate even as early as today will pass before Wednesday. If anything you've already nominated passes between now and Wednesday, or you still have things you haven't added to your submission pages, now is the time to do it! This half of the round ends this Wednesday (September 30) at 23:59 (UTC), and the bottom four contestants will be eliminated. The top four will keep their score from the first half, and continue competing through October 31. Good luck everyone!
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. --EdwardsBot (talk) 00:56, 27 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
There is a dispute [6] about the publication of WikiVoices #45 of which you were a particapant.
Do you have any comments to add about how this matter has been handled? 99.150.255.75 (talk) 04:19, 27 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Not really. I hadn't signed up for the episode, was offline when the edit war occurred, and did relatively little during the episode. Mostly was there to record; was doing unrelated work in another program.
Thanks - picture looks just like my Uncle Joe. For the WikiVoices episode 45 - do you have a copy of the record that you made? How long was the round table? Did any of the winners of the election take part? What happens to the recordings ordinarily? Is only one made? Has anyone every lost the recording? 99.150.255.75 (talk) 04:45, 27 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
You know, I looked at your post to ANI and it really does appear to be unhelpful. The thread is a request for administrative review of an edit war that occurred today. It doesn't appear that any of the names you added were involved in that edit war. Please remove my name and leave me out of it. Durova32004:50, 27 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks - your name as a community participant is now in a collapsed section. I respect your desire to be left out. Can you suggest anyone who could calmly mediate (informal mediation - not any kind of official mediation) this matter in a calm, logical and possibly friendly manner? I don't try to be unhelpful - I think it just comes across that way in my writing - I want to just jump in an have everyone understand each other better. Best wishes 99.150.255.75 (talk) 05:35, 27 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks to your comments in the thread about the gerbil, I've official started out my day with uproarious laughter. I can't find any humour-related barnstars, but I'd give you one if there were one. Heimstern Läufer(talk)01:09, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I am not going to file an RFC/U against somebody who is just going to feud with me by making counter-assertions. This is apparent from how the ANI discussion went. I was looking for a response like, Yes, I now see that an admin should not have knowing supported a sock puppet's RFA. I won't do that again. Oh well, I tried and failed. If you are concerned about admins (and Oversight applicants) who help their "best friend" flout the rules, you are welcome to start an RFC/U. I shall avoid participating because I do not want to engage in feuding. My feeling is that a simple admonishment would do. An RFC seems like overkill. JehochmanTalk15:32, 30 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
If you don't want to engage in feuding, Mr. Hatfield, please stop aiming at the McCoys. I would gladly certify a conduct RfC on either of you. But I won't be the one to start it. Now if you'll excuse me I'll be running back into the Photoshop cave and casting shadows upon the wall. Durova32015:54, 30 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Retaliatory threats are counterproductive. Along with your talk page blanking, that gives the impression of being more interested in 'winning' than in achieving resolution. Although I agreed with the merits of your argument, the way you presented it generated cringes. Particularly in light of the overall purpose of that thread (a banned editor's lack of decorum). When a disgraced former administrator considers your conduct reprehensible, you ought to either RFC me immediately or feel chastened. Instead you proclaimed that discussing the matter with the other party was unlikely to be useful[7] and nonetheless proceeded ten minutes later to do so[8][9] - even edit conflicting with me at her user talk.[10] If your conduct were at least internally consistent that would be worthy of respect, but you lower yourself. Durova32020:56, 30 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
DYK for Randall's Thumb
On September 30, 2009, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Randall's Thumb, which you created or substantially expanded. You are welcome to check how many hits your article got while on the front page (here's how) and add it to DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.
Hi Durova. I have decided to remove a few things from my WikiCup submissions page after the discussions at WT:CUP and iMatthew's talk page, and now I have less points than you. Would you like to take my place in the final? Theleftorium19:20, 1 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I'd love to stay in, and thank you very much for the offer. The judges seem to be working on something. So will defer. Much obliged. :) Durova32019:43, 1 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
(probably easier here than on wikipedia review!) - I'm still a bit behind on all the shenanigans (though getting there) - but I'd like to at least try and cut to the chase a little and try and help out a bit. Do you have the file by any chance, and would you mind bunging it onto something like MediaFire and flicking me a link? cheers, Privatemusings (talk) 21:08, 1 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
That's the sort of thing I'd really run past a lawyer who has experience in copyright issues. Thank you for asking; better to defer to the real experts. Best regards, Durova32003:43, 2 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Well, I'll (rashly?) jump in on this one. Two points, which both lead me to think it's just fine, from a legal standpoint: (1) The ineligibility to claim copyright on 2d text seems well documented here on Wikipedia, and the simple act of adding depth in a third dimension couldn't by any reasonable interpretation be enough to add a copyright claim. So it's very hard to imagine that there is actually a copyright to violate. (2) In what I would consider the extremely unlikely circumstance that there is a copyright, this photograph would be a perfectly good instance of fair use. It's a 2d shot of a 3d thing; it's not superbly high quality; it in no way threatens to reduce the copyright holder's ability to profit from their work. So it would be a pretty clear-cut case of fair use.
All of that leaves us with no need to consult a lawyer; merely a need to evaluate the image's use under Wikipedia's content guidelines. If there is any issue, it is distinguishing between (1) and (2) above. If we go with (1), there's no need for concern. If we want to play it safe and go with (2), write up a non-free use rationale.
But in my own opinion, I really think the only copyright holder in this instance is the photographer, who has released the 2d image under a copyleft license already. -Pete (talk) 03:57, 2 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Durova. I'm writing about the RFC process for the signpost, and I want to try and get as many sides of RFC as I can. I was wondering if you'd be willing to talk about your experience with the process, especially Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Durova, so we can get the experience of someone who has been through an RFC? HidingT10:55, 2 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I've mentioned you at User talk:Vassyana. I'm really sick and tired of you stalking hounding me around the wiki trying to trip me up whenever possible with your faux polite criticisms. Wikipedia is not a game. You've told me that I did something against your interests in 2007, and you've apparently been trying to settle the score ever since. Please stop. What you are doing is not proper; no amount of featured content credits, barnstars, or dried ears hanging from your belt can make up for treating another human badly, repeatedly. JehochmanTalk13:04, 2 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I comment at many noticeboard threads and many arbitration requests; yours are not special. It was you who changed WP:STALK to WP:HOUND[12] shortly after I proposed the alteration.[13] You know the FBI opened an investigation into real world harassment I received. That was no game; the perpetrator lived within driving distance of my home. And now you direct the word "stalking" at me, while you suppose me in need of a lecture that Wikipedia is not a game? Either your memory is lacking or this is very poor taste indeed. Durova32013:50, 2 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
An example of me acting in good faith toward you, and getting nothing but cheap shots in return. Please show me examples where you comment in support of my opinion at any of these multiple threads. The pattern from Durova to Jehochman is either silence, or criticism. That's statistically improbable in the extreme. If I am wrong, I'd like to be set straight. JehochmanTalk13:58, 2 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Jehochman, right now I am working on "I Didn't Raise My Boy To Be A Soldier", which was arguably the most important antiwar song of World War I. Yesterday the article didn't exist; I have a related featured picture candidate to nominate. Assume good faith used to be policy. It ought to be promoted back from guideline to policy because of situations like this. You could have determined for yourself that my RFAR post was based upon a consistent principle that comes up in many RFARs that have nothing to do with you. Instead you complained to both me and an arbitrator, and after we both explained the background you shift your complaint slightly and ask me to disprove it. You have been in the habit of asking me to help with your content drives; would you like to help with mine? If not, then please stop these complaints which interfere with it. It must be stressful to be the subject of two arbitration requests at the same time, but I didn't place you in that position and the little time I've spent on those matters has been attempting to deescalate them. At Vassyana's user talk I suggested blanking both these threads as good faith misunderstanding. That would really be the best conclusion, if you're willing. Durova32014:49, 2 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Hochman, there is no need to accuse Durova of wikistalking you when she posts at such a prominent page. Are the rest of us stalking you as well? I suggest you reconsider your suspicions. That said, Durova, you're leaning on AGF a bit much for someone who disagrees so vehemently with Hochman. You might want to apply what you're asking for - say "I can see how you might feel I'm pursuing you, but this is not the case" rather than spit guidelines at him which you're currently ignoring. Now you can both be nice to each other and bitch me out, instead, for butting in. :-) KillerChihuahua?!?Advice14:56, 2 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, but the funny thing is that Durova and I see eye to eye on many issues, yet she's loath to ever concede, yes, Hochman is generally a jerk, but this time he's right. I'm fine with that. Could you be both positive and negative when dealing with me, instead of just negative, D?
Wow, I thought AGF was policy.
I would be glad help with your content drive. My two relevant skills are copy editing and fixing/adding references. I have this neat reference software that works on most web pages to automatically generate a reference. JehochmanTalk15:16, 2 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Really Mr Hochman, compose yourself, you are becoming paranoid, like my poor dear nephew, why on earth would Ms Durova want to stalk you? Do you have some fatal attraction? - No, you don't. You should realise that ladies like Ms Durova and myself have a perfect right, and indeed should opine, as the fancy take us wherever we like. I like to think we are helping to make Wikipedia a more decorous and calming place, and having a civilising effect on you shouting and squabbling menfolk. I feel Ms Durova and myself are sisters-in-unity doing good rather like the Poor Clares. Perhaps Ms Chihuahua would like to embrace our cause too? Which reminds me, I would so like her to meet my beloved Crippen (such a faithful and loyal hound) I know they would be great friends. Just remember Mr Hochman, I shall soon be on the Arbcom with Ms Durova and Ms Chihuahua as my ladies-in-waiting, so try to be a little more respectful or there will be some very serious consequences. Lady Catherine de Burgh (the Late) (talk) 15:29, 2 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
PS: In answer to Ms Durova's question accompanying her image of California (above) "Don't you wish you were here" - the answer is No, I do not! Nasty horrid place full of snakes and alligators eating everything and sight and very odd natives all having therapy for imaginary conditions - not my cup of tea at all. Lady Catherine de Burgh (the Late) (talk) 15:29, 2 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
PPS: Furthermore, Ms Durova, I'm not sure I would say "think of me as a little hamster" bearing in mind all those snakes, not to mention the odd people. I have read in the newspapers what happens to small rodents in those parts, and it's not at all comfortable reading. Lady Catherine de Burgh (the Late) (talk) 15:34, 2 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
(ec'd) You have a good point, KillerChihuahua. They way he first broached it really took me aback. Imagine having received elaborate fantasies of rape, murder, and throwing acid in my face--then discovering the person who was sending them was less than half a tank of gas away--and then someone who knows exactly why I object to frivolous use of the word "stalking" turn and use it on me. Yes, my reaction probably comes off as icy. Let's put it another way: if this were a political game I'd urge the Committee to open either of those proposed arbitration cases and then dump on him once they're underway. Instead I've been hoping that neither case opens and they go to other dispute resolution instead. If Jehochman wants to withdraw the RFAR and open RfC on Jennavecia I'd certify (saying so for the third time, and the inverse still applies too). If that doesn't make it obvious enough that politics is not the priority then there's probably no persuading him. Jehochman is not my pet enemy. But his misperception has very little bearing on my actions other than turning a one-coffee morning into a two-coffee morning about once every four or five months. Now excuse me while I go grind beans; there's a fresh bag of vanilla roast waiting to be opened. :) Durova32015:36, 2 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
(addendum) Giano, if you want to be taken seriously please post on a serious account. I didn't say anything at the main discussion, but you've shown up here so be aware I'm astounded that you replied to a serious apology from an arbitrator on a joke account. I haven't read anything you posted to this thread other than the signature. Durova32015:36, 2 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Don't worry Durova, I merely try to lighten the oppression; I'm sure no one was fooled for a second - relax. Just carry on as you were, real life can only be a merciful release. In the meantime, I shall continue to think of you as a little hamster. Giano (talk) 20:44, 2 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Giano, there aren't any alligators on this part of North America except at the zoo, but we have hummingbirds--they aren't afraid of people and sometimes use the nectar feeder when I'm standing right next to it. There's a Green Violetear right outside the window right now. Charming little creatures. One of those links at the top of this user talk goes to the BBC weather report for San Diego. I've been sending it to friends in New England; I'm cruel that way. ;)Durova32021:07, 2 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Californians know exactly what to do with snow: we put it on top of the mountains and go visit it.
Strange--Wikipedia has no good photos of the Southern California ski resorts. This kind of approximates it, but Mount San Gorgonio doesn't have downhill skiing. It's the next ridge north near Big Bear. If you ever visit during the winter, Fozzie, we'll have to correct the omission. :) Durova32021:53, 2 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Having a good chuckle here myself now Durova - thank you, it was much needed. The last few days here have been trying, and the smiles warmed my heart. Thanks, and all my best. — Ched : ? 18:19, 2 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : XLIII (September 2009)
The September 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) 23:42, 2 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Can you withdraw please? I really, really wanted to co-nom with User:Ottre/Henry Ford peace expedition. Didn't get time to finish the article last night. Ottre 18:15, 3 October 2009 (UTC)
I don't care about getting credit. I just wanted to make the front page, so that somebody from Texas might see it and help out with scanning these photographs of the expedition. They're all PD you know. Ottre 18:56, 3 October 2009 (UTC)
I certainly hope so Shoe; I've been waiting for that one for a while. Hold on, let me give Durova a shake of the head and a wag of the finger. NW(Talk)22:16, 3 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
After taking a couple of days off it isn't very much of a surprise to see this dispute at arbitration, but it is startling to discover the way it arrived and shocking to see myself compared to a cockroach. If any good can arise from this unfortunate situation let's hope it will be to see WP:CIVIL resume its former significance at this website.
I just stumbled on this arbcom and saw this posting.
Durova, I apologized to you when you brought this up on my talk page:
"Durova, I am sorry, I was not comparing you to a cockroach. If it was seen as such, that was not my intention. I removed the edit."[17]
To further elaborate, I was quoting another editor who was talking about sock puppets, and I was talking about the whole system itself, not singling out other editors as "cockroaches". I would never be so stupid as to say something that derogatory to an editor which would open me up to getting booted.
I removed your name from that section.[18] And you seemed to accept my apology.[19]
Thank you, again, my deepest apologies for the misunderstanding, I would never, ever call an editor such a vile name. Ikip (talk) 23:01, 3 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I've finally finished a major expansion of the inner German border article - it's the 20th anniversary next month of the border being opened and the fall of the Berlin Wall. I'd be very grateful if you could have a look at the article and let me have any comments on how you think it could be improved. -- ChrisO (talk) 14:55, 4 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
It's very good; have you put it into the DYK queue? Ought to be a leadoff there. Seems to need a copyedit for clarity and tone, as well as heavier sourcing. I've done a few tweaks and added a translation to one of the captions. Not quite FA material yet, but you're well on your way. Durova32104:53, 5 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note
Hi Durova. I know you volunteer a lot of time in the picture area, been known to do a little of that kind of stuff myself - good stuff ;). Anyway, and sorry for the lateness of dropping this; but: Wikipedia:WikiProject Administrator. I know you like to keep up on things, so I thought you might be interested. Cheers. — Ched : ? 16:52, 5 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the invitation. In the eyes of part of the community it would look like the death of common sense if I showed up there. Best regards, Durova32116:56, 5 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Ummm .. ok. I know you're highly respected around here, but as curious as I am .. I'm not even gonna ask. Believe me, I've had more than enough "new information" lately - enough to last me months I think. Back to the photos; I normally use Paint Shop Pro, just because I got to know it first. I do have Adobe Photoshop, but don't use it very often. I did the photos at the end of the Heidelberg Raceway article. I scanned some very old 35mm negs. that I had, and the color was awful due to the age (1973). I tried to clean them up and adjust them a little, ... do you have any tutorials on that type of work anywhere? - either on wiki or another site you might have. — Ched : ? 18:19, 5 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
If you could upload the scans (preferably in uncompressed format at least 10MB), I'll give them a look. How does that sound? And yes, I am a disgraced former administrator: two years ago I blocked someone for 75 minutes and promptly reversed it with apologies. Resigned afterward. Political enemies have ensured I'll never live that down. (shrug). Cheers! Durova32119:07, 5 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Sigh ... not enough forgiveness in this world. Anyway ... my original scans are about 70 Mb .tiff files. I doubt I have that much room at my web-friend.com domain, should I upload to commons? And ones that big? — Ched : ? 19:38, 5 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Apologies for the tardy reply. Yes, Commons accepts TIFF uploads up to 100MB. TIFF format doesn't thumbnail yet; you'll just see a white card where the preview would normally be. Please ping me with links when you're ready, and best wishes :) Durova32105:05, 7 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
No apologies are needed Durova. I am as concerned and as troubled as you at the current situations. Keep doing the good work you're doing, and we'll get my photo editing skills improved as time permits. I'll try to get one of them uploaded tomorrow. Cheers, and try to stay strong. ;) — Ched : ? 05:27, 7 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
No need for apologies; seemed like a perfectly good faith gesture. And thank you for the very prompt reply. A couple of the responses turned slightly 'hot' (including my own, which perhaps I should amend). A second look (post-coffee) shed a new light upon the frustration. Perhaps I'll reformat the original part out of boldface, to make the whole thing clearer. Durova32117:13, 5 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
If you are going to attack somebody
Please name them. [21] Your post comes across as very underhanded. Why must you make your comment into an ad homeinem attack? Why do you assume bad motives of other people just because they disagree with you? JehochmanTalk19:20, 5 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
There is a difference between opinion and attack. I have considered your conduct unseemly throughout this episode, and distaste for it has lost you the unqualified support I would otherwise have given. On the merits I agree with you. For days I have offered to certify RfC upon either of the primary disputants. The other one has been willing to talk and we've come to understand each other a bit better, even though we maintain philosophical disagreement. You, by contrast, blanked the message I left at your user talk (which was nearly identical to the one at hers) and have falsely accused me of attacks, hounding/stalking, underhanded behavior, etc. across multiple fora. I have much better things to do than initiate a request for comment, but if these inappropriate actions continue it is possible I might rearrange those priorities. Durova32119:44, 5 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Your comment
I saw your comment at the arbitration page and agree with you. Yes, the email archive reveals some personal and potentially damaging information about people who have nothing to do with wikipedia. But the real life names of the 3rd parties were not disclosed, and the claims are very much unprovable. So, there is little to bother about, I hope.Biophys (talk) 22:08, 5 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Related to your comment, has anyone specifically directed Mike Godwin to the arbitration for possible review? Legal accusations (libel/slander) are starting to get tossed around, which is getting uncomfortably close to NLT for me. I think the list screwed up in several ways, but that mess has turned into a freaking witch hunt. I fail to see how anything positive will ever come from that nightmare. I quite agree with the last part of your comments, Durova. Ravensfire (talk) 16:33, 6 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you very much. The individual projects govern themselves, so it's reasonable to suppose he has no formal relationship to it within en:wiki internal processes. I am unaware whether he knows about the case, but if he does know about it he probably would decline to comment. Yes, this arbitration is very worrisome. Aside from the named parties themselves, I worry about the direction this takes the Committee and the community. Thinking about it, there's another precedent in addition to the Bluemarine case. Remember Mantanmoreland? One set of people believed he was socking abusively and another set believed he was the victim of severe harassment: a bone of contention was a piece of evidence that hadn't been gotten by completely up-and-up means. Either one trusted it or was repelled by it. What finally resolved that dispute was a hard look through the legitimate evidence, which concluded he was socking. Hardly anyone defended him afterward. The right kind of evidence went a long way toward mending a rift that had divided the community for two years. Durova32117:32, 6 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
DYK for I Didn't Raise My Boy To Be A Soldier
On October 6, 2009, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article I Didn't Raise My Boy To Be A Soldier, which you created or substantially expanded. You are welcome to check how many hits your article got while on the front page (here's how) and add it to DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.
You're entitled to your opinion. All I ask is that our differences remain respectful. :) Thank you very much for your consideration. Durova32101:23, 7 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. I've left a message at VPC talk that perhaps sheds a different light on the issue. Access to historic media presents challenges that editors to other areas can scarcely imagine. To paraphrase a concept from an editorial I ought to finish, if what you need is a book published 100 years ago, you can probably get it through interlibrary loan. But interlibrary loan doesn't exist if what you need is a wax cylinder audio recording. Similar basic obstacles apply to historic visual media. Access is such a fundamental issue for us that we aren't ready to distinguish good material from great material. Perhaps five years from now if we're very successful with negotiations, we'll be ready to replace existing historic FPs and shift them to VP. But the principal issue right now is to show the museums and archives that FP is possible. Within visual media you and I do very different work; does that explanation make sense to you? Durova32102:36, 7 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
RFC norms
Hi
I've not participated in many of these, just wondered what you see as the way forward for the A Nobody one. Should there be some kind of summary or is it usual to just leave these as they are? pablohablo.15:40, 7 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Well, basically one more request for participation to his user talk would be good. I left a request during the early days. Perhaps better if someone else did--someone who usually gets along with him. If he starts to participate we can play it by ear. Otherwise, a week after the request a motion to close would probably be accepted by both sides. It would probably be best if someone who isn't his ideological opponent actually writes the motion to close, when that time comes. Best regards, Durova32115:48, 7 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
It was brought to my attention I accidently removed a comment you posted on ANI. I believe we e/c when I was changing my ANI title from P.a. to Incivility [[22]]. It was then interpated that I meant yopur post. I didn't, my apologies. Hell In A Bucket (talk) 16:14, 9 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
No need for apologies. The system does that occasionally and I never supposed it was deliberate. Thank you very much for being considerate. :) Durova32216:23, 9 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
For the record
I've been spending the last while gathering sources for Asia League Ice Hockey as its my next GA target. However due to the heavy japanese bias (most of the teams are japanese and the headquarters are in japan) a lot of the sources are in japanese, and don't always get translated, which makes it a tough slog. I hope you realize its nothing personal and had any other editor made that same comment, I would have said the exact same thing. If a consensus developed to allow you to proxy in his contributions, I would have respected it. It looks instead like there is a recommendation to unblock.--Crossmr (talk) 17:35, 9 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
You're a top ranker in Commons
Howdy - you might be interested in this conversation that contains the ranking of contributors to Commons based upon total size of all file uploads. Congrats! Confirms what we all knew - you give a lot. -->David Shankbone21:47, 9 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I just read over some of the drama on WP:ANI. I'm mostly a lurker, and I will admit that I am not usually a big fan of your contributions at these dramas. But I wanted to tell you that I strongly admire and applaud your offer to proxy positive content contributions from a banned/blocked editor. It shows a good understanding of the project principles on a practical level, and I'm glad to see it expressed at ANI. For whatever it's worth, coming from me. :)
I noticed this among the featured picture noms. There's a mistranslation in the caption: It's not "Journey of a soldier" but "Soldier's day". The French parliament arranged a day's leave at Christmas for infantrymen so they could get home to their families. The "journé" in the Library of Congress catalogue is probably a transcription error (for "journée") as "journé" doesn't appear in the definitive dictionary of the French language at the Academie francaise.
In this round of the WikiCup, the bottom three contestants of the top eight were eliminated on September 30th, while the top five are continuing for an additional month. On October 31, a winner will be announced.
Top 5
Sasata (1153)
Ottava Rima (1148)
Theleftorium (1025)
Durova (1010)
Eliminated 3
Candlewicke (534)
Mitchazenia (352)
Juliancolton (314)
Withdrawn
Shoemaker's Holiday (1183)
All scores are accurate as of 18:28, 11 October 2009 (UTC).
Content Leaders
As of this newsletter, the following is a list of participants in this round with the most:
Hi everyone! We're very sorry we didn't get this one out anytime sooner. We've all been pretty busy IRL. But down to business: Since the last newsletter, the first half of the round has ended. We said goodbye to Candlewicke, Juliancolton, and Mitchazenia. We'd like to thank them for all of their hard work getting this far. Shoemaker's Holiday has also withdrawn, so we'd like to thank him for his hard work too. Congratulations to Durova, Ottava Rima, Sasata, and Theleftorium for making the top 4! Good luck to you all.
You also may have seen from the WikiCup talk page that we have a new judge! J Milburn is joining our judging team effective immediately. J was assigned after Garden and Thehelpfulone announced they would be highly inactive throughout the remainder of the WikiCup. It is likely you will see J return as a judge next year as well.
Good luck again to the remaining four contestants! 20 days left in the Round, so make sure you get all your content nominated soon! You've all worked hard for this, since the beginning of January. I'm sure you're all tired by now, but you've come too far to just give up now. Congratulations Top 4!
GARDEN, iMatthewtalk, J Milburn, and TheHelpfulOne
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. --EdwardsBot (talk) 18:46, 11 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Durova, I'm not comfortable with this edit you've made to the article. You've eliminated a {{cn}} tag with your rewording, but it seems to me that at the same time you've removed a very concise explanation of why "code talkers" were so effective, namely that they communicated in a language with different syntax, word forms &c. The extant wording was appropriate to the article lede, as explication of the content, though it lacked a direct cite. Your rewording is also correct, but it leaves out the gist of "why" communication security was enhanced - I would think this would be salient to a new reader of the article, so maybe you could revisit your edit?
As an aside, I not long ago read a magazine bit on how the Navajo language is closely associated with the Dene people and I'm not sure as to whether there were some genetic studies in there too. I'll try to dig it up, assuming I still have it, but there was a suggestion that a bunch of people decided to walk 4000 km south! Regards. Franamax (talk) 23:11, 11 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
If you'd like to revise it please do. The edit summary of the IP that added the tag caught my attention, and although it's unusual to tag information within introductions that specific summary did appear to broaden the assertion beyond anything in the sources. It isn't merely the use of language which made certain codes effective, but the unlikelihood that the enemy had any access to people who would recognize the language (much less understand it). Scaled the introductory assertion back accordingly. Don't have books on hand for the specifics, but General Vogel's recommendation letter and the National Archives summary stress the distinctiveness of the language.[23] Was on the fence about how to express that since Navajo isn't quite on par with Basque in that regard. Nearly a language isolate was the best wording that came to mind; feel free to substitute. It would be interesting if you have sources on when linguists discovered that association.
And in reply to your aside, yes the evidence appears to be that they migrated south a great distance before coming into contact with Europeans. Durova32223:38, 11 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Durova, it looks like the writer Tahir Shah (or an associate of his) has taken to creating hoax articles and inserting fake citations in Wikipedia in support of an upcoming book of his. He's engaged in problematic editing behaviour in the past, under a variety of user names (there is an old COIN thread in the archives; personally, I think a site-ban is in order). See Talk:Hannibal Fogg. Would appreciate it if you could have a look into it. --JN46615:16, 12 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
With a previous checkuser coming up positive on all checks, that looks like a good enough basis to request a new check. The thing that's really worrisome is the possibility that this might be a promotional hoax. It's best to be extremely cautious about advancing such a hypothesis. But if someone has the time and the appropriate source access, if one or more of those citations are actually falsified then there would be a strong case for a community ban. Definitely something that needs to be fully verified before asserting. Durova325
I've checked the book on Balliol College that is cited in Hannibal Fogg in google books; it exists, but there is no mention of "Fogg" anywhere in it, and the only "Hannibal" mentioned in it is Hannibal Baskerville.
Another source cited in Hannibal Fogg is http://www.hannibalfoggsociety.org – "founded 1954" the website says, but Whois says the website was only established last month, and lists Tahir Shah as its administrator.
Spies of the First World War, cited twice in Hannibal Fogg, won't be published until 30 November in the UK, and April 2010 in the US, according to amazon. Okay, he might have had an advance copy, but combined with everything else I would not hold my breath that there is anything on "Hannibal Fogg" on the indicated pages.
Another source cited in Hannibal Fogg is "Travels in Mongolia and China" by "Akiko" (Columbia University Press); it seems to be just made up: [25][26][27]
Nor is there a mention of "Hannibal Fogg" in any other google-listed book, news article or scholarly paper: Find sources:Google (books·news·scholar·free images·WP refs) ·FENS·JSTOR·TWL, nor are there any independent mentions of the various books and papers "Fogg" is supposed to have written.
I am not sure which noticeboard would be appropriate, because there are multiple issues involved: conflict of interest, likely sockpuppeting and, unless I am very much mistaken, deliberate creation of deceptive and self-serving content, over a period of several years. JN46618:14, 12 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Had a look at the Balliol College book. It's the same edition as the one cited within the article, but the article cites page 255 which is not included in the Google Books preview. Presumably the Google Books text search would only return material that was actually part of the preview.[Based upon this resultDurova32518:48, 12 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Google books text searches do cover the entire book, including pages that do not appear in preview. When a page is not part of the preview, a non-clickable mock-up of the page with the words is shown in the search results. JN46618:57, 12 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Yes. For example, enter "College" as the search term. The top match is from page 309, which is not part of the preview. The next match is from page 253, just two pages away from page 255. Etc. JN46619:03, 12 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I see. What makes you suppose that this BLP subject is the same person as the editor? Unless the evidence for that connection is airtight it would be better to frame any complaint purely in terms of the onsite behavior. It may seem like the writer's interests, but there have been occasional instances malicious spoofing in other odd situations. Durova32519:09, 12 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The real-life identity of the puppetmaster was not established in the previous checkuser case, and as far as I am concerned, it is fairly immaterial for Wikipedia purposes whether it is the writer, an associate, or a misguided fan of his. While the IP location and writing style were suggestive, there is no need to push that point.
Thanks, have commented. The situation to really guard against is a rare one: people who are notable enough for Wikipedia biographies occasionally have their own celebrity stalkers. And when that happens the stalker may try to damage the BLP subject's reputation through impersonation. Just speaking generally, it's one of the possibilites to consider. Durova32520:01, 12 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Wise words. For what it's worth, I have an IP number: [28]. This edit was made within minutes of three other edits by BarnardKnox (talk·contribs), also inserting references to "Hannibal Fogg". The IP resolves to Maidstone in Kent, UK. It's not Casablanca, as in the COIN case, but it is just 10 miles or so from Langton Green, Kent, the Shah family's English residence. Of course, that edit was a month ago. --JN46620:32, 12 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. I've removed all the mentions of Hannibal Fogg inserted in about a dozen articles. It'll probably be wise to run regular searches to see if any have reappeared. Just remains to decide what to do with the editor(s) – Special:Contributions/Patrick_H.Ingram was involved too. That editor also edited Robert Twigger, a real-life friend of Shah's. Just in terms of whether it's plausible for Shah himself to be involved, see [29]. The Hannibal Fogg Society website ("founded 1954") is registered to another author, Jason Webster, with Tahir Shah named as admin. If you look at Webster's article, you'll see that there are documented veracity issues with his work. Webster and Shah are friends and write nice reviews for each other. Shah's father and uncle were involved in a literary scandal 40 years ago involving Robert Graves; they claimed they had an old manuscript of Omar Khayyam's Rubaiyyat, which everyone subsequently concluded was a hoax. So it would not be out of character. And by the way, that is not to say their books ain't fun. :) JN46621:21, 12 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Here the chap's website, currently presenting Hannibal Fogg as a real person: http://www.tahirshah.com/ "HANNIBAL FOGG AND THE SUPREME SECRET OF MAN... I have been working like a maniac! After getting back from Tibet at the start of August, I buckled down and churned out a huge novel based on the life of the Edwardian explorer Hannibal Fogg. More on it in the weeks and months ahead. Very excited by it." --JN46622:38, 12 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Right. Well since the article has been speedied it's harder to check the sources now. How about filing a CU request for the accounts? You seem to know more about this than anyone. Durova32522:58, 12 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
One, because you have wide experience, especially in handling situations involving BLP subjects; two, because I know you like sleuthing, and this thing involves some; and three, because notwithstanding our many past run-ins I had complete faith that you care about this project and would share my concern at seeing it abused in this way. POV pushing is one thing; knowingly and methodically inserting outright lies in it somehow is quite another. --JN46623:41, 12 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Not sure you need this now, as the article is deleted, but in case it's of future use: I have the Balliol College book ISBN0199201811 in my hands at the moment (I'm a member of WP:OXFORD and buy Oxford-related second-hand books with the aim of helping with articles / lists when time permits). Page 255 is simply a photograph of Ezra Hancock, head porter from 1891 to 1914. There is no "Fogg" in the index. Regards, BencherliteTalk15:42, 14 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Not at the moment. I keep checking every once in a while that fake references to "Fogg" aren't being reinserted. --JN46623:03, 28 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The descriptor of this image should probably be modified. It looks like it just has the Wiki-tan descriptor in the comment section. JoshuaZ (talk) 01:57, 13 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Rofl, it's been hovering around 398-400 for a couple of weeks now. The offer originally went to the first self-identified account that admitted to being number 400. But you'll get one too for sheer chutzpah. (To other lurkers, that's it now. No more...until we near another landmark). Now lemme find a barnstar and get back to Photoshop to catch up on featured credits. ;) Durova32503:25, 13 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
"Early-closing" ANI thread about RfA
Just out of curiosity, what was the need to collapse the discussion? Collapsing is usually not done for such a short discussion. Along with your edit summary, it felt a bit nasty to me. Have I violated ANI etiquette in some way? It's possible that I did, I'd just like to know. Thanks. Equazcion (talk) 04:47, 13 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
No insult intended. In past RfAs where an experienced editor firmly wanted the candidacy to remain open, it did. Kelly Martin was the most notable example of that. The best way to handle that is to comply with the request and give it as little attention as possible. On the whole it's just a distraction from the important stuff. Best regards, Durova32504:59, 13 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Please check my nomination at the page. I am the 2nd major contributor in FA Ganesha and the FAC nominator. Check it fits the "major contributor" constraint, else feel free to remove it. --RedtigerxyzTalk12:35, 14 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I cannot make sense out of these posts. Could you explain what is being meant here? Could you give diffs so that I would know what on earth this refers to? Are you saying that you have a joke account and I did something bad to that joke account in dyk? I can't follow what you are saying. Can you clearly explain exactly what I did in that situation that was wrong? I assure you that if I ever knew a dyk was by a sockpuppet, I would skip it and let someone else deal with it. At the most, I would ask Art LaPella was to do. Regards, —Mattisse (Talk) 13:05, 15 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
There has been a pattern in the past where people have attempted to give you candid and productive feedback, and you asked the individuals for continual clarification, telling them you did not understand while telling others the feedback was an attack. Now it appears that you have indeed 'made sense of' my posts.[32] Last night I offered assurance that it was not my intention to attack you and asked whether you had been referring to me. Before this goes any farther, please answer the question. Durova32615:04, 15 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
"Beaten that dead horse much lately?" Protonk? Lar? You're both intelligent people. Why would you want to extend a venue where editors who are not the primary subject of scrutiny conduct that sort of dialog?
You're welcome. I don't want arbitration any more than anybody, but it's disappointing to see the direction things have taken there. Better to cut one's losses sometimes. Durova32619:41, 15 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
About RfC on A Nobody
Hi. It seems I finally did a formatting stuff up; I should've moved the move to close straight to the talk page to begin with but somehow, I merely ended up changing the title of the headers. I've now moved it; but one of your comments has been sort-of lost [33] - it wasn't too significant so I think you'll be ok with it, but if you still want it to be on record, please reinsert/modify it accordingly. The reason moves to close are usually stuck on the talk page is to avoid the "users who do not endorse this summary"-type section, and so discussion can occur on talk page (though this has been ignored on a couple of occasions where there was no disagreements with closing). Hope that helps and thank you for understanding, Ncmvocalist (talk) 21:22, 15 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
FeydHuxtable has given you a cookie! Cookies promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. Spread the WikiLove by giving someone else a cookie, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend. Happy munching!
Spread the goodness of cookies by adding {{subst:Cookie}} to someone's talk page with a friendly message, or eat this cookie on the giver's talk page with {{subst:munch}}!
Not you in particular. And thank you very much for the cookie; it's delicious. :) Mainly it's a matter of having proposed a resolution openly for a week, and to encounter complaints only after it was actually implemented. Time to get back to content. Best wishes. Durova32621:48, 15 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I gotta go; they were not part of the rescue efforts from Fort Sutter, they were, ah, support contractors for much of the journey. They were part of the 'snowshoe party' that tried to get over the pass rather early in the winter. The folks on improvised snowshoes didn't get through, had a hard time, and whacked the Indians for dinner. It's been 15 years since I read that book. Cheers, Jack Merridew03:48, 17 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Their names were Luis and Salvador. The cite for their being shot by Foster would be page 146. An interesting quote from page 138 would be: "Should not an Indian be killed that a white man might live?"
Originally I had considered that, which is why the first in the series is lettered "B" instead of "A". But those are the frontispiece and end pieces and they don't illustrate particular scenes from the poem. I thought that was basically explained in the upload notes for the set? Durova32713:34, 17 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
You're right; fixed the typo. The image is hosted at Wikimedia Commmons, so clicking through to the Commons link is the way to correct that kind of thing in future. Thanks very much for the heads up. :) Durova33116:26, 18 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
In this round of the WikiCup, the bottom three contestants of the top eight were eliminated on September 30th, while the top five are continued for an additional month. On October 31, a winner will be announced.
Top 4
Sasata (1332)
Durova (1259)
Ottava Rima (1242)
Theleftorium (1041)
Eliminated 3
Candlewicke (534)
Mitchazenia (352)
Juliancolton (314)
Withdrawn
Shoemaker's Holiday (1183)
All scores are accurate as of 20:45, 18 October 2009 (UTC).
Content Leaders
As of this newsletter, the following is a list of participants in this round with the most:
We have announced the intention to hire another new judge to cover for future judge absences. If you are interested please see the talk page for the WikiCup.
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. --EdwardsBot (talk) 23:25, 18 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Mentorship
Hi there. I have, after careful consideration, decided to make the FP section my home here at Wikipedia. You all are nice people, and really, I love the work being done there. I have an interest in becoming more actively involved. Any guidence you can give me would be greatly appreciated. Please feel free to post on my talk page. Also, I am interested in learning the closing procedure, as that seems to be the key (unless you can edit or take great photos) to becoming a power player in the FP section. Nezzadar☎17:55, 19 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Aw, thanks I guess. You think I'm nice? rubs hands greedily with an evil cackle Seriously though, if you're interested in the area it'd be much better to take up an specialty" and get good at it than to strive to become a "power player", whatever that is. I'd be glad to coach restoration if that interests you. Durova33119:40, 19 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I was hoping to get feedback from you and the other editors on the recent nominations for FP that I made. Even if you don't vote, comments are useful as they will steer me in the right direction in looking for future hidden gems. I saw you are online and figured I'd send you this message. Nezzadar☎04:36, 20 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
We all specialize. I'm not the best judge of vector graphics. It's usually best to spread things out and/or choose totally different genres and subjects for variety. Might wait a few days and see what other editors have to say about most of those. Durova33104:54, 20 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Regarding your discussions with others about not using Geocities as sources. Unless I am crazy, I have read that Geocities is to be closed. I believe before the end of October 2009. This month!
Anything that is linked will naturally become unavailable, irrespective of its in/accuracy as a source. Just mentioning it in case you hadn't heard.
Hadn't heard the date particularly, but yes. The self-published instances and other occasions where Geocities could be considered reliable would probably still be cover-able through the Internet Archive. Durova33220:35, 20 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Norton AntiVirus has a feature that keeps randomly turning on and filling in identity fields with my information. You'd be amazed at how many emails I've sent to myself. I promise I'm not this foolish. AniMatedraw04:12, 22 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. On a completely unrelated note, have you ever considered writing a guide to featured images. I know we have Wikipedia:Featured_picture_criteria and Wikipedia:How_to_improve_image_quality, but the sheer volume of your feature credits make me think you know some tricks others could benefit from. I ask because I know you offered to help Drew R. Smith on Skype with some techniques so he could participate over at Commons while he was blocked here. Perhaps writing some of those tips here would be a nice way to get some more participation from the masses. AniMatedraw04:34, 22 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
It's difficult because there are so many angles to it. I've dabbled with Wikiversity. These days am mostly putting observations into the blog. Maybe after the WikiCup ends. Have been pulling out the stops these final weeks second place and gaining... :) Durova33304:48, 22 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
At full resolution (86mb) it looks like the top third of that image was torn away. Can't restore data that isn't there. But I could dig around for something else on a similar theme. Durova33300:37, 23 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Raeky has eaten your {{cookie}}! The cookie made him happy and he'd like to give you a great big hug for donating it. Spread the WikiLove by giving out more {{cookie}}s, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend. Thanks again!
Spread the goodness of cookies by adding {{subst:cookie}} to someone's talk page with a friendly message, or eat a cookie with {{subst:munch}}!
They were a difficult bunch and I decided to put them off for several reasons: scanned on an old miscalibrated scanner and really truly more labor than even i have patience for. But if you're interested, sec while I get the files. Durova33315:55, 23 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I've been a bit worried about some of your recent nominations: Some of them seem far, far below what you're capable of, and, more oddly, come about in things that are simple and which you're well-known for doing well, like colour adjustment. As you know, it's much harder to deal with changes after the image has passed without disruptive delists and replaces, and I've seen some problems where it was either me editing it, or the only action I could do in good conscience was oppose.
An early oppose would likely kill the nomination. I'm attempting to do what will be least disruptive.
(ec'd) Actually, Shoemaker, you'll notice that particular restoration was one I finished in May. Had already uploaded it and placed it in articles when I made the hard decision to join your boycott; never got around to nominating. But overall it would be much better if you focused on your own work: you have eight images currently on FPC suspension over color issues; you haven't responded to my offer to assist with that batch. Considering that I've had to request Oversight regarding your posts twice this week, if you aren't willing to respond to cooperative offers then perhaps you're better off not worrying about my restorations at all. Durova33316:35, 23 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
You sent me a version cropped, and I believe with a partial levels adjustment or a small rotate. The crop removed clear artistic intent: The drawn-in frame seen here [37], but, as I recall, the changes made it impossible to just paste it in, or the size made my pre-update computer chug to a halt.
You never gave any feedback until now, or else I certainly would have supplied the interim edit without levels adjustment (which I thought you already had). It seemed like the sort of thing you could fix in an hour. At any rate, don't worry about it if it puts you out. By all means use the color skills you recently acquired for the eight part set. That probably wraps things up for now, so best wishes with your nomination. Durova33317:47, 23 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
4 part image set
An image created by you has been promoted to featured picture status
Hi there Durova. I just recently found the image File:Tuskegee airman2.jpg, which I saw that you restored and proposed for FPC a while back. I decided to renominate it, but of course I will wait for your approval before putting it up. Just tell me when you want me to transclude it. Cheers, NW(Talk)01:30, 25 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
In this round of the WikiCup, the bottom three contestants of the top eight were eliminated on September 30th, while the top five are continued for an additional month. On October 31, a winner will be announced.
Top 4
Durova (1546)
Sasata (1477)
Ottava Rima (1254)
Theleftorium (1092)
Eliminated 3
Candlewicke (534)
Mitchazenia (352)
Juliancolton (314)
Withdrawn
Shoemaker's Holiday (1183)
All scores are accurate as of 18:59, 25 October 2009 (UTC).
Content Leaders
As of this newsletter, the following is a list of participants in this round with the most:
It just came to me that multiple users have worked together on a bunch of content items, which means the newsletter counts are likely off. I'll try to put that all together and figure it out by the end of the round.
The end of the round, and the end of the 2009 WikiCup is this coming Saturday, October 31! To our top four: don't give up yet. Make sure that anything you have left to nominate is nominated today or tomorrow, for the slighted chance of it passing in time. The last day items will be accepted is Saturday, at 23:59 (UTC). It ain't over till the fat lady sings, of course!
GARDEN, iMatthewtalk, J Milburn, and TheHelpfulOne
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. --EdwardsBot (talk) 02:39, 26 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Please add the category [[Category:Wikipedia Featured Picture contributors]] to your userpage. The category is for ease of access to a list of serial FP contributors, and will not be used for spam. Thanks, Nezzadar☎17:16, 27 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
LOC error: Lord Kitchener picture
Given your excellent contacts with the Library of Congress, you may wish to point out to them that they're miscatalogued File:Lord_Kitchener_duty5.jpg.
It's not Lord Kitchener but Frederick Roberts, 1st Earl Roberts. Bobs Roberts was also a very popular FM during WWI but unlike Kitchener, he won the VC, shown bottom right of the image. Given that one British Edwardian field marshal looks very much like another, the misattribution is not really surprising.
I just recognised him. But I've since found this at the Smithsonian. Key things are that Roberts held the Victoria Cross, had a long thin face and was in his eighties when he died; Kitchener was square-faced and died in his fifties. Both are obviously field marshals (hence the baton). Roberts died on the Western Front; Kitchener was drowned. The style of their moustaches is also different. Good luck, Roger Daviestalk21:52, 27 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Here's another catalogue listing, much more detailed. It looks like VADS (reliable UK academic resource) took the information from the Imperial War Museum catalogue listing. The LOC have made a huge blooper here. Roger Daviestalk22:03, 27 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I see the three circles. Sadly, however, I accidentally overwrote the original crop.tif file when trying to make crop2.jpg (wanted to save it as a new tiff, accidentally just saved it straight). Staxringoldtalkcontribs14:38, 28 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Honestly? It's really not up to par. Not even close. Better to nominate the unedited version than what you've got. It might not show up on your monitor, but there's serious problems here. Durova34814:46, 28 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
WIN button
Why couldn't a Wikipedian simply go and photograph such a button? I don't believe that it's nonreplaceable, especially since the design is so simple that a photograph of the button would not be a derivative of a copyrighted work. Nyttend (talk) 13:47, 28 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Well, they've been out of circulation for 35 years and few of them were kept because they were so despised. But that's a fair reason for your decision; not that big a deal either way. Thanks for the swift response. :) Durova34813:51, 28 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Discussion closing at AN
I think AN is as good a place as any to hold a policy discussion, especially on an issue that regards admin actions, and a possible policy that would affect admins. If the location is so paramount, why not move the discussion to a more appropriate place, instead of shutting it down? Equazcion(talk) 03:46, 29 Oct 2009 (UTC)
It had been referred to the appropriate place several hours earlier. Any of the participants were (and are) welcome to resume it elsewhere. In the larger picture, maintaining the equal footing of non-admins and admins in the crafting of guidelines and policies is more important than the progress of any particular discussion. If local consensus had formed and the community were presented with a package proposal as a quasi-done deal, then that would significantly alter the balance of power at this website. It isn't very difficult to move to a larger venue and avoid that trap. Respectfully, Durova34803:54, 29 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
So again why not move it, rather than shut it down? The discussion seemed to be getting somewhere, from my point of view at least, and it's easier said than done to restart from scratch somewhere else. Equazcion(talk) 03:56, 29 Oct 2009 (UTC)
Why not? Primarily because I was wrapping up one featured picture candidate nomination and returning to Photoshop to work on another featured content drive: restoration for an 1925 photograph of a Buddhist temple in Seoul. We need more Korean content; the restoration is a way to express thanks to a very hardworking editor who's been working to correct systemic bias in that area. Durova34804:07, 29 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
If you're too busy to do something in the best way possible, you shouldn't just wing it for the time being. There are no emergencies. Even if that were the reason, and you're acknowledging that a move would've been the ideal choice, why not do that now? Or are you still busy with Korean content? I can wait, just give me some ballpark timeframe. Equazcion(talk) 04:16, 29 Oct 2009 (UTC)
You've been around long enough to be familiar with WP:BEANS and WP:SOFIXIT. It happens to be my opinion that closure of that discussion with primary referral to ArbCom is the ideal way of dealing with that particular situation. You disagree, which you have a right to do, but it does not follow that your reasons alter my priorities. In less time than it took to post to this user talk you could have reopened the discussion elsewhere on your own initiative; I have no objection if you do. At this juncture, the overhanging eaves of that temple are my priority--or more to the point, resolving surface scratches while maintaining the integrity of the underlying woodwork. This means work within deep shadow, and the human eye does not adjust swiftly from a fullscreen of that to the Wikipedia interface. So any additional replies will probably be delayed. Thank you for your understanding. Durova34804:28, 29 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure how BEANS relates to this, but anyway; I could technically do it myself, and would love to, but haven't and probably won't. It would be more accepted coming from you, the one who closed it to begin with. Worse still, I was a participant in the discussion, and a re-opening by someone involved is potentially not taken well. This is why I see these kinds of closings as so harmful -- the participants can't really do anything about it. A supposedly objective party found reason to close it, and participants are automatically biased about whether it should continue. My best hope is that someone else uninvolved comes along and re-opens it, but I doubt anyone would take an interest in a collapsed discussion. So I'm stuck. I hope your restorations are coming along nicely. Equazcion(talk) 04:38, 29 Oct 2009 (UTC)
Hi Durova, Maybe it was somebody else who created it, but I thought I remembered that you recently wrote an essay on attaining a neutral point of view in an article. The essay mentioned how an article can balance news sources in order to present perspectives that are at odds with one another. I can't locate that essay now. Did you write it? Thanks for any guidance you can give me on how to locate it. Bus stop (talk) 16:21, 29 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
You wrote an essay a long time ago, about remembering there is always a trail, we should be careful how we edit. There was a picture of footprints in the grass I believe. I want to link/cite it in a blog entry. You contribute so much :) that I can't go through all your contributions in one sitting. Do you remember the shortcut or page title to it? Thanks, NonvocalScream (talk) 23:51, 29 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Just to let you know that the Featured Picture File:Havana 1639b.jpg is due to make an appearance as Picture of the Day on January 1, 2010. If you get a chance, you can check and improve the caption at Template:POTD/2010-01-01. Now that Noodle snacks fixed the thumbnailing problem, I can finally schedule this one. Alas, it happened too late to October 28 (the sighting of Cuba by Columbus), and I didn't want to make this guy wait a whole 'nother year, so it's going on the anniversary of the founding of the Republic of Cuba. Hopefully we won't hear too many complaints from wingnuts about the date. howcheng {chat}00:03, 30 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Olympics Images
Hey, question, although I know you're busy what with dominating the wikicup and all. Have been doing some prep work on articles for the 2010 Winter Olympics, and came across some images from the Bundesarchiv of early Winter Olympics that are over on commons. Don't know if you're interested, but it would be great to have one or two of them fixed up and ready for February. Some of the most interesting include shots of [File:Bundesarchiv Bild 102-13104, Sonja Henie und Karl Schäfer.jpg Sonja Henie], [File:Bundesarchiv Bild 102-05455, St. Moritz, Winterolympiade.jpg a skeleton competitor], [File:Bundesarchiv Bild 102-05464, St. Moritz, Winterolympiade.jpg Gillis Grafstrom], and my personal favorite, [File:Bundesarchiv R 8076 Bild-0114, Olympische Winterspiele, Abfahrtslauf Damen.jpg this]. Don't know if the image quality of the originals is such that they can be restored but, well, it would be cool to have a good fp at the start of the games. Geraldk (talk) 01:08, 30 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I'm wondering if you can do me a favour. I'm finding myself drawn into various meta-debates and not spending as much time as I'd like working on content. I've also recently been on a series of photoshop courses and picked up a Wacom tablet. So the question is, do you have an image that you wouldn't mind me taking a crack at restoring? Not really fussy - happy to look at anything really. If you have any suggestions it'd be fantastic. Many thanks, Gazimoff00:27, 31 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
If you'd like tips and/or firsthand assistance, email me for my Skype ID. This should be a good starter project--not too big or too hard, and definitely encyclopedic. Thanks for the inquiry! :) Durova34900:38, 31 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the suggestion! I'll grab a copy and get cracking. Alas, I don't do skype these days, but I am reachable on MSN messenger most of the time. I'll drop you an email seperately with the details, if that's useful. Cheers! Gazimoff00:54, 31 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I came across your template, and the page did read like an advertisment. Wasted a half hour of my life editing it, trying to give these good people advice on how not to write a wiki page.Please take a look and see if you can trim more. Thanks alot for pointing out this ad, grrrrr. Aleister Wilson (talk) 23:27, 31 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks very much for your hard work. It rehashed the language of a lot of their promotional literature, but I couldn't quite write it off as copyvio. Much appreciated. :) Durova35123:50, 31 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Not a barnstar
True to your name, you have worked your magic as the Wiki Witch and pulled ahead so you could bask in the glory of winning on Halloween. Now, I will leave you to your cackling and your torturing little kids. :D Ottava Rima (talk) 01:49, 1 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Hm, maybe I'll have to restore an illustration of flying monkeys to celebrate? Thank you for leaving me to evil devices; it's trick-or-treat time in California and the chocolate chip brownies are due to come out of the oven. :) Durova35101:52, 1 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, I've been spending time trying to make them look nice, so I haven't gotten them out yet. I guarantee you'll have your prize tomorrow! :) iMatthewtalk at 21:39, 2 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Hi. Since you said we should follow up with on Mario's uploads here, and since it's likely that this goes unnoticed: it's likely that Terra Awas(talk·contribs·deleted contribs·logs·filter log·block user·block log) is Mario's sockpuppet (used by him mainly to evade a block). I just noticed there are some picture uploads involved, and some have been moved to commons - hard to notice, since, if it really is his, he has been keeping it inactive for months. Dahn (talk) 07:45, 1 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Normally I would, Nezzadar, but this is part of an intricate ongoing case spanning over this project and on commons, and Durova (if I understood it right) asked for feedback on related issues. But thank you nevertheless. Dahn (talk) 09:18, 1 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I am so sorry. There's an editor called The Wordsmith and it was him that everyone meant. That's all straightened out now, except that when people told me about it they forgot to include the definite article in his username. Durova35116:37, 1 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Please assist........
Hi Durova. I've been told you are the best editor to approach for this type of issue (see A Class Review for Battle of Delville Wood). I have managed to obtain a few fairly rare and unknown pictures / drawings of this 1916 battle. They come from a set of books published in 1917 and I guess that at that time they were considered high-tech quality prints! If you have a bit of time, please see if you can improve the images as they are most certainly of historical value. The pics have been used in the article Battle of Delville Wood and are lodged in Commons:
I'm looking for photos for an article on the airborne landings that took place during Operation Dragoon in southern France in 1944. I've been looking through the Library of Congress, remembering that you get many of your FP's from there. Would this photo: [[38]] be in the public domain? I notice that it's take by a US Airforce photographer (I think) but also mentions a newspaper. Any help would be greatfully received. Cheers, Skinny87 (talk) 19:27, 1 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Good question. Before going further into rights, you realize this is only available in the tiny thumbnail? If that kind of resolution is okay for your purposes, I'd suggest you email the library with a query. From the appearance of those notes it looks like it's an Associated Press reprint of a US Army Signal Corps photograph, in which case the image would be US Government public domain and the Associated Press reproduction is a derivative work with no new claim to copyright. But it would be best to ask the research librarians to confirm for certain what is intended by the notes on the record. Regards, Durova35119:34, 1 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
There really isn't any substantial history here. I didn't know J existed until October 30; the "history" you refer to occurred last night. This is the normal time frame for taking concerns to ANI; especially because his most recent alteration of another editor's post occurred within the last few hours. Durova35216:54, 2 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Aah, thanks for the clarification Durova. I was kind of afraid i stumbled into some form of tangled conflict where several editors didn't really appreciate each other's presence and thus started some form of feud on ANI (As in: He did that to him because he supported me previously). Guess this is due to reading several accusations made by Chillum and Ottava regarding each others reason to comment on the issue- and this detective im reading in between edits isn't the best way to counter such idea's will not be the best way to surpress idea's about intrigues. Glad this isn't the case though. :) Excirial (Contact me,Contribs)17:18, 2 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Re:Wongudan
Hi, Durova, since User:AlexanderMegarrido questioned about the year of the demolition of the fountain, I read the article again, and found some inconsistency. The Wongudan does not just refer to the three-story pavilion, but to all complex including a shrine that once existed. Today, only pavilion, and gate, and several stone sculptures remain in the site. Korea was under the Japanese occupation since1910 and the shrine and its complex were demolished in 1913 by the Japanese, so I think the year, 1925 on the Loc site indicates the published date of the photo. The loc site does not say that 1925 is the date of taking the photo.
According to Burton Holmes's travel log, http://www.burtonholmes.org/travelogues/travlist2.html he did not travel to Korea nor Japan in 1925. He visited to Korea in 1901, 1912, 1913 to 1914 and 1922, so I guess he took the picture before the site was demolished and then a hotel was built in the site. So the nomination statement should be fixed from the photographing date to "presumably publishing date". The fountain was removed in 1913. Thanks.--Caspian blue18:29, 2 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I think a fastest way to confirm the date is to send an email to www.burtonholmes.org, and photographic books of his trips were published, so you can check that by renting the books.--Caspian blue18:41, 2 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Another possibility is that the fountain was built by the Japanese who demolished the Wongudan complext and built a hotel on the site which is also gone in 1968 for reconstruction. I could not find any reference on the fountain, so I can not surely say that the image was not taken after 1913.--Caspian blue18:50, 2 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Re: Under the influence of coffee
Not quite sure what the point of your link was. I was simply commenting on the threads as a whole, not specifically on one person -- okay, maybe one or two of the principals -- & your comment about J was, well, peculiar but not unusual for what was said on the topic. Still, sometimes I think Wikipedians either need to indulge in less psychoactive medications -- or much, much more. (And no, I haven't had any vivid hallucinations under the influence of caffeine. I guess I fall in the category of those who need more.)
And now for something different. I followed your links about yours & Roger Davies' discoveries. Excellent work! However, this raises an important point: sometimes, even while following the letter of no original research, new discoveries are made. Not that I think there's something wrong with that (& no allusions to Seinfeld intended); no, the problem is those literal-minded types who think that because a Wikipedian happens to extend human knowledge through nothing more than careful, at times tedious, work, that new knowledge should not appear here. Maybe even something sad about those who could think it. -- llywrch (talk) 21:44, 2 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
WP:NOR doesn't actually prevent Wikipedians from making new discoveries. It simply states that Wikipedia is not suitable as the first point of publication. Our goal should be to have new findings vetted and published elsewhere, after which point Wikipedia can reflect the information. Durova35500:55, 3 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
You know that, I know that, yet I'm always amazed at how long some people contribute to Wikipedia who don't know that. Like I wrote, "Maybe even something sad about ..." -- llywrch (talk) 05:46, 3 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I can't even imagine a more deserving winner. Durova, you are the epitomy of what Wikipedians should strive to be as editors. You've got it all and more. My sincere congratulations and hopes that you will one day return as the mighty admin you once were. -- Brangifer (talk) 05:45, 3 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Congrats! Saw your win in the newsletter. I had you handicapped as the heavy favorite, figuring no one could keep up with the featured picture avalanche. :D Enigmamsg06:55, 3 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Congrats from me as well. Having watched your incredible talent for locating FP material I am not at all surprised that you have won the competition. You represent what is greatest in us all, as is demonstrated by the posts above (and probably below as well), and it is my hope that you will continue to excel here on the wiki that we may benefit from your outstanding example. 129.108.96.193 (talk) 22:00, 3 November 2009 (UTC) aka TomStar81 (talk·contribs)[reply]
In this round of the WikiCup, the bottom three contestants of the top eight were eliminated on September 30th, while the top five continued for an additional month. On October 31, the WikiCup ended, and Durova was crowned winner!
Top 4
Durova (1830)
Ottava Rima (1720)
Sasata (1627)
Theleftorium (1149)
Eliminated 3
Candlewicke (586)
Mitchazenia (376)
Juliancolton (349)
Withdrawn
Shoemaker's Holiday (1224)
All scores are accurate as of the end of the WikiCup.
Content Leaders
As of this newsletter, the following is a list of participants in this round with the most:
Well, it was a long, long ride, with plenty of ups as well as downs (but I'm sure you'll agree, definitely more ups). It's been ten long months since our kick-off in January, and the level of competition has intensified so much so quickly. It's a wonder there was any puff left in our final eight by the end, but they fought to the death and, eventually, Durova pulled through, making her proficiency with FPs count as the contest drew to a close. Special mentions must go to the other members of the last four, Ottava Rima, Sasata and Theleftorium, all of whom put in a astonishing shift in their efforts to peel Durova away from her victory. Congratulations again!
The announcement of the ed17 as the newest judge to the WikiCup panel was made today - I wish him all the best in his new role.
The article for the Signpost overall is now be readable in a Signpost near you!
Remember to sign up for next year if you haven't already!
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.
Regarding your recent post in my user talk page, please keep in mind that I created Lifelike solely as a redirect, not for article content. It would be best to contact Sebisthlm, who changed the redirect into a stub. just64helpin (talk) 21:54, 3 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
This WikiCup Award is presented to Durova for winning the 2009 WikiCup!
We started the WikiCup with 60 editors, and you've tackled the obviously difficult task of defeating them all. From January 2009 through October 2009, you worked on improving hundreds of Wikipedia's images, along with various sounds and articles. In total, you've completed 134 featured pictures, 18 did you know? submissions, 4 featured sounds, and 3 good articles.
In your honor, the judges have retired the Mexico flag. This means that nobody will ever use that country in a future WikiCup, except for you.
Congratulations for your spectacular achievement, Durova!
2009 WikiCup Award: Most Featured Pictures in a Round
This WikiCup Award is awarded to Durova for her achievement of contributing the most featured pictures in a round. with 54 in the first round. Congratulations!
Thank you very much. And you have a point, Ottava: yellow is a lovely color I can't really wear irl because it fights with my hair and wins. ;) Cheers! Durova35523:47, 3 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Congratulations!!! People will probably ask: why Mexico? (And also, I think that retiring the Mexican flag is a mistake... if a future participant wants to win another one for Mexico, why not? But you don't have to answer that, it's the judges' mistake not yours.) Homunq (talk) 22:39, 11 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The Picture Peer Review had an interesting cartoon, under the nomination A skeleton in Uncle Sam's closet. I think that you could, with little effort, turn it into an FP worthy image. Just a suggestion, since it seems so few people go to PPR nowdays. Nezzadar[SPEAK]05:33, 4 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Tyops...
I noticed your preferenc for speeling at the AC page, gut I thought it would have been impolite to correct it :)
So anyways... I have been following quite a few of the pages where a lot of the dialogue has culminated in this current request. This, as a result of having pegged the ANI and Arb (and the like) pages since very early in my "wikiservice." I would like to know if a "Support" for your comment is mete, as it were; if it is still "appropriate" to signify, as such, in that space?
It occurs to me that just a lil' bit more Peace, love, and understanding is what is called for in this case, if it is accepted. If I had to write my own "Comment from Un-involved User:Hamster Sandwich" it would read, simply, "Cranky people wind up making other people cranky, too.." But I won't, because ArbCom shouldn't be subjected to anything but well founded facts, and not my (or any other editors) random opinions. But yours happens to be very good, which is why I wanted to know. Best regards, Hamster Sandwich (talk) 06:35, 4 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you very much. Yes, sometimes people post agreement with other comments at that venue. Usually in plain English by pointing out the poster's username and elaborating any other observation they want to add. Durova35515:24, 4 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
BBC radio drama featuring Nadia Durova
Thought you might be interested in play pitting Nadia Durova against Charles Dickens in a tale of espionage which I heard on BBC Radio 4 yesterday afternoon; it's available to listen online for the next 6 days. Durova is portrayed as somewhat of a caricature but it's a good listen none the less. Best, Nancy talk11:05, 4 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Re: Speedy deletion nomination of Thomas Ricciardi
How was Thomas Ricciardi an attack page? All I did was create a disambiguation page about 2 mobsters with the same name. Just because it was deleted before under G:10 Attack page, doesn't mean it should automatically be deleted if someone were to create the page and improve it. That's not really fair or necessary. --Ted87 (talk) 02:23, 5 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Hi there. I'm the admin who deleted the page. The concern here is not that that it was an attack page per se, but that it contained negative, unsourced information on a living person. I hope this helps. — JakeWartenberg02:40, 5 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
In that case you should of gave me more than 5 minutes to add info before deleting it and protecting it from being remade.
No need for apologies. I had requested speedy on the earlier version a few months ago and it was still at my watchlist. Didn't realize it was being recreated by an experienced editor. BLP is a tough nut to crack with that subject. Durova35703:49, 5 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The best medicine
I found your cheerful comments on another editor's talkpage very funny, and I appreciate that your efforts to look out for your fellow editors in a collegial manner. Hearty congratulations on your Atlas Shrugged trophy and WikiCup triumph. Such admirable and impresive content contributions should probably get more recognition and appreciation around here, but I hope you can settle for lesser expressions of respect and admiration. ChildofMidnight (talk) 07:32, 5 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I realise you're probably swamped with these requests, but the original cover of Leviathan would make a great FP, with a little cleanup work. The file we currently have is of a pretty high resolution. Do you think it's something you could work with? J Milburn (talk) 14:34, 5 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
It's a wonderful idea. If a better resolution version becomes available please let me know. The usual minimum for this type of work is 10MB in TIFF or other uncompressed format. Durova35715:47, 5 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
File:Romea.jpg is now available on Wikimedia Commons as Commons:File:Romea.jpg. This is a repository of free media that can be used on all Wikimedia wikis. The image will be deleted from Wikipedia, but this doesn't mean it can't be used anymore. You can embed an image uploaded to Commons like you would an image uploaded to Wikipedia, in this case: [[File:Romea.jpg]]. Note that this is an automated message to inform you about the move. This bot did not copy the image itself. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 23:39, 6 November 2009 (UTC)
...mutter Pre-1923 public domain in the States, won't enter PD in France until 2038. Welcome to the world of featured picture contribution and bots... ;) Durova35723:56, 6 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I was under the impression that I had cast my support for the nom, but when I saw that it did not pass, I also saw that I forgot to support. Would it make a difference now? Is it too late? Nezzadar[SPEAK]18:21, 7 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
You could raise it at FPC talk. FPC closers are usually reasonable about this type of thing; it's why recently closed nominations remain at FPC for a couple of days. Durova35718:31, 7 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Notice of Delisting Nomination
An image you uploaded has been nominated for delisting. The link is here: M3 Tank. Your comments are welcome. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Nezzadar (talk • contribs) 01:31, 8 November 2009
People have suggested it for a long time, and perhaps the triple crown is ready for it--if nothing else to give it more assistance. Would you be willing to help maintain it? Durova36017:20, 8 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
An editor had been spending several months doing nothing other than adding external links to that particular site to dozens of articles. You may be right; it may be a perfectly reasonable source. If people want to expand articles using it as a source I won't object. Today's removal was routine per WP:NOTLINKS and WP:SPAM. Durova36018:14, 8 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
But it is not spam. It is a reliable and impartial site, run by a charitable organisation, providing information about the British film industry. There is even a template for linking to it. It is exactly the kink of external link we should be encouraging and routinely adding to all British actor articles, just as we routinely link to DMOZ for software categories and IMDB for musicians. --DanielRigal (talk) 18:23, 8 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Spamming is an editor behavior, not a statement about the site. Reliable sites can be spammed. When an editor spends months doing nothing else but adding the same external link to large numbers of articles, Wikipedia's normal response is to remove it. Nothing prevents you from using it as a source, though. Best regards. Durova36018:26, 8 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Surely if somebody was to meticulously go through all the musician articles adding Allmusic links that would be barnstar behaviour, not spamming. Ditto for IMDB links, where appropriate. Why is this different? Surely the template is there to be used. --DanielRigal (talk) 18:37, 8 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, occasionally reliable book publishers or even universities do the same thing--and get reverted the same way. Wikipedia wouldn't be very good as a reference source if it contained large numbers of links to other archives, without actually incorporating any of that information into its articles. That's what search engines are for. A worthwhile goal, but outside our project mission. Durova36018:42, 8 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, so it was actually the BFI putting the links in? If so, I see your point. That is not something they should have even considered doing without discussing it and getting it approved. --DanielRigal (talk) 18:52, 8 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Haven't claimed that (and actually don't know). Just saying that in other instances it's turned out to be the institution. When it's been possible to find out who was doing it, usually turned out to be someone very junior such as an intern who was following orders with a mixture of not understanding WP standards and doing the easiest thing that would satisfy the boss. Durova36018:57, 8 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Hoi, it is not about the screenonline itself.. It is about this person whose only contribution is linking to screenonline... That, is spamming, that is not adding encyclopaedic content to our project AND that is what we are about.. So, just ride good articles and you may even on occasion add a reference to screenonline... on occasion ... you see?? Thanks, GerardM (talk) 23:40, 8 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
As a member of the Military history WikiProject or World War I task force, you may be interested in competing in the Henry Allingham International Contest! The contest aims to improve article quality and member participation within the World War I task force. It will also be a step in preparing for Operation Great War Centennial, the project's commemorative effort for the World War I centenary.
If you would like to participate, please sign up by 11 November 2009, 00:00, when the first round is scheduled to begin! You can sign up here, read up on the rules here, and discuss the contest here! This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 18:39, 8 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : XLIV (October 2009)
The October 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) 18:39, 8 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Hey there, O mighty queen of photos. *g* Question for you: I'm really happy with this image of a red-crested cardinal and think it'd be worth a shot at a FP, but at the full resolution I've lost some sharpness around the head. Any thoughts about what techniques might be able to sort that out? Much appreciated. Tony Fox(arf!)18:24, 9 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Nice shot. You're right about the sharpness issues. It has a shallow depth of field. The actual focus is a few inches in front of the cardinal, not on the cardinal itself. FP reviewers would skewer it, but it's still very encyclopedic and looks great in thumbnail. Durova36120:14, 9 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Hmm, fair point. I'll have to look at the others in the set, see if I managed to get the focus a little closer (my long lens has attitude problems). It looks great printed at 8x10, though, so hey. Thanks for the thoughts! Tony Fox(arf!)20:59, 9 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
ArbCom courtesy notice: You have received this notice because you particpated in some way on the Mattisse case or the associated clarification discussion.
A motion has recently been proposed to reopen the ArbCom case concerning Mattisse. ArbCom is inviting editor comment on this proposed motion.
Hello, Durova. Thank you for the barnstar! I must say, I was uncertain of my course of action, but I honestly felt it was the right one. The articles tagged were clearly not speediable, as other editors noted in declining them, but the warnings, and the general tone of "we have our eye on you" remained. And, here was an editor who had never received a proper welcome. So, in the end, I am glad I played a role in that project, the creation of which I applaud. Cheers! ---RepublicanJacobiteThe'FortyFive'04:38, 10 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Mosses
Thanks for the barnstar! I am actually a bit of newbie myself – that was my first taxobox. I also knowknew nothing about Antarctic mosses, so you may want to check my edits.
Intelligentsium received a barnstar too. Overall, five editors got barnstars out of this little project. The encyclopedia got ten new articles and darned if I've ever understood taxobox structure. Durova36204:42, 10 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Interestingly, I used to collect mosses, lichen, fungi, etc., when I was a teenager. Back then, I actually knew something on the topic, but that was a long time ago. Though, I never had any Antarctic mosses. ---RepublicanJacobiteThe'FortyFive'04:50, 10 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Fascinating. Then you know more than I; it's a subject for the occasional late evening browse. Had been hoping for more growth and improvement to happen there. So a meander through Google Books and a few stubs seemed like a good idea. Durova36204:55, 10 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
For the suggestion (and thanks to User:Anomie for the switch), and thanks for the link to featured pictures of arthropods copulating, leaf-eating, and feces-eating. Your kindness does not go unnoticed. --IP69.226.103.13 (talk) 00:06, 13 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
You're right it does. When I write articles on organisms I always ask a researcher for an image. They're not usually FA quality because of small size, but researchers are generous about donating images to articles. Look at this pretty picture just for the asking. You can't fathom the description of this animal without an image. --IP69.226.103.13 (talk) 03:07, 13 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Actually the request is open to anyone who would like to leave a message. If I do have occasion to look into your work specifically I would ask specifically for permission to use your name and your works as examples, but as I have yet to get into the details of the paper I am not sure which way its going to go yet. At any rate, I thought I would leave the message just to let you know. Happy Thanksgiving, albeit it an early one, and I will see you officially in December. 129.108.68.99 (talk) 01:57, 17 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I'm absolutely delighted with that restoration. Awesome! In fact, I just went onto ga.wikipedia to update the article and to put it forward for an Íomhá Roghnaithe, only to discover that User:Guliolopez, another admin, beat me to it :)
You're welcome. And thank you very much for your commitment to the Irish Wikipedia. It's a pleasure to help out where it's appreciated. Now let's start approaching Irish museums. :) Durova36617:48, 17 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
the kurt thing
G'day all (copied to Durova, Jake 'n Coffee :-) - I wondered if you chaps would mind taking a look at the RfC and seeing if you think withdrawing it would be a good idea at this point? Seems to me like that's the way the wind blows, and I also had a question about the certification bit - I don't really know how that works, but right now only Durova has certified as 'trying and failing', right? - I think there are supposed to be two for the RfC to continue? (don't bash me with a policy stick if this is wrong - I'm rubbish at this side of the wiki).
Either ways, I can see where it was coming from, but I don't think, at this stage, it's a good idea for the RfC to continue - so I thought you might like to take a look... Privatemusings (talk) 20:14, 17 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I happened to land on your userpage
And your restorations are phenomenal. Truly amazing that somebody can restore those photos, just using Photoshop (or that's what the exif data shows). Would tools listed here help one restore photos? I have Photoshop, but haven't used it to the fullest extent possible evidently! TheWeakWilled (T * G)02:03, 18 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
There are various plugins to improve the effectiveness of Photoshop at restoring images. I don't use them myself, but if your main interest is to restore family photographs they can be a useful timesaver. Durova36617:42, 18 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Implimenting featured picture stars easily
Method one, if you want stars to be visible to everyone regardless:
Add this to all picture captions, either by bot or by code:
{{File:FILENAME/Statusicon}}
or perhaps
{{Special:Status/File:FILENAME}}
Each picture's status would either return nothing, a star for featured pictures, an alert icon if this picture was tagged for deletion or discussion, a commons icon if it was in the commons, etc. The content returned could be done by having bot maintain the Statusicon page or by code manage the Special:Filestatus page. If there was more than 1 icon a it would return up to a maximum number of icons or a special "..." or multi-icon icon to indicate the picture had multiple items of interest about it.
On a more serious note, the length and complexity of your talk pages gave my web browser a slight pause. No telling what it's doing to older, more decrepit web browsers. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail) 02:46, 18 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Kmwebber RFC
I removed the Kmwebber RFC from the main RFC page as it failed to get the requisite two certifiers. I will ask that it be deleted after I have verified that neither you nor Kmwebber wish to retain a copy for your records. If you would like a copy, I don't think anyone would have a problem with you moving the RFC in your userspace (noindex, please). Hipocrite (talk) 15:19, 18 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Artikel ini sebatang kara, artinya tidak ada artikel lain yang memiliki pranala balik ke halaman ini.Bantulah menambah pranala ke artikel ini dari artikel yang berhubungan atau coba peralatan pencari pranala.Tag ini diberikan pada Januari 2023. Bunda dari BegoñaBunda dari BegoñaDihormati diGereja Katolik RomaTempat ziarahBasilika BegoñaPesta8 OktoberPelindungBiscay Bunda dari Begoña (Nuestra Señora de Begoña, la Madre de Dios de Begoña) dianggap sebagai peristiwa penampakan Perawan Mar...
Microsoft Visual C# adalah sebuah program alat bantu pemrograman (Rapid Application Development tool) yang dibuat oleh Microsoft Corporation dan dapat digunakan untuk membuat program berbasis grafis dengan menggunakan bahasa pemrograman mirip C++. Program ini telah dimasukkan ke dalam produk Microsoft Visual Studio, bersama-sama dengan Visual C++, Visual Basic, Visual FoxPro serta Visual J#. Sejauh ini, program ini merupakan program yang paling banyak digunakan oleh para programmer untuk memb...
Pour les articles homonymes, voir Couvent des Cordeliers. Couvent des CordeliersVue de l'intérieurPrésentationType couventDestination initiale CouventDestination actuelle École ; habitationsConstruction XIIIe siècleÉtat de conservation démoli ou détruit (d)LocalisationPays FranceCommune NantesCoordonnées 47° 13′ 09″ N, 1° 33′ 10″ OLocalisation sur la carte de FranceLocalisation sur la carte de Nantesmodifier - modifier le code - modif...
Overview of telecommunications in Russia Shukhov TowerThis article needs to be updated. Please help update this article to reflect recent events or newly available information. (October 2022) The telecommunications in Russia has undergone significant changes since the 1980s, radio was a major new technology in the 1920s, when the Communists had recently come to power. Soviet authorities realized that the ham operator was highly individualistic and encouraged private initiative – too much so...
У этого термина существуют и другие значения, см. Халлайн (значения). ГородХаллайннем. Hallein Герб 47°40′00″ с. ш. 13°05′00″ в. д.HGЯO Страна Австрия Статус административный центр округа Федеральная земля Зальцбург Округ Халлайн (округ) Бургомистр Христиан Штёкль(...
Bahasa Yunani Istanbul Πολίτικη διάλεκτος Κωνσταντινουπολίτικη διάλεκτος Yunani Konstantinopel Gereja Ortodoks Yunani Ayios Fokas di Ortaköy-Beşiktaş, dengan tanda dalam bahasa Turki dan Yunani. Dituturkan diTurki dan YunaniWilayahIstanbul dan AthenaEtnisMasyarakat Yunani TurkiPenutur Rumpun bahasaIndo-Eropa HelenikYunaniYunani Attika–IoniaYunani Istanbul Sistem penulisanAlfabet YunaniKode bahasaISO 639-3–IETFel-u-sd-tr34 Portal ...
Lokasi di Vietnam Mán Bạc merupakan situs arkeologi Neolitikum yang terletak di Distrik Yên Mô, Provinsi Ninh Bình, Vietnam,[1] berasal dari sekitar 1.850–1.650 SM. Mán Bạc dihubungkan dengan kebudayaan Phùng Nguyên. Dengan 95 pemakaman ditemukan di situs tersebut, Mán Bạc adalah situs terbesar dan paling utuh yang terkait dengan kebudayaan Phùng Nguyên, melampaui situs di Lung Hoa.[2] Referensi Kutipan ^ Oxenham 2011, hlm. 2. ^ Oxenham 2016, hlm. 1...
Cet article ou cette section contient des informations sur une série télévisée en cours de production, programmée ou prévue. Le texte est susceptible de contenir des informations spéculatives et son contenu peut être nettement modifié au fur et à mesure de l’avancement de la série et des informations disponibles s’y rapportant.La dernière modification de cette page a été faite le 5 avril 2024 à 22:31. Pobol y Cwm Données clés Titre original Pobol y Cwm Genre Soap opera P...
Pour les articles homonymes, voir Charlie. Charlie Hebdo Logo de Charlie Hebdo. Pays France Langue Français Périodicité Hebdomadaire Genre Presse satirique Prix au numéro 3,20 € Diffusion environ 25 000 [1] ex. (2020) Date de fondation 1970 Éditeur Les Éditions Rotative Ville d’édition Paris Propriétaire Riss (100 %) Directeur de publication Riss Directeur de la rédaction Riss Rédacteur en chef Gérard Biard ISSN 1240-0068 ISSN (version électronique) 2270-7905 S...
2009 في إيطاليامعلومات عامةالسنة 2009 البلد إيطاليا 2008 في إيطاليا 2010 في إيطاليا تعديل - تعديل مصدري - تعديل ويكي بيانات قائمة السنوات في موضوع … 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 … الفن علم الآثار الزراعة الأدب الموسيقى الفلسفة العلوم +... سنوات 2007 2008 2009 20...
Pertempuran Sarikamish Сражение при Сарыкамыше-Srazhenie pri Sarykamyshe Sarıkamış MuharebesiBagian dari Kampanye militer Kaukasus selama Perang Dunia IParit Rusia di hutan Sarikamish.Tanggal22 Desember 1914 – 17 Januari 1915LokasiSarikamish, Oblast Kars, Kekaisaran Rusia40°20′17″N 42°34′23″E / 40.3381°N 42.573°E / 40.3381; 42.573Koordinat: 40°20′17″N 42°34′23″E / 40.3381°N 42.573°E / 40.3381; 42...
This article is about the Ariel Pink album. For other albums with similar titles, see Loverboy (disambiguation). 2002 studio album by Ariel Pink's Haunted GraffitiLover BoyStudio album by Ariel Pink's Haunted GraffitiReleased2002 (Original) March 2006 (Re-issue)Recorded2001 – 2002GenrePsychedelic poplo-fiLabelBallbearings PinatasCD BabyProducerAriel PinkAriel Pink's Haunted Graffiti chronology House Arrest(2002) Lover Boy(2002) Worn Copy(2003) Lover Boy is the sixth studio album by ...
Artikel ini mendokumentasikan suatu pandemi terkini. Informasi mengenai hal itu dapat berubah dengan cepat jika informasi lebih lanjut tersedia; laporan berita dan sumber-sumber primer lainnya mungkin tidak bisa diandalkan. Pembaruan terakhir untuk artikel ini mungkin tidak mencerminkan informasi terkini mengenai pandemi ini untuk semua bidang. Pandemi COVID-19 di SiprusPeta penyebaran kasus di Siprus per 100.000 penduduk menurut DistrikPenyakitCOVID-19Galur virusSARS-CoV-2LokasiSiprusKasus p...
Cat with identification tattoo from Broward County Animal Shelter An animal tattoo or pet tattoo is a tattoo that a person has placed on an animal, which may be for animal identification, aesthetics, or artistic purposes. Animal identification via tattoo is a practice within the agricultural industry, at breeding farms, in scientific laboratories, and in the identification of domesticated pets.[1] Anaesthetic or other methods of sedation are commonly administered for this type of proc...
مارسيل ديسايي (بالفرنسية: Marcel Desailly) معلومات شخصية الميلاد 7 سبتمبر 1968 (العمر 55 سنة)[1]أكرا الطول 1.85 م (6 قدم 1 بوصة)[2][2] مركز اللعب قلب الدفاع الجنسية فرنسا غانا المسيرة الاحترافية1 سنوات فريق م. (هـ.) 1986–1992 نانت 162 (5) 1992–1993 أولمبيك مارسيليا 47 (1) 1993�...
هنري دي مونترلان (بالفرنسية: Henry de Montherlant) معلومات شخصية اسم الولادة (بالفرنسية: Henry Marie Joseph Frédéric Expédite Millon de Montherlant)[1] الميلاد 20 أبريل 1895باريس (فرنسا) الوفاة 21 سبتمبر 1972باريس (فرنسا) سبب الوفاة تسمم بالسيانيد مكان الدفن منتدى الجنسية فرنسي عضو في الأكا�...
,_mating.jpg)
![[1]](https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=File:John_Quincy_Adams_1824.jpg&oldid=10438494){kind=link}
