User talk:Durova/Archive 59

Would you please revisit the Polar bear FPC. Your opinion would open or close this in my mind with regards to future work on improvements. Thanks. Dhatfield (talk) 20:52, 11 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Your Featured picture candidate has been promoted Your nomination for featured picture status, Image:Lincoln and Johnsond.jpg, gained a consensus of support, and has been promoted. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates. MER-C 07:47, 13 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. :) Durova^Charge! 08:19, 13 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, I put that there to inform others that discussion is still going on, but at another page. It says on the

Thanks for the swift response. Much obliged. Durova^Charge! 16:25, 13 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Durova,

I'm taking your advice and taking up issues with your mentoree, User:Jaakobou, with you here directly. I'm bringing this here to you and not to him directly to avoid a direct confrontation that may quickly turn heated. No, no rules have been broken, but there's something I think you should have a word about with him:

In the discussion on

Cheers, kind regards and many thanks for your time, pedrito - talk - 13.06.2008 09:25

I've talked with him about this. Looks like you're both near wit's end with each other. Aside from the ongoing mediation, how about a mutual week's break from the articles where you're both editing actively? A gentleman's agreement: get some fresh air, go to the movies, etc. and both return in better form. Sounds fair? Durova^Charge! 16:46, 13 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Durova,

Thank you for your intervention. I think a break would be an excellent idea. I do note, however, that your mentoree has neither stricken his comments nor apologised. I know this is not in his habits, but for the good of the debate there, I would strongly suggest he do so.

Cheers and thanks, pedrito - talk - 17.06.2008 06:13

I'd like to claim a Triple Crown for Creatures of Impulse: DYK through GA and on to FA in one month, two days. Main co-collaborator: User:Ssilvers, but hey, I think I count for this DYK, as I did start the article and brought it up to length mostly alone, though Ssilvers' assistance for GA and FA cannot be ignored. Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 19:01, 13 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I saw your comment about the images and OTRS at ANI, and I must admit I am confused. I thought that OTRS was for the copyright holder to confirm details, not for Wikipedia editors to submit "confirmation details" that should be discussed on-wiki if publically available. How do OTRS volunteers confirm that the information they receive is correct? Carcharoth (talk) 09:29, 14 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I've known of at least one other instance where a Wikipedia volunteer assisted a copyright holder in filing an OTRS. Not being OTRS myself, I can't give you the full ins and outs of that. But in that other instance it eventually led to a long Commons discussion that concluded the OTRS ticket was wrong. An honest misunderstanding: the fellow had been given republication permission from the actual copyright owner and neither he nor the Wikipedia volunteer understood the difference between that and a rights transfer. Durova^Charge! 16:34, 14 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Durova, could you help me fix the problems with

Thanks for agreeing to tackle this photograph. How is it going so far? My image editing skillset isn't exactly robust, but I'd love to see the progress you've made and see if I can't help finish the tedious task of cleaning it up. Please upload your version to the commons or send it to me via e-mail. Regards, ˉˉanetode╦╩ 01:01, 17 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, didn't notice the identical thread above. ˉˉ^anetode╦╩ 11:17, 19 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Actually I've got an interim version I could upload. Durova^Charge! 16:12, 19 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The nomination of the above article was archived by the Featured Articles Director, with the comment that the page had again grown too long. He has asked that all remaining objectors produce a list of their specific problems with the article in its current form. These will then be addressed by the article's editorial team before re-presentation for FA status.

Can you therefore please post a complete list of any specific remaining objections you may have on the article's talk page at: Talk:Roman_Catholic_Church. If possible can we have this list in by the end of June, so that editors can begin to address them all in detail in July. To prevent the nomination again becoming over-long, we would ask that you raise ALL of your remaining concerns at this stage, making your comments as specific and comprehensive as possible. It would help if all your comments were gathered under your name in a single heading on the page. Thank you. Xandar (talk) 01:09, 17 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Durova, I hope your resting break is helping. If you come back nice and refreshed and ready to retackle another difficult topic then I hope you'll take a look at the Roman Catholic church article. I'm operating on a potentially stupid incorrect assumption that part of the problems in the history section of that article might be that it just goes into way too much detail. If we can strip that section down to the basics, it might be tight enough to help us get to NPOV more easily. I'm working solely within what is already in the article (no new sources), and I've managed to cut about 30% of what I consider fluff already. Since you have experience in Catholic history topics I hoped you might be able to take a look at my working proposal and make further cuts, restore data that might be necessary, or make other suggestions for improvements. I'm asking a few other editors with interest in pieces of Catholic history to do the same, and after a while of mulling it over I'll present it as a proposal at the RCC talk page. Karanacs (talk) 15:42, 17 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Re-posting from above to get your attention.

Hi Durova, Thank you for your intervention. I think a break would be an excellent idea. I do note, however, that your mentoree has neither stricken his comments nor apologised. I know this is not in his habits, but for the good of the debate there, I would strongly suggest he do so. Cheers and thanks, pedrito - talk - 17.06.2008 06:13

How about "for the good of the debate" you let it die, Pedro? Pressuring Durova and Jaaka to win points like this is seriously gaming. Kyaa the Catlord (talk) 06:10, 18 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ideally we shouldn't be looking to score points, just to move forward collaboratively and build an encyclopedia. Durova^Charge! 20:17, 18 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Durova, this is not a cheap shot to score points, as Kyaa has insinuated. As I have pointed out above, it is not exactly me who is trying to score on the sly. User:Jaakobou has to learn how to avoid inflaming a discussion -- a lesson which includes striking out comments and apologising. Cheers, pedrito - talk - 19.06.2008 06:18

Cheap or not, the one-up/one-down approach isn't the most productive avenue. Forgive me if lack of in-depth familiarity of the subject occasionally blinds me to subtle digs. I've been in enough editing disputes to understand how an intentionally disruptive editor will make statements that look reasonable to passers-by but are really outrageous to people who understand the context. I just don't actually see the aspect that's given you offense. In other conversations Jaakobou has demonstrated his willingness to retract improper statements (and better still, is increasingly getting feedback in advance to ensure his posts are appropriate in the first place). I ask you to trust that he's doing his best and take no offense where none is intended. If there's something significant that's going over my head about this particular exchange, I'm all ears, yet I often ask Jaakobou to let the small stuff slide and assume good faith. That seems to be the case here, near as I can tell. Durova^Charge! 06:55, 19 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

${\displaystyle \leftarrow }$Hi Durova and thanks for the quick reply.

This has nothing to do with content, but everything to do with tone and leading a productive discussion. In order to avoid a long and fruitless edit war, I offered a compromise on a wording issue by agreeing to disagree with User:Jaakobou (here). This compromise offer was immediately trumpeted as an admission of defeat on my behalf (here) and User:Jaakobou proceeded to edit this change into the article and continue warring on the other parts of it (here).

In summary, I offer to let his wording be and just leave the article alone -- the essence of conceding a point to avoid a conflict -- and he takes the wording (immediately effecting the change), plays it as an admission of defeat on my behalf, and does not take the rest of the deal (i.e. "leave the article alone").

Again, this has nothing to do with content and everything to do with behaviour and is symptomatic of most of my interactions with Jack. Yes, his style has been getting better, but as long as things like this keep on happening, productive discussions will continue to be very difficult.

Cheers and thanks for your time, pedrito - talk - 19.06.2008 07:28

P.S. To use your wording: I am the one who "let the small stuff slide" here... What bothers me is Jack's reaction thereto. pedrito - talk - 19.06.2008 07:32

I'd love to hear your opinion on whether this was justified.--_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 17:46, 18 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ed Johnston's comment about sourcing looks like the most salient argument in the discussion. To bad it's neither supported nor refuted. Borderline edit warring probably isn't bannable, but misuse of sources is. Durova^Charge! 20:20, 18 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Uh, have you seen my argument? I refute the very weak argument by Ed, by pointing out that once the book was criticized, Molobo added a new source (from the city's official pages), and the fact is verified by several Polish (non-fiction) book. Also, nobody has so far presented any proof that the alleged fragment is from a fiction book (there are just editors claiming it is, but nobody provided a link to a book review or such).--_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 04:39, 19 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You know what? A firsthand statement from Molobo would be a lot more meaningful. Back at

I am not sure I understand how it would work. If he emails me a statement, I could just paste it somewhere with attribution, although he should still be able to edit his talkpage, I believe, so there is even no need for that...? --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk 17:20, 19 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The template automatically transcludes a statement from his talk page to the specific discussion about a potential ban. This would allow him to post additional evidence and respond to concerns actively, without placing him at automatic disadvantage within the discussion. Despite the bad rap CSN got (much of which was undeserved), it was actually an innovative place that worked toward making sanctions more mild and equitable, incorporating commonsense notions of fair play. This was one of the cooler things that board did and it would be a good idea to import it. ;) Durova^Charge! 18:09, 19 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Moved to here Carcharoth (talk) 07:43, 19 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Suggest putting phrases that are directly quoted into quotation marks and introducing the name of the quoted source in article text. Durova^Charge! 22:55, 18 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Which bits do you think are directly quoted? Does that apply to public domain stuff as well? We don't quote EB 1911 stuff. We just stick a template at the bottom saying it came from there. If you don't have time now, don't worry. I'd prefer a longer answer later, or just a pointer somewhere else if you don't have time. Carcharoth (talk) 23:02, 18 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I see the ANI thread has expanded somewhat. I'm going to pick a few people from that list and point them here. I'd still be interested in what you think, but it was unfair of me to expect you to have the time to review this, sorry about that. Carcharoth (talk) 07:29, 19 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Durova, I'd be interested in your comments on this. I'll not express my views here one way or the other, though they are not hard to discern. Should you decide to comment at the AfD within the next 20 hours, I'm sure you'll note that your views on the subject were solicited externally; otherwise your comments here would be most informative, marginal BLP's with controversial views, dead trees, and all that stuff. Thanks! Franamax (talk) 02:37, 19 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Doesn't even seem marginal to me. Durova^Charge! 07:37, 19 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the comment on my talk page. I've proposed we create a separate plagiarism guideline (or rather, how to detect, deal with and avoid it). I'm hoping people will contribute at Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)#Wikipedia:Plagiarism. Thanks. Carcharoth (talk) 20:09, 19 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sounds like an intelligent idea. Thank you. :) Durova^Charge! 21:23, 19 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

g'day durova - I thought I'd swing by here because I noticed your interest in Wikipedia:Plagiarism, and also because you'll be aware of how hot a potato this issue is, and hopefully might be prepared to offer an independent view. It's bothered me for quite a while that the Giovanni di Stefano article is in some way a violation of the GFDL - the version of 29th December 2007, currently the oldest version in the history, being quite clearly the sum of work by many (it's word for word the same article created by many contributors prior to that date). It now occurs to me that this might in many ways be a very clear example of 'wiki plagiarism' - a sort of 'not really violating copyright, but just plain wrong' situation. I'd love to hear your thoughts.

I think you're aware of the controversies around that article, and the fact that Fred Bauder (for it was he) felt there were legal concerns - this doesn't add up to making this sort of plagiarism ok in my book. My feeling is that the history of both the article and the talk page should be restored as much as possible, but there's no rush with this, and I'd very much like your thoughts on the broader issue first......

with apologies in advance for inviting you into such a difficult, and often 'not fun' area.... Privatemusings (talk) 22:15, 19 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure how this applies to the plagiarism concept. The way I understood that conflict, it had more to do with pecualiarities in British defamation law. Durova^Charge! 22:44, 19 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The article conflicts have to do with UK law but the plagiarism issue is completely different, having to do with GDFL law. I would suggest deleting the article and starting again with a stub in order to avoid the issues PM is talking about. Thanks,

SqueakBox 23:00, 19 June 2008 (UTC)[reply

]

Is there a chance we could discuss this on Skype maybe, in order to avoid any potential defamation issues for WP? Durova^Charge! 23:32, 19 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Squeak's idea is a pretty good one, I reckon - although it may be likely to meet resistance elsewhere... both plagiarism and copyvio are certainly pretty strong labels to be thrown around - and I want to be clear that the central issue I'm concerned with is not appropriately attributing credit both where it is legally due (GFDL) and ethically necessary (plagiarism). Squeak is also correct that the legal issues (possible libel, defamation etc.) are separate, and don't negate the need to address the attribution issue properly. I'll hop on Skype to chat further - and I'll drop a short note at Fred's page, the lack of which is a bit of an oversight on my part. cheers, Privatemusings (talk) 00:55, 20 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. As instructed, I'm just letting you know I nominate myself. Cheers, Juliancolton ^{Tropical Cyclone} 15:17, 20 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I just realized you are eligible for this. Thanks for your contributions over the past several years. (If you don't ant it just trash it)

Thanks very much. :) Durova^Charge! 20:40, 21 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, I'm pretty new to the featured image business, and you seem to know what you're doing so I'm dropping by with a question. I nominated an image for Featured Picture status (it's the Ivory-billed Woodpeckers) and everything was going fine until I tried to add the FP candidate box to the image. Instead of having an "edit page" button it said "create this page", which it then told me not to do when I clicked on it. Apparently the image is on Commons but not on Wikipedia? I'm not even sure if that makes sense, but if you could check it out I would appreciate it. Thanks! Fleagle 06:39, 21 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Right. What you do is put the FPC template on there. It's okay, you can create the page for FPC. Best wishes! Durova^Charge! 20:50, 21 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Your Featured picture candidate has been promoted Your nomination for featured picture status, Image:RedCrossNursen.jpg, gained a consensus of support, and has been promoted. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates. NauticaShades 15:04, 21 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. :) Durova^Charge! 20:50, 21 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You seem to be interested in helping to bring high-quality old non-copywrite protected photos to wikipedia so I thought you might be interested that the smithsonian recently created a Flickr feed for their old photos. You can find it here (http://flickr.com/photos/smithsonian/). Hopefully, this will be of some use to you and to wikipedia. Remember (talk) 16:38, 22 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Awesome, thanks for the link. :) Durova^Charge! 16:57, 22 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Durova, I hope I find you well this fine evening.

some time ago, you

Hi Durova,

Just to let you know that the Featured Picture

Thank you. :) Durova^Charge! 06:24, 25 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hey Durova,

I noticed User:Salimfadhley hasn't edited since February, and I've emailed him in case he's not checking the site. Hopefully he'll get the message one way or another. Take care. Fletcher (talk) 01:21, 25 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

thank you. :) Durova^Charge! 06:23, 25 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Your Featured picture candidate has been promoted Your nomination for featured picture status, Image:Nurembergsynagoguec.jpg, gained a consensus of support, and has been promoted. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates. MER-C 06:22, 25 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. :) Durova^Charge! 06:28, 25 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I meant Everyme not you - clarified. Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 01:00, 26 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, you had me worried! Glad things are still all right along those lines at least. Best, Durova^Charge! 01:25, 26 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, Durova, promoted a little early, you'll have to wait... « Milk's Favorite Cøøkie 01:24, 26 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you very much. :) Durova^Charge! 01:34, 26 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Now you know why FA has a director :-) [1] SandyGeorgia (Talk) 04:50, 26 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Replied to your email... « Milk's Favorite Cøøkie 17:15, 26 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

BTW, do you want other people to help out handing 'em out or would you prefer leaving that to yourself alone? I (and others) can hlpe in that way. Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 01:30, 26 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, I'd really love it. I've been meaning to get onto that but stuff keeps coming up. Last week I was under the weather and had computer problems. This week people have been asking me for urgent help, plus I'm just discovering someone uploaded large numbers of images to Commons with questionable public domain rationales. Gmail chat or Skype? Durova^Charge! 01:33, 26 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I am not in a position to talk but will trawl through later and award and mark as done/etc. I'm not much of a chatter online as I am not good at multitasking (or so my other half tells me)...Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 01:47, 26 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Durova,

Just to let you know that the Featured Picture

Thanks. :) Durova^Charge! 05:34, 26 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Your post with the satellite image has to be reverted as image has wrong name and localisation (really it is Üüreg Nuur lake out of the Uvs Nuur basin). This image was erased from this page couple times. Bogomolov.PL (talk) 10:01, 27 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Where do you get that information? Are you saying the NASA description was wrong? I suppose that's possible; please show alternate sources to confirm. Durova^Charge! 10:26, 27 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You can try google maps. Uvs Nuur is at 50°20′N 92°40′E / 50.333°N 92.667°E / 50.333; 92.667, Üüreg nuur is at 50°10′N 91°00′E / 50.167°N 91.000°E / 50.167; 91.000. Yaan (talk) 10:47, 27 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You can find it at this image

in an intramountaineous hollow E from the real Uvs Nuur. Bogomolov.PL (talk) 10:54, 27 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, thanks for the heads up. I'm heading to bed; will fix in the morning. Appreciate the help. :) Durova^Charge! 11:11, 27 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Would you have time to look at User talk:Gatoclass? If you pick up the threads from there, you will see criticisms of the Triple Crown award. If people did point out plagiarism in past DYKs (or any other problems with the various meta-awards you administer), would you consider withdrawing them? Your opinion on how things could have been better handled between Blechnic and Gatoclass would also be appreciated. There is stuff hidden in page histories as well, so things on the surface aren't always what they seem. See here, here, here, here, here, here, here and here. I'm sure you get the drift. Blechnic's behaviour wasn't ideal, but people got defensive far too quickly. Carcharoth (talk) 11:34, 27 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. I've added your boycott of the RFA Review to the RFA Review category, since the two are related; please revert me if I erred. I also note that I agree wholeheartedly with you that more training is required, and that one of the reasons I'm participating in the review is very specifically to put forward a proposal for more training, a probationary period, or some form of admin (not RFA) coaching. There may be flaws, but enough people have bought into this process that I believe it has a good chance of succeeding in some fashion - which is all we can hope for from a wikipedia process. Best, UltraExactZZ ^Claims ~ Evidence 13:14, 27 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

More training is better. Coaching and training and other preparation should be encouraged. I would like to see a probationary period as well, possibly associated with more required training. However, I am afraid that the RfA Review might get mired down in all the previous political nightmares that are associated with RfA reform discussions.

In addition, emotions about RfA are so heated that editors are threatening each other or feel justified to take revenge on each other for RfA "votes". Therefore, I am a bit nervous that taking the "wrong position" on an RfA reform proposal could very well result in some "posse" of Wikipedia Review editors, or other interested "hate group" or collection of agitators and malcontents, mounting some attack on one or more editors at some later date for engaging in "thought crimes". I would like to see the community take a strong position that this sort of outrageous behavior will no longer be tolerated, or at least actively discouraged.

I might still file something at RfA Review. But I am much less enthusiastic, knowing the history of previous efforts, and the unbridled anger that is associated with reform movements at RfA, or indeed anything associated with RfAs.--Filll (talk | wpc) 14:19, 27 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, thanks for the category. Much appreciated. Thank you also for your comments and measured responses. Those are articulate and reasoned approaches and I respect them. Durova^Charge! 16:05, 27 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, Just a short note to say that I think we've both over-reacted to each other, and that communication has been misconstrued on both sides. It would be good to collaborate with you in raising the profile of FSC. I'm still unconvinced by the musical performance in Johnny, but I'm willing to give way if we can get some more comments on it to that effect from outside FSC; I'll search around, but where musicians/audios hang out is not immediately obvious to me. Might be a good way of drumming up newcomers, too. Don't you think? TONY (talk) 15:01, 27 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you; the Library of Congress has a lot of interesting period files in the public domain, usually with good descriptions. I've also been looking into presidential libraries. Am almost ready with a plan to nominate Dwight Eisenhower's farewell address. Durova^Charge! 16:19, 27 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]