Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 05:07, 27 July 2009

Welcome to my user talk. If you're wondering about the 285 in the signature, it's the number of my featured credits. Most of my content work is performed in image processing software, which leads to a skewed and amusing onsite edit count.

Want to restore images? See Commons:Potential restorations: dozens of images ready and waiting for you.

Pin the tail on the cognate newly posted to my blog.

s:Wikisource:Song of the day

This seems to be lagging; I'm nudging ideas about for the s:main page and would like to know if this is going anywhere. Cheers, Jack Merridew 09:20, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

Good nudge. Perhaps the thing to do is downgrade to a weekly feature, at least for the time being. Have transcribed three more early Irving Berlin songs today, which helps a little. Thoughts? Durova 18:53, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

Sorry to troll stuff up from your archives ;) but I missed replying. The main point of chat on this is at s:Talk:Main Page#Future directions. See Steve's comment about a music extension, which I don't know boo about. I'm thinking that the main page should have more diverse content and occasional mp:modules about Songs and other bits would rotate in periodically. This is pretty much what I think you're saying about a weekly feature. I'm nosing about for other featurable stuff and will get you new uploads on in some manner. (see also;) Cheers, Jack Merridew 10:14, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

Context for Schutzenberger group

Howdy, what sort of context for Schutzenberger group are you looking for? The first sentence establishes that the article is about mathematics, specifically the theory of semigroups, and even more specifically the theory Green classes in the long tradition of Clifford with historical citations given. Would it help to say that this is part of abstract algebra? JackSchmidt (talk) 15:47, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

Yes, it would help to say that it is part of abstract algebra. A bit more background, please, and if there's a practical application. Thanks for the query. Durova 15:53, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

Ah ok. Does this sound right: partly the problem is the jump from "mathematics" to "semigroup theory" in the opening sentence, but then partly the problem is the article is basically a stub with no examples, motivation, or history in the main article itself.

Do you mind if I switch in abstract algebra for mathematics, remove the {{context}}, and add some stub sections with {{expand}}? I think the main problem is the article is a stubby little dicdef, so the introduction does not have anything to summarize (or introduce really). There is some growing consensus at wp math that "everyone" recognizes abstract *algebra*, so that we should introduce articles as "abstract algebra", "geometry", or "mathematics" if neither of those two. This one was introduced in the old style, "mathematics" and then immediately the most restricted area of study covering it. I think the request for background and applications is better served in the main body of the article first, and then summarized back into the lead. I doubt there are any especially "practical" applications, but the article should at least describe how it is applied to semigroup theory. JackSchmidt (talk) 16:10, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

Sure, thanks. As a general rule it's good to write introductions for a nonspecialist audience. Isaac Asimov's nonfiction work was brilliant at that sort of thing. Was recently helping with an improvement drive for the optics article, and encouraged the main author to write the introduction for his inner fifteen-year-old: bright and interested, but lacking formal education. Sounds fair? Durova 16:15, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

Definitely. I make a point of improving the articles I understand in that direction, however the math articles, indeed *just* the algebra articles, with this problem are too numerous for our existing editors, so we try to focus on the more important articles (we actually managed to have group theory and group (mathematics) at least to GA status and maybe even FA, I forget). This article (schuetzenberger) I think is part of a single editor's drive to eliminate a huge bias in our algebra coverage, as this editor is approximately our sole source of semigroup material (which is classical, important, has applications to "practical" fields like differential equations, etc. but is not taught to young students of math at most universities). I suspect he will take the hint from my edits to this article and start polishing his others, preferably at the more important ones first.

The main reason I wrote instead of being bold is that I believe strongly that cleanup tags should only be used on articles that should expect to be improved in the short term; that is, they mark priorities not just problems. Hence I was inclined just to remove the context tag and add "stub", but I thought that would be rude, and so instead randomly made this article a priority for half an hour and did what I could. We take "context" very seriously and try very hard to get a reasonably uniform "at least this much context" on every math article, but this one already met that (low) standard. There are still hundreds that don't even meet that low standard (people come in, make a 2 line article with nothing but the definition and leave forever; some create 200 articles like this and then leave). Most of them are even uncategorised, so we cannot easily find them; indeed, I've found some that have not been edited in over 5 years. At any rate, time for that part of the lunch break where I actually eat lunch. JackSchmidt (talk) 16:46, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

(outdent) Thanks very much for your effort there. Another sentence or two of background could be sufficient. It's tough to write general encyclopedia articles in a field like yours where most of the conversation occurs between specialists and a great deal of background is presumed. My hat goes off to you (and really wishing I were capable of assistance). Best, Durova 16:58, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

Nadezhda Durova

Your user page mentions "In part because of her example, Russia and the USSR had the highest participation of female wartime combatants of any Allied nation during World War I and World War II." Whereas the facts are true, most Russians would disagree with the link between them: The vast majority of women who fought in WWI and WWII did not have access to her book and hardly knew her existence (she is not famous in Russia. Most Russians would say that Durova "is the famous animal trainer"). The answer to this high participation is in the spirit of low- and mid-class Russian woman of that time. Materialscientist (talk) 07:12, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

Interesting. Do you have sources for that? Durova 13:48, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

FYI

As the mentor for SA I thought you might be interested in this since SA is brought up in discussions about banned users editing articles they are banned from. Abd is referring to SA's spelling corrections while he was banned as a reason for Abd to assume he could ignore his ban from Cold fusion and the talk page. Abd made a reference correction on the article and then reverted himself. Abd got blocked for 24 hrs. for breaching the ban. Now Abd is stating that the SA situation gave him the reason to be able to edit the article but that he didn't breach the ban because he reverted himself thus no change to the article was done. To me I have to admit this is wikilawyering but since SA keeps being brought up in multiple locations, I thought maybe you should be aware of all of this. If no, please ignore. Thanks, --CrohnieGal 12:07, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

I am not making the claim Crohnie claims. I am not "able to edit" Cold fusion, nor am I seeking that right. I did believe that the ample precedent set in the SA case, with many editors opining that harmless spelling corrections do not, in themselves, violate a ban, allowed me to make a harmless correction to the article that I happened to notice, but I did not rely solely on that, because in the SA case I had raised the problem of complicating ban enforcement, hence, then, I suggested self-reversion as a very efficient way of "suggesting" a correction, such that any editor could implement it quickly, if willing to take responsibility for it. I had done this with SA's spelling correction to Cold fusion, after it was reverted as ban violation by Hipocrite, and, as an example of how the community viewed spelling corrections, see . That opinion by WMC was not an isolated opinion.

Based on the prior sequence with SA, I strongly believed that the community did not consider harmless edits to violate bans, generally. And if the edit didn't violate a ban, self-reverting it, specifying the ban, would not increase an offense, it would remove it. It may depend on whose ox is being gored, because some of the same editors who supported SA's right to make harmless corrections argued strongly that I was a blatant ban violator for doing much less.

The continued discussion isn't about my case, and most comments seem to either ignore my case or make assumptions about it that are unwarranted. I'm not seeking to be able to make minor corrections to articles under ban. I DGAF, I would not knowingly risk the level of disruption that arose over a spelling correction, nor, in fact, would I go through the clumsy process that editors have suggested a banned editor should use. (SA rejected similar suggestions, for very good reasons. It was actually suggested that I bring up a typo correction to the current cold fusion mediation!) However, I am seeking to find ways that banned editors in general can make small and harmless contributions to the project, without complicating ban enforcement in any way that isn't worthwhile, given the benefit of the identification of errors. (Routinely, a promptly self-reverted edit, unless seriously disruptive in itself, should be considered moot for a ban, and if an editor should happen to be blocked by someone not seeing the reversion, the block should be lifted. I did specify, when I suggested self-reversion, that intention to revert per ban should be stated in the original edit summary, and I did this with the edit above. Self-reversion removes the necessity for an admin enforcing a ban to actually view the edit to determine that it's harmless, or not, and such review can wait for a complaint.)

The SA case is why I believed, when I made the edit, that it was indeed harmless and would cause no trouble. I was wrong, but I did not create the disruption over this, it was created by another editor who, quite in line with massive community opinion before, objected to my being blocked by WMC, and it was only later that I even realized the irony of this, given the opinion diff'd above. I didn't even put up an unblock template, even though I had very strong grounds to be unblocked (i.e, no intention of violation, and promise to not violate even under the more restrictive understanding).

Crohnie was involved in the conversion of my ban by WMC to a community ban, SA was not brought up in any way that added opprobrium to his situation. He was openly trying to disrupt ban enforcement, and he's paid the price for that, as he obviously was willing to do from the beginning, and I would still defend him if he made an IP edit with a harmless spelling correction, and someone tried to pin block evasion on him for that. He wasn't blocked for making spelling corrections, but for defiant intention. --Abd (talk) 14:20, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

I just brought this to Durova's attentions since she is SA's mentor. You were told that this method was not acceptable per this. I don't want to get into anything here about this, I just thought Durova should be aware of SA's name being used in this controversary. He is not able to state anything said about him himself, thus if Durova would like to say something in his behalf she should be aware of this. If there is nothing to do, then Durova will just say so or ignore my post. Nothing devious is intended by this notification, sorry if you feel I had other motives. Thanks, --CrohnieGal 14:39, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

Detail. The issue under discussion at Banning policy isn't about me, though some seem to think it is. I was told not to make these edits, by the community, post-facto, and the fact that the arguments are preposterous makes not a whit of difference, I won't repeat them. There was nothing in this that was said about SA that he hasn't really, said about himself, and my emphasis has been on what he properly did, not what he improperly did. Sorry to bother you, Durova, I hope this hasn't been a complete waste of your time, there is some interesting stuff around how to deal with banned editors that will ultimately require broader attention. But it's not about me, nor, really, about ScienceApologist. I hope you are leaving this off to do something better. --Abd (talk) 18:06, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

Thank you both for coming to my user talk. There's something I haven't announced to the community generally. A few days ago I wrote to the Committee to announce phase-out from mentorships. Will continue assisting SA through the FA drive, but will be looking for someone else to assume responsibilities from there. Durova 16:27, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

As a fan of restoring old pictures...

...I thought you would be interested in this news - , . Cheers. Remember (talk) 13:13, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

Very interesting. Thank you. :) Durova 15:19, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

Insurability

I think this topic is inherently notable. I cleaned it up. I will get cites ASAP. Bearian (talk) 14:57, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

P.S. I read your blog for the 1st time, and I like it. Bearian (talk) 15:04, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

Thanks. You've got a good point there. The last couple of days I've been patrolling the back end of the new articles list--things that were about to drop out of the system without getting any human eyes upon them. The calls are a bit tough sometimes. Looks much better already, glad to see the subject getting proper attention. Best, Durova 15:18, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

You are welcome! Bearian (talk) 15:22, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

I added more to that and the related Insurable interest stub. Bearian (talk) 17:42, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

That's not a stub anymore. Are you considering DYK? Durova 18:17, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

St. Isidore Village

This was a huge stinking mess, but it appears to be a real location in the Philippines. Bearian (talk) 15:22, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

Thank you so much. :) What do you recommend I do with this type of thing? For a while yesterday our buffer at the back end was down to seven hours, which means risking a Siegenthaler-like gaffe (helpful admins scrapped a few BLP howlers in a jiffy). Keeping up with the pace of article creation means I have enough time to add a category or two to articles who have none, and sometimes wikify a bit. Occasionally the things I've prodded look like there's an article waiting to be made about the subject (just not enough in the material on the page to work from). Suggestions? Durova 15:30, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

Do not worry, 2 rescuable articles out of 100s (<2 % false positives) is not bad. Keep doing what you were doing. Bearian (talk) 17:43, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

help needed

This is a sourced image of the counterdemonstration in Iran. There are claims that it has been photoshopped to create a larger crowd such as this File:Iranian-rally-doctored-photograph.jpg suggests to prove. We could use the sourced image for a documentation about that in the 2009 Iranian election protests. We think, it's fair use to use the sourced image as a documentation of the demonstration and its possible manipulation. Thanks a lot and if you don't have time I would be grateful if you could help us find another image restorationist who could help us to get it into presentable standard. Greetings Wandalstouring (talk) 13:08, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

How exactly would I help? It's an intriguing claim, yet WP:NOR is something we need to guard against. Could you link to the relevant discussion on the talk page? Durova 15:06, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

Here is the discussion. We have the original source. We have a blogger claiming something and we can check the verifiability of that claim (do we get the same results with a closer look?). We are just testing a myth that is rumouring in the web. I hope that's not considered OR. Wandalstouring (talk) 17:07, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

Commented. Thanks for asking. :) Durova 18:29, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

Another editor found a reliable source, the Svedish Expressen is quoting the manipulation and showing the photo. Hope that's enough to make you work your magic. Wandalstouring (talk) 19:39, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

Well, with this sort of thing it would verge on original research for me to interfere. Thanks for finding a source. :) Durova 20:39, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

I'm despite the obvious logic not quite convinced that the photo shown by the newspaper must be the same as the version used to show the photoshopping. If we could have an enlarged version of the original image for comparison, the reader could verify the claims. See, revolutions are dirty affairs and people fight with all tricks. Wandalstouring (talk) 20:52, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

Well, what we happen to have are low resolution digitized scans. Without seeing a reliable digitization directly from the original newspaper, I can't rule out the possibility that the blogger him- or herself might have clone stamped in order to concoct a claim. It's also possible that higher resolution copies might reveal greater detail. In strict policy terms I am not a reliable source for this either. As an editor all I can really say is that it appears to have enough merit to explore further. Durova 21:11, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

Possible Commons serial copyvio uploader

Hi Durova. In my travels I came across some images by a Commons editor Darz Mol. This particular image File:Carles Puyol 18abr2007.jpg drew my attention as it's also featured on this website. It got me looking at his whole collection of contribs, which looks like the collection of a pro sports photographer, yet strangely there is no metadata anywhere. Additionally his contribs are used on an awful lot of Wikis so it could be somewhat dodgy if his images are suspect. I'm not too au fait on procedures within Commons so I thought I'd bring it to your attention. Have fun with it :) --WebHamster 14:20, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

Oh boy. Thanks for the heads up. Durova 15:15, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

Barnstar!

		The Music Barnstar
		Awarded to Durova for her exceptional singing on Skype! I don't know what you were singing, but it didn't sound to bad. – (iMatthew • talk) at 18:19, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

Lol! Thanks very much. :) Durova 18:20, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

Heads up

I made a technical correction to your signed comment here. Hope you don't mind; and in any case feel free to reword or revert. Cheers. Abecedare (talk) 00:57, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

Reply

Thank you for the restoration of the caricature image. I believe my edit summary was sufficient communication of my opinion of your image of Priestley flipping the bird. You are welcome to revert my edit - I will not edit war. I just added a colon and made it an inline link to the flipping the bird image so that interested parties could still see it.

If you want to communicate seriously in this RfC, might I suggest you avoid edits and comments like this. I also fail to see the relevance of comments like this to serious communication about the image alignment, much as I respect your substantial work with images. I also do not understand how making an image of Priestley flipping the bird contributes to serious communication about left or right alignment in an RfC.

Finally, I also appreciate it when people take the time to acknowledge the substantial time I put into peer reviews, such as the one I did for you with Sprang. Ruhrfisch _><>° 03:26, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

Actually I needed to rewrite the post. It would have solved the problem much more promptly without risking confusion (and getting overlooked) to have been notified instead. The intention was somewhat flippant, but not meant to offend. And I apologize for the tardy response to your review, which was quite helpful. :) Durova 03:27, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

I should have asked you first, and apologize for not doing so. I would be glad to look at Sprang again whenever you want - just ask (or list it at PR). I am a bit cranky for reasons offline, so I am calling it a night before I say anything else that is unkind - sorry. Ruhrfisch _><>° 03:37, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

No need; am a bit cranky myself this week. A good rest and a good meal tend to do wonders for one's personality, so am sticking to routine page patrol and Photoshop. Best wishes, Durova 03:40, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

WikiProject Australia Triple Crown nomination

Hi Durova. I wish to nominate myself for the WikiProject Australia Triple Crown, and was hoping you would humbly review my request? The articles for the nomination are as follows:

• DYK: Percy Statton (RA)
• GA: Blair Anderson Wark (nom & pass)
• FC: Harry Murray (FAC)

Thanks, Abraham, B.S. (talk) 01:11, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

File:JF shmaltz bottles.jpg

Hey Durova. You nominated this image for deletion, but never provided a rationale. Perhaps a Twinkle error? ÷seresin 08:35, 22 June 2009 (UTC) Thanks for the heads up. Removed. :) Durova 16:23, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

WikiCup Newsletter XXI

The WikiCup Newsletter

The WikiCup Newsletter Round III, Issue 3 - June 22, 2009 Archive before | Archive after Pool leaders In this round of the WikiCup, the top contestant from each pool, along with four wildcards, will advance to the next round. The pool leaders are: Pool A Sasata (221) Pool B Scorpion0422 (279) Pool C Candlewicke (291) Pool D Theleftorium (336) Wildcard leaders Juliancolton (217) Durova (114) Wrestlinglover (112) ThinkBlue (107) For a full guide see Misplaced Pages:WikiCup/History/2009/Full All scores are accurate as of 22:20, 22 June 2009 (UTC) Content Leaders As of this newsletter, the following is a list of participants in this round with the most: Featured articles Juliancolton (1) Scorpion0422 (1) the_ed17 (1) Featured lists Scorpion0422 (2) Rlevse (2) Featured topics Nobody Featured pictures Shoemaker's Holiday (1) Sasata (1) Featured sounds Nobody Featured portals Juliancolton (1) Good topics ThinkBlue (1) Good articles Theleftorium (10) Did you know? items Ottava Rima (17) Candlewicke (17) In the news items Candlewicke (16) For Round 1 stats, see Newsletter 10. For Round 2 stats, see Newsletter 18. WikiCup At a Glance As of this newsletter, the WikiCup participants have collected a Round 3 total of: 3 Featured articles 5 Featured lists 0 Featured topic 2 Featured pictures 0 Featured sounds 1 Featured portal 1 Good topic 26 Good articles 49 Did you know? items 16 In the news items This combines with the Round 1 totals and the Round 2 totals to make a grand total of: 28 Featured articles 52 Featured lists 3 Featured topics 177 Featured pictures 24 Featured sounds 3 Featured portal 4 Good topics 228 Good articles 496 Did you know? items 98 In the news items Biggest Jumps The difference between each contestant's point total from last week, and their point total from this week are: Rank User LF TF D 1 Scorpion0422 51 279 225 2 Sasata 46 221 175 3 Candlewicke 171 291 120 4 Theleftorium 228 336 108 5 Juliancolton 118 217 99 6 ThinkBlue 37 107 70 6 Rlevse 15 85 70 8 the_ed17 14 70 56 9 Wrestlinglover 59 112 53 10 Ottava Rima 46 94 48 LF = Last Week's score, TF = This Week's score, D = Difference between last week and this week's scores This was generated from this diff. From the Judges Lots of big jumps this week. Some are past/approaching 300, and our current top 8 are all above 100! Sorry for the late delivery! 'weburiedoursecretsinthegarden,  iMatthew :  Chat  , and The Helpful One If you don't wish to receive this newsletter in the future, remove your name from this list. If you are not a participant, but would still like to receive this newsletter, feel free to add your name to the list.

Delivered by The Helpful Bot at 22:28, 22 June 2009 (UTC) for the WikiCup. To report errors, please leave a message on the talk page.

Do we want change?

I've started a ball rolling here User:Giano/The future all comments welcome - whatever their view! Giano (talk) 07:39, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

Triplecrownftw

Dude, Image:Triplecrownftw.PNG is one of the best things ever! Why would you not want WP:TRIPLE to be adorned with such a fabulous image? --Cryptic C62 · Talk 13:13, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

Joseph Priestley lead image alignment

You previously have commented on the RfC at Talk:Joseph_Priestley#RfC on lead image alignment on whether or not the lead image should be left-aligned. A straw poll is under way to determine what, if any consensus have been developed towards resolving the debate. Go to Talk:Joseph_Priestley#Major_options and indicate your relative levels of support for each option. Thank you. Madcoverboy (talk) 17:52, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

POTD notification

Hi Durova,

Just to let you know that the Featured Picture File:Au Clair de la Lune children's book 2.jpg is due to make an appearance as Picture of the Day on June 26, 2009. If you get a chance, you can check and improve the caption at Template:POTD/2009-06-26. The Featured Sound File:Au Clair de la Lune (1860).ogg will also appear. howcheng {chat} 23:16, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

Commons issue

Hi Durova, I seem to remember that you're an admin on Commons, or at the least, very active there based on your strong image work and contributions? If so, can you please deal with this image over there? It's a image of Kristinia DeBarge's upcoming album, and the license it's listed under is likely false, as album covers are mainly non-free, and Commons is for free images. Thanks. Acalamari 02:05, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

Really?

Are you seriously edit warring with me regarding a sectionheader on my talk page, Durova? Please think this through more carefully. KillerChihuahua 16:48, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

As noted in the edit summary, you edit conflicted with me as I was composing a followup post which segued more closely upon the preceding discussion. You could not have realized that when you added the header. It hardly constitutes edit warring to correct the misunderstanding once with a descriptive edit summary. You don't seem quite yourself today; consider a little WP:TEA perhaps? Durova 16:51, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

I was told to hush by a complete stranger, who after I said I was done with the discussion followed me to my talk page and quite frankly seems to have lied. He said he wanted to talk; I asked a question and he ran off to QVA with the heading "KillerChihuahua vs. (Me)" which resulted in, of all things, someone else templating yet another party for making a few rhetorical comments on my page.

Regarding the 'future' page, I see your point on the potential for inherent selection, but fail to see how your "view" is helpful in addressing that. At the risk of ruffling your feathers again, your view reads to me like "I don't like where it is because it will be a skewed view of the community, (but rather than trying to suggest how to fix the skew) I say we dump this completely!" which is not very helpful IMO. Then you object to my phrasing, which is fine, but your high-handed insult of "It's very odd to come to this page and find KillerChihuahua ... demonstrating any type of respect at all--" Really? Now you are saying I'm not myself, but your opening line on my page says "Killerchihuahua habitually doesn't show respect". Read it a few times. I don't say that's what you meant, mind you, merely that is what the words you used say. Yes indeedy, I am having a crappy time of it today. KillerChihuahua 17:00, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

Actually the suggested solution is on the talk page: wait an appropriate span of time and restart on neutral ground. I was equally harsh on ArbCom for recently opening an RfC on content--which is explicitly outside their mandate. Participation in that RfC in any way other than to protest its premise would have risked the perception of validating the untenable premise. Which was sad, because I would gladly have considered the matter very seriously if Kirill Lokshin had opened it on his own authority as an editor rather than attempting to wrap a false mantle of authority around the initiative. Likewise, would have addressed Giano's initiative seriously if it had occurred on neutral territory. A weakness of our fluid wiki structures is that they're quite vulnerable to subtle modifications of far-reaching political importance, which tend toward aggregating power within a limited set of hands. Even if neither Kirill nor Giano intentionally subverted format, it remains a very salient concern to avoid precedents which enhance that vulnerability. View this as something akin to a hard line opposition against gerrymandered discussion. Durova 17:43, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

Becoming an administrator

I was wondering how to become an administrator. I have a lot of spare time on my hands. I feel that I could help wikipedia more. I see that you were an ex-administrator. Any information could help Ft12 (talk) 21:21, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

Not having reviewed your contribs or having interacted with you very much, it's hard to say. Why would it interest you? Durova 21:39, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

How could I have handled matters differently?

As per the section title, i'd like some input from you as to how I could have presented my complaint at AN/I better. Clearly, some of my intentions are being misunderstood. I am dismissing those misinterpretations, as some of them are arising from people who clearly have an ax to grind. - Arcayne () 22:20, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

WikiCup Newsletter XXII

The WikiCup Newsletter

The WikiCup Newsletter Round III, Issue 4 - June 28, 2009 Archive before | Archive after Pool leaders In this round of the WikiCup, the top contestant from each pool, along with four wildcards, will advance to the next round. The pool leaders are: Pool A Sasata (311) Pool B Scorpion0422 (316) Pool C Candlewicke (319) Pool D Theleftorium (409) Wildcard leaders Juliancolton (232) Wrestlinglover (183) Mitchazenia (160) ThinkBlue (142) For a full guide see Misplaced Pages:WikiCup/History/2009/Full All scores are accurate as of 21:30, 28 June 2009 (UTC) Content Leaders As of this newsletter, the following is a list of participants in this round with the most: Featured articles Juliancolton (1) Scorpion0422 (1) the_ed17 (1) Featured lists Scorpion0422 (3) Wrestlinglover (3) Featured topics Nobody Featured pictures Sasata (1) Featured sounds Nobody Featured portals Juliancolton (1) Good topics ThinkBlue (1) Good articles Theleftorium (12) Did you know? items Candlewicke (20) In the news items Candlewicke (17) For Round 1 stats, see Newsletter 10. For Round 2 stats, see Newsletter 18. WikiCup At a Glance As of this newsletter, the WikiCup participants have collected a Round 3 total of: 3 Featured articles 8 Featured lists 0 Featured topics 2 Featured pictures 0 Featured sounds 1 Featured portal 1 Good topic 33 Good articles 54 Did you know? items 17 In the news items This combines with the Round 1 totals and the Round 2 totals to make a grand total of: 28 Featured articles 55 Featured lists 3 Featured topics 177 Featured pictures 24 Featured sounds 3 Featured portal 4 Good topics 235 Good articles 501 Did you know? items 99 In the news items Biggest Jumps The difference between each contestant's point total from last week, and their point total from this week are: Rank User LF TF D 1 Sasata 180 311 131 2 Theleftorium 301 409 108 3 Wrestlinglover 108 183 75 4 Mitchazenia 88 160 72 5 Scorpion0422 245 316 71 6= Candlewicke 267 319 52 6= Juliancolton 180 232 52 8 Rlevse 55 105 50 9 Ottava Rima 94 134 40 10 ThinkBlue 104 142 38 LF = Last Week's score, TF = This Week's score, D = Difference between last week and this week's scores This was generated from this diff. From the Judges A good week for all involved - however some really need to pick up the pace, lounging on very low scores. Come on, it's half way in now! 'weburiedoursecretsinthegarden,  iMatthew :  Chat  , and The Helpful One If you don't wish to receive this newsletter in the future, remove your name from this list. If you are not a participant, but would still like to receive this newsletter, feel free to add your name to the list.

Delivered for the WikiCup by  ROBOTIC GARDEN  at 21:46, 28 June 2009 (UTC). To report errors see the talk page.

Civility

Hi, I noticed you have written material on and shown an interest in civility on wikipedia. I have created a poll page to gauge community feelings on how civility is managed in practice currently at Misplaced Pages:Civility/Poll, so input from as many people as possible is welcomed. Casliber (talk · contribs) 00:05, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

POTD notification

Hi Durova,

Just to let you know that the Featured Picture File:Canada WWI Victory Bonds2.jpg is due to make an appearance as Picture of the Day on July 1, 2009. If you get a chance, you can check and improve the caption at Template:POTD/2009-07-01. The French version is also on the same day, but only in the Main Page version, as it doesn't fit into the default template. howcheng {chat} 05:18, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for fitting in both language versions. :) Durova 13:31, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

You impress me :)

Golly...thank you very much. :) Durova 13:29, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

Alison message

Just a note that User:Alison is retired from enwiki. I notice you were trying to contact her. Stifle (talk) 13:38, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

Not quite retired, (mainly dealing with a persistent banned user).. but she is RL-ing for several weeks. Good on her :) (Hey D, how's it going?) -- SirFozzie 128.222.37.53 (talk) 21:57, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

Hola, Fozzie! Been wondering how you've been. :) Durova 22:03, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

Doing ok. Been here and there, correcting a couple things, but not wanting to stick my head up at the various places where there's too much heartburn for too little results. -- SF 128.222.37.53 (talk) 22:07, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

WP:AN#Troll?

Your request for evidence is reasonable, and I've provided some. But even if it was not your intention, the picture and caption you added seems to be making fun of someone trying to report harassment of another user, and you may want to remove it. --Floquenbeam (talk) 20:04, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

Good point; done. Durova 21:30, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

Thank you. --Floquenbeam (talk) 21:40, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

Trying to puzzle out some sense from that decision

I've still been trying to figure out the logic of that decision, and I think I might have finally figured out the assumptions that RGD and his compatriots on the Committee are acting under. I think it might go something like the following:

* Editors who have a discernable pro-Scientology POV and editors who have a discernable anti-Scientology POV are always coming into conflict.

* We have previously blocked and banned multiple editors who have violated the rules in order to serve their pro-Scientology or anti-Scientology POV.

* These efforts have failed to eliminate all violations of the rules in order to serve pro- or anti-Scientology POVs.

* Therefore the problem is not editors who violate the rules in pursuit of a pro- or anti-Scientology POV, it is editors who possess such a POV.

* Therefore all editors in whom such a POV can be discerned are equally guilty of all Scientology-related disruption and equally deserving of the most drastic punishments.

What do you think? I think it explains a lot of the bizarre aspects of the case:

• The frequent dismal failure of the evidence in the case to convincingly show a pattern of poor behavior -- it wasn't being looked at for behavior, but merely for evidence of possessing a POV.
• The imposition of sanctions on multiple editors who had not edited on the topic, or on Misplaced Pages at all, in a year or more -- the real offense the ArbCom wanted to punish was simply possessing a POV, and while actively editing towards that POV would be an extra offense, an editor who had ceased editing would still be guilty of possessing a POV.
• Certain statements RGD has made defending the ArbCom's decision: "The editors who have been topic-banned fit squarely either into the pro- or anti- factions, or walked in link-step with them. Least there be any doubt, there are the editors who, over the years, have got the topic into the toxic mess it is today. There is no evidence whatsoever that the passage of time has changed the deeply held beliefs of the topic-banned editors or influenced their ability to behave correctly." (emphasis added) -- the rehabilitation the ArbCom wants to see and believes it is entitled to compel is editors changing their deeply held beliefs. It is not enough to simply not edit in a way that violates policy, because as we have seen, it is provably not enough to stop editing altogether. Merely "fitting squarely ... into the pro- or anti- factions" is the offense.
• The frequent insistence that the topic-bans were not "punitive" but "preventative" and "rehabilitative" -- obviously it makes no sense to say "we are topic-banning someone who hasn't edited in a year as a necessary step to prevent any rule-violating editing and rehabilitate the editor to one who no longer edits poorly." But if you convince yours that every editor with strongly-held beliefs on a subject is by essence a rulebreaker just waiting to happen, you can convince yourself that a topic-ban is necessary to "prevent" the inevitable expression of that POV in toxic editing, is necessary to cure them of their "strongly-held beliefs" to "rehabilitate" them.

The more I think about this, the more convinced I am that this is the unspoken principle upon which the decision turned: that the ArbCom felt it was entitled and/or mandated to sanction belief rather than behavior. Quite an alarming arrogation, frankly. -- Antaeus Feldspar (talk) 16:22, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

It can be illuminating to look at matters from different perspectives. Here's the log of blocks from the arbitrator I've been debating, from the time when he first got sysopped until the end of 2008 when he got elected to the Committee. A few things stand out. One is that he had less than a year of experience as an administrator and another is that of the few blocks he did make, he had blocked only nine registered accounts. Only two of those nine accounts had created a userpage, which suggests two conclusions:

• He had offended almost no one.
• He had hardly ever made a tough call.

These may be superb traits for a lead coordinator of the military history project, but they don't equip a person very well for suddenly plunging into a decision-making role at this website's toughest long term disputes. As you can see from our discussion, he didn't know there was a procedure for adding new parties to a case--so he probably didn't intentionally circumvent the normal opportunity for comment and feedback. Yet when provided with examples from past cases that demonstrate he did break with convention, he doesn't withdraw his earlier claims that my perceptions were flawed or discuss whether his divergence resulted in problems; he just changes the subject.

Part of this situation results from our site processes and culture for elections that favor this type of candidate: what we really need as arbitrators are folks who are more experienced in stubborn disputes. Yet people who play it very safe and offend no one are most likely to get elected, which means it's a roll of the dice how they actually turn out. It isn't very surprising that we wind up with some who find themselves in over their heads, and who would rather deflect criticism than learn from it.

The problem is how to remedy problems when we get a critical mass of people like that. A false meme spread through the Committee during the case that I'm a partisan in this dispute, which is really silly. Since it did take hold, I have half a mind to change course a bit. Had been prioritizing one instance in particular because it's the starkest, but really it's a nonpartisan problem that sanctions have been applied because of 1-2 year old behavior that never recurred, and of sanctioning upon the basis of poorly selected diffs where no visible evidence of policy violation exists. I can think of two ways of addressing that: one would be to outreach to editors on both sides of the fence who got swept up that way, and enter a bipartisan appeal; the other would be to amend site policy to prevent this from happening again. Your thoughts? Durova 17:57, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

What you say about RGD makes perfect sense and actually fits in perfectly with some things I'd already suspected. When I found out about the arbitration, and discovered I'd been added to it with no previous attempts at dispute resolution, and saw RGD juggling edit counts to try and manufacture an appearance that I came to Misplaced Pages with pushing a POV on Scientology foremost on my mind, I said to myself "this is someone who is entirely overwhelmed by the thought of doing their job correctly, and has therefore dealt with the stress by mentally redefining their goal into something they find more manageable." The real shock was finding out that the ArbCom was now primarily made up of such people; you've provided a very convincing scenario of how the culture of Misplaced Pages elections produced such an ArbCom.

Both your suggestions, of the bipartisan appeal and of amending site policy, seem to be good ideas. What specific amendments to site policy would you envision, though? I'm finding it hard to formulate some that don't sound to my own ears just like restatements of the obvious -- the ArbCom should not be wasting its time formulating penalties against editors who haven't edited in years -- or of existing policy -- arbitrations are a last resort, to be used only after other methods of DR have failed. -- Antaeus Feldspar (talk) 22:54, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

Well, it's usually been standard that very old behavior isn't sanctionable unless it forms part of a continuing problem. I suppose there ought to be reasonable exceptions to that: a few things might be so serious that they'd be actionable long afterward (grave offsite harassment, for instance). Do you have ideas how to craft that with suitable flexibility? Durova 00:38, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

The more I think about it, the more it seems that it's useless to amend site policy until Misplaced Pages gets an ArbCom which is willing to abide by site policy. Considering that the current ArbCom was ready to punish ChrisO for not speedy-deleting an article which had survived not just one but four AfDs, one has to wonder just to what degree they even understand current policy, let alone can be trusted to abide by amended policy. -- Antaeus Feldspar (talk) 23:41, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

Appeal

Hi, I've filed an appeal of the restriction on me issued by Thatcher over on AE . Thank you!radek (talk) 19:16, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

Heads up for a mention on AN/I

FYI: I mentioned you here at WP:AN#Flameviper ban review regarding your last comment in the last discussion of this user in which the user showed an interest in editing a sister project. Auntie E (talk) 15:43, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

Thank you. Will have a look. Durova 16:13, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

I added my own comment in Flameviper's unban discussion at AN. If he actually meets the terms of WP:Standard offer I'd support the unban, but I see that you wrote: Doesn't seem like we're quite there yet, but would be glad to support Flameviper's return a little way down the road if he goes along with that. Can you clarify why he still falls short, in your opinion? EdJohnston (talk) 00:27, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

Correct me if I'm wrong, but it doesn't seem that it's been six months since his last socking episode? Durova 00:33, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

Editors in the unban decision, including Jpgordon, now appear to believe he has not socked in the last six months. I updated the rationale for my own vote. While I still oppose unbanning, I admit that he would now meet the terms of your WP:Standard offer. EdJohnston (talk) 17:37, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the heads up about that; will amend my opinion at the thread. Durova 17:54, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

WikiCup Newsletter XXIII

The WikiCup Newsletter

The WikiCup Newsletter Round III, Issue 5 - July 5, 2009 Archive before | Archive after Pool leaders In this round of the WikiCup, the top contestant from each pool, along with four wildcards, will advance to the next round. The pool leaders are: Pool A Sasata (442) Pool B Scorpion0422 (389) Pool C Candlewicke (367) Pool D Theleftorium (486) Wildcard leaders Mitchazenia (290) Juliancolton (253) Ottava Rima (241) Wrestlinglover (228) For a full guide see Misplaced Pages:WikiCup/History/2009/Full All scores are accurate as of 16:17, 5 July 2009 (UTC) Content Leaders As of this newsletter, the following is a list of participants in this round with the most: Featured articles Juliancolton (1) Scorpion0422 (1) the_ed17 (1) Featured lists Scorpion0422 (4) Featured topics Nobody Featured pictures Sasata (1) Featured sounds Nobody Featured portals Juliancolton (1) Good topics Scorpion0422 (1) Theleftorium (1) ThinkBlue (1) Good articles Theleftorium (13) Did you know? items Ottava Rima (26) In the news items Candlewicke (21) For Round 1 stats, see Newsletter 10. For Round 2 stats, see Newsletter 18. WikiCup At a Glance As of this newsletter, the WikiCup participants have collected a Round 3 total of: 3 Featured articles 9 Featured lists 0 Featured topics 2 Featured pictures 0 Featured sounds 1 Featured portal 2 Good topic 46 Good articles 68 Did you know? items 21 In the news items This combines with the Round 1 totals and the Round 2 totals to make a grand total of: 28 Featured articles 56 Featured lists 3 Featured topics 177 Featured pictures 24 Featured sounds 3 Featured portal 5 Good topics 248 Good articles 515 Did you know? items 103 In the news items Biggest Jumps The difference between each contestant's point total from last week, and their point total from this week are: Rank User LF TF D 1 Sasata 311 442 131 2 Mitchazenia 160 290 130 3 Ottava Rima 134 241 107 4 Theleftorium 409 486 77 5 Scorpion0422 316 389 73 6 ThinkBlue 142 206 64 7 Candlewicke 319 367 48 8 Wrestlinglover 183 228 45 9 Juliancolton 232 253 21 10 Gary King 11 17 6 LF = Last Week's score, TF = This Week's score, D = Difference between last week and this week's scores This was generated from this diff. From the Judges Some did well this week, but a lot of you didn't move much. Some are still hanging under the 200 mark. Our current top 8 are all over 200, so if you are below that line, get moving! There is a poll up at the talk page about the rest of this year's competition. If all of you could give your opinion there, it would be very much appreciated. 'weburiedoursecretsinthegarden, iMatthew  at, and The Helpful One If you don't wish to receive this newsletter in the future, remove your name from this list. If you are not a participant, but would still like to receive this newsletter, feel free to add your name to the list.

Delivered by –Juliancolton |  16:29, 5 July 2009 (UTC).

Albert Pujols

Hey Durova, saw your reverts on AP's article... being as I've seen at least three IPs adding that fake steroids information on the article or talk (well, three IPs, maybe same user?), I was wondering if you'd be willing, if you weren't already, to help and keep the article on your watchlist for a while to help keep this garbage out (since it doesn't seem to be at a level for requesting semi-protection or anything yet). Thanks! umrguy42 03:01, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

Considering that it's a BLP and the nature of the additions, semiprotection wouldn't be such a bad idea. Will try to keep an eye out in the meantime. Durova 03:05, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

Your Wikiproject Rehab request

Sure, I'll try to fill in till another volenteer shows up. I don't know if I would have the time, as I'm volunteering on Tuesday through Thursday mornings. What would I have to do?Abce2|Free LemonadeOnly 25 cents!(Sign here) 16:13, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

Thank you very much. Am looking for new mentors for a few people I'm phasing out from mentoring (not their fault; external factors). The one who is most in need of a mentor is Bluemarine. Right now his status is in limbo: he was community banned, then arbitration banned, then ArbCom modified his bans to allow limited editing, then the arbitration restriction expired. He's in good standing at Commons. It's openly acknowledged that his real name is Matt Sanchez: not an easy situation, but much less combustible than it used to be a year or two ago. Would like to structure a proposal that would basically be a topic ban, to allow him to edit on topics where he has a lot to offer (such as the war in Afghanistan) while keeping clear of the subjects where things ran into trouble before. Interested? Durova 16:22, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

How much time would it take a day? And yes, I am interested, but could I also have some advice?Abce2|Free LemonadeOnly 25 cents!(Sign here) 16:24, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

Fortunately things have improved to where there are fairly long times when nothing needs to be done at all, with short bursts when action is necessary. With a bit of foresight most of the problems can be avoided. Mr. Sanchez travels often for work and doesn't have a lot of time to edit. The biggest part of the task would be getting up to speed at the beginning, to understand the background. Durova 16:30, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

Been away for the holidays the past few days, hence no response earlier, but would be willing to try. John Carter (talk) 16:35, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

Anything else I need to know?Abce2|Free LemonadeOnly 25 cents!(Sign here) 16:36, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

Well, a gchat to get up to speed on the history would be a good idea. Durova 16:39, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

John: ScienceApologist also needs a mentor. Interested? Durova 16:42, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

ScienceApologist and me basically a religion editor. Ooh boy. I could give it a try, if he'd be willing to work with me. John Carter (talk) 00:13, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

Well, I'm primarily a media editor yet he and I found common ground on optics. It's more a matter of understanding site dynamics and giving friendly feedback in ways that minimize drama. If you don't carry baggage in the mainstream/fringe science disputes that could be an advantage. Would you like to have an introduction and see how it goes? Durova 00:26, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

I don't think I do, but he would possibly remember such information better than me. I'd be willing to give it a try though, if he is. John Carter (talk) 00:31, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

Thanks very much. Will try to make the introduction tomorrow. :) Durova 04:15, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

Well, Where could I get up to speed on the history?Abce2|Free LemonadeOnly 25 cents!(Sign here) 16:45, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

The biography text, the talk page history, and the arbitration case would be good places to go. Durova 16:48, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

I've found two of them, where's the biography text?Abce2|Free LemonadeOnly 25 cents!(Sign here) 16:51, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

Sigh, here we go againAbce2|Free LemonadeOnly 25 cents!(Sign here) 16:53, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

It'd be a bit quicker to hop into chat and get summary highlights. Your choice. Durova 17:53, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

Terry Macro reply issues

I have seen you comment on Prem Rawat-related conflicts before, so you have at least a working knowledge of the games, attitudes, and problems we have dealing with this topic, and I felt you had something useful to say each time. I also noticed that you made a previous comment on this issue, and I have serious trouble accepting in good faith, TerryMacro's recent response to the situation, here. Specifically the following parts:

Firstly, does a former official of an entity have a COI when issues related to that entity arise in Wiki? My understanding is that a current official would probably invoke COI, but a former official, and from nine years ago? There was nothing in WP:COI that I could find to support this.

I have already twice quoted him the relevant passage from the COI page, originally on his talk page, only a couple of days ago, and then a second time on the COI discussion page

Secondly the claim I was a ‘high official’ of the ‘movement’ is WB’s claim.

Is this a denial or diversion? I have seen many of the DLM published newsletters that show Terry as the National Finance Director for the DLM (Australia) in the 70's, with a staff of people, giving interviews to reporters, and talking about international trips to discuss other international aspects of the organization (I don't have links to post here, but I can get them if needed). To describe himself as "at best a ‘functionary’" seems disingenuous at least.

Furthermore I find it hard to believe that my former role in an out of the way outpost of the movement in the 1970s could evoke a COI thirty years later.

Really? 30 years ago yes, but he already stated he still feels passionately about it, so certainly his enthusiasm hasn't waned for over 30 years. I'm not even sure what he's trying to get me to believe with the whole "out of the way outpost" description... I'm not sure Australia's been referred to that way since the British started shipping convicts there!

He completely ignores the fact that he removed all references on his userpage that linked him to Prem Rawat *3* minutes before he edited any of the articles on this subject. How is that not attempting to hide his COI? His userpage had been stable for a long time, it's coincidence??

I possibly did contravene COI by commenting on an affidavit involving my former employee.

According to the first section I quoted he says he cannot find why he has a COI from reading the page, but here he says he possibly did? How is that possible, it's the same infaction!

I would be interested in anything you have to say about these isssues, or the issue in general.

I must admit I do sometimes find editing here quite frustrating, I watch editors play amazing games with these articles, and when the rest of us play by the rules, we spend a lot of effort to absolutely no end it seems....Anyways, thanks for letting me vent a little here (ok, technically, you had no choice, but still ) -- Maelefique 05:06, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

When it comes right down to it, COI and COIN are advisory. The primary questions to ask, for internal wiki functions, are whether the editor is complying with other guidelines and policies. Durova 15:27, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

Sooo... it doesn't matter if he has an undisclosed COI or not? And yet it would be wrong if I had one?? Why have a policy on it then? -- Maelefique 16:57, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

It does matter in two ways. To speak in general terms, if an editor with COI makes a blockable policy violation, and other editors have attempted to discuss the COI issue, then the blocking administrator may weigh that in terms of the discretionary response. That's relatively minor compared to the potential off-wiki response, which hinges upon commonly accepted notions of an appearance of impropriety. It's a difficult situation when a new editor has ties to an organization that has gotten bad press in connection to COI and Misplaced Pages in the past: one hopes to find a gentle way of raising their awareness that the media isn't kind, and may follow up on the story--when usually they focus their attention on fellow editors and might even construe a veiled threat into any such reminder. In past situations things usually branch out very early into one of two directions: either the individual simply isn't very familiar with our site and responds to feedback, or else the individual games the system until it ends badly. In the latter scenario the individual usually responds defensively to attempts to communicate and steer conduct into better directions. Durova 17:24, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

Thanks, that's a very good answer and explanation of the situation. Interesting to see your breakdown of the usual two paths these take as well. Given the aggressively defensive response that Terry's had from day 1, I'll start bracing myself for the semi-inevitable (yet again, sadly) gaming of the articles. Thanks again for taking the time to answer. -- Maelefique 05:27, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

Re:Broken link

I found the link, sorry, I forgot. ceranthor 16:52, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

Thanks. Is there a reason you compressed the original file so heavily? Durova 16:56, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

I didn't, I think the original file was replaced with a higher res. one... ceranthor 11:23, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

POTD notification

Hi Durova,

Just to let you know that the Featured Picture File:A Wilde time 3.jpg is due to make an appearance as Picture of the Day on October 16, 2009. If you get a chance, you can check and improve the caption at Template:POTD/2009-10-16. howcheng {chat} 22:12, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

Mentoring

Answering the call to help out in WP User Rehab. Let me know if you need assistance. I'll be monitoring the WPUR pages and have already added my name as a supporter of the project. --McDoobAU93 (talk) 04:12, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

Congratulations!

Your Featured picture candidate has been promoted Your nomination for featured picture status, File:California island Vinckeboons5.jpg, gained a consensus of support, and has been promoted. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Misplaced Pages:Featured picture candidates. wadester16 06:05, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

Also, the nom and image both link to File:California island Vinckeboons.jpg, which seems to have an Information template, but no file. wadester16 06:05, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

And it was never deleted. Very odd: when it first uploaded there was an error and the file data didn't show, then after adding file data manually the image appears to have disappeared. Been having odd things happen sometimes with large uploads. Might have to file a Bugzilla report if a clear pattern emerges. Durova 15:59, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

old post=

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

lol

		The Barnstar of Good Humor
		I award you this Barnstar of Good Humor for the five minutes of laughter I had over your ability to eloquently and easily simplify the paid editing debate in ten words or less :) Well Done! TomStar81 (Talk • Some say ¥€$, I say NO) 19:32, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the laugh too, I haven't had a good one in nearly two months. On a more serious note though I do hoe that this paid editing thing gets blown out of the water before leaving the harbor. With all the other problems we have to deal with internally the last thing we need is a major external issue. TomStar81 (Talk • Some say ¥€$, I say NO) 19:32, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

Thank you very much. :) Durova 19:34, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

Moved from WT:AC

Once again the iron fist inside the velvet glove eh Durova:) But I will agree with you that dredging up this old muck accomplishes nothing. Those highly regretable 2007 events occurred under what I refer to as The Fred Bauder Court. At that time its main goal was to Get Giano, for reasons both political and personal. They needed a causus and leaking classified info (Talking about Fight Club:) provided them with as good a reason as any. You were simply collateral damage- An accptable casualty and an expendable cog. And thus an ill considered, 75 minute block perminately stains your otherwise commendable record of service. It is also a prime example of why Smoke-filled rooms, especially when they are off-wiki, are bad things. Until you learn the lesson that greater transparency is not the disease but the cure, I fear you will not find redemption.--R.D.H. (Ghost In The Machine) (talk) 22:45, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

Durova helped me with an issue when I had concerns of harassment. I had approached her in offsite communication; the matter could not have been handled onsite. I respect her decision to risk the outcome of her own appeal, in order to preserve this level of trust with others. Cirt (talk) 21:01, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

Yes, that had to do with the abuses of Durova's one-time ally Jossi. A situation which, had it been handled better on-wiki, would not have been allowed to have gotten out of hand to the point where you needed help with harassment. Power-players and POV pushers like him thrive in enviorments where transparency and accoutability are lacking. If the harassment was that serious, why did you not go to OTRS? Surely they would be better equipped to help you.--R.D.H. (Ghost In The Machine) (talk) 00:36, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

Oh sorry, I stand corrected, it was another cult- Scientology, you were concerned with. If they actually followed up on their threats, many prominent Wikipedians would be long dead by now. All bark, no bite...I'd be more worried about the StoneCutters if I were you;)--R.D.H. (Ghost In The Machine) (talk) 01:02, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

You seem to be very badly misinformed. Durova 01:05, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

Yes, that's because I spend far too much time reading The Review.--R.D.H. (Ghost In The Machine) (talk) 01:20, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

Agreed. Now if you'll please un-redirect your user talk so that people can communicate without emailing ahem we can discuss Jossi's OTRS access, clear up this odd supposition that Jossi and I were allied, and straighten out other matters unrelated to the function of the Misplaced Pages talk:Arbitration Committee page. Durova 01:38, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

Why do you hate my lil hybrid User/Talkpage? It is far more fool efficient:) But, as I suggested, we could always use your talkpage Durova. First, however, let us discuss that link above, shall we. It's interesting. Seems you shepereded CIRT through the shoals of RFA. It also seems that CIRT used to edit here under a different name. So I will ask him, as I ask current RFA candidates: Would you please provide us with a list of all the account names you have ever used, or registered, on the English Misplaced Pages project, including any not in use currently? Thanks,--R.D.H. (Ghost In The Machine) (talk) 02:09, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

(outdent) He disclosed that sufficiently on 14 December 2008.

On Misplaced Pages I have edited exclusively as Cirt for over a year. At sister Wikimedia projects I used to edit under other usernames but have consolidated those accounts as Cirt. If you think there's some action pertinent to this case under a previous username, I'd be glad to confirm whether the account is me or not. It's been many months since I've edited as anything else. Cirt (talk) 04:35, 14 December 2008 (UTC)

If you want the previous username I'll email it to you. It's not hard to find and confirm. Next question? Durova 02:32, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

Thank you, but I'd rather Cirt do it...Horse's Mouth and all that.--R.D.H. (Ghost In The Machine) (talk) 02:41, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

Considering it's already in the evidence I've already shown you, there's nothing more really to say. This was already discussed in considerable depth between myself and Cirt before his RfA, and again at the Scientology RFAR. The arbitrators found no wrongdoing on Cirt's part other than the edit warring block history on his old account, which was no secret. The individuals who principally raised that issue were Jossi (subsequently indefinitely blocked for socking), Justallofthem (banned by ArbCom), and John254 (banned by the community for abusive socking). My advice to Cirt before the RfA began was to disclose the prior account proactively, since anything withheld--no matter how old and irrelevant--was likely to be played against him politically. He chose a different course of action and demonstrated empirically that my warning was correct. You are the first person in over half a year who still sees anything to that. Is there some reason you take an interest in a thing that seems wholly unrelated to the merit of Cirt's harassment concern? Durova 03:03, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

So basically those tools and trolls at the review were right. If it is such an open secret that even they (not to mention a misinformed, out of touch old idiot like me) can so easily uncover it, then why all the need for secrecy? Last I checked WPISNOT:A Homeland Security database.--R.D.H. (Ghost In The Machine) (talk) 03:11, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

At the time of his RFA there was an unresolved security issue in his old userspace. By the time the arbitration opened that security issue had been resolved. Durova 03:23, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

And an issue which also could have tripped up his RFA at the time. Granted, 3 blocks for 3RR is a BS reason to deny an otherwise worthy candidate the mop, IMO. But some would doubtless have made it into a mountain. Your main justification, however, was to keep Cirt safe from the Stalking Scientologists. My point is, they could have found him out just as easily as the Reviewers and I did, if they had really wished to.--R.D.H. (Ghost In The Machine) (talk) 03:47, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

(outdent) Actually it was seven total blocks for edit warring. You attribute a bit more to me about the motivations than I've ever said, some of which isn't worth correcting. In general, ethical decisions where good people disagree belong to the individuals who live with the consequences. Cirt made certain decisions regarding his own safety which I would not have preferred. But those were his choices to make. Durova 03:53, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

Forgive me, but I only see 3 blocks. Unless you are referring to Smeelgova having another 4. In which case please be a friendly geezer and kindly excuse this older, less friendly one...; )--R.D.H. (Ghost In The Machine) (talk) 23:48, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

Yes, for some reason the rename seemed to have affected that. Am not versed in that area (never did a rename). The rename occurred before he and I ever crossed paths. Durova 00:10, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

Moving on to a more recent example, there's something else worth raising. The first part is known to the community already, but not where it ended. About two months ago I was mentoring ScienceApologist and an arbitration enforcement thread accused him of socking. That was probably raised in good faith, and the evidence for it was quite strong--so strong that I contemplated resigning from the mentorship. It turned out, though, that he was not socking. And I was the person who found a way to demonstrate that he wasn't. Tensions were running very high in his disputes, so that research was performed and submitted offsite. To do otherwise could have exposed an innocent editor to retaliation: some people would have suspected meat/socking etc. I have no regrets about using backchannels to manage that because shortly afterward I was targeted for offsite harassment in connection to ScienceApologist: better that it was only myself targeted, than a third party who happened to be in the wrong place at the wrong time. Durova 04:14, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

ScienceApologist has the capacity to be a hemmeroid first class. Myself and most others would not have blamed you one bit for dropping him. Of course there is still the ethical question of doing the right thing, but going about it in the wrong way. However that is a mainly academic issue and you, madame, are not on trial here: )--R.D.H. (Ghost In The Machine) (talk) 23:48, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

Here's hoping we can agree to disagree on whether it was the right call. As you can probably imagine, it was a difficult decision. Durova 00:10, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

Indeed, on that we can agree.--R.D.H. (Ghost In The Machine) (talk) 02:25, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

WikiCup Newsletter XXIV

The WikiCup Newsletter

The WikiCup Newsletter Round III, Issue 6 - July 12, 2009 Archive before | Archive after Pool leaders In this round of the WikiCup, the top contestant from each pool, along with four wildcards, will advance to the next round. The pool leaders are: Pool A Sasata (505) Pool B Ottava Rima (592) Pool C Candlewicke (380) Pool D Theleftorium (666) Wildcard leaders Scorpion0422 (584) Shoemaker's Holiday (493) Mitchazenia (443) Juliancolton (261) For a full guide see Misplaced Pages:WikiCup/History/2009/Full All scores are accurate as of iMatthew  at 18:24, 11 July 2009 (UTC) Content Leaders As of this newsletter, the following is a list of participants in this round with the most: Featured articles Juliancolton (1) Scorpion0422 (1) Shoemaker's Holiday (1) the_ed17 (1) Featured lists Scorpion0422 (5) Featured topics Nobody Featured pictures Shoemaker's Holiday (11) Featured sounds Nobody Featured portals Shoemaker's Holiday (2) Good topics Scorpion0422 (2) Theleftorium (2) Good articles Theleftorium (13) Did you know? items Ottava Rima (26) In the news items Candlewicke (21) For Round 1 stats, see Newsletter 10. For Round 2 stats, see Newsletter 18. WikiCup At a Glance As of this newsletter, the WikiCup participants have collected a Round 3 total of: 4 Featured articles 13 Featured lists 0 Featured topics 14 Featured pictures 0 Featured sounds 4 Featured portal 3 Good topic 48 Good articles 74 Did you know? items 21 In the news items This combines with the Round 1 totals and the Round 2 totals to make a grand total of: 29 Featured articles 60 Featured lists 3 Featured topics 189 Featured pictures 24 Featured sounds 6 Featured portal 6 Good topics 250 Good articles 521 Did you know? items 103 In the news items Biggest Jumps The difference between each contestant's point total from last week, and their point total from this week are: Rank User LF TF D 1 Shoemaker's Holiday 36 493 457 2 Ottava Rima 241 592 351 3 Scorpion0422 389 584 195 4 Theleftorium 518 666 148 5 Gary King 17 150 113 6 Mitchazenia 160 290 130 7 Sasata 442 505 63 8 Rlevse 109 143 34 9 Wrestlinglover 228 248 20 10 ThinkBlue 206 219 13 LF = Last Week's score, TF = This Week's score, D = Difference between last week and this week's scores This was generated from this diff. From the Judges There were a few mistakes in last weeks' newsletter. Apologies about that. In regards to the competition, a few of you shot up in points this week. Very, very impressive. However, now that some have shot up to the top, others of you have to work even harder to catch up! There are about 3 weeks left in the round, so if you're behind, now is really the time to start nominating content, so that it can count for this round. If you wait too long, we won't be able to hold off the round while your content is being reviewed. Per this tiny poll, the remainder of the competition has been altered.. sorry!! The changes being made are as follows: "We will be combining the last three rounds. Round 4 will now last from August through September, with 8 contestants. On September 1st, however, we will eliminate the bottom four contestants. The top four contestants will continue the round with the same score. Then, one person will win out of the remaining four on September 30th." You can also see this change to the main WikiCup page. Lastly, we'd like to welcome back Shoemaker's Holiday into the competition! 'weburiedoursecretsinthegarden, iMatthew  at, and The Helpful One 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) 18:48, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

Matt

In case you're unaware, see Matt's recent unblock request at User talk:Bluemarine. - ALLST✰R▼ _{wuz here} 19:42, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the heads up. Have been working on getting another mentor for Matt. His location on assignment is slowing that down a little. Would you object to something basically like what we proposed before? Would like to see him free to contribute about the war in Afghanistan, as long as things are structured in a way that avoids the old problems. Heading out for a bit so may be tardy with followup. Durova 20:38, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

His unblock request statement was for the sole purpose of editing the article about him... which I think he should stay away from given the past. I have no doubt whatsoever that the moment he touches that article, we will see a repeat of last year. That's my only concern with him and being unblocked. I think the more appropriate thing to do would reduce the community ban to an article ban. Violation, by him or any of his socks, would result in reinstatement of the community ban. Thoughts? - ALLST✰R▼ _{wuz here} 20:54, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

Agreed, although I had structured the proposal to include related topics. Durova 23:30, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

Related topics would be fine with me as well. I was merely focusing on the main source of the drama from last year. I do recall there were some skirmishes with him and the Ann Coulter article and the Scott Beauchamp article but I didn't think they were as major as his own article. Additionally, if he feels so strongly about his article, he could request it be deleted via a 'crat, with the understanding that if recreated by anyone or himself, the same article ban applies. As a side note, it's already started again without Matt even touching the article. See the article's history and User_talk:Allstarecho#Matt_Sanchez and Misplaced Pages:Biographies_of_living_persons/Noticeboard#Matt_Sanchez - ALLST✰R▼ _{wuz here} 03:51, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

Barnstar

Thank you. It means a lot. SlimVirgin 23:45, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

You're welcome; it's well deserved. Durova 23:47, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

Durova, I am stumped and my memory is failing - where was the question on scaling and consensus before? Can you link it to that section? I am offlie for much of the day here. Casliber (talk · contribs) 01:15, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

With respect, I really think the less said the better there. When and if you find it you'll see my reasons why. Durova 04:14, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

Re: Content

Thank you for the offer, but I'm not really in a good position to tell you what to restore, since I'm not quite certain what the restoration process involves.

Would it be worth cleaning up File:Siege of Florence.JPG? Or is the base image of too poor quality to bother? I've not been able to find a larger-resolution image of the fresco, unfortunately.

If that one's not worth touching, then the one you suggested would be just fine, I think. Kirill  14:32, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

Done. Durova 16:09, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

Thanks; that looks great. Kirill  17:20, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

You're welcome. Durova 19:02, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

You might want to comment on this one

You might be the best qualified person to comment on this thread (or at least, be interested in it); anything provisionally agreed there is likely to affect you more than most, and you're also more familiar than most with the issues regarding archive photographs. – iridescent 21:34, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

I've always been on the fence about that sort of thing. Not sure what I'd add to the mix. Durova 21:45, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

+2 FPs

Your Featured picture candidate has been promoted Your nomination for featured picture status, File:William Berryman Plantain Walk2.jpg, gained a consensus of support, and has been promoted. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Misplaced Pages:Featured picture candidates. wadester16 04:13, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

Your Featured picture candidate has been promoted Your nomination for featured picture status, File:A Word of Comfort2.jpg, gained a consensus of support, and has been promoted. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Misplaced Pages:Featured picture candidates. wadester16 04:13, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

Shamelessly seeking input at Advisory Council RFC

I've made a proposal on the talk page of the Advisory Council RFC in hopes of finding a constructive way forward. I'm shamelessly asking for input on it from you and others who have taken part in the discussion. Please see this section and contribute as you see fit. Thanks, alanyst 18:24, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : XL (June 2009)

The June 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) 21:58, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages:Arbitration/Requests/Case/ADHD#Final_decision

Discuss

This arbitration case has been closed and the final decision is available at the link above.

For the Committee MBisanz 00:10, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

Open Letter

Speaking from my personal point of view - I appreciate your open letter in the Signpost. I am very interested in the perspectives that have come out during the content partnership vs. liberation discussion. I guess I fall under a pragmatic idealist - diplomacy 1st category of perspective (if there was such a category). I appreciate your articulation of programs and volunteers that look first at what we can do to acheive what I also see as our shared mission with non-profit GLAMS to make free educational content available to the public. Jennifer Riggs (talk) 00:26, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

Thanks very much for your response. Your response is heartwarming. Would you like to join the effort? Durova 00:41, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

Shameless.... "Thankspam"?

Hi Durova. I just want to let you know that your opinions and comments in regards to "ageism" and whatnot were greatly appreciated on my rfa...especially this and this. Thanks for helping me out there!  :)

		Your Opinion is More Important than You Think Barnstar
		Awarded to Durova for these truly noteworthy remarks. Keep it up! -FASTILY 00:26, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for the barnstar, and best wishes. Durova 00:32, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

Question

I have to ask - what was it you thought I said? - Kevin (talk) 02:57, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

For a moment I thought you were saying that a consensus existed that this newly constituted advisory board was not an appropriate way of making large scale decsions. Realized shortly after hitting save that it was time to brew another pot of coffee. ;) Durova 03:31, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

No, not what I was saying, although I agree that advisory boards should not make decisions binding upon others. Enjoy that coffee. Kevin (talk) 03:36, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

Thanks, it was delicious. :) Durova 04:09, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

Happy Bastille Day!

Dear fellow Wikipedian, on behalf of the Kindness campaign, I just want to wish you a Happy Bastille Day, whether you are French, Republican or not!  :) Happy Editing! Sincerely, --A Nobody 22:08, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

FP!

Thank you very much. Durova 00:25, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

WikiCup participates in the Misplaced Pages:The Great Misplaced Pages Dramaout

Hello all, iMatthew here. I just wanted to let you know about "The Great Misplaced Pages Dramaout" which starts this Saturday. The goal of the Dramaout is to spend five days working on improving articles and abstaining from any of Misplaced Pages's drama. I don't think that any of you will have a problem focusing on articles for five days, because of course, any work you get done during the Dramaout will count towards your score in the WikiCup. Details are on the page; hope to see you all signing up! :) iMatthew  at 00:27, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

Durova is already off to a good start! I was actually stopping by to commend you on your restraint and civility in the face of some unseemly and unnecessary attacks. Kudos. I'm sorry for whatever stress the comments caused and I appreciate your good efforts to improve the encyclopedia. I'll be interested to get a look at this image I've been hearing about and the possibility of a new article collaboration with Giano. My fingers are crossed. :) But maybe that's too much to hope for just yet. Cheers. ChildofMidnight (talk) 05:11, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

Thanks very much. The unrestored version is here. Cropped it down to 337MB, and after JPEG conversion it should be a hair under the 100MB upload limit. Durova 05:37, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

Very interesting. This is a futurist architectural drawing by Rudolph, Paul, 1918-1997, architect, or a planned building in Singapore? It there a connection to Francesco Muttoni, or were you just suggesting article subjects? ChildofMidnight (talk) 16:52, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

(ec) Francesco Muttoni was an eighteenth century Italian. Muttoni's most famous published work was an edition of Andrea Palladio's nine volume I Quattro Libri dell'Architettura. The Library of Congress has sketches and notes for Muttoni's unpublished tenth volume. Here is a page I restored. The thing I worked on yesterday was one of Paul Rudolph's early designs (circa 1980) for The Concourse, a prominent building in Singapore. Rudolph donated a portion of his papers to the public domain. It's a rare treat to get the architect's drawings from this period. Most of Rudolph's work is brutalist. The salient factor was availability of good digitized files. Durova 17:05, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

• The Concourse
• Been having trouble uploading at full resolution, so these are compressed files. Will try to follow up with the full deal.
• Restored.

What a great building! Ya gotta love a bit of brutalism. --jbmurray (talk • contribs) 20:58, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

Brutalism takes a deft touch to pull off, but Rudolph was very good at it. Loved this place while visiting Singapore. His work in Hong Kong looks very impressive too irl. Durova 21:01, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

Lengthy ANI thing re: Giano

Hi Durova, I don't believe we've interacted before. I've archived the thread. As the final debate seems to come down to some blanking requests (which anyone can do) exactly NO admin intervention is required now. Sorry, but that thread really has had it's day over there and is just causing misery to many. Pedro :  Chat  22:11, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

Thanks; would you follow up with the blanking please? Durova 22:27, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

No, as I stated above blanking can be done by any editor. I'm not familiar enough with the full debate over there to start excising portions of it, nor would it be seemly for me to do so as I have now become involved. I am however simply familiar enough (sadly) with ANI to know when enough is enough on one thread, and I'm gald that you and Giano agree that the archive was a positive move. Apologies. Pedro :  Chat  22:32, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

Well that's disconcerting. The only thing I've asked for from the beginning is to have that whole portion of thread removed. Now you have left it up, archived the request for refactor (which people agreed was valid), and left no legitimate venue of recourse. How is 'any editor' to be sought, if not through the very backchannels the accuser finds so objectionable? Please, be reasonable. Durova 23:26, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

Rock - hard - place. :) Okay. Look, I'm in a tricky situation here as I have a lot of time for both you and Giano and very little time for most admins on WP. Brokering a compromise on this is not likely to be easy - but then nothing worth doing ever is I guess. It's late, and I'm off to bed (sorry if that sounds like a cop out) but I will endeavour to give this attention over the weekend, and see if we can make a compromise of some kind. As a note, maybe Giano would like to consider that whilst his feelings are very strong on this issue, for the sake of the collegial atmosphere we'd all prefer he would re-consider some of his posts? (will notify Giano) Pedro :  Chat  23:32, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

I've gone ahead and basically deleted that entire thread on the RfC talkpage. I don't hold out much hope that somebody won't come and revert me, but you never know. I've done this without, I hope, suggesting any particular support for any "side" in this matter, but rather to provide a clean(ish) slate. --jbmurray (talk • contribs) 23:36, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

Thank you very much. :) Durova 23:40, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

Well, it didn't last. Oh well. --jbmurray (talk • contribs) 00:15, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

What's up?

Jumpers, when did you resign your Administratorship? GoodDay (talk) 15:08, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

Nearly two years ago. Durova 15:22, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

Jeepers, I'm usually behind the times. GoodDay (talk) 15:33, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

WikiCup Newsletter XXV

The WikiCup Newsletter

The WikiCup Newsletter Round III, Issue 7 - July 18, 2009 Archive before | Archive after Pool leaders In this round of the WikiCup, the top contestant from each pool, along with four wildcards, will advance to the next round. The pool leaders are: Pool A Mitchazenia (653) Pool B Ottava Rima (617) Pool C Candlewicke (427) Pool D Theleftorium (673) Wildcard leaders Shoemaker's Holiday (600) Sasata (546) Juliancolton (346) Wrestlinglover (337) For a full guide see Misplaced Pages:WikiCup/History/2009/Full All scores are accurate as of 15:25, 18 July 2009 (UTC). Content Leaders As of this newsletter, the following is a list of participants in this round with the most: Featured articles Juliancolton (2) Featured lists Scorpion0422 (withdrawn) (6) Featured topics Mitchazenia (1) Featured pictures Shoemaker's Holiday (14) Featured sounds Nobody Featured portals Shoemaker's Holiday (2) Good topics Scorpion0422 (withdrawn) (2) Theleftorium (2) Good articles Theleftorium (13) Mitchazenia (13) Did you know? items Ottava Rima (30) In the news items Candlewicke (26) For Round 1 stats, see Newsletter 10. For Round 2 stats, see Newsletter 18. WikiCup At a Glance As of this newsletter, the WikiCup participants have collected a Round 3 total of: 5 Featured articles 14 Featured lists 1 Featured topics 19 Featured pictures 0 Featured sounds 4 Featured portal 3 Good topic 54 Good articles 85 Did you know? items 26 In the news items This combines with the Round 1 totals and the Round 2 totals to make a grand total of: 30 Featured articles 61 Featured lists 4 Featured topics 189 Featured pictures 24 Featured sounds 6 Featured portal 6 Good topics 256 Good articles 532 Did you know? items 108 In the news items Biggest Jumps The difference between each contestant's point total from last week, and their point total from this week are: Rank User LF TF D 1 Mitchazenia 443 653 210 2 Shoemaker's Holiday 493 600 107 3 Wrestlinglover 248 337 89 4 Juliancolton 261 346 85 5 Candlewicke 380 427 47 LF = Last Week's score, TF = This Week's score, D = Difference between last week and this week's scores This was generated from this diff. From the Judges About two weeks left, now. To those of you in the back, don't give up. There is still enough time to get some more work done. To those of you in the front relaxing... don't. We've seen it happen before, where users in the back will jump ahead in the final weeks and make it though. We'd also like to wave goodbye to Scorpion0422, and thank him for all of his hard work this round even though he knew he needed to withdraw at the end of it. 'weburiedoursecretsinthegarden, iMatthew , and The Helpful One If you don't wish to receive this newsletter in the future, remove your name from this list. If you are not a participant, but would still like to receive this newsletter, feel free to add your name to the list.

Delivered by JCbot (talk) 16:42, 18 July 2009 (UTC).

Potential Restoration

Hi. I found this http://en.wikipedia.org/File:Titus1874Cuyahoga.jpg while I was reading earlier and I thought it would make a great image to restore. If you'd be willing to coach me, I'd love to restore it, with the aim of eventually nominating it at FPC. Let me know what you think. Thanks. Makeemlighter (talk) 04:23, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for asking. :) Looks like a pretty good starter project. Would be glad to coach. Skype is an excellent client for this sort of work because it supports voice chat and is good at file transfers. So discussing in real time and trading screen shots speeds things up a lot. Email for my Skype ID. :) Durova 04:54, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

Some business came up. I'll contact you in a week or so. Makeemlighter (talk) 05:31, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

IP that may be Matt Sanchez

Hi Durova, you are still mentoring Matt Sanchez/Bluemarine, yes? Some folks, including myself, suspect that an IP may be Matt evading his community ban. Would you please look at these contributions and evaluate? Also, note the tenor of the comments left on my page. (Another user removed them.)Thanks, LadyofShalott 17:33, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

The IP geolocates to Kabul, Afghanistan. Quite likely it's him if he's still blogging from the area as he has done in the past. - ALLST✰R▼ _{wuz here} 18:31, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

Well, his status is in limbo. I've just returned from a trip out so haven't looked into it fully. And have been making plans to hand over the mentorship to another person. Durova 19:13, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

I left a warning because of this comment. APK that's not my name 20:33, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

And I'm not certain that's him. Long term spoofing has been a problem with this case. Please request a checkuser. Durova 00:00, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

WP:MED on Wikivoices?

Perhaps you could host an episode with the WP:MED editors? ---kilbad (talk) 21:43, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

Morgan Henry Chrysler

Dear Durova, I'm trying to upload the image of Morgan Henry Chrysler. Here is the link. This image is in the public domain in the US; it was first published prior to January 1, 1923.

Permitted file types are: png, gif, jpg, jpeg, xcf, pdf, mid, ogg, ogv, svg, djvu, oga. But, for Morgan Henry Chrysler, the file type is .bmp. Can I upload the image? AdjustShift (talk) 22:21, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

You may need to convert the file format. Other than that, should be good to go. Durova 23:45, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

How can I change the file format? AdjustShift (talk) 00:58, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

Open it in an image manipulation program and save it under a new format. If you need a free program for that purpose, GIMP can do it (overkill in a way because GIMP is much more powerful, but the price is right). Durova 01:00, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

Thanks, but I've no idea about image manipulation programs. :-) Anyway, thanks for your input. Best wishes, AdjustShift (talk) 16:45, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

DYK for The Awful German Language

On July 19, 2009, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article The Awful German Language, 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.

Thank you. :) Durova 00:01, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

Lend a friendly word

Please lend a friendly hand at Talk:Bob Dylan, thanks...Modernist (talk) 15:50, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

It's possible that my stepping in might have unintended consequences. This is a small matter, and thank you for the heads up. If it continues then by all means let me know. Durova 16:04, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

A couple of things

Hi Durova. I think this comment is a bit bitey and negative. My understanding is that the No Drama Days 2009 event is about refocusing on the most important and best parts of the encyclopedia for several days, for anyone who wants to participate. Many of us do get caught up in the drama boards, conflicts, and process, losing sight of the article creation and improvement work that is fairly essential and quite rewarding. Your comment struck me a bit as raining on someone else's parade. I've found the event helpful and have caught up on a bunch of articles that I had long put on the backburner in favor of what was immediately in front of me. It's also sparked some interesting discussions about priorities. Secondly, Doc T asked for your input on a sourcing issue on the Matt Sanchez talk page if you want to respond. Cheers. ChildofMidnight (talk) 17:31, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

I don't like at all the ways some people are playing it, and have no apologies for lodging a reasoned objection. On balance, that drive is fundamentally flawed. Since I'm currently pursuing an arbitration enforcement request on the article, will respectfully decline to participate in content discussions. The issue at hand is serious offsite harassment, which is on an entirely different plane. Too often, Wikipedian discussions conflate those issues of widely differing importance. Durova 17:41, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

Hi Durova, I wasn't going to "bother" you by posting here directly, but I saw that CoM mentioned the Matt Sanchez discussion and you were essentially recusing yourself. I understand your reasons and respect your decision absolutely. However, the specific question I asked mostly relates to the use of primary sources and I'm hoping that you'd be willing to comment here if not there. I had explained my own interpretation, but in all honestly I'm not 100% certain and I utterly defer to you on these matters. If you still think it somehow inappropriate to comment, would you be willing to name another "authority figure" who might calrify this? Thanks D. Doc Tropics 18:28, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

There are noticeboards to settle such matters, and the opinions of people with zero history will hold weight uncontroversially. Despite having endorsed the article subject's siteban, and despite having subsequently raised copyright issues with his uploads that no one else had noticed, the fact that I subsequently mentored him has been recast into an accusation of bias. I have no intention of remaining in the trajectory of the mud until some of it sticks. Durova 18:36, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

Understood. Thanks for your time and your well-considered response; your efforts are appreciated. Doc Tropics 18:46, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

And thank you for your interest in settling this difficult matter. It isn't easy on anyone. Durova 18:51, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

WP:FPC advice

Think this might stand a shot at making FP? I'm in agreement with those who wish to see more Caribbean-based featured pictures, and this struck me as a good candidate. Not a lot of wow factor, perhaps, but the quality's there and it's an image of someone very important. --User:AlbertHerring 20:20, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

Have you tried picture peer review? Durova 20:23, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

I hadn't - thanks for the suggestion. --User:AlbertHerring 14:09, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

+FP

Your Featured picture candidate has been promoted Your nomination for featured picture status, File:Hispaniola Vinckeboons4.jpg, gained a consensus of support, and has been promoted. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Misplaced Pages:Featured picture candidates. wadester16 06:47, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

Mentee

Hi Durova. I hope you are doing well. I am having some difficulties once again with your mentee Jaakobou. After taking a two-month long wiki break, on my first day back, I made a small edit to Land Day . Shortly thereafter, after not touching the article for a whole year, he made this edit , reinstating it again and again . Please note that this false comparison he is trying to introduce between Jewish refugees and Palestinian ones has nothing to do with this subject. He tried to insert this material a year ago, but gave up afterr I asked him for sources and he did not find any. He has since cluttered up the talk page with a series of accusations and assumptions of bad faith, generally being his usual charming self as it relates to my editing, and that of his newest obsession Nableezy.

Could you please review the discussion at Talk:Land Day#Balance and speak to your mentee about a) trying to avoid the appearance that he is following/has an obsession with people like me and Nableezy; b) trying to stick to a discussion of article content and not contributors c) trying to avoid soapboxing about Arabs, their journalism, or anything else about them that is not related to article content. I siginificantly expanded the article using reputable scholarly works from Israeli authors, among others. I tried addressing some of his requests . In reponse, I get this . So I replied like this: and got this . Note he says "I wasn't aware that nothing that portrays Israelis in a reasonable light must be inserted by editors not named Tiamut," totally ignoring the 7,000 bytes of new material I added from high quality sources including those of Israeli authors.

I am very very tired of Jaakobou's hounding. I have brought it up to you and at WP:AE a number of times. He has gotten warnings about it before. What can be done to stop this from happening? I am busy trying to get Tawfiq Canaan promoted to FA status. I don't want to waste time on these silly schoolyard games. Your help would be appreciated. Tiamut 08:12, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

Hi Tiamut, last month I resigned from all mentorships. Some of them remain in a phase-out period, but Jaakobou is on his own. Will still do my best to be a go-between if you'd like? Durova 14:20, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

Hi Durova. Sorry I'm so out of the loop. Been away for a couple of months. To be honest, given his history of stalking and mocking me, the last thing I want is to spend my time engaging him, so a go-between is of little use. If you want to leave him a friendly note telling him to maintain a little distance given our stormy past/present, it's totally up to you. If not, no worries. I'm a big girl and can take care of myself if I have to. Thanks. Tiamut 18:10, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

Thanks. Have been fairly low key about the changeover because part of the reason for the change was serious offsite harassment that arose in relation to one of the other mentorships I was doing. None of the mentorees were themselves at fault in any way because of that; it's just a fact of life that most of them volunteer in contentious areas. Occasionally that takes on real world dimensions, and mentorship itself was getting politicized by senior Wikipedians in ways that made a serious incident more likely to happen. I'd been complaining for months; possibly should have walked away sooner. Durova 18:53, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

Sorry to hear that Durova. I hope that's all over with now and you can enjoy editing without harassment. Tiamut 05:05, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

Sanity check

Hey Durova. I was just wondering whether you might be able to me a little advice, before I get in too deep. You see, I kinda had this idea for a UK petition - the details are in my signature. The thing is, I plonked a notice on commons about it (technically, speaking, two) and one on VPM, but I haven't been able to illicit a response on whether it is a good thing to be doing or not. So, you see, I thought I might find someone knowledgable and then directly ask them whether I was out of my mind or not, before I went to any great length to promote the petition itself. To the best of my knowledge, I don't think you are able to sign it yourself, and therefore ideally placed to offer this advice. So, am I a) Crazy "You'll end up doing more harm than good, y'know?" b) Wasting my time "What's the point? You're not going to achieve anything." c) At least having a go "Why not?" ? All advice appreciated, - Jarry1250  14:33, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

Thank you very much for asking; there are few compliments more satisfying to see one's opinion unexpectedly valued. It's also a serious and nuanced question; will endeavor to give it the thoughtful answer it deserves.

Petitioning can be a good way to address a public concern. Effective petitions usually take a simple and direct approach, with a request for a clear outcome. Such as a petition for someone's resignation. So as a Yank, relatively unfamiliar with the fine details of the British government, it looks odd to ask a non-judge to review a foreign legal case for its applicability to one's country. If the Prime Minister gave an opinion, would it carry weight within your system? If it did, would it be likely be the answer you desire? In practical terms, is a useful way to achieve your goal?

Last week I couathored an open letter for Signpost about a different approach. Some background to that: about a year ago I saw what NPG was doing. Instead of going Derrick's route and challenging that directly I chose a different path. When changing technology alters an economic structure, a certain type of person responds by putting their creative energies into defensive tactics such legal posturing rather than seeking ways to adapt to the new situation. It's usually a safe bet that once someone starts down that path they'll stay on it unless somebody else shows them, in a nonconfrontational way, how new and beneficial opportunities exist within the new situation. That's what I've been working on.

The Library of Congress already offers a very large collection of high resolution digitized images and asserts no proprietary rights or restrictions over their use. In some cases another copyright owner exists, but LoC makes no claims of its own. So in order to demonstrate benefits of openness I've mostly worked from their collection. This May, ten of my restorations from LoC files ran as Picture of the Day while Misplaced Pages's main page received a total of over 58 million page views. To put that in perspective, The New York Times has a circulation of 23 million a month. Cultural institutions want to be relevant; they want the public to be interested and involved in their collections. This is the kind of opportunity they ought to be lining up to take advantage of. Most of them don't realize it exists.

So my approach has been to demonstrate empirically that it does exist. This is inspiring more institutions to cooperate with us. Since that Signpost letter was published the Tropenmuseum of Amsterdam has committed to donating 100,000 images to Wikimedia Commons. Spaarnestad Museum of Haarlem has also made a commitment to donate images; we hope to announce the numbers soon. This is part of an ongoing effort to build partnering relationships; more is in the works with those two institutions and with others.

Part of NPG's argument is a claim that WMF is impossible to work with. Each time we partner with another cultural institution we demonstrate empirically how that assertion is mistaken. These other relationships are unquestionably beneficial--for the museums, for Commons and Misplaced Pages, and for the public. We're expanding these efforts and seeking to replicate the successes. That's worth doing for its own sake. I'd like to partner with NPG too, yet in the current situation am deferring to the legal professionals. Best not to step on their toes. Yet without getting into that area it could improve the overall to generate more examples of how openness can be a net positive for everybody including the museums. Eventually, there's reasonable hope, institutions that have been attempting creative legal claims will dismantle those barriers on their own in order to join the new collaborative environment. The ones who make this change soonest will see the greatest benefit.

So I'm not opposed to your petition. As an American it wouldn't be appropriate to attempt an opinion for or against it. Your intentions seem to be the highest. Along with intentions it's important to anticipate the consequences of our actions. If you'd like to join the synergistic response I'd be glad to have you. We're looking for people to join with outreach, and also looking for people to join with restoration. Durova 23:05, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages:Featured picture candidates/Gulf of Aqaba

Your Featured picture candidate has been promoted Your nomination for featured picture status, File:Isle of Graia3.jpg, gained a consensus of support, and has been promoted. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Misplaced Pages:Featured picture candidates. wadester16 03:45, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

Re: Your edit to your user page..

. No, D. We don't believe you. Constantly updating your Feature Count can't be tiresome :P :D SirFozzie (talk) 12:39, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

What he said. :-P KillerChihuahuaAdvice 13:24, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

FYI: Misplaced Pages:Village_pump_(technical)#broken_image

Rumpsenate (talk) 16:55, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

Hitler

5 days later, I just realized you think I compared "He who must not be named" to Hitler. No, that's not what I meant at all. Art LaPella (talk) 18:56, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

I don't think it was intentional. It did look poorly, though. Do you mean Lord Voldemort this time? Durova 19:12, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

OK, it was Voldemort! Art LaPella (talk) 20:13, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

Request for clarification: Bluemarine

Hello, I have filed a request for clarification regarding that case; see Request for clarification: Bluemarine.  Sandstein  05:13, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages:Featured picture candidates/The Concourse

Your Featured picture candidate has been promoted Your nomination for featured picture status, File:Concourse Singapore2 courtesy copy.jpg, gained a consensus of support, and has been promoted. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Misplaced Pages:Featured picture candidates. wadester16 05:25, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

New FP!

Your Featured picture candidate has been promoted Your nomination for featured picture status, File:Cherokee_Pass2.jpg, gained a consensus of support, and has been promoted. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Misplaced Pages:Featured picture candidates. ☩Damërung ☩. -- 10:18, 26 July 2009 (UTC) 10:18, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

WikiCup Newsletter XXVI

The WikiCup Newsletter

The WikiCup Newsletter Round III, Issue 8 - July 26, 2009 Archive before | Archive after Pool leaders In this round of the WikiCup, the top contestant from each pool, along with four wildcards, will advance to the next round. The pool leaders are: Pool A Mitchazenia (661) Pool B Ottava Rima (659) Pool C Candlewicke (443) Pool D Theleftorium (727) Wildcard leaders Shoemaker's Holiday (638) Sasata (583) Juliancolton (424) Wrestlinglover (383) Durova (370) the_ed17 (266) ThinkBlue (232) Those in italics are not currently in place for the next round, but are very close. For a full guide see Misplaced Pages:WikiCup/History/2009/Full All scores are accurate as of 14:19, 26 July 2009 (UTC). Content Leaders As of this newsletter, the following is a list of participants in this round with the most: Featured articles Juliancolton (3) Featured lists Scorpion0422 (withdrawn) (6) Featured topics Mitchazenia (1) Featured pictures Shoemaker's Holiday (14) Featured sounds Shoemaker's Holiday (1) Featured portals Shoemaker's Holiday (2) Good topics Scorpion0422 (withdrawn) (2) Theleftorium (2) Good articles Theleftorium (14) Did you know? items Ottava Rima (31) In the news items Candlewicke (27) For Round 1 stats, see Newsletter 10. For Round 2 stats, see Newsletter 18. WikiCup At a Glance As of this newsletter, the WikiCup participants have collected a Round 3 total of: 5 Featured articles 14 Featured lists 1 Featured topics 21 Featured pictures 1 Featured sounds 4 Featured portal 3 Good topic 61 Good articles 90 Did you know? items 27 In the news items This combines with the Round 1 totals and the Round 2 totals to make a grand total of: 30 Featured articles 61 Featured lists 4 Featured topics 191 Featured pictures 25 Featured sounds 6 Featured portal 6 Good topics 263 Good articles 537 Did you know? items 109 In the news items Biggest Jumps The difference between each contestant's point total from last week, and their point total from this week are: Rank User LF TF D 1 Durova 178 370 192 2 the_ed17 83 226 143 3 Juliancolton 346 424 78 4 Theleftorium 673 727 54 5 Wrestlinglover 337 383 46 LF = Last Week's score, TF = This Week's score, D = Difference between last week and this week's scores This was generated from this diff. From the Judges The round is over in about four days from now. Sit back, watch your nominations being reviewed, and hope for the best. In these four days, you don't have much control over your score. It's what you did prior to now, that's going to pile up your points (or not). We're very, very pleased with this round's results so far, and of course hoping to see some more submitted before the round ends. Not much else to say for now, but you'll all be getting a newsletter on Thursday or Friday between rounds. 'weburiedoursecretsinthegarden, iMatthew , and The Helpful One If you don't wish to receive this newsletter in the future, remove your name from this list. If you are not a participant, but would still like to receive this newsletter, feel free to add your name to the list.

Delivered for the WikiCup by  ROBOTIC GARDEN  at 15:43, 26 July 2009 (UTC). To report errors see the talk page.

DYK nomination of A Vision of the Last Judgment

Hello! Your submission of A Vision of the Last Judgment at the Did You Know nominations page has been reviewed, and there still are some issues that may need to be clarified. Please review the comment(s) underneath your nomination's entry and respond there as soon as possible. Thank you for contributing to Did You Know! Hekerui (talk) 16:49, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

Since you nominated the article while another user wrote it I notified that user as well, wasn't sure what else to do, since you probably don't have the sources. Hekerui (talk) 17:02, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

Bluemarine unblocked

Hello! Please be advised that I have reviewed the unblock request for User:Bluemarine and that I have agreed to unblock that account. I have spelled out my reason for the unblock on Mr. Sanchez's talk page. However, I have also requested that Mr. Sanchez consult with you prior to any further editing until his murky status is resolved. As his mentor, you are responsible for providing assistance to Mr. Sanchez through this complicated period. Thank you. Pastor Theo (talk) 01:20, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

Thank you. If you'd like to help craft a new editing restiction that's suitable for this situation your assistance would be very welcome. Ideally, he'd be free to edit the subjects where his knowledge would be helpful (Iraq, Afghanistan, uncontroversial cultural topics) while remaining restricted from the areas that got him into trouble before. Durova 01:23, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

Due to the fact that he's still under community ban, and the fact that it's being discussed at Misplaced Pages:Arbitration/Requests/Clarification#Request for clarification: Bluemarine, I feel the unblock is not in accordance with a ban and premature considering the current discussion taking place. Therefore, I have asked Pastor Theo to undo the unblock. It probably won't happen, but at least you are aware of my objection. - ALLST✰R▼ _{wuz here} 01:35, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

Hello, Durova! I would be glad to provide a consulting input, if you wish to seek out my opinion. In view of the murky status of Mr. Sanchez's participation on Misplaced Pages, I believe that we should take this to the "community" at your earliest convenience. Thank you very much. Pastor Theo (talk) 02:00, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

Thanks very much. The appropriate thing would be a topic ban from his old areas of conflict: his biography, and related articles/topics (Allstareho has a good memory for what those would be). In order to keep a fair safety valve, he should remain free to use BLPN and RSN (and other related noticeboards) to address problems in his biography. Possibly the article talk page too, but not sure. Durova 02:25, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

If you'd like to pick up from where we left off in May, here is what I had proposed:

Bluemarine's community ban is modified to a topic ban from the Matt Sanchez biography and its talk page, and from LGBT topics and related talk pages, broadly construed. He is limited to the use of one account:Bluemarine. He is not to upload any files of which he does not own. If Bluemarine violates the terms of this restriction, or makes any comment reasonably regarded as harassing or a personal attack, he will be blocked indefinitely by any uninvolved administrator.

I would also like to see the Scott Thomas Beauchamp controversy article and Jeff Gannon article added to the restrictions as well as he seems to have issues with those as well.

People keep saying I am making this personal. I want it understood that I support the lifting of his community ban, providing the problems that got him there in the first place be nipped in the bud from the get-go. This is how I see that taking place. - ALLST✰R▼ _{wuz here} 02:58, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

He has never had problems with uploads at en:wiki, and the proposed required remedy is nonstandard for community bans. Minus the last two sentences that looks fine, though. Durova 03:11, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

I agree. Run it up the flagpole and let's see who salutes it. Pastor Theo (talk) 03:35, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

Actually, he has uploaded copyvio images in the past. And you're saying no to the last sentence, If Bluemarine violates the terms of this restriction, or makes any comment reasonably regarded as harassing or a personal attack, he will be blocked indefinitely by any uninvolved administrator. ? Additionally, I think it's premature to "run it up the flag" while the Misplaced Pages:Arbitration/Requests/Clarification#Request for clarification: Bluemarine discussion is going on. Shouldn't we wait for the outcome of that? Arbcom may just decide no restrictions are needed. - ALLST✰R▼ _{wuz here} 04:48, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

He never had a problem at Misplaced Pages with that, and his (very early) mistakes at Commons were not deliberate: he mistook being given a copy of his own portrait by a photographer and permission to republish, with being given the intellectual property rights to the image. That's an understandable error if it is never repeated. There's probably not any really gracious way to say this, but it perhaps might not be the best point to insist upon: if Allstarecho were to make a single good faith error of that type in future, his own past history and block log on this project are such that he would probably seek good faith understanding too. Durova 05:06, 27 July 2009 (UTC)