Jump to content

User talk:Durova: Difference between revisions

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Browse history interactively
← Previous editNext edit →
Content deleted Content added
VisualWikitext
Jhballard (talk | contribs)
405 edits
Line 137: Line 137:
* He'll probably squander his slim chance to actually verify the thing by clamoring for it to be taken at face value. And to think that at first I gathered it might be some heirloom created in the seventeenth century! The matter is closed as far as I'm concerned. I've seen the record now and it's a colossal sham. Maybe accurate for 1800-2000, otherwise fanciful fiction. We've wasted ''far'' too much time on this nonsense. [[User:Durova|Durova]] 06:33, 20 November 2005 (UTC)
* He'll probably squander his slim chance to actually verify the thing by clamoring for it to be taken at face value. And to think that at first I gathered it might be some heirloom created in the seventeenth century! The matter is closed as far as I'm concerned. I've seen the record now and it's a colossal sham. Maybe accurate for 1800-2000, otherwise fanciful fiction. We've wasted ''far'' too much time on this nonsense. [[User:Durova|Durova]] 06:33, 20 November 2005 (UTC)
**Something comes to mind from our discussion with Mr. B. Hadn't thought of this in years: there was an old tradition in my family that part of the English branch was descended from the duke of Buckingham. It took about fifteen minutes in a university library to locate a copy of the British ''Peerage'' and verify the ducal line died off 150 years before the supposed younger son eloped with his sweetheart to America. Checked all sons of the old dukes to be sure. My grandfather smiled to know. He'd always suspected the tale was fiction. It's probably better that it wasn't true. I'm sure I would have irritated my friends with it. I was pretty young at the time. [[User:Durova|Durova]] 09:25, 20 November 2005 (UTC)
**Something comes to mind from our discussion with Mr. B. Hadn't thought of this in years: there was an old tradition in my family that part of the English branch was descended from the duke of Buckingham. It took about fifteen minutes in a university library to locate a copy of the British ''Peerage'' and verify the ducal line died off 150 years before the supposed younger son eloped with his sweetheart to America. Checked all sons of the old dukes to be sure. My grandfather smiled to know. He'd always suspected the tale was fiction. It's probably better that it wasn't true. I'm sure I would have irritated my friends with it. I was pretty young at the time. [[User:Durova|Durova]] 09:25, 20 November 2005 (UTC)

It appears your intention was to ruin a reputation, mine. That is obviously why we were are not able to communicate. You don't show like you want to take the time to communicate. Instead, you have jumped to conclusions, prejudged, and casted shame from your own words. That is the trait of a psychopathic bully. The message above is like a goose that goes off after it thinks it has won a brawl, and it is the same as a bully. You've shown disrespect. Even to try to mock my daughters name, and she has done nothing to harm you. Rather you agree with how the name is spelled or not for her, don't you think she'll still like it? What if she sees this message. You have created this saddness you try to cast out upon her. That is so shameful of both of you. Nevertheless, you expect you are virtuous wikipedian? This proves elsewise. ---- [[User:Jhballard|Mr. Ballard]] 16:46, 20 November 2005 (UTC)

Revision as of 16:46, 20 November 2005

Welcome!

Hi Durova! I noticed your contributions and wanted to welcome you to the Wikipedia community. I hope you like it here and decide to stay.

As you get started, you may find this short tutorial helpful:

Learn more about editing

Alternatively, the contributing to Wikipedia page covers the same topics.

If you have any questions, we have a friendly space where experienced editors can help you here:

Get help at the Teahouse

If you are not sure where to help out, you can find a task here:

Volunteer at the Task Center

Happy editing! Noisy | Talk 10:36, 28 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Joan of Arc

Welcome to the fray! You seem to have picked up that there has been significant dispute about this article in the past: be prepared for people to jump down your throat. Noisy | Talk 10:36, 28 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Your changes at Joan of Arc (either already made or suggested) are very much appreciated! Please edit boldly! As I mentioned at Talk:Joan of Arc#Tone this article should be polished to fit an encyclopedia. Be aware of AWilliamson, a self-proclaimed expert on Joan of Arc. He's a conservative catholic devoter of Saint Joan of Arc and a homo-phobe. He now acts under anonymous AOL-accounts and at least one sock puppet - HAJARS 22:08, 28 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I've just changed some suspisious edits by an anonymous user (from comparing his use of language, I believe it is AWilliamson) back to your version of the article. I know for sure he will revert them again. On that account it's an never ending story. Reading your edits, I'm convinced you are a true expert on the subject. HAJARS 22:55, 28 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I agree you've been very transparent. I wish you good luck on your effort to make the article more fitting an encyclopedia! — HAJARS 01:08, 29 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Just take a look at this older version of the article and see how brief it could be... — HAJARS 23:22, 28 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
As I expected, he changed my revisions of his edits again, just an hour ago. You can see his changes here: just look at the history chart of the article and compare selected revisions. There's no way to discuss this edit war with him. I invited him several times on the talk page, but as he won't log in there's no way to address him directly (and he doesn't respond to messages at his accounts AWilliamson and Center-for-Medieval-Studies) — unless you want to e-mail him. His e-mail address can be found at his site archive.joan-of-arc.org. HAJARS 14:40, 29 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Barnstar

Just have a look at your barnstar... — HAJARS 11:18, 30 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Mediation and opposition

Your request seems alright to me. I'm sure some mediator will pick it up. — HAJARS 16:01, 30 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

See my respons at my talk page. — HAJARS 18:21, 30 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Hang in there, but don't get too involved. You should perhaps make yourself aware of Wikipedia:No original research when confronting the Ballards and Allens of this world. Noisy | Talk 00:01, 31 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I agree. Although I doubt the point would register with them. Durova 00:25, 31 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

To keep you posted...

Hi Durova,

New developments: 64.12.116.197 and Jhballard have been editing Joan of Arc again. Especially 64.12.116.197 has been reading our posts (at all those separate places of Wikipedia). He now admits he is Allen, because he has read your assumption that Allen had probably been banned in the past (the assumption you made near your request for mediation). See the history of Joan of Arc:

23:59, 3 November 2005 64.12.116.197 (Edit comment: I'll drop the main point of dispute, but certain basic things nevertheless need to be cleaned up. (I have never been "banned", by the way))

I have never been "banned" he says. So he is Allen! Not that clever to admit it like this BTW. — HAJARS 23:50, 3 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I see. Do you know anyone at site admin? Durova 00:21, 4 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
You could contact Fire Star. I don't know if he's admin, but at least a moderator. — HAJARS 09:15, 4 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

WS

Thank you for your interest in WS poll, What do you tink about the options 1 and 2. You should add a comment under every option to support or oppose it. Thank you very much. Cheers. Daryou 17:28, 8 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

AfD

Please read WP:GD or ask a more experienced editor before putting a page on WP:AFD. If you have any more questions, please feel free to ask. Karmafist 15:03, 9 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think it's clear cut, but it probably will not be notable enough for an article on its own. As for the AfD initiation process, here's the boiling down of it.
  1. Put {{afd}} at the top of the page. You did ok there.
  2. Then click on the redlink in that afd box. That's the afd page for the article in question.
  3. Write whatever you think on the article's afd page, and make sure there's a link in the title and three equals signs in the title like this ===[[The Article That Would Be Deleted]]===
  4. Copy and paste the title of that page you just edited on, and put it on the afd main page, and put a {{ and a }} around it at the bottom.

Karmafist 15:17, 9 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Favedave

Hi, I noticed that in the near past a user called Favedave had been trying to remove religious toned content from Joan of Arc. He was scared away though. You can see this edit by Favedave and his/her motivation on Joantalk. Unfortunately he/she doesn't seem to be among us anymore. HAJARS 23:41, 9 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Comments on ORGs

Sorry if my remarks seemed a little rude, I was tired when I wrote them and it wasn't my intention to be nasty. By most standards I'm still a newb, and should have thought things out more carefully. At least the AfD brought some much-needed advice in for me. Thanks, and sorry. :) - Foofy 19:10, 10 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

New sneaky vandal? Guess not...

Be aware of user 152.163.100.197. He/she made an edit that was almost not noticed: adding an extra space in the External links section of Joan of Arc, making a particular link defect. Look here. At the bottom (last change of that edit). Notice the extra space before "html"? That makes "html" go to the visible text and it makes the link corrupt. A year ago I (as Switisweti) had an edit war with AWilliamson about that link. I liked it, but he wanted it out of the list. After the war was settled with mediation, he tried to sabotage the link by secretly corrupting the link. Please help me to prevent this happening again. Except if you dislike the link too of course... — HAJARS 20:27, 10 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I'm keeping track of the IP numbers I suspect he has used so far (though I have no proof, I think I can recognise the content of his edits):
For what it's worth.
— HAJARS 21:10, 10 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
And - just for amusement - compare the Joan of Arc article as it is now with the most destructive edits by mr. W: 1st, 2nd and 3rd. What an improvement!
If you dislike this summary on your talk page, I'll relocate it and put it somewhere on my user page. (And on "Re: that other" see my reply on my talk) — HAJARS 23:53, 11 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Re: New Entry

See my Talk. — Switisweti 11:53, 12 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Testosterone poisoning, citation style

Hi Durova, thanks for the kind words. As for the citation style, I agree that having the footnotes and in-line citations is a bit ugly. I'd rather convert them all to proper reference/citation style and loose the footnotes style, in part because I'm more used to this, but also I think it's the preferred format according to the Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style's citation guide Wikipedia:Cite_sources. Best regards, Pete.Hurd 18:03, 12 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Be my guest. Either is fine with me as long as it's consistent. Durova 18:08, 12 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Now you may inspect one of my latest entries: Het land van (song). Please correct or comment any spelling errors, grammatical errors, wrong style, etc. Regards. — Switisweti 23:20, 12 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

It's very interesting as I go through it. I assume you translated it yourself? Great! I try to think how hard it would be to translate something into my second language, especially with so many cultural notes. It's a real accomplishment.
I changed just a little bit about the introduction. I suggest you expand the introduction and move some of the explanatory notes there. Give readers more of a sense of why it expresses Dutch-ness. Also add citations. Link to the musicians' website. Quote a Dutch newspaper columnist on the significance of the song. Give more precise figures for the song's release date and performance on the sales charts.
Once you've finished that, look for categories and pages to link back to it.
Durova 00:05, 13 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I just finished the Wikification process. Had to deal with a lot of redirects that I wanted to fix. Have repaired your edit too that got lost during my edit sessions. Thanks. Will contemplate on your suggestions. Go sleepy sleepy now. Bye. — Switisweti 01:35, 13 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Done. I'm considering to add small pictures, but I guess that will break up the text to much. I'm trying several options. Nothing conclusive yet. — Switisweti 14:54, 13 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Could you insert line breaks between the paragraphs? I'm thinking of what would make it easier to read. Durova 15:09, 13 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I'm thinking of a different background colour for the original lyrics, but I'm not sure how to accomplish that. For the moment I'm adding images to the text. What do you think of these? A lot of work still to do... — Switisweti 23:22, 13 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I've been spending some time on Articles for Deletion lately and I'd like to be sure there's no room for challenge. The relevance to Dutch culture looks very notable. The article might be vulnerable to a deletion nomination in terms of original research, copyright issues, or the notability of the song. This is why I suggest citing Dutch experts on the significance. Check about the copyright? Durova 03:24, 14 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not really worried about deletion. First of all: the relevancy to Dutch culture and society is clear. There's also relevancy to hip hop culture. Secondly: copyright issue is not a problem, cause I stated the source of the text very clear (and there is no copyright there) and the lyrics are published and copied everywhere on Dutch web sites. The lyrics are therefore in the public domain. I intend to write to the management of Lange Frans & Baas B to make completely sure they don't object (but they actually can't). Thirdly: there's no case of "original research" as I didn't do any. I made a translation (that's not research) and I don't refer to any unknown or unpublished documents. And I clearly refer to the external links (only in Durch unfortunately - I seem to be the first to write about the song in English) and one of them (the one from "Subjectivisten") clearly mentions the succes and appreciation of the Dutch folks. There's also something like "common knowledge". There's nothing new in the article. And I don't think all articles in Wikipedia should always be full "scholarly" sources. There's room for "common knowledge" too. But if it should be nominated for deletion anyway: so be it. — Switisweti 11:41, 14 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you very much for being the first to translate this into English. Durova 15:07, 14 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

List of Jewish Bankers Vandalism, and other trivia

According to IRC, the Wiki servers went down and were down for a while. The culprit that was munching the CPU cycles was a script called "tidy", which apparently automatically closes any non-closed HTML tags that need closing.

I'm guessing that the "vandalism" tag you saw was an artifact of that -- a tag that would have been automatically closed with the "tidy" script that isn't closed without it.

Figured you'd prolly wanna know. → Ξxtreme Unction {yakłblah} 22:36, 14 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The Great Scandal

Salut Durova-I address you on the Deletion-vote-talk-page . Thankyou . All I suggest immediately is expansion-I wrote that just looking at its blank space .A look at the links would enable anyone to repair, complete, expand and wikify and NPOV etc etc as you know . 09:19, 15 November 2005 (UTC)

WP:SCH

You know what? I agree. I really do. It's hopeless to try and cover every single school on the planet on Wikipedia.

Conversely, attempting to delete a school stub a hopeless fight. As long as things are kept tidy (no more useless fights over two-line not-even-a-stubs), let's put this one to rest. If a ceasefire can be declared on AFD, then people can go back to working on the encyclopedia, and stop wasting effort to plump up totally useless articles instead of merging them with articles that actually offer useful content to the unlikely searcher who goes looking for one of these articles of negligable value.

All that said, if you can make a less inclusive proposal and form a consensus to support it, I'd love to see it. I don't much like this compromise and I don't like the precedent, but I don't really see any alternative. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 00:17, 17 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Jewish lists

Hi, Jewish people are a diaspora and ethnicity just like African Americans. If you do not think that African American lists should be deleted then please change your vote on these lists. Arniep 18:25, 17 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Meanwhile, somewhere else on Wikipedia...

Hi Durova! Still busy deleting articles? It's a job that needs to be done. Meanwhile I just finished my new entry. Tomorrow I'll try to find appropriate links to it. — Switisweti 01:51, 19 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Sad mr. Ballard

Did you look at the family tree of mr. Ballard he offered at Joan Talk? It's not very satisfying, is it? I noticed a little sad detail: he named his third child "Sage d'Arc". Now I understand why he's so keen on proving the "old" name of Joan of Arc is indeed "d'Arc": Otherwise he misspelled his child's name. So sad to mix sience with personal feelings, just like mr. Williamson did. — Switisweti 01:13, 20 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • He's never going to get it, is he? From the looks of things this discussion is a bottomless pit. He's not keen on proving anything at all. He's keen on his fantasy.
  • He'll probably squander his slim chance to actually verify the thing by clamoring for it to be taken at face value. And to think that at first I gathered it might be some heirloom created in the seventeenth century! The matter is closed as far as I'm concerned. I've seen the record now and it's a colossal sham. Maybe accurate for 1800-2000, otherwise fanciful fiction. We've wasted far too much time on this nonsense. Durova 06:33, 20 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Something comes to mind from our discussion with Mr. B. Hadn't thought of this in years: there was an old tradition in my family that part of the English branch was descended from the duke of Buckingham. It took about fifteen minutes in a university library to locate a copy of the British Peerage and verify the ducal line died off 150 years before the supposed younger son eloped with his sweetheart to America. Checked all sons of the old dukes to be sure. My grandfather smiled to know. He'd always suspected the tale was fiction. It's probably better that it wasn't true. I'm sure I would have irritated my friends with it. I was pretty young at the time. Durova 09:25, 20 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

It appears your intention was to ruin a reputation, mine. That is obviously why we were are not able to communicate. You don't show like you want to take the time to communicate. Instead, you have jumped to conclusions, prejudged, and casted shame from your own words. That is the trait of a psychopathic bully. The message above is like a goose that goes off after it thinks it has won a brawl, and it is the same as a bully. You've shown disrespect. Even to try to mock my daughters name, and she has done nothing to harm you. Rather you agree with how the name is spelled or not for her, don't you think she'll still like it? What if she sees this message. You have created this saddness you try to cast out upon her. That is so shameful of both of you. Nevertheless, you expect you are virtuous wikipedian? This proves elsewise. ---- Mr. Ballard 16:46, 20 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Durova&oldid=28838305"