User talk:Durova

Welcome to my talk page. Please sign and date your entries by inserting ~~~~ at the end. I'll reply here if you post here.
Start a new talk topic.

This user is backlogged and requires the attention of experienced editors who can create more hours in a day.
Please remove this notice when the backlog is cleared.

Interested in potentially featurable images? Help improve existing material from the Wikipedia/Commons archives at User:Durova/Landmark images. Durova^Charge! 18:53, 20 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Israeli-Palestinian conflict disclaimer Yes, I'm a member of Wikipedia:WikiProject Israel Palestine Collaboration and mentor to Jaakobou. That doesn't mean I'm an expert in the content dispute. Roughly I've got as much knowledge of those issues as a well-informed Jerusalem resident would have of U.S.-Mexico border relations. Well-informed by Jerusalem standards isn't the same thing as knowing this week's border crossing waits along la frontera, and vice versa. Durova^Charge! 18:59, 28 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

New articles waiting to be made newly posted to my blog.

My edit count, fun but meaningless. I've probably racked up more edits sorting popular song stubs than contributing featured pictures. Durova^Charge! 02:15, 29 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Archived talk 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 65

Ohai

You're ready to be an admin. Anyone watching this page, please agree now. Synergy 21:48, 5 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Don't make me template you.... ;p Synergy 21:51, 5 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

User:Synergy/Durova. Synergy 22:17, 5 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Durova never wasn't ready. She made a mistake. Actually a mistake far less serious than mistakes routinely made by many administrators. often with no consequence at all. She resigned rather than allow disruption to be created, something which should be far more common (with, then, less disruptive process to request that she return). My guess is that most of what she wants to do, she does not need an admin bit. Obviously, I would fully support any RfA for her, but my opinion is that she never did deserve removal of the bit, that the community lost by its loss, and, while the bit was removed "under a cloud" and thus not restorable except by ArbComm action upon her request (I'd assume) or by a new RfA, I would not recommend that she apply. If someone else wants to make the request on her behalf, she would then decide whether or not to accept this and allow the discussion to continue, but I'd also recommend to her that she not participate on the RfAr page, beyond minimal response to questions, if even that. (I.e., "want to ask me a question, ask me on my Talk.") She should not have to go through any disruptive or difficult process to get her bit back, if she even would accept it. --Abd (talk) 17:56, 6 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

John Paul Jones

Can you upload a PNG of your version of this? I think I might like to work on the uncropped, if you have one saved at that point - no reason not to provide two options, and it's not a significant amount of extra work. I think your choice is an excellent choice for on Wikipedia, but if I'm going to put a lot of time into it, may as well throw in a version that might be prefered in other contexts.

Wish this wasn't black and white, though. For this kind of engraving, colour does make the finer lines look a bit better. Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 16:13, 6 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

We do have a .png of it. Sec while I get the link. Durova^Charge! 16:19, 6 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

File:John_Paul_Jones2.png Durova^Charge! 16:21, 6 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

ScienceApologist needs a little guidance, perhaps.

SA seems to be creating disruption deliberately. Please see my comment at Jehochman talk, which is not an invitation to you to respond there! That comment refers to two AE reports that show cooperation between SA and Hipocrite; SA makes a spelling correction to an article covered by the topic ban, Hipocrite -- who considers the ban ridiculous -- reverts it and reports it formally to AE. On Jehochman Talk, I suggest a solution that respects both the WP:IAR stated intention of SA and the needs of Arbitration enforcement. That is, if SA makes a trivial correction to an article, not controversial, he should immediately revert himself, thus leaving behind no net edit, but calling attention to the spelling error, and making it a matter of seconds for anyone else, usually, to fix it, just revert his self-reversion. This is much more efficient than proposing an edit on Talk. And if he once in a while fails to revert himself, nobody is going to block him over a spelling correction; the problem is that if he's making many such corrections, AE becomes much more complicated and this toe over the line could creep. If he reverts himself, no problem at all, no disruption, unless the edits become truly controversial, in which case ordinary AE can deal with it as disruptive.

Note that if SA were blocked, he'd not be able to make these spelling corrections except perhaps as IP. Spelling corrections don't carry a signature of the editor, and even when blocked editors are ID'd as socks, sometimes all their contributions are more or less automatically reverted, including spelling corrections. I have, on occasion, tracked these edits and reverted the block-reversions. Anyone who wants to help both the project and SA could, then, just watch his contributions, taking very little time. But if that was used to circumvent the ban, (i.e., SA makes controversial edit, reverts self, and then supporting editor shows up and without discussion and consensus in Talk, reverts it back in) it would be meat puppetry and itself sanctionable.

I'm hoping that your advice to SA will be more effective than if I were the one to make the suggestion to him. --Abd (talk) 17:48, 6 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Obviously, ScienceApologist and I have discussed this sort of thing. Probably with equal obviousness, those conversations usually happen after he edits rather than before. My message to him has been clear:

The best thing he can do right now is raise an uncontroversial science article to FA.
Testing the limits of his topic ban makes it very unlikely that the ban would be lifted early, and could lead to stricter sanctions.
If he wants to probe the limits anyway, he must accept the consequences.

ScienceApologist is a highly educated adult, so the likely result of joining the negotiations for how he might be permitted to correct a spelling mistake would be to diminish my influence with him. Your good intentions are much appreciated, but it's the sort of conversation he's likely to regard as ridiculous. Durova^Charge! 18:35, 6 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Why is Abd so concerned with putting a stop to SA's correction of spelling mistakes? This seems ridiculous and lends credence to the argument that SA is being stalked and persecuted. Why not wait for a substantive violation rather than muck about with nonsense? ChildofMidnight (talk) 18:55, 6 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The point of my comment here and of my actions with regard to the spelling corrections seems to have been entirely missed by ChildofMidnight. I'm not trying to stop SA's spelling corrections, I'm trying to encourage them without serious complications to Arbitration enforcement. I did not report SA's corrections, and, in fact, I reverted one of them back in. If SA is being stalked, it's not by me, I have not (yet) looked at his contributions. Here is the concern: as it stands, SA has declared an intention to make these "harmless" or even "helpful" edits, but they are not harmless (because of AE enforcement) and there appears to be some intention to thumb his nose at ArbComm. I'm not pushing this, and, indeed am assuming good faith. If his intention is to fix spelling corrections, he now has a suggested means involving little fuss. If his intention is the fuss, he'll ignore this. Edit summaries might look like this:

(sp, will self-revert per ban)

(rv self, undo to fix sp)

Now, if someone is "stalking" SA -- i.e., reviewing his edits to determine possible ban violation, they would see the intention to self-revert with the first edit, they would see that there is no intention to violate the ban, and, usually, they could themselves rv SA, thus cooperating with him to improve the project. We need more of that. --Abd (talk) 12:37, 7 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Would prefer to steer SA in uncontroversial and productive directions, rather than wait for him to make a substantive violation. ~~Of course he's a highly educated adult and I don't keep him on a leash (even though the Committee tried to hand me a leash for him).~~ Durova^Charge! 18:58, 6 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Let's not make this too kinky. :) ChildofMidnight (talk) 19:13, 6 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Oh gosh, I didn't have that intention at all. Durova^Charge! 19:20, 6 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Durova, if it's true that "ArbComm tried to hand [you] a leash," and that you don't keep him on it, which would mean tugging a bit if he runs too far away from your guidance, then you should inform ArbComm so that they won't depend on your mentorship. The mentorship can be considered a means of avoiding banning SA entirely. Does SA have a mentor, voluntarily accepted (by the editor and the mentor)? If not, we should know. --Abd (talk) 12:42, 7 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

What makes you imagine I haven't? I am a mentor, not a parole officer, and the Committee knows perfectly well that they enacted a phantom position with no one to fill it. Part of my concern was that it was so poorly worded that uninvolved Wikipedians would be utterly befuddled afterward: that at first they would suppose I was shirking a duty, or hadn't explained myself properly, and eventually would wind up losing respect for the Committee as they discovered what had actually transpired. I did everything in my power to stop that motion but they passed it anyway, so I informed the Committee that I am prepared to resign from all mentorships in protest if they ever try this again. Durova^Charge! 15:55, 7 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

POTD notification

Hi Durova,

Just to let you know that the Featured Picture File:Arctic eclipse.jpg is due to make an appearance as Picture of the Day on March 8, 2009. If you get a chance, you can check and improve the caption at Template:POTD/2009-03-08. howcheng {chat} 18:28, 6 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you very much. :) Durova^Charge! 18:35, 6 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Early science fiction

Your Featured picture candidate has been promoted Your nomination for featured picture status, File:Aerial house3.jpg, gained a consensus of support, and has been promoted. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates. MER-C 01:08, 7 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you! :) Durova^Charge! 01:10, 7 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Closed

Durova, I've closed Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/John Paul Jones as not promoted. Feel free to relist once you have finished. I hope you understand. Thanks, Spencer^T♦^C 17:14, 7 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Not a problem at all. This is the sort of image where Shoemaker's skills shine (and it's a special circle of hell for me). He'll probably finish and we'll conominate. Durova^Charge! 17:25, 7 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, that sounds good. Spencer^T♦^C 17:29, 7 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

National Union Party presidential ticket, 1864

The nomination for that picture appears to have been transcluded twice. You might want to check WP:FPC. ErikTheBikeMan (talk) 20:18, 7 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Different parties. ;) Durova^Charge! 20:26, 7 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Addbot

Useful question/comment for considering, that the orphan tags might be driving users away, rather than bringing them in. Look at this for instance: Praxis porphyretica. The tag overwhelms the article. This was my original concern, that the tag overwhelms the article detracting from its usefulness, plus the temptation to inappropriately deorphan articles by adding spurious links that don't increase the value of the information to the reader. --KP Botany (talk) 21:29, 7 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. Durova^Charge! 21:38, 7 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Re: Permissions statement

Hello, Durova. You have new messages at Wadester16's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.