Your
Featured picture candidate has been promoted Your nomination for
featured picture status,
Image:MarsPanoramaa.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 03:06, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
|
I appreciate your contacting me. I was unaware that he scrambled his pasword (and am still a little confused about the logic in such an action). Justahulk as I knew him was a rather contriversial individual (he had a reputation in the Scientology section...I am shure I do as well come to think of it), who although him and I had more conflicts than agrements, we had more in common than he realised and I just want to look out for him while he is gone. I assure you that I am just trying to keep his page from beeing vanalised. Given this new information, I am not shure what to do. What would you advise? Coffeepusher ( talk) 23:19, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
(outdent) Well this goes back nearly a year. I make no claim to expertise about Scientology, other than to say they're a newish religion with an image problem, but I do know a lot about conflict of interest issues as they relate to Wikipedia. I saw some very short-sighted activity by pro-Scientology editors that was placing them at risk for a serious PR backlash. I tried to communicate this to them in a number of different ways, and wound up taking the matter to arbitration. The case went very slowly and before it ended the WikiScanner came out...and along with it exactly the type of headlines I had feared would happen. Unfortunately, he and the other Scientologist (or pro-Scientologist) editors seem to have perceived only that I was some jerk who was telling them no. With a situation as polarized as that I can understand how that kind of trench warfare perspective sets in. I just wish I could break through it, and apparently I can't. Real world disputes that leak onto Wikipedia are very hard to address. Durova Charge! 00:16, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
You know, I had this long elegant reply, but I realized that the only one who would get something out of it was me. I will say that based on your experience, I don’t think I am going to enlighten you…however I will try and give you my interpretation of a solution. If you are trying to break through to Hulk…well all I can say is play by the rules (you do, that just happens to be my only advise). Editors who have an agenda usually at least respect rules (if not try and find many many loopholes) because if they don’t they will get booted and the agenda is lost. If he has picked you as an opponent…well based on his debate style I would say let him know that this isn’t about him or his or your agenda…its about the rules. In this tactic it restricts the conversation to a tangible ruling body of order that is accessible to all. And don’t get caught up in the defensive dialectic. This will allow them to steer the debate away from the topic at hand.
As for how to break through the trenches…I don’t think I do that too well. Using the tactic described above I have kept a fairly NPOV in my writing. I rely heavily on consensus in talk pages to keep from getting into a one on one debate (in hulks case we brought 3 discussions to talk pages and agreed not to touch the edits…come to think of it, he “won” 2 of those…nutz). These are things I learned on the AA page…after messing up a lot, and they tend to work for me.
although this is my experience, I would like to hear your response. It would give me the opportunity to become a better editor. Coffeepusher ( talk) 01:05, 11 March 2008 (UTC)
Hello,
I posted some suggestions for changes in the WMF privacy policy at the WMF site: [1]. The gist of the suggestions is to institute a requirement for notifying those registered users whose identifying info is being sought by subpoenas in third-party lawsuits. These suggestions are motivated in large part by a discussion that took place in January 2008 at the Village Pump (Policy) page [2] in relation to an incident where identifying IP data of sixteen Wikipedia users was released in response to such a subpoena. I also left a note about these proposals at Village Pump, WP:Village_pump_(policy)#Suggestions_for_changes_in_the_WMF_privacy_policy.
Since you have participated in the original January Village Pump discussion, I hope that you will contribute to the discussion of the current suggestions at the WMF website, [3]. Regards, Nsk92 ( talk) 23:50, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
Hello Durova. You seem to be doing more image work lately, so you might be able to answer this: I'd like to upload an image of a prototype PRT vehicle, and the image is actually owned by someone else. The owner has already indicated to me that he's willing to release the image into the public domain, but he doesn't edit Wikipedia, so can I upload the image myself and indicate that the owner has released it? Would that be sufficient? If this kind of thing is documented somewhere, feel free to just give me the link...
Also, I do photo enhancement/restoration as sort of a hobby, so I'd be interested in doing this on Wikipedia, if there's a need. Simple stuff like levels/color/contrast adjustment, lighting correction (linear or non-linear), sharpening, scratch/dirt removal, etc. If there's a need for this, let me know. Thanks. (BTW, hope things are well with you :-)) ATren ( talk) 23:54, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
Hi. You made a post on WT:HOCKEY a couple months ago regarding the creation of an ice hockey Triple Crown award. My name came up as a potential nominee, but it was determined that I only met the DYK portion of the award. I beefed up my efforts after that, though. :) List of Buffalo Sabres players was promoted to an FL in early February, and AMP Energy NHL Winter Classic was promoted to a GA this morning. I believe I now qualify for this award. Let me know if you need more information from me. Thanks! :) Skudrafan1 ( talk) 17:59, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
I find this really funny, that we have articles that critisize everything in this universe, but you put a controversial title or an image up, it gets deleted! Does anyone read Wikipedia or they just watch pictures? Like the saying goes, "a picture is worth a thousand words!" I hope our visitors read some of our precious articles instead of edit warring about titles and pictures! Igor Berger ( talk) 13:49, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
is 312 kilobytes long. That is all. — Random832 14:16, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
Hello. I've been advised by user Ealdgyth to ask your advice over a copyright question concerning a Commons image I wish to use. The image is a statue sculpted by Kathleen Scott in 1917 as a memorial to her husband; it stands in Christchurch, New Zealand. Kathleen Scott died in 1947. My layman's instinct tells me that a picture of a 90-year-old public monument by a sculptor dead for over 60 years shouldn't have copyight issues, but I may be wrong. The image from Commons is Scott Statue.jpg - can you throw any light on its use? I'd be most grateful. Brianboulton ( talk) 21:55, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
Thank you Durova for reverting the vandalism to my usertalk page! :D -- Chetblong T C 23:44, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
Mighty fine one! I'm surprised the early pic of the NY street was taken in colour. No mention of colourising on the info page ... Tony (talk) 00:50, 11 March 2008 (UTC)
I'm curious about your tag on the JDAM article, I didn't see that in the article at all, and I've worked on it some. If you can explain on the article talk page, I'd appreciate more detailed input there. Thanks! Georgewilliamherbert ( talk) 01:41, 11 March 2008 (UTC)
Hello. why did you removed links to YouTube and lyrics of the song from 'External links' section? -- The Watusi ( talk) 04:46, 11 March 2008 (UTC)
Your
Featured picture candidate has been promoted Your nomination for
featured picture status,
Image:SanFranciscoharbor1851c sharp.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 08:39, 11 March 2008 (UTC)
|
Durova, thanks for all your work on the Mantanmoreland case. I've been really impressed with what you and some others have been able to do.
Please tell me what you think about this: If a community ban is proposed after this RfAr is over, it's possible that debate will be very active. Would it then be useful for editors to be able to refer back to the RfAr pages, both project pages and discussion pages? And aren't those pages normally deleted after RfAs, especially RfAs that have named RL people? It seems to me it would be incredibly convenient, and probably less disruptive, if editors could refer back to those pages to bolster an argument or answer a question (or just, in general, to keep the discussion accurate). Should I not be concerned about this? I have no experience in this kind of thing, so I'm curious as to what you think. Noroton ( talk) 04:35, 12 March 2008 (UTC)
I came accross your RfC sock case comment here, and I find it difficult to believe that the two are socks, same as you do. If they are online with ten minutes edit interval I would find it very improbable that they are related. Why? Because, it would require to relogin to make the edits. Would it not be easier to have two accounts both via a different proxy server with different browser sessions logedin at the same time, IE and FF. This way they would be online all the time with 100 % correlation. Being that they come from different IP addresses and do not behave in a normal sock edit pattern - more time apart between their edits, I cannot see them being related. Login in and out every ten minutes and mastering to make edits over a long period of time, would not be humanly possible. Just my opinion! Igor Berger ( talk) 14:03, 12 March 2008 (UTC)
Good Lord! You are right. William Morris is not up to scratch at all! Carcharoth ( talk) 23:21, 12 March 2008 (UTC)
Here's San Diego for you! San Diego somehow promotes WikiLove and hopefully it has made your day better. Spread the WikiLove by giving something friendly to someone else, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend. Make your own message to spread WikiLove to others! Happy editing! Acalamari 02:07, 13 March 2008 (UTC)
Here's the problem: Image:Vincennes shot.jpg, why it's a problem is complicated by the numerous reasons. What I believe to be the primary issues are that it comes from a website which incorrectly claims the images in its galleries are licensed under {{ GFDL}} and fails to identify any of the authors. For example check out the images in this CNN article about Rachel Corrie with photos credited to the International Solidarity Movement and AP. Here we have the same pictures, credited to sajed.ir,(the site the problem image came from) Bottom CNN photo and Top CNN photo.
The reason I'm not looking for a specific admin to just nix the image and close
Wikipedia:Images and media for deletion/2008 February 29 is because there are a few good faith editors who really believe in their arguments but are misguided and don't see why they're incompatible with policies like
WP:C,
WP:NPOV, or even the difference between
WP:PUI,
WP:IFD, and an article's talk page who might:
1) Benefit from outside opinions about the rules
2) Be frustrated out of editing if an admin I asked specifically on a talk page or
WP:ANI deletes the image after so much discussion. (Albeit a lot of it irrelevant, but they don't think so.)
Any way you could help me out with this? Anynobody 04:48, 13 March 2008 (UTC)
That's understandable, I'd probably feel the same way if someone posed such a mess to me :) Thanks Anynobody 07:02, 13 March 2008 (UTC)
Your
Featured picture candidate has been promoted Your nomination for
featured picture status,
Image:Apache-killing-Iraq.ogv, 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.
Malachirality (
talk) 06:31, 13 March 2008 (UTC)
|
Your
Featured picture candidate has been promoted Your nomination for
featured picture status,
Image:SteamboatBenCampbellb.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.
Malachirality (
talk) 06:32, 13 March 2008 (UTC)
|
Hi, if you have a moment, would you mind reviewing User:Lawrence Cohen/Arbitration RFC draft? I'm just beginning to draft this, but given the recent situations I think this could be valuable to see what community mandates if any exist for changes the Arbitration Committee could be required to accept. My intention was to keep the RFC format exceptionally simple, with a very limited number of "top level" sections that were fairly precise. Please leave any feedback on User talk:Lawrence Cohen/Arbitration RFC draft. Thanks. Lawrence § t/ e 17:18, 13 March 2008 (UTC)
[4] Lawrence § t/ e 18:00, 13 March 2008 (UTC)
This arbitration case has been closed and the final decision is available at the link above. Wikipedia's role with respect to serious off-wiki or "real world" controversies and disputes is to provide encyclopedic coverage of such matters from a neutral point of view where they are notable and sufficiently documented in reliable sources. Neither Wikipedia's mainspace article content, nor its administrative and dispute-resolution procedures culminating in Arbitration, are intended or may be used as a vehicle for off-wiki disputes such as those involving the financial markets or legal or regulatory issues. Actions related to the articles involved, including naked short selling, overstock.com, Patrick M. Byrne, the (now-redirected article) Judd Bagley, and Gary Weiss, have been repeatedly disruptive and have had serious implications both on and off wiki. Any current of future editor making substantial edits to these articles is direct ed:
Any uninvolved admin may impose reasonable restrictions, after warning, upon involved articles or editors. Knowledgeable and uninvolved editors are urged to review these articles to ensure accuracy, fairness, and adherence to wiki policies. User:Mantanmoreland, under any current or future account, is banned from editing articles related to Gary Weiss, Patrick Byrne, Overstock.com, Naked Short Selling, and other mainspace articles in the area of dispute, broadly construed. He may make suggestions on talk pages, subject to the requirements of remedy 1 in the decision. User:Mantanmoreland is directed to edit Wikipedia from only a single user account and to advise the Arbitration Committee of any change of username, and to edit only through a conventional ISP and not through any form of proxy configuration.
Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/2008-03-13/Dispatches - very nice! Hope that gets more people interested in image restoration work. Carcharoth ( talk) 00:15, 14 March 2008 (UTC)
This Arbitration case is closed and the final decision has been published at the link above. PHG ( talk · contribs) is prohibited from editing articles relating to medieval or ancient history for a period of one year. He is permitted to make suggestions on talk pages, provided that he interacts with other editors in a civil fashion. PHG is reminded that in contributing to Wikipedia (including his talkpage contributions, contributions in other subject-matter areas, and contributions after the one-year editing restriction has expired), it is important that all sourced edits must fairly and accurately reflect the content of the cited work taken as a whole. PHG is also reminded that Wikipedia is a collaborative project and it is essential that all editors work towards compromise and a neutral point of view in a good-faith fashion. When one editor finds themselves at odds with most other editors on a topic, it can be disruptive to continue repeating the same argument. After suggestions have been properly considered and debated, and possible options considered, if a consensus is clear, the collegial and cooperative thing to do is to acknowledge the consensus, and move on to other debates.
PHG is encouraged to continue contributing to Wikipedia and Wikimedia projects in other ways, including by suggesting topics for articles, making well-sourced suggestions on talkpages, and continuing to contribute free-content images to Wikimedia Commons.
For the Arbitration committee, Thatcher 01:08, 14 March 2008 (UTC)
Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Mantanmoreland, closed 13 March 2008.
I am pretty dissapointed with my first Arbcom case. Not with the Arbs, and their decisions, which, though a little reticent, ended up being reasonable. Not with my own contributions, which came in for heaps of criticism, since I was doing the best I could, (and I am forced to doubt that in the case of a number of users). I was dissapointed that, despite my taking it very seriously, I was not taken seriously, and my genuine questions, submitted formally as Evidence, went unanswered (the 600Emails).
What I found most disappointing, though, was the attitude of some power-users, that they are simply above the law, and untouchable. It appears that the proper procedure, were one to wish to attain the stratospheric heights, is to simply be as high-handed (and under-handed) as possible. (I definitely do not mean User:Durova.)
The rules are: A)Never answer a direct question, no matter how many times it is asked. B)Never pay attention to any debate, or any facts or evidence, nor to any User and their concerns. C)Never post, except self-servingly. D)Always post, off-topic and at length if there is any likelihood of attention being paid to a post you would rather CENSOR. E)Just do what you like, and accuse any critics of bad-faith. F)If you upset someone, or hurt someone, just accuse them of being a SOCK and BLOCK. G)Move on, and leave the wounded to look after themselves.
No, I do not want to become like that. This Arbcom, for me, was about the double standard, and the arbitrary abuse of power. All of that is unresolved, indeed the abusers of power have won, and they seem to feel vindicated.
This has not destroyed my enthusiasm for Wikipedia, but it sure has put a big dent in it. I really thought that "good would prevail" and the power-wielders would be brought to heel. That is what needed to happen, and it sure didnt. So it goes from bad to worse, and all just very smelly water under a very rickety bridge.
I dont think this is good enough. And, once more, by reflex now, I have to apologise for any offence that my naivety, and good faith may have caused, -- Newbyguesses - Talk 07:23, 14 March 2008 (UTC)
Just curious as to when the triple crown race awards are doled out, as February 15 is long past. No need to rush, just curious. Cheers, Sephiroth BCR ( Converse) 08:21, 14 March 2008 (UTC)
I have followed some of your edits, and been fighting against a pretty large group of individuals. ~Nd9 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 198.70.209.115 ( talk) 09:00, 14 March 2008 (UTC)
Your
Featured picture candidate has been promoted Your nomination for
featured picture status,
Image:17th century Central Tibeten thanka of Guhyasamaja Akshobhyavajra, Rubin Museum of Art2.png, 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 09:11, 14 March 2008 (UTC)
|
No criticism meant whatsoever of your defense of User:Jaakobou is intended. I have had my heated tussles and wrestles with him, but the seriousness of the offensive game he played with the Palestinian woman editor seems to have escaped you. Jaakobou's use of the Indian image plays off a very long tradition in Zionist imagery and now in IDF and settler slang regarding peoples of the occupied territories. I have explained it on my own talk page here. One need not remonstrate, but one should understand why insiders, who seem to fuss, do so. They understand the grimness of the allusions. Regards Nishidani ( talk) 21:25, 14 March 2008 (UTC)
(outdent) Tiamut, you have my sincere sympathy in your mourning. If Jaakobou had made me aware of this in advance I certainly would have warned him against it, and if anyone had informed me sooner than then I certainly would have intervened immediately. I do not in any way endorse or defend his decision to post a dig at you; it was in very poor taste of course. The best solution I could recommend as his mentor was that he remove it immediately and extend apologies, and he has, and I asked him for the future to come to me first.
As I have stated here and at Nishadini's talk, the image Jaakobou posted was a historic photograph that he spent a considerable time restoring at my suggestion. He undertook that well before you posted your notice in user space, and began the nomination in late February. Please accept in good faith that his primary motivations were pride in a job well done when the work got promoted to featured status, and concern for time management around a busy university schedule.
Not many of the editors who have been through arbitration over an ethnic dispute broaden their horizons and become featured content contributors. Jaakobou has, and that's a positive in terms of overall focus and turning down the heat on the Israeli-Palestinian issues. People who attempt that transition don't always do it perfectly--I wish he were better, because this particular misstep was in especially poor taste. I hope you accept his apology. Please trust that, as in any mentoring situation, there was sufficient offsite discussion between myself and Jaakobou. This was a delicate situation I became aware of quite late in the game, and in these matters I follow my own understanding and conscience to the best of my ability. Durova Charge! 07:10, 15 March 2008 (UTC)
I find those suggestions insulting advocacy. The Western world, Judaism inspired cultural structure is the main cause of the Western-Israeli 91 year racist terror campaign against the Muslim-Israelis [sic]. The 2000 campaign was instigated, not by the common man seeking freedom from his oppressive job within the green line, but rather by an indoctrinated public looking for killing as many Muslims Palestinians [sic] as possible. If you want to mention the Israeli narratives for why "it's ok" to killing [sic] innocent pizza eating Muslims (and Westerners), you should also include that Palestinians view it exactly as what it is... as a racist campaign to clear the middle east of Muslims and their history that calls it's Western victims "martyrs for the cause".
Hi, You appear to be an admin at Commons, where someoen has repalced the above image used by Tristan und Isolde by one of a bank. Can you help?-- Peter cohen ( talk) 11:12, 15 March 2008 (UTC)
I've proposed sanctions on Mantanmoreland here ... thought I'd let you know since you've been so active in this. Blueboy 96 12:55, 15 March 2008 (UTC)