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) reply

Thank you. :) Durova ^Charge! 05:21, 8 March 2008 (UTC) reply

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) reply

never mind, evidently he left an e-mail, so I will contact him there if I have questions about future edits. Coffeepusher ( talk) 23:22, 8 March 2008 (UTC) reply

OK and thanks. Not sure what to do here. Durova ^Charge! 23:25, 8 March 2008 (UTC) reply

ok, what situation are you refuring to?...what are you not shure what to do about? Coffeepusher ( talk) 23:28, 8 March 2008 (UTC) reply

Well, he's pegged me as an opponent. A couple of days ago I found myself reverting an invitation to join a featured list drive when he asked me to stop posting to his user talk. Can't reach him. Wish I could. Durova ^Charge! 23:31, 8 March 2008 (UTC) reply

Wow! well I read all that on his page...initialy I ignored it because it is quite lengthy. He even mentioned me! Ok, it was brief, however I do like seeing my name in print. What I can say is in my experience he has a set style (we all do, if I had any sock pupet accounts they would easily be taged for mispellings) usualy he attacks what I will call the "wiki charicter" of his opponents which will suck them into a socratic defence dialectic where he gets to controll the direction of the conversation. This would work best in person but electronicly it has less success for reasons I don't care to get into. "new admin" falls right within this style. Our first confrontation had him calling me ignorant in an off handed way by quoting the no revert rule, and asking me to consider it. However when I made it clear that I was willing to work with him on the talk page it calmed things down. since then we have had many disagreements, however it hasn't blown up into anything big. unless you have experienced any additional harrasment, I would say that he has calmed down from the blocking (I have seen him throw that tantrum before about Cirt, and I think you where just an afterthought). Does this help? Coffeepusher ( talk) 00:09, 9 March 2008 (UTC) reply

(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) reply

if you check my talk page archives, you already know that I cut my wiki teeth on the Alcoholics Anonymous article...so I understand (it is by far one of the most contriversial talk page in history that I have seen). I will give this a think, because you are adressing some problems that I have experienced as well, and I want to come back with a well thought out answer. thank you for contacting me Coffeepusher ( talk) 00:26, 9 March 2008 (UTC) reply

Heh...I cut my teeth on Joan of Arc. And as incredible as it may seem for a woman who'd been dead for 600 years, the page was being owned by two trolls. Took me half a year to raise it to featured. A lot of my work since then has been built around the idea that I didn't want other volunteers to go through the same problems I endured. Tough stuff, and guaranteed to make me unpopular in some quarters. But I follow my heart and my conscience. Best regards, Durova ^Charge! 00:33, 9 March 2008 (UTC) reply

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) reply

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) reply

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) reply

It's best if he contacts OTRS himself, or else alters his website to indicate the new license. And a Commons upload would gain wider attention than an en:Wiki upload. Follow up if you need more details. Durova ^Charge! 23:59, 8 March 2008 (UTC) reply

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) reply

My apologies; I did not realize there was an official page for nominations. I have filed my information in the appropriate location. Skudrafan1 ( talk) 18:43, 9 March 2008 (UTC) reply

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) reply

Um, I do a lot of work with pictures. I'm kind of glad people pay attention to them. Hope things go better for you. Durova ^Charge! 13:53, 10 March 2008 (UTC) reply

Oh, I love your pictures, they are very communicative. I hope things go better for Wikipedia. Igor Berger ( talk) 22:58, 10 March 2008 (UTC) reply

is 312 kilobytes long. That is all. — Random832 14:16, 10 March 2008 (UTC) reply

You're right. Thanks for needling me. I'll handle that soon. Durova ^Charge! 23:00, 10 March 2008 (UTC) reply

Heh, my talk page needs archiving too. :) Acalamari 23:05, 10 March 2008 (UTC) reply

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) reply

Excellent question. I was unable to look up the answer due to a 404 error, so I've posted a query to commons:Commons:Village_pump#New_Zealand_copyright_law. This would be an acceptable upload if the copyright expired or if New Zealand law had a clause called freedom of panorama. For countries that recognize freedom of panorama, photographs of outdoor public art are acceptable uploads even if the art itself is under copyright. Commons hosts several other photographs of public statues in New Zealand, so I wouldn't be surprised if freedom of panorama applies. Checking to make sure. Durova ^Charge! 22:19, 10 March 2008 (UTC) reply

Thanks for handling that, Durova. I know enough to know I don't photograph semi-modern statues in the US if I want to sell the picture, but beyond that... I'm clueless. Thanks again! Ealdgyth | Talk 02:01, 13 March 2008 (UTC) reply

Sure, anytime. We got a volunteer updating New Zealand copyright law for the Commons listings because of your excellent question. :) Durova ^Charge! 02:03, 13 March 2008 (UTC) reply

Thank you Durova for reverting the vandalism to my usertalk page! :D -- Chetblong ^{T C} 23:44, 10 March 2008 (UTC) reply

You're welcome. :) Durova ^Charge! 23:46, 10 March 2008 (UTC) reply

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) reply

Thank you. See photochrom. Durova ^Charge! 01:02, 11 March 2008 (UTC) reply

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) reply

Sure. Durova ^Charge! 01:44, 11 March 2008 (UTC) reply

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) reply

According to Wikipedia:Copyright, Wikipedia may be at risk for a lawsuit for contributory copyright infringement under the Intellectual Reserve v. Utah Lighthouse Ministry precedent. Durova ^Charge! 05:04, 11 March 2008 (UTC) reply

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) reply

Thank you. :) Durova ^Charge! 16:08, 11 March 2008 (UTC) reply

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) reply

They might be courtesy blanked, but it's highly unlikely the case would be deleted. If that did happen then in all probability it would be undeleted temporarily for the purposes of the discussion. Durova ^Charge! 04:37, 12 March 2008 (UTC) reply

• another question....now that that discussion has started....what you think will be the final upshot? -- Rocksanddirt ( talk) 21:03, 12 March 2008 (UTC) reply
  • No idea. But I really hope David Gerard backs away from his preemptive vow to undo any block. I have enormous respect for him. For a long time I've been saying the community banning clause of the banning policy is obsolete: it was written three years ago when this site had just a few hundred administrators and half a million registered accounts. The wording generates an unresolved tension about what is or isn't a wheel war. The best possible outcome of the current situation would be if the banning policy gets updated in a rational way so we don't see the same brinksmanship in the future. Durova ^Charge! 21:20, 12 March 2008 (UTC) reply

I agree that the policies and definitions we have are not right for the size of the project. I'm really frustrated with the good faith, but misguided protection of mm. Hope the textiles treat you better. -- Rocksanddirt ( talk) 02:34, 13 March 2008 (UTC) reply

Probably an orderly and articulate discussion is the best way to handle this. Conduct yourself with dignity and ask others to do the same. Part of why Mantanmoreland remained in good standing for so long is that he's an expert at frustrating one set of people until they act out from frustration, while telling another set of people look how nuts those guys are. Just remaining calm and rational is the best solution to that. Durova ^Charge! 02:52, 13 March 2008 (UTC) reply

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) reply

Articles, Igor, stick to articles. Use user talk pages to talk about articles, not Wikipedia-space, please! El_C 14:05, 12 March 2008 (UTC) reply

Good Lord! You are right. William Morris is not up to scratch at all! Carcharoth ( talk) 23:21, 12 March 2008 (UTC) reply

We need 7 more B-class biographies to complete the featured portal drive. I'm working on Emil Rieve this afternoon. If you could help bring William Morris up to snuff it would really help. Durova ^Charge! 23:28, 12 March 2008 (UTC) reply

Where is the featured portal drive? Carcharoth ( talk) 23:34, 12 March 2008 (UTC) reply

Portal talk:Textile Arts. Cirt ( talk) 23:36, 12 March 2008 (UTC) reply

MMmmMMMMm, the waterfront. Gorgeous city, ain't it? Durova ^Charge! 02:42, 13 March 2008 (UTC) reply

Looks lovely. :) Great image of the place. Acalamari 15:23, 13 March 2008 (UTC) reply

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) reply

Tough nut to crack. This has layers to it. I'll probably sleep on this one. Durova ^Charge! 06:36, 13 March 2008 (UTC) reply

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) reply

• Also my thanks ( as the alternative party!).-- Alborz Fallah ( talk) 09:43, 13 March 2008 (UTC) reply

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) reply

Thank you. :) Durova ^Charge! 06:36, 13 March 2008 (UTC) reply

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) reply

Thanks. Durova ^Charge! 06:36, 13 March 2008 (UTC) reply

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) reply

[4] Lawrence § t/ e 18:00, 13 March 2008 (UTC) reply

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:

(A) To edit on these from only a single user account, which shall be the user's sole or main account;

(B) To edit only through a conventional ISP and not through any form of proxy configuration;

(C) To edit in accordance with all Wikipedia policies and to refrain from any form of advocacy concerning any external controversy, dispute, allegation, or proceeding; and

(D) To disclose on the relevant talk pages any circumstances (but not including personal identifying information) that constitute or may reasonably be perceived as constituting a conflict of interest with respect to that page.

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.

For the committee, — Rlevse • Talk • 21:45, 13 March 2008 (UTC) reply

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) reply

Thank you very much. Ping me if you're tempted. Maybe we'll conominate. :) Durova ^Charge! 00:23, 14 March 2008 (UTC) reply

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) reply

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) reply

Even at its best, arbitration is about as much fun as a root canal. The first case you saw was a highly unusual one. Keep your chin up. I let myself get distracted today (arbitration has a way of being distracting), but now it's back to the Eli Whitney biography for the textile arts featured portal drive. 4 biographies down, 6 to go...feel like joining? Durova ^Charge! 08:02, 14 March 2008 (UTC) reply

Yeah, thanks, good suggestion. I will get back to working on articles now, but as a minor editor, all I mainly do is spelling and grammar. You may have noticed at talk:NewbyG I asked a numbereduser to supply a translation of a Latin verse. I received a prompt, courteous and learned reply. Sch co-operativeness seems an impossibility for a number of more high-powered users who are just too big for their boots. Wikipedia relies on input from many, many relatively "lowly" contributors; it is such a pity that the "big nobs" appear more likely to do damage to Wikipedia than to aid it. Power corrupts, and powerlessness corrupts absolutely, it seems. <reluctant smiley> -- Newbyguesses - Talk 21:16, 14 March 2008 (UTC) reply

Wikipedia is useful, and every year more useful. The processes that create and maintain it are as flawed as the humans involved. Ever gone a whole day without making a mistake or acting out of self interest? WAS 4.250 ( talk) 11:06, 14 March 2008 (UTC) reply

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) reply

You're right. I intended to wait a little bit because some of the nomination processes take a little while. One month is about right. Durova ^Charge! 18:18, 14 March 2008 (UTC) reply

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) reply

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) reply

Thank you. :) Durova ^Charge! 18:20, 14 March 2008 (UTC) reply

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) reply

Thank you for filling me in; please excuse my unfamiliarity with Israeli slang. It seems to be an unfortunate coincidence. I can affirm the history of that particular photograph: some weeks ago I first showed it to him myself as an image I had worked on but wasn't happy with the result. He went back to the original and did brilliant work with material that was technically very difficult to manage. At the time when he created that userbox it was his only featured picture. A second one got promoted overnight (we conominated). I hope no offense could be construed if he replaced that landscape with a Tibetan thangka? Durova ^Charge! 00:14, 15 March 2008 (UTC) reply

You are doing your mentor a dis-service by assuming bad faith on the part of admins who deal with these conflicts on a daily basis, while taking his side despite being uninformed about the situation. Obviously, the problem was the mimicking of the format. In answer to your earlier questions: on the Israel talk page, I advanced the point that liberal democracy being genuinely democratic is a point of view, for all countries (I just happened to write that bit of the lead –as I have written the leads of tens of country articles– which the ip felt was too pro-Israel, though soon after retracted). With respect to the link (to the revision history? not much for specifics, I gather) of the Neighborhoods of the Ring, Jerusalem, I translated that article from the Hebrew Wikipedia's שכונות הטבעת, in part, to centralize the debate (and edit war) in the five neighborhoods of the ring (see WP:AE#Jewish Neighborhoods versus Israeli Settlements of Jerusalem and Wikipedia:Centralized discussion/Jewish Neighborhoods versus Settlements of Jerusalem which I created for less fragmented discourse). Any other questions? El_C 02:06, 15 March 2008 (UTC) reply

El C, you and I are both experienced in dealing with ethnic disputes. As we have both observed, very few of the editors who follow that path as far as arbitration branch out afterward and contribute featured content. Jaakobou has. This does not earn him (or anyone) a license to be rude, of course. You and I are in agreement there. Yet it is rather surprising to see you suppose that my actions constitute either bad faith in you or partisanship in Jaakobou's disputes. My reasoned opinion is that it helps neither his progress nor the dispute to threaten him with a block and post complaints to two noticeboards after he has already extended an apology and made a fair effort to remedy the problem. Very few human beings rise to their best selves when they believe their best work will be ignored and their worst moments will not be forgiven. On numerous occasions I have urged Jaakobou to suppose the best in ambiguous situations where he feared the worst. Please join with me in urging both sides of this dispute to pursue a more forgiving and harmonious path. Durova ^Charge! 07:36, 15 March 2008 (UTC) reply

You are distorting the facts: he had restored it once ^14:23 (after it was removed by the first admin to handle the ANI notice, East718 ^13:18). Then I removed it once, ^15:20 and he restored it a second time ^15:38 (still the same mimicking format). Then I removed it one final time, ^15:44 at which point I warned him, a second time (first warning read: "Please do not restore the contentious bit again, or the consequences will be severe. Thanks." ^15:20), stating that: "Last chance. Anything up there even remotely resembling the notice it is copied from, will earn you a significant block." ^15:49 If you'd like my conduct to be reviewed by other admins, by all means. I fully stand by it.

Now on to you: it strikes me that you immediately offered to write Jaakobou's unblock request (he wasn't blocked), without even informing yourself of the fact that he was mimicking the death of people by comparing it to his upcoming exams. Then when you found out it wasn't an innocent notice, you offered no apology for disrupting my efforts to keep the peace, continued with long-winded, unhelpful notes about pictures, and so on, which had very little to do with anything. Then, you resorted to questioning my neutrality, involvement, and by extension, fairness and evenhanded, for no apparent reason, while citing some rather shoddy, poorly-linked "evidence" (sounds familiar?).

And now you're magnanimously preaching peace, harmony, and forgiveness, and at the same breath, again, underwhelming Jaakobou's intentional provocation (merely being "rude"). How could I suspect you of personal partisanship? And all this time, not a single link to this "apology" nor the "fair effort to remedy the problem" (would such an effort involve leaving the format the same, so that the mimicking effect can remain potent?). Feel free to enlighten me. I, however, am done listening to diversions about featured pictures and so on, when it's clear that Jaakobou's notice was meant to trivialize Tiamut's mourning. I'm surprised at and greatly disappointed with you. El_C 09:06, 15 March 2008 (UTC) reply

Jaakobou's apology is here, which he posted as follow-up to the amended version with the edit note rephrase user box. I trust he would have been willing to improve upon those actions, if asked. The ultimatum was not helpful; Jaakobou regarded it as punitive, and in good faith I do consider it too aggressive to threaten someone with a block over a standard format user box--particularly at the point where he has apologized and taken steps to accommodate feedback. If that's the hard line you're accustomed to taking then I wish I'd pinged you a couple of weeks ago regaring a different problem. I have no apology for showing you diffs and asking whether you had comment regarding them; editors routinely confer with each other over such matters. Now this has taken quite a bit of time that I had intended to put into a new article on Maori textiles, and I still have some following up to do with Jaakobou and Nishadini, and if you have any further concerns please bring them to me without casting aspersions. Durova ^Charge! 10:49, 15 March 2008 (UTC) reply

The warnings were necessary, and they remain in effect: mocking people's mourning is unacceptable. I have nothing further to say to you. Feel free to appeal in any way you see fit. El_C 11:26, 15 March 2008 (UTC) reply

Durova, your rather gushing comments about Jaakobou's work on restoring the photo in question and your failure to acknowledge just how offensive what he did was are surprising to me. As I wrote on his talk page, a mentor's job is not to be a personal advocate when a user has done something that is clearly wrong. He did not take the concerns of other editors who raised the issue with him seriously at all, and your comments subsequent do not contribute to his understanding of that. Rather, they can be seen as emboldening him. The caption he appended to the photo indicates he wasn't interested in showcasing the photo, but in mocking the format on my template. If he was truly proud of the photo, he would placed it at the top of his page with another caption, one that might say for example, "A photo of Piegan Indians that I am working to bring to featured status" or something of the like. I think that your mentorship of him needs to be recalled/reconsidered. I'm sorry, but this is how I feel right now. Tiamut ^talk 03:04, 15 March 2008 (UTC) reply

I also agree with El C's comments above and would add that your questioning of his/her level of involvement comes off as deflection of the issue at hand and raises further questions as to why your focus is not on Jaakobou's offense. It also comes off just a tad like intimidation of an admin willing to take your mentee to task for something you don't seem to be treating with the requisite seriousness. Tiamut ^talk 03:21, 15 March 2008 (UTC) reply

(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) reply

Hi Durova, there is a new thread at WP:AE concerning Jaakobou. Addhoc ( talk) 17:07, 17 March 2008 (UTC) reply

Hi, thanks. Jaakobou gave me the heads up as soon as I logged on. Getting up to speed on things right now. Durova ^Charge! 18:51, 17 March 2008 (UTC) reply

Dear Durova, I appreciate your comments above. However, Jaakobou is persisting in adopting an aggressive stance towards me on the basis of my identity and assumptions he has made regarding my political views, rather than focusing on the content of my edits. I am also concerned by something you wrote in the latest WP:AE thread on his editing. You wrote, "the Israeli POV is notable in a way that (for instance) the pro-perpetual-motion-machine POV is not". I would caution against writing as though there were one Israeli POV and that Jaakobou is somehow its representative. I am, for example, both Palestinian and an Israeli citizen, and I don't share in the POV Jaakobou is putting forward at all (and neither do the other 20% of Israel's population who are Arab). Additionally, we have reviewed a number of Israeli sources whose POV differed from Jaakobou's. In any case, the content dispute is another (though related) issue. More importantly I think is the level of vitriol in his soapboxing comments which have often crossed the line into racism. To be honest, I think your fondness for him as a result of the many intense off-line discussion you conduct with one another, has you whitewashing some of this behaviour. I'm not questioning you intentions (I do believe your heart is in the right place), only the results as I interpret them. With respect. Tiamut ^talk 00:00, 18 March 2008 (UTC) reply

Hm, you make a good point. Certainly there isn't just one Israeli point of view. Apologies if I painted with too broad a brush. I'd be glad to refactor if there's a better way of stating the matter (my posts on this topic the last few days have been very slow in writing, partly because these are sensitive issues and it's hard work avoiding unintentional constructions). And I'll also express a couple of things here. First, he doesn't run every post by me. I think he makes the effort where he does see a problem--if there's also a level of unexamined bias then that's harder to address. And if there are subtle contextual elements I might not catch the allusions just because I come from a different culture on the other side of the world. You are certainly welcome to come to me whenever you have concerns, either onsite or privately, and I'll give them my best attention. I might not always get it right, but you'll get my best effort, and if I make mistakes at least they'll be my own. Durova ^Charge! 02:32, 18 March 2008 (UTC) reply

Thanks for your comments. There is no need to refactor anything you stated to date. While I disagree with some of your conclusions, I appreciate the respectful way in which you present your views.

In order to provide an example of how Jaakobou's most recent comments have seriously crossed the line, I'd like to repost part of his comment here, while replacing "Islam" with "Judaism", "Palestinian" with "Israeli", "Arab" with "Western" etc, since I find that what people don't find to be offensive when said of Arabs and Muslims can be better understood when placed in terms that "Westerners" (forgive the gross generalization) better understand. So here goes:

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".

These are not the only such comments posted on the talk. While he did refactor some of it, there are comments in a similar vein throughout the discussion there. I encourage you to make mental substitution of the words when you are in doubt as to whether or not it is offensive and to also ask yourself if these are the kind of comments (which are by no means isolated cases with Jaakobou) which help in building a collaborative editing environment. Tiamut ^talk 02:51, 18 March 2008 (UTC) reply

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) reply

Someone has now fixed it, though I can't get it to display write on my WIkipedia.-- Peter cohen ( talk) 11:57, 15 March 2008 (UTC) reply

I've taken care of that. If you ever see a problem like this again, the fix is to resize the image display very slightly. Best wishes. Durova ^Charge! 12:02, 15 March 2008 (UTC) reply

Thanks.-- Peter cohen ( talk) 12:10, 15 March 2008 (UTC) reply

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) reply