User talk:Durova/Archive 46

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

[edit] Good article candidates

Dear Durova, I made a large amount of improvements to this article as well. Maybe we can boost it up to good status as well. Best, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 03:12, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

The list of notable alumni is large enough to branch off as a separate page. GA reviewers aren't fond of long lists. Without that, it's a start-class article. Although it might be worth pursuing the list as a separate featured list candidate. It's well referenced and has a variety of images. Check into current standards (it's been a while for me) if you're interested and we'll see how this looks. Best regards, Durova^Charge! 08:22, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for the reply. A couple of other articles I have focused on are the ones for the films Cloverfield and Alexander. Maybe one of these will pan out. Best, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 01:47, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] PR's evidence

After seeing PR's insinuations to Sam Blacketer about me, and then seeing PR refer to me again in his evidence statement, I felt compelled to respond. As I wrote at the evidence talk page, I'd be glad to strikethrough if PR withdraws those insinuations. And I'd still be glad to collaborate with him in uncontroversial areas. Best regards, Durova^Charge! 00:27, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

I'm sorry, Durova, you're in a tight spot. Jaakobou defined the meaning of "mentorship", the mentors business is to make sure the mentee is squeaky clean. That means that he answers questions, you don't tell us he's denied sock-puppeting - he either confesses what he's been doing or he denies it. If the latter, I present my evidence. It's simple enough really. I'll be perfectly happy to collaborate with you in all areas - I'll not pull any stunts. PR^talk 10:04, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for that explanation. Would you modify your evidence to make it clear that I'm pursuing this in good faith? I think Jaakobou is also, but there's such a divide of perspective between the two of you that you might not agree. And by the way, the image of Palestinian cultural history just passed FPC on Commons. They haven't formally promoted it yet, but the voting period has ended and it's obviously passed. Durova^Charge! 10:11, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

(as Jaakobou's mentor Durova would tell us) - it's inappropriate to put words in my mouth. You never contacted me with any of these details and I've only just now started skimming your claims for the first time, now that you've made them available. You don't speak for me; please withdraw the attempt to. Durova^Charge! 00:13, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

PR, I see you've changed your evidence to the case. May I ask you to change your user page as well? If you'll shake cyberhands and move forward cooperatively I'd be glad to strikethrough my own evidence. Apparently you've had bad luck with previous mentorships and that's too bad. Please remember I'm a different person from them and from Jaakobou - just doing my small part to try and help make a bad situation better. Durova^Charge! 17:32, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

Several fine people have stepped forwards and offered themselves as my mentor, and the whole collaborative process could work much better than it has done. But beware, despite any slight suspicion of POV you may have about me, I'm more or less rigidly straightforward. I want to see articles reflect either the truth or, at least, what the RSes say on the subject. I'll start making waves again if I think there's been funny business. PR^talk 20:43, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

What do you think of this model: build - criticize - build? The idea is that if you see a problem with an article, first demonstrate your good faith by helping to make the article better in an uncontroversial way. Then raise your criticism. Then continue to show good faith by helping in other uncontroversial ways. That's a working proposal I've made for the Israel-Palestine collaboration project, for everybody to follow. Durova^Charge! 20:52, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

Over and over again, I've put good, non-controversial material into articles and had it thrown out. In May I did so and suffered an indef-block because my information might have come from the Holocaust Deniers (I'd neglected to explain that it came from a book in front of me). The action against me was taken by an admin and specialist on the topic, who must have known the truth of what I said (which is currently in the article). Under such circumstances, BCD leads me to show good faith and the next editor (rather often) show bad faith. I don't think the ArbCom has come to grips with this problem. PR^talk 09:29, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Free images lists

The Panama Canal being built, 1913. This qualifies for uploading to Wikipedia as pre-1923 public domain in the U.S., but I haven't uploaded to Commons yet because Panamanian law may have a claim on it also. Does Panama make a retroactive claim to the Canal Zone for copyright purposes now that the lease has expired? I really don't know. So I've actually attempted a translation of some passages of Panamanian copyright law, since commons:Commons:Licensing doesn't mention the country. Even though Commons already hosts some images of the Panama Canal being built, the ones I double checked listed license justification only according to U.S. law, so I won't be uploading this image there until I receive verification that my translation is correct.

See my additions here. I haven't had a chance to review them yet, but the lists don't seem that comprehensive or well-organised yet (well, the Wikipedia PD resources list is the best one and probably is fairly comprehensive), and there seems to be some overlap and failure of synchronisation between the Wikipedia and Commons lists, but it is a start. Carcharoth (talk) 13:07, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

And sometimes the best way to find new sources of images is to browse through Commons:Category:License tags, and to see what the sources are, and how many of the images have been uploaded (some, of course, are not encyclopedic). Carcharoth (talk) 13:12, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

I agree. The Commons PD categories were a big part of how my survey search for FP-worthy material topped 100,000. It was much quicker searching there: Wikimedia categories display up to 200 images at a time. I can only get 20 at a time from the Library of Congress, then there are downloading and licensing issues. I've been putting my Spanish language skills to the test trying to translate relevant passages of Cuban and Panamanian copyright law.

What would you think of initiating a copyright translation drive on Commons? I'd call that a prerequisite to countering systemic bias on historical images. Durova^Charge! 18:49, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

That's an interesting question. The LoC page (I've linked it from the image) says "No known restrictions on publication." To be honest, for 1913 pictures, if you didn't know the photographer, that would tend to be enough. I tend to go by the rule of thumb that if no-one now knows the provenance of the pictures (photographer or initial publication), it is unlikely we will ever find out and it is unlikely that anyone living or dead cares any more. Things are more complicated here because the name of the photographer has survived [Thos. (Thomas) Marine], and a copyright date (1913) - though who wrote that is unclear. At the bottom it says "Gift; Mr. Harold L. Jenkins; 1976". Did Mr Jenkins write "Copyright Thos. Marine, 1913, Panama City" on the picture? The story there is probably that the photo somehow made its way into the collection of Mr Jenkins, and he then donated his collection to the Library of Congress. But to get back to the Panama question, I know nothing about whether Panama would be able to restrospectively apply copyright laws to photos taken in 1913. One thing to remember is that (I think) these laws apply to initial publication. If the photo has never been published in the USA, the US PD-laws may not apply. Something else applies - I'm sure you know the thing I'm talking about (don't have a link handy at the moment). But finding out when this photo was first published and where could be difficult, if not impossible. Why not ask at WT:NFCC. Some of the people there seem to know a bit about copyright stuff. Good luck with the translation drive - I'll have to just watch and encourage from the sidelines - I know nest to nothing about languages other than English. Carcharoth (talk) 20:55, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

I've posted a query to the Commons and Foundation e-mail lists. Maybe we'll get responses. More generally, these kinds of gaps are a serious obstacle to overcoming systemic bias. Durova^Charge! 21:08, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

Oh, and if you weren't aware (I wasn't), most images at the LoC collections do have hi-res versions, even if clicking on the picture doesn't do anything. Have a look at Commons:User talk:Carcharoth (Commons) for more details. Carcharoth (talk) 21:16, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

Pfft. You shouldn't have told me about the Commons mailing list! Now I have wikien-l, Wikback and commons-l to keep track of and eventually join... :-) Carcharoth (talk) 21:20, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

Actually I'm all too aware of the hi-res versions at LoC. Some of the files I've downsampled and imported to Commons were 150-200 megs when they landed on my computer. Durova^Charge! 21:38, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Wikipedia:Silence as consensus

I've responded to your comments on Silence as consensus with a question. I hope that the timeline I recall is correct. I'm also wondering if the wording at what ignore all rules means might need further elucidation. --Kim Bruning (talk) 15:02, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

Oof, I was um, somewhat dissapointed, in your reply, as you will see when you read what I have to say about it. I'm sure you're acting in good faith, but perhaps we should use some real time communications system (like irc or skype) to do a bit more postmortem. That would be a good idea indeed, I think. --Kim Bruning (talk) 20:51, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

Kim, I have never used IRC. Contrary to the rumors, I've always shunned communications methods that had overtones of cabalism. The cyberstalking list was an exception I made because I actually dealt with very serious problems and my previous response, which had been to be fully forthcoming on Wikipedia, had worsened the problem. It takes about five minutes on Google to spot the tip of that iceberg. I didn't enable e-mail until my RFA when another editor demanded it. My e-mail is still enabled and you're welcome to use it. Durova^Charge! 21:06, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

I would like to use a real-time system. Do you have any of irc, skype, or msn or aim? My preference is skype or phone , especially if you are not accustomed to text chat. --Kim Bruning (talk) 21:42, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

I have just sent you e-mail. Real time comms systems are a poor substitute for meeting face-to-face, but it will have to do as long as humanity hasn't invented macro-size teleporters yet. --Kim Bruning (talk) 21:46, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

I have temporarily removed the section of our conversation until we have had time to talk using a real time comms system. I reserve the right to place the text back, if necessary. --Kim Bruning (talk) 21:51, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] I have an admin competancy problem with User:VirtualSteve

Now I know it is my opinion and I WP:AGF but I feel the admin is too in the hurry to perform his admin duties. This is the second time it happned and the admin himself stated, "Sorry for the delay in responding Igor _ I have been busy at my real life working." User_talk:Igorberger#Andy_Beard_AfD Once with Social_Network_Aggregation related duplicate page and now with closing Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Andy_Beard and deleting Andy Beard. Now it is not about the article but what was the hurry to delete it and not give it the full 5 days? Please advise, Igor Berger (talk) 07:39, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Edit credits

Hi Durova,

I noticed you added an ‘Edited by Durova’ to some recent historical FP images on the Wikipedia:Featured pictures/History page. What some people do is add an 'Edited by...' to the Author section on the image description; see here for example. Without that it's not necessarily obvious it's been edited, especially when there's no note on the description page about what's been done or whatever. Often it's not mentioned during the FPC nom either. If I’m closing them and see that note I’ll put in the “Edited by” with the FP credit (and give you a credit on your talkpage as well, as for the Carpenter). I can’t speak for other closers though! --jjron (talk) 12:14, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. It just didn't make sense to randomly get credit for some restoration jobs but not others. I hope that wasn't out of line. I save all of my restorations under a new filename, and I'm careful to note what types of changes I've made (although I might not have been so detailed when I first started). Best regards, Durova^Charge! 15:55, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Jed

Doesnt this comment of yours about banned user Jed here belong below the bullet for Jed and not as a separate bullet?

Tennessee Jed 4415 has been blocked indefinitely for attempting to post private and possibly hacked personal information about Matt Sanchez

Since its related to his vote only, not the rest of the page. What do you think. --Matt57 ^{(talk•contribs)} 19:17, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

That's a fair point. You're welcome to move that post as you deem appropriate. Thanks for bringing that to my attention. Durova^Charge! 19:19, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

Ok thanks, moved it now. --Matt57 ^{(talk•contribs)} 19:23, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Palestinian costumes

Hi Durova. I noticed that you placed Palestinian costumes as a suggested article for collaboration for the new Wikipedia:WikiProject Israel Palestine Collaboration. I'm wondering how appropriate this is, considering that it is not an article related to the conflict, but rather a cultural article fundamentally related to Palestinians, and not Israelis. I don't really want to see the issue get needlessly politicized, especially with a GA review underway. Would you mind retracting the suggestion? Thanks. Tiamut^talk 20:20, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

Well, it wasn't my suggestion. Durova^Charge! 20:29, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

Did I muck this up? Durova suggested the collaboration idea back at the Talk:Rfar only, (well before the WikiProject was started). I added it to the WikiProject and am open to retracting it. But maybe we could discuss this in the context of Durova's basic idea of us working on low-tension articles, a thread here? Would it be plausible if the next collaboration moved to a low-tension article that's more Israel-related, e.g. Israeli culture? Thanks. HG | Talk 20:47, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

I'll take it up with you both there, if you don't mind. (If I sound stern, I don't mean to.:)Tiamut^talk 00:30, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Rachel Corrie

What do you make of this edit and this justification? (You may need to go to the previous edit to check what "improvements" I claim to be making). It seems to me that the NPOV version of the article is being undermined on POV grounds by legalese intended to mislead me, and mislead the reader of the article. Actual or potential racism has been incited by the wording and the time scale of another legal action has been pointlessly removed, thus tending to mislead the reader. (There are huge other POV problems, see this revert but let's just examine the legal parts above). PR^talk 09:57, 19 January 2008 (UTC) PS - I've responded to you above on Build - Criticise - Build, you may not spot it. I've also mentioned your name here but I'm not asking you to involve yourself immediately. PR^talk 11:07, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

PS - I fear that, however much you want to distance yourself, you will also become involved in the cordial exchange of opinion here. PR^talk

Hi, what did your mentors make of it? Durova^Charge! 18:00, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

I have a situation where, if my mentors show collegiality in the smallest way, they are liable to personal attack for so doing. That's why I came to you to ask for advice. The last entry concerns your mentee, over a concern that he is behaving exactly the same way now as he was before the ArbCom that has just closed. PR^talk 00:01, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

Well, I don't pretend to know the content issues as well as the disputants. My mentorship is about conduct, dispute resolution, and site standards. Some of the editors from the Israel-Palestine collaboration project know these matters in more depth: how about asking the project for help? Durova^Charge! 00:28, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

I'm glad you told us that your mentorship was about conduct - what about cases where he appears to have edit-warred 8 editors into silence over an entry everyone else considers UNDUE? 4 editors consider BLP? And careful examination might suggest were FRINGE - or indeed, simple falsehoods? PR^talk 17:51, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Information source

Durova, I made an interesting contact recently and he has a lot of interesting information about world events.

Please take a look http://www.mybloglog.com/buzz/members/EuroYank/

There are a few blogs with videos and other stuff. Regards, 02:42, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

Blogs may be entertaining, but they're seldom acceptable for citations at Wikipedia. Durova^Charge! 02:51, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Image

Hello Durova. Thanks for you support on one of my images. Also, I do believe the halo's were added deliberately, to show a better conception of the Black Hole. - Ohmpandya ^{We need to talk... ♦ contribs} 04:11, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

Regarding your vote from Cape St. Vincent image, that is not an image of earth, it's actually an image of Mars. - Ohmpandya ^{We need to talk... ♦ contribs} 17:49, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

Show me? Durova^Charge! 19:41, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Dead trees criteria for BLP

What are your thoughts on having the Dead trees criteria for all BLP articles regardless of whether the subject wants them deleted or not? It seems to me that these articles are really more trouble that they are worth. Pocopocopocopoco (talk) 06:03, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

See what other people think. Durova^Charge! 06:11, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Sorry to ask, but...

Once before, not too long ago, you sanctioned a misbehaving editor who threatened legal action against me for removing their edits. We now have a different but similar case, with a legal threat posted to my personal talk page (see this diff: [1]). All I had done was politely pointed out to them that original research was prohibited, and that constantly reverting the removal of their edits was violating 3RR rules - which provoked this amazingly hostile and belligerent response. They do say that I should go ahead and contact an admin, and I'm doing so now (since I know and trust you to do the right thing), to request if you would please have a nice chat with this individual. Obviously anything else I say is only going to agitate them more. Thanks, Dyanega (talk) 22:39, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

Well, I'm not an administrator these days so I can't intervene directly. I've reviewed the post and I agree this is an explicit legal threat. So I've posted to WP:ANI. Best wishes, and try to remain calm and collected. Durova^Charge! 22:45, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Felbrigge Psalter

I was worried about the length, as DYK now requires 2,000 characters, but the long quotation from Davenport, which is out of copyright, gets it there! Xn4 01:09, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

Ah, thank you for the heads up. I'll update my DYK page. There's a second article I'm planning to start about an embroidered book done by Elizabeth I as a child. Durova^Charge! 01:11, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

Nice work, you two. - PKM (talk) 02:45, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, time to get to work on the Elizabeth embroidery. :) Durova^Charge! 02:46, 21 January 2008 (UTC)