User talk:Durova/Archive 58

Wikipedia:Featured list removal candidates/List of HIV-positive people

Hi, there is a removal discussion going on about the List of HIV-positive people. Since you commented on the candidacy and List of brain tumor patients might have the same issues your input would be welcome. Garion96 (talk) 09:32, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

redirect

The Bellwether account was opened a bit after I vanished. I had vanished due to RL concerns that are no longer a problem. Thus, on the advice of an administrator I'm friendly with, I was redirecting both my talk and my userpage to the page of my formerly vanished account. Is that a problem in some way? BobTheTomato (MrWhich) (talk) 12:39, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

Followed up on BobTheTomato's talk page. Durova^Charge! 15:49, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

Imperial Napoleonic Crown

I've nom'd myself here: User:Durova/Triple_crown_winner's_circle/Nominations#Rlevse. If you have questions or need more info, let me know. I think this is a great program. SteveCrossin turned me onto it. — Rlevse • Talk • 14:19, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

Points of clarification

Can you clear these questions up for me? TomStar81 (Talk) 23:15, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

Request for opinion

Dear Durova, could you please note the request and my response at User talk:Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles#Userbox? As I said, I feel somewhat conflicted there and would appreciate your thoughts. Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 02:44, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

URGENT: article on FSC for the WP Signpost

Hi, Suddenly we're filling a gap in the weekly Signpost Dispatch section with an article on Featured Sounds, and I'll have to do it within a day. I'm contacting several people on the history page, you among them, who might be able to review the draft (I hope it will be written in about 12 hours' time). Can you suggest anyone else? Do you know anyone who's been around from the start, who might know more about the history of the page? I guess I can find it via the edit histories. TONY (talk) 04:28, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

Have you tried Zginder? He spends a lot of time there. I'm a newcomer to that area. I think Raul654 has done some featured sounds also. Durova^Charge! 07:36, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

Video clip as FP?

Hi, Durova, I've seen you nominated a video clip to be considered as FP. I wonder, if I could nominate one of my personal video clips at Wikipedia FP too. Thank you.--Mbz1 (talk) 01:40, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

Yes, it can on en:Wikipedia (although not on Commons--different rules there). I'd love to see your clip. Link, please? Durova^Charge! 07:13, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

• Thank you very much, Durova for being so kind to me! Here's the link to few videos I've uploaded.--Mbz1 (talk) 16:25, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

Might need your input and clarification

At this discussion of the place of AGF Challenge exercises and similar exercises as part of RfA here.--Filll (talk | wpc) 17:35, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

Ah, the sinkhole. I wish everybody who posted there just saved their time and did real admin coaching. How many changes ever got implemented because of that page? How many more good sysops would we have if we all mentored instead? Durova^Charge! 10:43, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

Giovanni33 ArbCom

Hi Durova, sorry to bother you if you're on a break now, but I was wondering if you might take a look at some new evidence I presented at the Giovanni33 ArbCom case (see here). You've commented there but have basically been neutral, and I know you no small experience in these sockpuppet cases. If you're too busy or just don't want to get any deeper involved in a tedious case then no worries.--Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 01:43, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

Whew, tall order. The case will probably stay open a little longer--I've got some commitments to make good on. Please poke me if I neglect this. Durova^Charge! 10:42, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

Sounds good, thanks much, like you say it will probably be open for awhile.--Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 14:19, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

I've added some new proposals to the workshop page in this case and thus append this one-and-only "poke" on this issue to your talk page. Honestly I feel a bit bad even bothering you about this again, but the whole case does seem somewhat up your alley and you're definitely a fairly objective yet informed observer when it comes to the specifics. The community-wide drama level on this case is, relatively speaking, fairly low which is mad nice. I'd be interested in your view if you have some time, and if you're too busy now then please don't think twice about it. --Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 09:54, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Administrators_noticeboard/Incidents#Mantanmoreland_and_Bassettcat

So, do you think we'll do the right thing this time? --Rocksanddirt (talk) 07:09, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

I hope so. One of the hardest things to do is to realize, after you've stuck your neck out sufficiently far, that you've done it for the wrong purpose. It's embarrassing and it's very tempting to bluster on ignoring whatever contradicts the things you've already chosen to believe as true. Easy to call other people on that--but so hard to actually call oneself and make the change. Durova^Charge! 10:41, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

Which is one reason I always try to refer to community actions as 'we'. No one is perfect, and NOT taking things personally even when they are meant that way is often very very difficult, but ultimately helpful in keeping a good outlook. Hope you have a great day. --Rocksanddirt (talk) 14:45, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

You too. And I promise the next time I'm wrong I'll own up to it again and try to set things right (can't promise to be perfect so this is the best I can do). :) Durova^Charge! 17:45, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

They think it's all over, it is now!. Thank you ever so much D, for your help support, back at the genesis of my involvement in this issue, and all throughout :) SirFozzie (talk)

Well, actually I've asked Relata Refero to hold off from logging this in the list of bans just yet. Despite the outcome being obvious here, there are some longer term considerations that make it a good idea to allow more time in the interests of fairness and precedent. It hasn't been 24 hours. Durova^Charge! 20:30, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

The speed at which that happened worries me slightly. Althought I belive its definitely the correct thing to do, there should have been more time in order to make it stick properly. Viridae^Talk 22:29, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

Good idea!

I think this idea you've raised about transcluding blocked users' talk pages to their AN/I threads in certain cases is a pretty good one, just stopping by to cheer you up with that opinion! Have a nice day! --_{tiny plastic} Grey Knight ⊖ 10:27, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

PS: if you do find anyone who can put more hours in the day, please put me in touch with them!

Wish I could call it my own idea. Very clever thing someone came up with a bit over a year ago. I'm just filling the role of institutional memory. Yet thank you very much. If that helps, it's worth it. :) Durova^Charge! 10:45, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

Great Quote

"Common sense says the camel's back has broken, and we can put our straws to better use sipping lemonade as we return to building the encyclopedia." Laughed out loud. :-) ATren (talk) 15:18, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

Thank you. :) Durova^Charge! 17:44, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

POTD notification

POTD

Hi Durova,

Just to let you know that the Featured Picture Image:Douglas MacArthur lands Leyte1.jpg is due to make an appearance as Picture of the Day on June 1, 2008. If you get a chance, you can check and improve the caption at Template:POTD/2008-06-01. howcheng {chat} 00:14, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. :) Durova^Charge! 03:16, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

Group of editors (including admin) coordination continues to disgrace Wikipedia

A group of editors has been working together on Jonathan Wells (intelligent design advocate) and related articles for years to preserve highly biased articles like this BLP. Some intervention from a high level may be needed. They seem to prefer a hatchet job to presenting the facts in a neutral manner. They work together to oppose reasonable attempts to make the articles NPOV, seeming to be uninterested in other viewpoints, or in attempts to point out statements in the articles that are not supported by the citations, etc. These editors coordinate using power plays to enforce the over-the-top version they like. Critics' perspectives are presented as core material (even in the introduction), claims are made which go beyond even what a critic said in a source, etc. It's the best example I know of perhaps Wikipedia's main weakness - articles at the fringes of Wikipedia are sometimes so far from NPOV that they are absurd and disgraceful, because not enough neutral people care enough about them to make them decent. -Exucmember (talk) 07:23, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

Evidence, not accusations please. Durova^Charge! 16:12, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

Potential superpowers.

I was wondering if you could recommend what revision I should keep as the protected one? · AndonicO ^Engage. 13:08, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

They're all the wrong version, and it isn't BLP, so I'd just protect the current version. Durova^Charge! 13:09, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

Okay, in that case, done. · AndonicO ^Engage. 14:16, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

POTD notification

POTD

Hi Durova,

Just to let you know that the Featured Picture Image:AlfredPalmerM3tank1942b.jpg is due to make an appearance as Picture of the Day on June 3, 2008. If you get a chance, you can check and improve the caption at Template:POTD/2008-06-03. howcheng {chat} 22:53, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

Thank you. :) Durova^Charge! 02:07, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

POTD notification

POTD

Hi Durova,

Just to let you know that the Featured Picture Image:SanFrancisco1851a.jpg is due to make an appearance as Picture of the Day on June 5, 2008. If you get a chance, you can check and improve the caption at Template:POTD/2008-06-05. howcheng {chat} 05:12, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

Thank you. :) Durova^Charge! 06:44, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Louis Brandeis

Your Featured picture candidate has been promoted Your nomination for featured picture status, Image:Brandeisl.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 07:12, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

Thank you. :) Durova^Charge! 07:31, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : Issue XXVII (May 2008)

The May 2008 issue of the Military history WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you.
This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 00:28, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

Improved procedures for unblocking editors

I can't find it anymore, but at one time there was a "second chance" procedure whereby an editor who has blocked for more than a year could ask for a second chance. The template {{Second_chance}} still exists, but it is only useful to editors whose talk page hasn't been protected.

Here's something that might work: Have a bot that:

• When a block is over a year old, mail is restored, the user's talk page is unprotected, and the user gets an email notifying him of the second-chance procedures, with the caveat that he is ineligible if he's edited at all in the preceding 12 months. The log files will indicate that these unblockings were automated.
• When a user is blocked, all known socks have their clock restarted.

For people who are blocked for non-global reasons, such as edit warring on particular articles, letting them come back sooner with parole restrictions is a lot more sensible. Arbcom should do this as a matter of routine.

davidwr/(talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail) 02:42, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

Opinion

Dear Durova, following an exchange at Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Tanthalas39 2#Oppose, another editor has requested I seek out your opinion at User talk:Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles#hm. You'll note that as I indicated many times editors have been positively influenced by my opinions in RfAs and I am not sure how to take criticism from an account that has been warned a few times for unconstructive RfA participation, especially when in this most recent instance, the candidate responded maturely to my weak oppose and had I just received that reply, I probably would have switched my stance by now. Anyway, for the other RfAs in which that user and I participated, please see: Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Pegship, Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Ddstretch, Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Xenocidic, Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Enigmaman, Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Dihydrogen Monoxide 3, Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Huntster, Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Vivio Testarossa, Wikipedia:Requests for bureaucratship/Avraham 2, Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Coppertwig, Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/WBOSITG 2, Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Naerii, Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Daniel J. Leivick, Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Philosopher, Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Peteforsyth, Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Thingg, Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/MilborneOne, Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Cyclonenim, Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/VanTucky 2, Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/The Transhumanist 5, Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/R. Baley, Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/EyeSerene, Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Lawrence Cohen, Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/BirgitteSB, Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Martijn Hoekstra, Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Martijn Hoekstra, Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Blueboy96 3, Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/OverlordQ, Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Abd 2, Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Seresin, Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Seresin, Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/John Carter, Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Rudget 2, Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Aqwis, Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/TenPoundHammer 4, Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Michael Greiner, Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/SatyrTN, Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Blueboy96 2, Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Captain panda 2, Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Dfrg.msc 2, Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Cobi, Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Arkyan2, Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Navou 3, Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/WODUP, and Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/TenPoundHammer 2. You'll notice that I offer a number of reasons for supporting and opposing candidates and that I generally remain open-minded to changing my stance as the discussion progresses. You'll also note that I never swear or launch personal attacks on those I disagree with. So, I am seriously not sure if it this point I should just be ignoring that one user or what and appreciate any feedback. Best, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 06:19, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

• Durova, any input from you would be highly appreciated. Sorry to bother you with this, but you're the one person whose judgement both LGRdC and me fully trust. I'm ready and willing to follow your advice whatever it entails. And yes, I already know that the way I commented there is not fruitful. But I don't see any fruitful, constructive way for myself to deal with this issue. I just think it's wrong to oppose RfA candidates over perceived deletionist tendencies when you are yourself a strong inclusionist. Moreover, the AfDs linked to from the respective RfAs more often than not contain very agreeable, policy-conforming comments by the RfA candidate, many of whom later succeed to become admins, or fail for more or less totally different reasons. To that effect, I think a list of RfAs where LGRdC opposed over AfD participation (some of which I didn't participate in, IIRC) would be far more useful. I'm going to compose that list. dorftrottel (talk) 16:17, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
  • Here is a list of the RfAs that are most suited to illustrate my point of view: Blueboy96_3, OverlordQ, Abd_2 (LGRdC supporting), Lawrence_Cohen (LGRdC neutral), EyeSerene (LGRdC switching from oppose to neutral), VanTucky_2 (LGRdC opposing), Thingg (particularly telling support by LGRdC), Avraham RfB 2 (neutral in an RfB over a year-old AfD, for crying out loud), Vivio_Testarossa (LGRdC opposing).
    
    All in all, I think I'll have to amend my point that, from my perspective, this is about LGRdC opposing for highly doubtful reasons, he occasionally supports for such reasons, too. All in all, the only thing he appears to vote on is the candidate's inclusionist/deletionist tendency as LGRdC perceives it. The reason I despise this is that anyone could very similarly vote based exclusively on e.g. the candidate's stance on science, or, more hilariously, on RfAs ('candidate opposed too often'). I'm somewhat distressed by LGRdC's apparent unwillingness to move away from his stance so much as one inch, even when faced with valid reasoning. He's gaming the system to a degree I find highly disruptive. Also note that he employs tactics like basing keep votes on GFDL concerns, which he probably picked up somewhere and found is a useful tool to keep articles. He does not care about GFDL concerns at all. He just has his agenda, and stops at almost nothing to push it through, especially not passive-aggressive behaviour. Without much success, but with too much success as it is imo, given the average validity of his reasoning vs. other people's reasoning. Not only is he unwilling to understand the issues others take with the way he aggressively wants to keep most things, he opposes them at RfA, even where their AfD comments were nothing but 100% valid and should have given LGRdC a pause instead. He's not participating based on the candidate's trustability with the admin tools, like e.g. Kurt Weber does. That's disruptive to the RfA process, and I'm afraid if tolerated, it will help transform RfA to an exercise in pure soapboxing and battling.
    
    I'm not saying that my own RfA participation is anything near perfect, quite to the contrary, but I participate based on a variety of things, with the final goal being imho coherent with what RfA should be doing: Evaluate the candidate's trustability. And that does not entail my personal agreement with the candidate's stance on things like deletion. I have emphatically supported candidate's I almost never agree with on anything, some of whom I even dislike personally, simply because there was no intellectually justifiable reason to oppose them. I am also capable of some ambiguity tolerance, as shown e.g. in WBOSITG_2, where I supported, but simultaneously defended Kurt Weber from being badgered.
    
    LGRdC's RfA participation is disruptive because he doesn't recognise what RfA is about and what it is not about. The warning in Tanthalas' RfA that he is making himself ridiculous actually expresses my hopes — I do hope that Wikipedia is not so weak a system as to tolerate this abuse of it's processes. But the most hilarious footnote for me personally is that LGRdC does not realise that I am occasionally intentionally assuming the bad boy role, e.g. when I do have legitimate concerns but know there's no way changing a particular user's opinion with any amount of nice words and impeccable reasoning. I do that because it affords others, genuinely good guys, to come in and tell me off while at the same time rephrasing my very concerns. This has frequently worked with people like LGRdC. They won't listen to me, but when others join in, they can change their stance without losing their face before an arrogant dogmatist like myself; they can think I'm a jackass and peacefully accept my reasoning. dorftrottel (talk) 17:45, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

• • • It's inaccurate and unfair to just take a select few choice RfAs, as the big picture matters and the big picture is that I argue to support or oppose for a variety of reasons when looking at the totality of my RfA participation. I also allow the candidates to persuade me otherwise and am open-minded to what happens during the discussion and have changed my stance many times now. I'm just not sure what to make of the above, given Dorftrottel's obviously unconstructive approach to RfAs: per [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], etc., which have received [34] and [35] in response. Not to mention so many other similar edits elsewhere: [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], etc. Conisdering the civility and personal attack blocks to his various IPs and accounts (see [61], [62], [63], [64], [65], [66], [67], [68], [69], [70], etc.), I'm just not sure if I'm being trolled or how all of this subsequent incivility even in the face of warnings and cautions is able to continue. If my RfA participation were so horrible, so many editors would not have responded as they did at [71], [72], [73], [74], [75], [76], [77], [78], [79], [80], [81], [82], [83], [84], [85], [86], [87], [88], [89], [90], [91], [92], etc. As far as me being an inclusionist, well, we are here to build a paperless encyclopedia that combines general and specialized encyclopedias as well as almanacs aren't we? And I argue to delete a diverse range of things: hoaxes, how tos, original research, and other unconstructive stuff. It would be nice if those critical of myself and other inclusionists would argue to keep as many articles as I argue or nominate to delete. Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 19:33, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
      • I know. hilarious ain't it really? WP:KETTLE? Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 21:53, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

Would you both be willing to have a discussion by gmail chat or Skype? I could mediate. Durova^Charge! 23:48, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

• I appreciate the offer, but I don't have either of those, and based on [93], [94], and [95], I think it may be best to just walk away. Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 00:40, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
• I did in fact suggest a Skype conference with you as mediator already, and still think it would be the best possible option. Right now, I'd like to hear your opinion about those RfA comments. As outlined, I think there's a very negative pattern there. If you don't think there's anything wrong with the way LGRdC frequently supports and esp. opposes, then I'll defer to your judgement and leave it be. I think right now LGRdC is afraid to learn that not everything about his comments is perfectly fine, so he declines mediation. // Wow, and I only just noticed that he actually calls me a troll right above. Now it's getting really nice. He constantly refuses to react with anything resembling actual reasoning, he never shows any insight into his own behaviour whatsoever, and now he calls me a troll because he knows he has no reasoning to offer, only honesty and open self-reflection, which understandably threatens him in his defence mechanisms. ...troll... Truly hilarious, coming from someone who holds what must be the all-time record of 88 (that's eighty-eight) postings to a single AfD discussion. dorftrottel (talk) 01:17, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

I respect both of you, for different reasons and in different ways, and hope there's a venue or means that could bring you together harmoniously. Skype appears unlikely to work out. Would you consider formal mediation? Durova^Charge! 07:05, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

• Generally speaking, yes of course. But since this is not a content but rather a 'meta' dispute, I'm not sure where to start. I was hoping for an outside opinion, to get LGRdC into anything resembling an actual, open discussion. I've tried it before, but was always left with the impression that he was actually doing everything to avoid an actual intellectual exchange, always avoiding a situation where he may be logically pinpointed to the imho very relevant question of why he is doing what he is doing on Wikipedia (I've given a hint as to my according suspicion above). He never seems to respond to what is at the core of my concerns about his behaviour. Thus, I think he isn't at all interested in discussing what I want to discuss: His behaviour and the reasons for it. Without that, mediation is pointless. Alternatively, less to my liking, I can try leaving him alone as best I can. But when I see him making outrageously invalid keep votes (as he does on a daily basis) or opposing RfAs based on legitimate AfD participation by the candidate, I cannot guarantee that I won't give him some very honest feedback every once a while. dorftrottel (talk) 07:31, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

• If I may interject (considering I noticed this on my watchlist and it's late so I'm bored :p), I've also had cases where I've been drawn into similar discussions concerning LGRdC's RfA !votes and AfD philosophy, and frankly, it's like talking to a wall. A recent discussion is this one in which he's basically running around the point every other is expressing and repeating the same point over and over again or placing a giant wall of irrelevant links. I originally contested his AfD !votes but I know abstain from doing so because it leads to a circular discussion that leads nowhere. My honest recommendation is simply to let it go, as you're not going to convince him to stop doing so, and the closing 'crat can laugh at how ludicrous it is when closing the RfA. And even if formal mediation was gained, I don't think you would be able to get anything out of it either, as you probably would be entertaining another endless circular discussion. I do realize it's frustrating but let it go. Sephiroth BCR ^(Converse) 09:28, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

• You have no idea how good it is to hear that someone shares both my concerns and experiences. Ok then, I'll continue to do my best to ignore him (but as I said I simply can't promise I won't react from time to time, as rarely as I can). dorftrottel (talk) 09:38, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

• Oh, and to Durova, a couple of nominations (including mine) have been sitting at WP:CROWN/NOM for quite a while now :p (maybe hire a clerk or two to expedite the process?) Sephiroth BCR ^(Converse) 09:34, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

Thank you

For your well-written comments at the RCC FAC. I had been been searching for a graceful way to make those very points. I had succeeded earlier, but the re-start did not help me find grace this time. --Relata refero (disp.) 09:11, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for taking the high road.[96] SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:21, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

It's difficult, and thank you. So much work, and a very important subject. It would be wonderful to have a featured article there, and I hope the participants aren't discouraged. What they're undertaking is very much worth doing. Durova^Charge! 15:31, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

RCC FAC

I plan to do some more photo uploads to work on the Kodiak article later this summer. Right now I have photos on some pages of Wikipedia but they could be improved, I would like to keep your name for possible advice in the future if thats ok with you? NancyHeise (talk) 22:55, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

Sure. A few links:

• User:Durova/Landmark_images
• User:Durova/Image_restorations
• commons:User:Durova/Encyclopedic image restoration
• Commons:User:Durova

Durova^Charge! 23:03, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

ahem ... Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/2008-03-13/Dispatches SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:04, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

Ty, Sandy. :) I'm preparing a module for Wikibooks about this, btw. Durova^Charge! 23:46, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

POTD notification

POTD

Hi Durova,

Just to let you know that the Featured Picture Image:Waldenburg1945edit.jpg is due to make an appearance as Picture of the Day on June 10, 2008. If you get a chance, you can check and improve the caption at Template:POTD/2008-06-10. howcheng {chat} 22:41, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

Thank you very much. :) Durova^Charge! 22:43, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

POTD

Hi again,

Just to let you know that the Featured Picture Image:Capitol1846.jpg is due to make an appearance as Picture of the Day on June 11, 2008. If you get a chance, you can check and improve the caption at Template:POTD/2008-06-11. howcheng {chat} 23:00, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

Thanks again. Here's a question: with my most recent restoration (the Louis Brandeis portrait) I've gotten in touch with Brandeis University to see whether they'd like to request a date for the main page. Maybe something with their university or his life would be especially meaningful. How would I pursue that, once I hear back from them? Best, Durova^Charge! 23:02, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

ArbCom

Thanks for the heads up - I hadn't caught the comment, although I saw the AfD participation. I think I will sit this one out and just watch, unless I am further implicated / accused. And, for those who watch such things, I have never communicated off wiki with Durova, and am responding to a notice that I was mentioned in an requ for arbitration.

You seem to get dragged into these sorts of conflicts with some regularity, and to always handle yourself with poise. I hope this gets worked out. Pastordavid (talk) 13:30, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

Yes, and thank you, Durova, for taking care of this situation. I assumed this was a new user, who was overwhelmed and frustrated. I only wanted to calm him down and I contacted Pastordavid because he has helped me before with an editor, who was slightly troubling, but then it was a matter of a very opinionated, but otherwise highly educated and intelligent person, while this case seems very very different. I apologize for any part I had in prolonging this. Merzul (talk) 17:40, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

No need for apologies; what you did was a kindness. Thank you for your good faith and helpfulness. This fellow had been quite successful at flying under the radar, so the red flags weren't obvious. Durova^Charge! 18:38, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

JFK motorcade

I'd be happy to help out with the cleanup. I've actually already started, but have only had a quick once-over to remove some of the worst black spots and a wrinkle (I prefer removing the same kind of problem throughout the whole picture to working intensively on one area). If you've had a chance to do significant work, I'm willing to ditch mine and work with yours. TBH, after working on it a bit, I'm not 100% sure it's worth it (i.e. the end result still might not be great), but I enjoy the challenge. :-) I prefer not to put my email addy in my profile, but you can reach me here, on my talk page, or at mderes1224 at rogers dot com. Matt Deres (talk) 14:24, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

Let me know if I can be of assistance too, I am busy the next few days but then I have a few days of downtime. Mfield (talk) 14:33, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. It's saved on another computer right now. We've got two basic ways we could do this: trading e-mail attachments or loading successive files to Commons. Would prefer the latter because I'm building an image restoration tutorial at Wikibooks. So far I've worked mostly on spot removal, more intensively in some regions than others. Been doing the healing brush in default settings and 4-8 pixel selection samples at low resolution (200%). Soon as I get to the machine that has the file I'll upload. :) Durova^Charge! 16:40, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

That sounds fine by me; just let me know where they ought to go. Do we just upload and put the thumbnail in the original request page? My work is still very preliminary at this point; this is not a restoration to attempt in one sitting ;). Matt Deres (talk) 17:59, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

post to SirFozzie and Dzonatas

Go ahead, you can forward it to me. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 16:47, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

RCC FAC

This message is being sent to all opposers of the Roman Catholic Church FAC. Thank you for taking the time to come see the page and give us your comments. I apologize for any drama caused by my imperfect human nature. As specified in WP:FAC, I am required to encourage you to come see the page and decide if your oppose still stands. Ceoil and others have made changes to prose and many edits have been made to address FAC reviewers comments like yours. Thank you. NancyHeise (talk) 23:54, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

"Jew Crew" as hate speech

Dear Durova, I tried to have a reasonable discussion with user Cush about his use of the phrase "Jew Crew," explaining myself in full, but it seems he has no respect for the point of view that Jews should not be universally grouped as nationalist fanatics. See the Jerusalem talk page as well as Cush's talk page. Do you know what to do about hate speech? Can you tell me how to address this? Thanks, LamaLoLeshLa (talk) 03:01, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, that's over the line. Particularly his aggressive response to feedback. Recommend a report to ANI. Durova^Charge! 03:17, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, dear Durova but no need for thanking me. This sort of thing is a civic duty. I can't stand language like that in any form, and am surprised that some highly educated, otherwise acutely intelligent people can shrug it off lightly. One of my ancestors was a 'terrorist', in that he was chosen to kill the foreigner who appropriated his people's land. Another was an imperialist who poisoned the natives whose land he stole. We were raised as children on these facts, as a monitory lesson on the evils of race prejudice, national cant and the insidiousness of any form of put-down. As a boy I read extensively holocaust memoirs and literature, that made me get even more physically agitated by anything like this (or this Gideon Levy, ‘One swift kick’, Haaretz 6/6/2008). Best regards Nishidani (talk) 21:11, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

Unprotecting Potential superpowers

Hey Durova, could you please unblock Potential superpowers. That dispute on the talk page has been resolved and a new improved, better sourced ediition has been created and is waiting to be added to the page. Full unprotection or semii-protection would both work well. There is simply no need for the protection, as things have simmered down. --Hobie Hunter (talk) 17:47, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

Okay, as soon as I pass WP:RFA. ;) Seriously, suggest you head to WP:RFPP and file there. I don't have the ops to help. I'm glad things have calmed down. Durova^Charge! 17:57, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

Courtesy notice

Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Arbitration enforcement#Pedrito's interest in Jaakobu -- Avi (talk) 12:28, 11 June 2008 (UTC)