User talk:Durova/Archive 69

One other question regarding DYK

Three of the items I listed have received the checkmark in green symbol (in the March 25, 28, and 30th lists respectively). Will all three therefore be listed and if so about when? Also, will I be notified? Thanks! Sincerley, --A Nobody^{My talk} 02:46, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

They'll probably go up, and you'll be notified when they do. Good work! Durova^Charge! 16:33, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

Cool, thanks. Sincerely,--A Nobody^{My talk} 18:33, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

Help requested with image

I recently created a little graphic to illustrate mushing, but I'm having problems getting it to display correctly. In Wikipedia, it's riddled with jpg artifacts; What's the best way to eliminate these and get a file Wikipedia will accept? JKBrooks85 (talk) 04:21, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

Our thumbnailing often creates the appearance of JPEG artifacts, but anyone who wants to see the full version can still click in and see the whole thing. Durova^Charge! 16:35, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

Adminship

Willing to re-run? Just look at you. Over 200 featured credits at enWP alone, enviable experience and knowledge of wiki policy, former admin, and most importantly, you've learned from the mistake because of which you resigned as a sysop. If you're willing to run for re-adminship, I would be deeply honored to nominate you (and I'm sure many other users would, too). Dylan620 :  Chat  21:35, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

I'd agree that it's long past time you should have the bit back. Of course, I could hardly fault you if you didn't particularly want any more sips from that particular chalice... :) MastCell ^Talk 21:42, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

Possibly three potential nominators, then, if you want them. Yeah, you made a mistake. Wow, you're human. Join the club. Any admins who haven't made any mistakes out there? I doubt it. But we do need admins, and you have regularly displayed the kind of calm, understanding, and thoughtfulness which makes for good admins. I know it would be taking on a yoke that most people would honestly prefer not having, but I have to think that it would very much be in the best interests of the project if you would agree to take on that burden again. John Carter (talk) 21:55, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

Four. :-) —Ed 17 ^{(Talk / Contribs)} 22:03, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

Five.--Wehwalt (talk) 22:04, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

Six :) Mfield (Oi!)

Seven. (and yes, this is me, D. Hope all is well, -- SF) 128.222.37.21 (talk) 22:06, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

Eight. -- Fyslee (talk) 16:40, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

Nine. Also please post here if possible the request to Arb's that is being set up. I'd like to know when it actually goes there, thanks, --CrohnieGal^Talk 16:48, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

Wow. No need to actually run the RfA, just call over a crat with the anointing oil.--Wehwalt (talk) 22:13, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

User:Synergy/Durova Synergy 22:21, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

Thank you all very very much. :) What I'd really much rather have than a few tools that aren't very important, is my good name back. I was the only administrator in the history of Wikipedia for whom recall was rendered involuntary. My RfC was obsolete twelve hours after it opened when it proceeded to RFAR. The proposed decision went up less than 24 hours after arbitration opened, and before I could assemble or post half my evidence one-third of the entire Committee had voted. That all unfolded over Thanksgiving weekend regarding one 75-minute block that I had long since reversed with apologies. Yes, that was a bad block and I remain very sorry for it, but ArbCom's response seemed excessive. So rather than file my own appeal (which would be selfish) for the last year and a half I have endeavored to prevent similar arbitration excesses from happening to anybody else, and to correct them when they do occur. One more administrator wouldn't make much difference to what this site is, but a culture that values character over power--that would be impressive. If anyone files an appeal of my arbitration decision, I would be eternally grateful. Warm respect and regards, Durova^Charge! 22:23, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

How would I do that? :) Dylan620 :  Chat  22:27, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

And what specifically would you wished appealed? The involuntary surrendering of your adminship? If someone were to file an appeal, they would need to know specifically what it is that they would be appealing. John Carter (talk) 22:30, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

The admonishment, please. The part about resignation is less important; I would never accept the bit again without the community's approval through RFA. Trust should be earned. Durova^Charge! 22:33, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

I'm not an attorney, and have never played one on TV, so I'm really not very good at this sort of thing. But is something like this what you were thinking about? John Carter (talk) 22:55, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

Hi again, I have to run out for a couple of hours. Thank you very much for your effort. Will have comments after returning. Durova^Charge! 23:26, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

Hi, that's beautifully formatted. To make it a little more specific, might be better to ask them to do three things: (1) Downgrade the admonishment to a reminder, (2) Reaffirm the voluntary nature of administrative recall (although I request no amendment of my own specific remedy on that point, admin recall would be a stronger process if other people didn't need to fear the same thing happening to them), (3) Affirm a principle of response: in nonemergency situations (i.e. not wheel wars and such), experienced Wikipedians whose actions come under scrutiny deserve a reasonable opportunity to present evidence in an orderly setting. Durova^Charge! 02:38, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

• Here's something else beautifully formatted. Durova, your "evidence" was so ludicrous and unfounded that it is inconceivable that you can ever be in a position again where you can even breath on a block button, let alone press one. You not only made the entire project a laughing stock, one of its best editors left. That even now, you can say "before I could assemble or post half my evidence one-third of the entire Committee had voted." really should be telling you something. The truth is, we all saw quite enough of your evidence. I really don't think an all action replay of that shameful period in Wikipedia's history will serve anyone well - do you? Giano (talk) 11:45, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

As stated above, I was and am quite willing to accept responsibility for the actual error, but there was also a lot of irrelevant material being submitted to create the appearance that things were much worse. For instance, someone submitted a laundry list of blocks where I had reversed myself--to create an impression that I habitually misused the tools. Well if you actually look at the items on that list, you find reasonable actions such as indeffing an editor for legal threats, then restoring them to editing once the threat is withdrawn. By moving to voting before it was possible to rebut that type of complaint, the Committee scarred my reputation in a manner I never want to see happen to anyone else. Geogre, for instance, was brought to arbitration the following summer on a claim of wheel warring because he unblocked you, Giano. His case opened over Fourth of July weekend and the Committee started voting almost immediately--before he had provided any evidence. I intervened at proposed decision talk because it just isn't right to decide a case that way. It didn't matter that Geogre had called for my head or that you had, Giano: in matters of principle one sets aside personal considerations. Durova^Charge! 16:48, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

• Natürlich. Giano (talk) 17:32, 3 April 2009 (UTC)
  • Vielen Dank. Durova^Charge! 17:34, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

Be careful Durova, you seem to understand German :-) Giano (talk) 17:45, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

And coffee! She said she was brewing some in her summary, she may be trying to bribe you Giano! Be strong! (oh btw, I'd support you Durova - I believe you've "learned your lesson" and you showed exemplary ethics in promptly stepping down when requested per AoR.) KillerChihuahua^?!? 17:59, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

Sumatra roast with a dash of vanilla, brewed with a French press. Thank you very much. :) Durova^Charge! 18:05, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

oh my... I can be bribed. I can practically smell it. *sigh* KillerChihuahua^?!? 18:16, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

Well, here's a bit of a revision to the request at User:John Carter/Durova. I'm no good at legalese, unlike, say, Brad, so I know my phrasing probably needs work. Are there any specific suggestions to improve it you might have? John Carter (talk) 15:45, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

Apologies for the delay, John. During the last day something's turned up that can't be mentioned onsite due to WP:NOR and needs to be checked out thoroughly, but if things turn out the way they look at this early stage it could be worthy of offsite publication. Along the general lines of the Wounded Knee restoration; that sort of thing. Regarding the admonishment, it would seem to be a better approach to note that I had reversed myself and apologized before dispute resolution began. Admonishments are usually reserved for administrators who haven't acknowledged the problems; those who are more cooperative are normally cautioned or reminded. Durova^Charge! 04:05, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

I have to say - your RfA would be interesting. But yes, you are honest and you are open to conversation. Those are two things that are definitely required traits. Ottava Rima (talk) 03:43, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

Thank you, Ottava. Durova^Charge! 04:05, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

(outdent) User:John Carter/Durova revised to reflect wishes expressed above. John Carter (talk) 13:37, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

Any ideas what to do with the ArbCom proposal page? John Carter (talk) 13:27, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

A suggestion

Apropos of nothing other than the surprising number of people who are commenting at this thread, may I make a request? ScienceApologist is working on a featured article drive for the optics article and he could really use your help. As many of you know he cannot edit onsite, so his draft is here. Your eyes to review the article, copyedit, etc. would really help. Whether or not anything comes of the main thread above, it would be delightful to help him become the first Wikipedian to write a featured article while sitebanned. And it would really be good for Wikipedia to have a better article on this important subject. Technical expertise not required for review: what's most needed are people with general educations to say this part is unclear; could you explain the context? Please spread the word. Durova^Charge! 18:28, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

I support this effort by ScienceApologist; any registered editor in good standing can put up the article, providing that the editor is willing to take full responsibility for it and for sources asserted. Durova, you have also done very well by putting up this notice instead of doing it yourself! I'll take a look; but I have little time right now, I'm a tad occupied both on and off wiki. I'd suggest that Talk for the article credit credit ScienceApologist so that it's clear that he has done good work, and I would vigorously defend SA and the active editor from any claims of meat puppetry; the only relevant issue for "attack" would be actual policy violations in the article text itself, and, truly, the transferring editor would be responsible for that, SA's role would be irrelevant unless he's done something egregious. The article doesn't have to be perfect but whatever sourcing is there should be solid. Any further problems can be fixed through normal editorial process. --Abd (talk) 16:13, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

reading this editors history I would say that the attitude shown was destructive to wikipedia and there would be no benefit at all in User:Durova return to admin .. and here it is again a group of people coming together to bias the project. (Off2riorob (talk) 14:53, 8 April 2009 (UTC))

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : Issue XXXVII (March 2009)

The March 2009 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) 02:25, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

Jeffpw on Happiness

Hi Durova. A picture of deceased Wikipedia editor User:Jeffpw laughing as he tries to balance three birds on himself was placed on this article. His mother sent the photo to us. It was quite a collaborative effort between three different editors to improve the image. I put a caption that directly referenced the section it is found under. There are few graphic illustrations on the article, yet one editor is edit-warring to remove it. Could you take a look and offer your opinion? --David Shankbone 14:56, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

SlimVirgin has restored the images and started a discussion on talk. So far, so good. Durova^Charge! 16:32, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

Thanks. And count me as another editor who thinks it would be good for you to have the tools again. --David Shankbone 18:20, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

Chad Johnson (ice hockey)

Hey Durova, would you mind recreating this article. I plan on expanding it as well as establishing notability that he has gained in the past year. Thanks, Grsz¹¹ 20:11, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

Suggest you ask an admin to provide you with a historic version of that article. I wouldn't know where to begin; most of the ice in San Diego exists inside margarita glasses. ;) Durova^Charge! 20:35, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

You aren't an admin? My mistake. Thanks anyways! Grsz¹¹ 20:38, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

Best wishes with your article. Here's hoping it gets a turn at T:DYK. ;) Durova^Charge! 20:42, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

Image repair help request

(Posting this here as you usually seem the best person to ask, but anyone else feel free to answer)

Hi – do you have any ideas about how to fix up this image to clean up its issues? It's one that would be a really useful one to have on Tunnel Railway – it shows the tunnels as they were in the mid-1980s, 20 years after being abandoned but before deteriorating completely. However, it's scanned from a 25-year-old transparency, and has obvious problems with sharpness and color balance. My first thought is that the simplest solution may be to translate the whole thing into grayscale, but obviously it would be a shame to lose the color if there's any way to salvage it – can you suggest anything? (The article itself is currently at FAC, so I'm also going to ask on the FAC request itself.)

Many thanks! – iridescent 21:39, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

Have a look at Commons:Help:Scanning and upload an uncompressed TIFF or PNG if possible. The quality of the source file has a great deal to do with how much magic can be worked. Durova^Charge! 21:51, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

Thanks, I have uploaded a png copy at PNG image

How's this?

Excellent – thank you! – iridescent 14:32, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

POTD notification

POTD

Hi Durova,

Just to let you know that the Featured Picture File:Typhoid inoculation2.jpg is due to make an appearance as Picture of the Day on April 5, 2009. If you get a chance, you can check and improve the caption at Template:POTD/2009-04-05. This one came a little late because I wanted to put some distance between it and File:The cow pock.jpg. howcheng {chat} 23:45, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

File:FA-18 Automated Aerial Refueling.ogg follows on April 6. howcheng {chat} 23:59, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

Both captions look perfect. Thank you very much. :) Durova^Charge! 01:22, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests for comment/JzG 3

You are mentioned in an RfC as having tried to resolve a dispute over use of admin tools while the admin is involved. The RfC was certified, but the user has withdrawn his certification, so the RfC will be deleted after 48 hours. Please review and certify if you consider the RfC proper. Thanks. --Abd (talk) 01:57, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

DYK for Pointe des Almadies

On April 5, 2009, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Pointe des Almadies, which you created or substantially expanded. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

Shubinator (talk) 04:43, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

Thank you very much. :) Durova^Charge! 05:07, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

Animosity?

I never bore you any animosity. I think you id a silly thing, and that caused a frustrating roadblock in something that badly needed to happen, but I've never borne any animosity about it. I've no idea why you'd think I did. Guy (Help!) 17:54, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

Well then, I'm glad if you didn't and it sits a little better that I avoided any part in your RfC and arbitration last year. Durova^Charge! 20:08, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

WikiCup Newsletter XI

Delivered for the WikiCup by  ROBOTIC GARDEN  at 21:29, 5 April 2009 (UTC). To report errors see the talk page.

Image copyright

You may be able to help at Template_talk:PD-US#Published_definition. Ty 23:06, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

Replied at the RfC. Durova^Charge! 23:20, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

My talk page

I find your style most unpleasant to deal with, the way you seem to assume bad faith of me and pick fights. You comment on many disputes. This makes it hard for me to do anything on this site without joining the same conversation as you on occasion. I dislike the way you keep threatening me with process. Please, if you have a problem with me, find a trustworthy intermediary to address it. Pick any arbitrator. Tell them your concern and ask them to talk to me. Please stay off my talk page. Jehochman ^Talk 06:06, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

I removed my last set of comments on that thread so you could have the last word. It is senseless to bicker about a moot point. I collapsed the thread to minimize the potential for sidetracking the page. The RFC results will speak for themselves. Hopefully you'll view these actions as helpful. Jehochman ^Talk 06:10, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

Actually, when we wrote the policy on threats we specifically worded it so that it could not be construed as applying to statements of intention to use proper site processes. To say that someone fails to recuse when appropriate is no accusation of bad faith; indeed, I have delayed formal dispute resolution considerably in the hope that it could be avoided altogether. It often happens that when Person A accuses Person B of something B isn't doing, it's because A is doing it himself, so in that light your edit summary here is disappointing but not really surprising. "Despise" me if you must; the feeling is not mutual. I prefer to separate the conduct from the individual. For the present I'll hold out the hope that you ate a bad fish tonight, or caught the flu, or had a blown tire or something like that and it's not really personal. Heading to bed now (it's late in my time zone, must be an ungodly hour in yours). Best wishes, Durova^Charge! 06:53, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

Have one on me.

Due to past experiences, I feel that you are out to hurt me. (Might be irrational, but that's how I feel.) Therefore, I am not going to follow any guidance you offer. If you are trying to be helpful, please take your concerns to a third party who I trust. Carcharoth, Fayssalf, Jayvdb, Coren, Newyorkbrad and Vassyana are a few possibilities. All that said, we can disagree without being disagreeable. Jehochman ^Talk 13:40, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

Twice in the past half year I have initiated RFARs where I could have named you as a party but didn't. The people you specify are some of Wikipedia's finest contributors. It's good to know that you trust them. Durova^Charge! 17:19, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

Optics

I went off your comments here and made the switch on optics, so that the editors there become aware there is another version. I wanted to notify you since I pulled this from your talk page / blog. Certainly feel free to revert. It just strikes me the best people to do what you want (makie it less dense) are SA himself and the people on optics. This is about 80k of new material, and fairly dense material at that. My temptation in thinking about what you wanted is to expand some of the sections (which would pull it up to about 200k) but also break this apart into a bunch of sub articles, but I would rather have broad community discussion. jbolden1517^Talk 15:17, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

Thank you very much for your enthusiasm. For two reasons I have reverted your edit. First, there are GFDL license considerations. Second, since ScienceApologist is sitebanned, it would remove the primary author from editing to move it now. Things aren't quite ready for that (we're shooting for FA), but you've paid a high compliment to his work so far. Please accept my gratitude for the kind gesture. Durova^Charge! 18:57, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

OK cool, I'll defer. I figured based on the blog he was essentially done. It looks good for an FA, a very very good article. You guys kicked butt. A few followups:

• I thought everything on wikisource was GFDL?
• I checked the math and it all looks right to me. He's making an assumption about choosing a plane in the refractions subsection which is pretty obvious but my bias would be to state it.
• I think he needs more explanation text. Some of the phrasing kind of worries me like "a changing wavelength results in a changing speed of light," I would do something like "a changing wavelength results from a changing speed of light due to a change in medium."

I'll shut up and go away now. Have fun. jbolden1517^Talk 19:30, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

By all means do suggest changes to help clarify the subject matter. That's exactly the sort of feedback he really values. :) Go ahead and edit the changes yourself if you like. Cheers, Durova^Charge! 22:58, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia:FCDW/Plagiarism

We're using your clever Hamlet image. :) Awadewit (talk) 18:24, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

Thank you so much! :) Durova^Charge! 18:52, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

Congratulations!

Your Featured picture candidate has been promoted Your nomination for featured picture status, Image:Karnacs2.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. ~ ωαdεstεr16«talkstalk» 18:31, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

Thank you very much. :) Durova^Charge! 18:58, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

Goings on

Durova, I don't recognize this editor name at WP:GO? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:17, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

It's legit; Wadester is one of our FPC regulars. We've been successful at decentralizing evaluation and promotions. Durova^Charge! 22:56, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

Thanks ! SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:24, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

FSC promoted

Your Featured sound candidate has been promoted Your nomination for featured sound status, Image:Nixon_resignation_audio_with_buzz_removed.ogg, gained a consensus of support, and has been promoted. If you would like to nominate another sound, please do so at Wikipedia:Featured sound candidates. Xclamation point 23:04, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

Oooh, thank you! :) Time to get another... Durova^Charge! 23:05, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Nazi campaign poster

File:Vote number 1b.jpg

Your Featured picture candidate has been promoted Your nomination for featured picture status, File:Vote number 1b.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 07:54, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

Thank you. :) Durova^Charge! 15:02, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Idi Amin

Your Featured picture candidate has been promoted Your nomination for featured picture status, File:Idi Amin caricature2.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 07:55, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

Thank you. :) Durova^Charge! 15:02, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

Stuff

Your contributions to the JzG RfC only increase my already considerable respect for you. I would just like to mention one little thing: I'm not convinced that criticizing the conduct of another editor (on the talk page) was relevant, necessary or productive. However, I really appreciate your contribution to the discussion, which except for that one little point is absolutely right on target, very wise. Thank you. And by the way, while I'm here I noticed the SA optics article. That's fantastic! Maybe we should all get ourselves sitebanned from time to time so we have time to actually write articles. ☺Coppertwig (talk) 13:31, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

Thank you very much. Sometimes things spin off into tangents, and that's what happened with that thread. Durova^Charge! 15:01, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

Previously banned user

Hi there; Could you please look at [[1]] and give an opinion? --Anthony.bradbury^"talk" 15:11, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

Posted in more detail at the other discussion. Yup, it's legit. An old grandfathering clause that applied to a small set of usernames. He's the only one covered by that clause who's returned legitimately after a siteban. A bit unusual, but perfectly on the up-and-up. Thanks for asking. Durova^Charge! 16:17, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

POTD notification

POTD

Hi Durova,

Just to let you know that the Featured Picture File:German instrument of surrender2.jpg is due to make an appearance as Picture of the Day on May 7, 2009. If you get a chance, you can check and improve the caption at Template:POTD/2009-05-07. howcheng {chat} 15:48, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

File:Instrument of surrender Japan2.jpg will be appearing on September 2. howcheng {chat} 15:56, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

Both look great; excellent choices for the timing. :) Durova^Charge! 16:08, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

Back to our regularly scheduled POTD items, File:Cowardly lion2.jpg is coming up on April 11. howcheng {chat} 17:10, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

Now I wonder what day was The Wizard of Oz first released. Durova^Charge! 17:52, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

70th anniversary: August 15, 1939. Just sayin'. Durova^Charge! 20:49, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

Someone else pointed that out to me too. OK, so Wizard of Oz is moved to August 15 and File:Wawona tree1.jpg is now on April 11. howcheng {chat} 21:58, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

Link to posting at arbcom request for enforcement

[2] About SA's optics edits by proxy. --KP Botany (talk) 22:46, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

Actually he didn't edit by proxy. Would've been glad to explain on talk, but did so at the venue you selected. Feel free to follow up with me if any questions remain. Durova^Charge! 23:13, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

It's an arbcom issue, so they should decide. Also, it will keep them busy and away from attacking editors for deleting secret pages, as they seem to not have much to do lately. Is the article public domain? If it is, frankly, I'll copy and paste it here if that's allowed. Also, can't really discuss at SA talk, where would have been appropriate, because the rabid frenzy there isn't usually discussion. --KP Botany (talk) 23:18, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

It isn't an ArbCom issue. This was an editor who worked on material at a different domain and someone else attempted to port it in violation of license and without his consent. Simple as that. Durova^Charge! 23:20, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

The license is very clearly displayed here, in similar format to the license statement for Wikipedia. Durova^Charge! 23:23, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

edit due to the ban, and the folks who decide that question is arbcom. A clearcut answer will settle the situation to which the arbcom enforcement request is made. I think arbcom is best to settle that issue. (edit conflict). Thanks for posting the license. I will look at it. --KP Botany (talk) 23:28, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

What's the license issue? You say the port is a license problem, I asked for a link to the license, and you just gave a link to an edit of the page. What's the license issue? It can't be used? Why not? --KP Botany (talk) 00:36, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

Right; the license statement is beneath the edit box with a link to the Wikisource licensing page in full. You asked whether it was public domain; it isn't. Please let's take this one step at a time. There is no deadline, and we're working out other details today. It probably won't take long before it gets ported in a manner that complies with both the license, the siteban, and the proxy editing clause. Thank you very much for your attention; we're on the ball here though and you can rest easy. :) Durova^Charge! 01:07, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

I asked another user for clarification on the copyright issue. I'm having a hard time following what your concern is. [3] --KP Botany (talk) 23:14, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

The licensing issue is that the history needs to be preserved in transit. Durova^Charge! 23:22, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

Right, but it does not appear to have been preserved in transit from en.wiki to wikisource, so this might create additional issues. That it must be preserved in transit, but was not, that it may be a more substantial history if it's edited there versus here, a number of issues that aren't being addressed. Sometimes the whole picture should be looked at. Anyway, Moonriddengirl may have some additional insights that could clear up the best way to proceed. --KP Botany (talk) 23:28, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

It would be simple to delete procedurally from Wikisource once the need for a Wikisource subpage is complete. None of the prior editors to the article have complained. Are you one? Durova^Charge! 23:30, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

I do routine vandalism edits on optics, crystallography, and microscopy articles, but not much editing for content--the articles are major monitored by well-intentioned, but not well-informed amateurs and editing for content gets reverted by people who "know" something and don't support your referenced additions.

I don't understand how procedurally deleting from wikisource does anything for preserving its edit history? --KP Botany (talk) 23:39, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

And I'm doing my best to be reasonable. The optics article was underdeveloped, uncontroversial, important, and quiet. You took no interest in it until you discovered that ScienceApologist was working to improve it. Immediately you opened an arbitration enforcement thread, although there was already ample evidence onsite that no violation of the arbitration case had occurred. You notified me of it only after you had initiated it, then refused to accept my assurances that it was unnecessary. Yesterday I went over to the Optics talk page, which had gotten zero posts for eleven months, to find you had freshly posted this among other choice comments:

I think the ban, in part, reflected that: the tiresomeness of a bunch of anti-pseudoscience quacks increasing the presence of pseudoscience quackery on en.wiki a thousandfold with their original research, non-scientific rants against pseudoscience.[4]

Which could reasonably be construed to be in violation of this policy clause:

Wikipedia:BAN#Dealings_with_banned_users: Wikipedia's hope for banned users is that they will leave Wikipedia or the affected area with their pride and dignity intact, whether permanently or for the duration of their ban. As such, it is inappropriate to bait banned users, or to take advantage of their ban to mock them.

This is taking on the appearance that you are raising every procedural objection imaginable to impede the progress of a featured article drive for a topic in which you demonstrate no other interest than antipathy toward its principal author. And in doing so you are also also disrupting other featured content work: I am writing up a featured picture nomination about the Suez Canal and interrupted it twice in order to answer you here, and this is pushing back another restoration which is currently on another open window on my system.

Also, the immediate transfer of data you have been seeking (for no clearly articulated reason) would place unreasonable burden upon my limited time as the primary author implements new edits and I transfer them. When I suggested you instead perform the transfers--if that's really so important to get it here immediately--you changed the subject. Note also a clause from our civility policy:

Wikipedia:CIVIL#Engaging_in_incivility: Attempts to publicly volunteer other people's time and effort for work they have not agreed to perform.

Now clarify things please if I have misunderstood somehow. Otherwise, if this continues much further, I may very well open an administrative noticeboard thread regarding you for violating WP:BAN and WP:CIVIL, plus the remarkably WP:POINTy accomplishment of interfering with three featured content drives simultaneously. Durova^Charge! 00:04, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

Wow, Durova, this is a bit weird to follow. I suggest you do go ahead and open an AN/I on me for violating BAN and CIVIL for trying to get the facts straight on a potential copyvio issue that you raised. I cannot possibly pull what you are saying out of this to clear up any understanding. --KP Botany (talk) 00:13, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

Why is it so hard to cooperate? I just don't understand. Durova^Charge! 01:45, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

How am I not cooperating? And with what? What does trying to understand something have something to do with cooperating? I gotta take your talk page off of my watch list at this point, Durova, your threats above, followed by this question don't actually make any sense, so there's no point in continuing. I do urge everyone who threatens me with AN/I to go for it, though. Please do. --KP Botany (talk) 01:54, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

There is actually no functional need for you to understand it. If you understand none of the several explanations that have been provided, please place your trust in those of us who have been planning it. And as a courteous gesture, please consider refactoring your comments to the article talk regarding ScienceApologist. Durova^Charge! 02:46, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

Sorry to bother you, Durova, but if you're not already aware of it you might want to know about this related thread at User talk:Moonriddengirl#copyright issue and GFDL. Partly in response to that, I'm thinking of posting a notice at the top of SA's workshop page saying "This page is partly based on material from [[wikipedia:Optics]]. As a courtesy, please don't copy material from here to Wikipedia until ScienceApologist suggests that it's a good time and procedural issues have been worked out for details of GFDL compliance." What do you think? ☺Coppertwig (talk) 12:28, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

Thank you; that sounds very useful. :) Durova^Charge! 15:14, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

Talkback

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

لennavecia 12:41, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

Okay. :) Durova^Charge! 15:00, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

I love your sense of humor

What an acute comment! I just could not stop giggling for minutes.--Caspian blue 17:38, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

Thank you. :) Durova^Charge! 17:39, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

To answer the now-moot question, MZMcBride's move was peculiar because he only needed RFA because he resigned himself two days earlier in the midst of a case. ArbCom did not strip him of his bit at that moment, contrary to some comments. It would have seemed less strange (and I think he would have fared better) running later, as you said. I suspect he'll do much better if he chooses to run in the future.

I wasn't involved in this case, but I doubt the committee would have held it open just to desysop him again. A positive result would be taken as an affirmation of community trust, and I would object from the talk page in the unlikely event ArbCom made such a move. Cool Hand Luke 15:29, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

I really doubt the Committee would have either. The theoretical possibility was intriguing, though. Never seen a situation quite like that before. And not entirely unprecedented: in the other case I was referring to the Committee had suspended arbitration for a month to run the conduct RfC that ought to have preceded it, in order to gauge the community's consensus. Under the most prejudicial circumstances of any RfC (an open arbitration case with a thus-far-unanimous motion to desysop) he still garnered a solid 80% community support. How did the Committee respond to the feedback they had sought? Only this: when they took away his bit anyhow they rewrote the decision to make it harder for him to get it back from the community. The day I first decided an RfC on the Committee could be needed wasn't when the Orangemarlin announcement happened or when the IRC case closed. It was while I watched this other case unfold. Spent several months hoping that case was a fluke, then holding my tongue while the entire Committee ignored my evidence and praised Jossi. I do hope the 2009 Committee learned from last year's mistakes. Durova^Charge! 17:08, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia:WikiProject Tropical cyclones/Merging

Hey Durova. I'm curious how you stumbled across the merge discussion, given you're not a part of the project, and I don't remember seeing you editing a hurricane article. ♬♩ Hurricanehink (talk) 18:34, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

It happened to come up during conversation and I reached an independent opinion. The participation was not solicited. Durova^Charge! 18:37, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

And for what it's worth, I have contributed featured content to your project. File:Searching for bodies, Galveston 1900.ogg Durova^Charge! 18:41, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

I was just a little surprised that I saw you come on there, without much experience in the project. I responded to you on the page. ♬♩ Hurricanehink (talk) 18:50, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

It's cool. Reasonable people can disagree respectfully. Am finishing a couple restorations atm; think this would be a good project?[5] Durova^Charge! 19:10, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

Yea, that looks cool! Do you have a plan for what article it would be in? ♬♩ Hurricanehink (talk) 19:22, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

The obvious place would be a biography for the painter and/or lithographer. Given the location and time of year it's unlikely that it actually was a hurricane according to the modern definition. Think this would be within your scope? Was also looking for Miami '26, but the best resolution panorama so far might be a little too small for FPC consideration. Durova^Charge! 19:55, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

I love the Galveston one - very stirring, and I can't believe how clear it is. Yea, I was trying to figure out which storm it would be for the 1839 one, and the only thing I could think of would be if it was Jun. 17, not Jan. 17. Unfortunately, there are no known storms in June of 1839, so it could probably only go in the painter/lithographer article. Good luck with the FLC - I got it watchlisted. ♬♩ Hurricanehink (talk) 02:13, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

Thank you. The Library of Congress has a lot of Galveston images. This was one of the most interesting. Damage is more extensive in many of the others, but it's less easy to understand a pile of rubble. Durova^Charge! 02:29, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

Congratulations!

Your Featured picture candidate has been promoted Your nomination for featured picture status, Image:Barnum & Bailey clowns and geese2.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. ~ ωαdεstεr16«talkstalk» 18:42, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

Thank you! :) Durova^Charge! 18:50, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

FPC Nom

Please re!vote on this nom. It was relisted and your previous vote no longer counts. Thanks. ~ ωαdεstεr16_«talk^stalk» 05:20, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

The subject being what it is, I may just give that a pass. It's exhausting to think about. Durova^Charge! 05:25, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

Exhausting, indeed :) ~ ωαdεstεr16_«talk^stalk» 11:12, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

Request for clean up

Hello, knowing your skills in the clean up of images. Could you please clean up this piece? M.K. (talk) 11:44, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for your interest. Unfortunately this is a really busy time to be asking. Existing commitments on deadline; can't make any guarantees. Durova^Charge! 15:38, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

Fervent imagination

So I imagine you knitting quietly, on a comfy chair while PBS' Masterpiece Theatre is on, or NPR, which is better for your eyes because you have reading glasses perched on your nose, with a long, thin chain keeping them around your neck. Knitting your sockpuppets, and collecting a stash of props for them. When in walks a family member or friend getting some coffee.

"Whatcha making?" the family member asks.

"A sockpuppet" says Durova.

Beat. Pause. (This is where I might forgo the coffee and turn and walk out of the room, but no, the relative soldiers on...)

"Are you going to be putting on a show?" asks the relative, wondering where the children might come from.

"No, this is a Wikipedia sockpuppet."

The relative cries.

I have two bookshelves full of material that I keep constantly stocked, rotating all the time while I'm working on an article. My brother and sister-in-law come over and read the titles and ask me, "Who the hell reads all this?" I do, apparently. Should I start to make knitted characters to represent the faceless denizens of the cyberworld I inhabit, the mocking would never end. I, at least, find the trolls to be very funny. The ruler. Classic. Fergus MacTroll! Lulz. It says "Fairrrrrrgus", rolling that R like a Flamenco dancer. You entertained me, at least. Consider that how you will. --Moni3 (talk) 16:51, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

Thank you very much. Mostly an accurate depiction. Foregoing coffee, though? Perish the thought. I never sleep; just jitter all night. ;) Durova^Charge! 16:59, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

I am, tragically, not a coffee achiever. I must harvest my energy from the souls of emotionally abused kittens. That, and a Diet Coke in the morning to make my stomach lining rot away. --Moni3 (talk) 17:07, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

Ah, lovely. A spiritual vampire. The Wiki Witch of the West approves. ;) Durova^Charge! 17:11, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

Wikimania 2010 Oxford bid

Thank you for supporting the Oxford bid to hold Wikimania 2010! We're currently in the final stages of the bid process - the jury will be announcing their decision by the 16th April. We're currently putting together the local team for the bid (who will do what if the bid wins); if you're able to be on the local team, please put your name in the appropriate place on m:Wikimania 2010/Bids/Oxford/Team. We'd also welcome anything you can do to help refine the bid in these last few days. If you have any questions, please let me or User:Seddon know. Thanks. Mike Peel (talk) 21:51, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

Lol, if you'll fly me from San Diego and put me up in a cottage I'd be thrilled to be part of your local team. Doubt that's feasible though... Durova^Charge! 21:54, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

If only the pound wasn't as bad as it currently is, we might have been able to pass the hat around... ;-) Diliff | (Talk) (Contribs) 22:11, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

Re: Barnstar

Thank you very much, Durova. You're the one who deserves the applause, though. Both of those articles have come up from nothing in the past few days, and you've lead the effort. Well done to you! :-) —Anonymous Dissident^Talk 02:43, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

It's such a pleasant surprise to get the assistance. Wikipedia's coverage of African geography is woefully inadequate. Thank you very much for helping to correct the shortcomings. :) Durova^Charge! 02:50, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/George Atzerodt

Your Featured picture candidate has been promoted Your nomination for featured picture status, File:George Atzerodt2.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 12:43, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

Thank you very much. :) Durova^Charge! 15:15, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

Question regarding images

Hey, I asked Iridescent for some advise regarding potential images from Michael Jackson's forthcoming concerts. I'm quite sure the venue will make a well published ban on taking cameras and video recorders into the arena. That said, some people will obviously get away with it, a million people are going. So it raises the question, can we accept these images if the venue has a ban in place? Your advise is appreciated. — R² 19:19, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

Any restrictions imposed by the venue constitute a contract between the patron and the venue. If a patron violates that contract it may be an issue of contract law between patron and venue, but other parties would not be bound by it. In other words: photograph at your own risk, but Commons has no objection against accepting the photographs if you do take them. Regards, Durova^Charge! 19:55, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

I see, thanks, it's a good thing. Can you believe we have no free images of this man after 1988! I've looked all over flickr too. — R² 20:15, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

Ambrose Burnside image

Hullo. Dropping a note to say I'm proposing File:Ambrose Everett Burnside.jpg for delisting as a Featured Picture. I put up a higher resolution, less agressively restored version. -- Michel Vuijlsteke (talk) 03:51, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

Happy Easter!

On behalf of the Kindness campaign, I just wanted to wish my fellow Wikipedians a Happy Easter! Sincerely, --A Nobody^{My talk} 06:09, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

Cute, thank you. :) Durova^Charge! 06:28, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

You're welcome! Sincerely, --A Nobody^{My talk} 06:32, 12 April 2009 (UTC)