User talk:Durova

[+] [Hide]

ARTHROPODS  FOREVER

134 featured pictures, 18 did you know? submissions, 4 featured sounds, and 3 good articles in ten months. Exhaustion! Now back to Photoshop for more ;)

Hello and welcome. If you're wondering about the 371 in the signature, it's the number of my featured credits. The big image at right is the WikiCup, which I earned for content work in the first ten months of 2009. The 2010 WikiCup is currently accepting signups. It's a lot of fun and it helps build the encyclopedia--please consider joining it. Don't worry; I've retired from the Cup. Would be glad to coach if you're thinking of earning points with digital image restoration.

For some strange reason 421 people watchlist this page. Think of me as a little hamster on a treadmill trying to earn more featured credits than lurkers in the fruitless pursuit of karmic equilibrium. If you're one of the lurkers, here's a convenience link to the edit count. More information for the statistics-hungry: according to the latest data I am the 258th most prolific editor at English Wikipedia by total edit count and at Wikimedia Commons I am the 27th most prolific contributor in terms of total upload filesize (including bots), or the 18th most prolific human.[1]

As you may have noticed, this page doesn't get archived very often. That's no accident. Apparently this is the fifth most edited user talk page on Wikipedia. As much as I love ya, it'd be hard to find time to contribute content if it were easier to load and post here. Want to see something really sick? These statistics dated 7 November 2009. The clock is ticking: three minutes of fame left on this quarter hour... ;)

---

Want to restore images? See Commons:Potential restorations: dozens of images ready and waiting for you.

---

Arbitration voting guide newly posted to my blog.

Archived talk 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 65 66 67 68 69 70 71 72 73

Re:Lifelike

Wow, what a clean talkpage you've got, I'm almost afraid to write anything!

I'd say deleting the article was a mistake, which, honestly, a few Google searches from either one of you would have suggested. Here are a few pieces of evidence on his notability: The remix of Chromeo's Fancy Footwork was included in the Deluxe edition of the single [2], his track Discopolis was played on daytime Radio 1 (never mind the rotation on the dance music shows (hich btw are impossible to get hold of)): [3] as well as being included on Pete Tong's Essential Selection mix CD [4], he had an official remix released by Kitsuné Music of La Roux's UK Top 40 single charts number 2 In for the Kill [5]. A pretty impressing discography would at least point to some notability [6]. He's djing (equivalent to live performances) all over the world as clearly shows on his MySpace. Next gigs are St Petersburg on nov 27, Singapore dec 31 and Rome jan 5, Barcelona the next day. I saw him in Stockholm in August [7].

Expect that he charges a couple of thousand euros for a gig excluding air fares and accommodation for him and his entourage (they were at least three in Stockholm). Also expect he charges several thousand euros for a remix and you might get the picture.

This reminds me of the reason why I left Wikipedia; the AfD:John Dahlbäck, which was based on misunderstandings and misconceptions of the dance music genre. Honestly, I don't care if you put it back up again or not and I'm not going to critic how you guys handled the AfD, even if a chance of defending the article had been nice (then again I probably wouldn't have seen it till now). I'm guessing, in the most respectful manner, that neither of you have any deeper knowledge of dance music let alone Lifelike himself, it's almost like there is a direct correlation of great influence on Wikipedia and poor knowledge of the dance music culture and vice versa... But seriously, I would have been a bit more hesitant to so speedily deleting an article I knew nothing about. I guess this also boils down to the question what music we should write about on WP. I agree that not any garage band are worthy an article, but with genres that rarely make it to the ordinary sales charts, the growth of music blogs and the decline of record sales the community maybe should ask itself if WP only should write about Brittney Spears or whoever will be the last person to actually be able to charge money for his/her music.

If I sound disrespectful or grouchy, please accept my apologies, I just got so fed up with the last discussion. Lastly, have a look at the Discopolis video which, by the way, have gotten 135k views since March when it was re-uploaded by its content owner and four years after the hype: [8] (it got some censorship problems back in the day so beware). Have a wonderful day and I look forward to your response! Sebisthlm (talk)

You might want to review this ANI thread in the context of Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Lifelike. Someone had emailed legal threats to multiple administrators regarding that article. Upon review of the article itself, the information which was there did not meet the site's notability guideline. If you wish to recreate the article you're welcome to contact an administrator to request userfication while you improve it. Durova³⁶⁶ 05:00, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

Meh, the link to the ANI thread is useless since it doesn't say what the Lifelike management had problems with. I don't know what I'm supposed to make of it, but I'm not sure people getting legal threats have any bearing on the question whether a subject is notable or not. I think that at least a few of the links I've provided points towards the subject of the article being notable, which I'm guessing would have had an impact of the outcome of the AfD, but as I've said, I don't care if the article is uploaded again. I'm just noticing that WP is not interested in providing knowledge of music other than that on the mainstream sales charts or on the highest radio rotation. That's fine, but that means that wp will not be catering to people with an actual interest in music. I personally couldn't care less since I've discovered that this isn't the place for me, and that there's no use turning to wp to learn anything about music if you're genuinely interested. Respectfully, Sebisthlm (talk) 03:37, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

At the ANI thread I withdrew the request for early closure when it became clear that the article's orignal creator hadn't been auto-notified. It's been a while, so perhaps contact the individuals who said they were contacted? Possibly some kind of good faith confusion there. It seemed like a normal music AFD based upon the sources when I nommed it, and then it got a pileon with rapid closure possibly due to the admin board thread. Probably would have closed the same anyway, if this is the first anyone followed up on the article development. So userfication followed by DRV would be the best route to go if the act is really notable. Feel free to ping me when a draft is ready; I'm neither a deletionist nor an inclusionist and would be glad to give things a second look. Best wishes, Durova³⁶⁶ 04:52, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

Sorry for the late response. As I've said, I don't really care if the article is recreated or not, so I won't be starting any process aiming for that. I didn't mean to come off as arrogant towards the wp:music crowd, there are of course a lot of people doing a great job there, but it's obvious that music articles on wp centers on mainstream music and not independent or dance music. I think that's a shame but I rather quit wp than try to change the guidelines which is just too much work for too little return. Thanks for taking time to discuss this though, I really appreciate it. Happy editing! Sebisthlm (talk) 19:42, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

Actually most of my work for that project has been ragtime, which is really underdeveloped. It's too bad the circumstances dovetailed that way. Hope it doesn't leave you discouraged. Durova³⁷¹ 21:09, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

Barnstar!

		The Distinguished Hive Mind Member Barnstar
		Congratulations on earning a distinguished spot on Hive Mind, you must be doing something right! Coffee // have a cup // ark // 06:41, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

Enjoy this rouge barnstar, and keep up the good work! --Coffee // have a cup // ark // 06:41, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

Thank you very much! This might be the nicest barnstar I've ever received. :) Durova³⁶⁶ 06:54, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

Durova, I'm not sure what your intentions were, but isn't this what WP:DENY is about? You'll just idolize Brandt with this barnstar. -- Mentifisto 07:01, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

Some trolls can't be starved out of existence. So honey catches more flies than vinegar. :) Ain't it cute? If this catches on people might even ask him for a spot. Kinda removes the sting. Durova³⁶⁶ 07:14, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

That won't happen just by creating a barnstar; not as long as people see WP:OUTING like a sort of cardinal sin. :-) -- Mentifisto 07:40, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

Are you aware of the circumstances that prompted this? Brandt now puts minors on Hive Mind. Durova³⁶⁶ 19:43, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

Criteria overhaul time

You complained recently about the declining quality of reviews at FPC. I've begun an overhaul of the (rather vague) criteria that will hopefully focus discussion and cut out some of the silliness. My understanding of the criteria with respect to historical images isn't very good due to accessibility (third world internet means I can't review your images), so I'm not that familiar with technical/editing requirements for restorations (plus I'm rather rusty).

It also proposes tightening of standards regarding attribution and documentation of manipulation.

The page is Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Criteria RFC. MER-C 09:20, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

The criteria don't need another RfC. We had an RfC less than half a year ago. It's a matter of people understanding the existing criteria and using them. Durova³⁶⁶ 18:49, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

Golden steeplechase

I think I'm ready, I've left you a nom. :) Staxringold _talk^contribs 15:16, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the reminder. :) Am in and out today. Kick me in the pants if I don't do it tomorrow. Durova³⁶⁶ 23:27, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

• Poke. :) Staxringold _talk^contribs 19:57, 21 November 2009 (UTC)
  • Ooch (rubs ribs). I've been doing a restoration for the golden steeplechase, about 2/3 done with the work at this time. Shuttling between a couple of projects for this, so thanks for the poke. :) Durova³⁶⁹ 01:52, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

Congratulations

On your wikicup accomplishment. Jehochman ^Talk 19:55, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

re:AN/I closure

I've responded on my talk page, but you realize that I wasn't the user who marked the issue resolved or the user who archived it, just the last person to comment. AniMate 01:35, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

In the same vein of what we were discussing, here's another example of a user pushing some boundaries with an image with no encyclopedic context. The image can be seen here, since the user page was deleted and recreated. I'm bringing this to your attention, mainly because I am still mulling over how these types of situations should be handled in the future. On a completely different note, when I have some free time (perhaps tonight since I'm planning on hiding out before the big push of preparation tomorrow), I'm working on an article offline about an abandoned hospital that is New York's only landmark ruin. Being located on the other side of the country, I can't very easily take a picture of it, and I'm not likely to get to New York until early next year. Any suggestions on who might be a good candidate to take a photo from NYC? AniMate 23:48, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

Promoted files (FP)

Your Featured picture candidate has been promoted Your nomination for featured picture status, File:Turkish heliograph at Huj2.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. ZooFari 07:09, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

Your Featured picture candidate has been promoted Your nomination for featured picture status, File:Dugout home2.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. ZooFari 07:09, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

FAC

Hey, could you check back at 1941 Atlantic hurricane season's FAC when you get a chance? Thanks. :) –Juliancolton | ^Talk 15:36, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

Sure. :) Durova³⁶⁹ 17:50, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

Tanks

Sure, I would be very interested... I knew going in that to have a historical photo be featured would be an uphill climb, and I was prepared with a larger version just in case. Based upon the criteria, it shouldn't have been a problem. I have run across many old WWI photos from the Canadian Archives that are outstanding, and have used Photoshop to try and make them clearer and sharper without loss of quality, but I haven't added them to the Commons. What have you got? Monsieurdl ^{mon talk} 18:38, 22 November 2009 (UTC)

The link at your user talk goes to a photograph that's over 20MB in uncompressed TIFF format. Generally speaking, featured quality restoration parameters start with a good 10MB TIFF source file. I don't consider an image large if it's under 100MB, and there's an image on another window right now that's nearly a gigabyte. If you'd like to do digital image restorations for featured consideration, please upload the unrestored and restored versions under different filenames and provide a link between them along with detailed notes on the edits you've performed. The curator community is divided about digital restoration, and one of the things that addresses their concerns is to be scrupulous about documentation that provides ready access to the original unrestored file. If you'd like tips or collaboration in this area, Skype is a very good client. It handles large file transfers well and supports voice chats. So it's easy to set Photoshop to fullscreen while discussing the work and trade screenshots. Email me for my Skype ID if you're interested, and best regards. :) Durova³⁶⁹ 01:51, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

I could do that, once I get my storage drive back online and transfer them over to my new computer. Many of the images were either faded in one corner or the contrast/brightness took a lot away from the subject. One of the images that I restored, from my own collection that I scanned and pieced together with care, is this one from the C.E.F. Whatever means by which documentation has to be provided is no problem, both original and restored image. I'll be working on more throughout the weeks to come. Monsieurdl ^{mon talk} 12:47, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

Maplewing

I saw this and thought it might interest you [9]. ChildofMidnight (talk) 19:42, 22 November 2009 (UTC)

Lovely. Too bad it's under an NC license. Durova³⁶⁹ 01:42, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Kmweber 3

I have deleted this RFC as it has not been certified by the requisite 2 editors. Kevin (talk) 01:39, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

Valiant Return Triple Crown?

I was formerly under ArbCom sanctions through WP:RFAR/HWY. I started the article Interstate 15 in Arizona [10] though someone else added the fact and nom'ed for DYK a few days later (Wikipedia:Recent additions 162). (I got a copy of the template). I am responsible for Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/California State Route 78/archive3 and Talk:California State Route 78/GA1. Does this qualify for the Valiant Return Triple Crown? --Rschen7754 (T C) 11:18, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

Looks like you do. Congratulations: in Triple Crown terms the Valiant Return is the top award. Cheers! Durova³⁶⁹ 16:12, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

POTD notification

POTD

Hi Lise,

Just to let you know that the Featured Picture File:Amsterdam Centraal Station2.jpg is due to make an appearance as Picture of the Day on November 29, 2009. If you get a chance, you can check and improve the caption at Template:POTD/2009-11-29. howcheng {chat} 19:46, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the heads up. There's a Dutch editor I'll ask to review it. Cheers! :) Durova³⁶⁹ 19:49, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents archiving

Durova, how do ANI sections get archived? Wildhartlivie continues to rant and rave there, and it doesn't seem very productive. Can you archive the Editor issues re: Ed Gein article and Threatened by another editor sections? That would reduce the number of forums to which the dispute can be posted. On the ANI board, you had mentioned "plenty of types of dispute resolution." What would you suggest at this point? Thanks for any help! --Sift&Winnow 20:16, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

There's a template to archive it. You could archive it with a note that the complaint is withdrawn from ANI. Obviously there's a dispute between the two of you (don't want to minimize that or take sides), but it isn't the sort of thing that requires a block or page protection. Let's hope it resolves itself without reaching that kind of level. Best wishes, Durova³⁶⁹ 20:26, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

Thanks, but if I archive it, I may get accused of something... --Sift&Winnow 20:51, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

I'll go ahead then. So you're fully aware, the main thing on my mind is this: that part of the harassment policy mirrors the coercion clause of the sitebanning policy, which was written more than two years ago after Daniel Brandt made a threat of a more serious sort: an administrator had blocked him. Daniel could have emailed me to request a review, but didn't. Instead he posted to another site to demand that he get unblocked and the blocking administrator indefinitely blocked, or else he would post personal information about me to a website he runs. Obviously I told him no, and he did his worst, and Wikipedia policy got modified to cover that situation afterward. Once in a blue moon a truly serious threat happens--sometimes worse than that one--and Wikipedia administrators need to block immediately. Your dispute appears to be in a whole different league (be grateful it's no worse!) and it's really best when that clause in policy gets cited no more than absolutely necessary. Thank you for your cooperation, and best wishes resolving your content dispute. Durova³⁶⁹ 21:11, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

Thanks

I really don't like not being notified when someone would like to have me blocked on a groundless basis and I hugely dislike when something is completely misrepresented and misconstrued. Then again, I don't much care for being dismissed as ranting and raving when I feel the need to defend myself against false charges. I'll take that step you mention next time. Thanks. Wildhartlivie (talk) 21:30, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

Большое спасиво за помощ при откоректировки иновмешательяMoryak (talk) 22:09, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

Not sure what Moryak is saying there, except that I certainly don't mean to dismiss you as ranting and raving. Not specifically validating you either (fwiw), so much as endeavoring to keep the big picture foremost. As much as one's wiki reputation is hard to build and sometimes feels imperative to defend, the specific issue of harassment is one where the best interests of the site are served by reserving administrator attention for the things that really do need immediate remedy. Posts such as I know where you live and I'm coming to get you take hands-down priority over misinterpretations of policy. Fortunately that isn't the type of situation you're facing right now. So here's wishing you the best working out the current dispute. Durova³⁶⁹ 03:29, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

File:Wounded Knee aftermath3.jpg file description

It appears that the Library of Congress has updated the file description for ppmsca.15849 to reflect your discovery earlier this year. I don't know whether it's necessary at this point in time to update the file descriptions of File:Wounded Knee aftermath.jpg and File:Wounded Knee aftermath3.jpg to reflect the new LOC caption, but I thought I'd bring it to your attention. Cheers, –BLACK FALCON ^(TALK) 00:16, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

Well done indeed! BTW, go raibh míle maith agat! (thank you!) :) - Allie ^❤ 01:46, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

Good point about the file descriptions. Did you know that the Montréal Museum of Fine Art has already used the updated LoC bibliographic information in its official program notes for a historic photography exhibit? And ty Alison: saw your translation on my Commons watchlist a little while ago :) Durova³⁶⁹ 03:31, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

Admin-only guidelines

Regarding this, this, and this, it's clear that there wasn't clear communication between ARBCOM and at least one administrator on a sensitive issue, resulting in much drama.

This example raises the general question of "how are administrators supposed to know when higher-ups are giving them guidance." Not just the administrators that are there when the guidance is issued, but those who may have been on wikibreak or who were not yet given the bit at the time also need a mechanism to check the "list of current non-public administrator guidance."

If there isn't already a mechanism in place to make sure that non-public decisions by ARBCOM, LEGAL, and OFFICE are communicated to those charged with enforcing them, please look into it. Thanks. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail) 13:35, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

If it isn't obvious by now, I certainly agree with this. I'd also add another group to the admins above: those who don't have time to participate in or follow every single ArbCom discussion. At times, there are just too many, with too much going on in them. I like contributing to the actual encyclopedia regularly, and because of various work and personal commitments as well as things on-wiki I've already committed to, I just don't have enough time in the day to do both. Therefore, I chose the one I thought was more important: improving the encyclopedia. ···日本穣^? · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe 15:18, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

This is where inter-admin civility comes into play: Admin #1 takes action without a clear reason. Admin #2 says "why did you do that." Admin #1 should say "I did it per policy or per directive from a higher authority or per discussion" and provide a link or at least provide enough information so admin #1 and any other admins can find the policy, directive, or discussion. If for whatever reason he can't give the information in public, Admin #1 can email Admin #2 or invite Admin #2 to email him for the information. Once he has the information, Admin #2 should say "Thank you" and that would be the end of that. That's the way it should be. That's the way it usually is. The fact that it isn't always that way is usually due to the fact that admins are human beings. Obviously, the incident in late October showed the humanity of those involved. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail) 15:45, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

Oh, the humanity! ;-) ···日本穣^? · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe 19:00, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

Forgive me if this reaction appears naive: other than collapsing one admin board thread and marking it resolved I've basically had nothing to do with this matter. That action was an easy call: an arbitrator had already posted to the thread to request that the matter be submitted to the Committee privately for review. Given the extreme sensitivity of the subject at issue, that was a reasonable request and prompt thread closure was needed, preferably by someone who was as distant from the conflict as possible.

In fact, have been so far from the conflict that I hadn't even noticed Nihonjoe was requesting bureaucrat ops. So now the candidacy has been placed on hold for a debate on the legitimacy of opposes over the P issue? Am I correct in surmising that the arbitrators were less prompt and effective about actually reviewing the block and communicating their decision, than in making the request that they handle the review off-wiki? Durova³⁶⁹ 18:37, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

First, apologies for assuming you were the right person to talk to about this. Your edit, while highly visible, shouldn't have led me to assume you were heavily involved in this. If you will either pass this concern on for me to the right people or let me know who to send it to/help me figure out who to send it to, it would be appreciated.

The systemic communication problem happened well before the block was made: Joe, and as it turns out at least 1 or 2 other administrators who have commented on the matter lately, were unaware of ARBCOM's request that these matters be referred to them. For public matters, administrators need only review existing public cases. For matters that have no public cases and for which administrators are expected to take actions not reflected in public policies, administrators need to be notified of what is expected of them. Had such notification been in place and had Joe seen it before seeing the block or had Ryan pointed him to it when Joe first questioned Ryan about the block, this drama would've been much quieter or short-circuited altogether. There was a related communication problem on Ryan's part that was rectified later, but that's not at issue here. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail) 20:05, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

Those look like very good points you're making. Although--getting up to speed--there appears to be another side to the matter and am less familiar with its merits, pro or con. Perhaps we can chuckle for a moment about the underlying need for improved communications: the first impression this created was Admin-only guidelines? Well good, I don't need to worry about them! Then there should be a template at the top of this page to say that this isn't Wikipedia's complaints department, followed by Do these people expect me to lecture ArbCom, the Foundation...and the bureaucrats too? Good heavens! Wait, I've been known to do that. Followed by Davewr and Nihonjoe are usually sensible and I must have had a finger in this somewhere.

So before climbing up to the bird's eye view of how to prevent this from happening in the future, it looks like over at RfB and BN a real mess has unfolded and is still unfolding. Am I correct in supposing that Nihonjoe, with his characteristic good sense, started RfB so soon after that contentious noticeboard thread in the reasonable belief that ArbCom had indeed reviewed his block and achieved a satisfactory resolution? Durova³⁶⁹ 20:29, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

*chuckle* to your italics. I don't see any BN threat related to this issue that started after the block of Ty and before the RfB, unless I missed something. The two current BN threads are 1) a brief announcement of a crat-chat regarding the completed RfB, and 2) a complaint, ironically against yours truly, for moving text from the RfB to the RfB's talk page. From what I can tell, Nihonjoe considered the issue of the merits of Ty's block closed when ARBCOM took it over, perhaps sooner. From what I can tell, the bruhaha in late October was over a misunderstanding based on ignorance of ARBCOM's desires compounded by lack of clear communication between two admins, nothing more. Unfortunately, bringing that piece of history up in RfB also spun off a few other discussions, including what you see on BN.

As to where to direct my initial query, it's looking like I'll have to find the appropriate communications channel on my own, and, again, my apologies for thinking you were that channel. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail) 20:56, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

Well, as one of the individuals who does criticize ArbCom on a fairly regular basis, you might have stumbled upon as good a place as any for basic pointers. If past experience is any indicator to how to handle this, let the RfB resolve itself one way or the other before pursuing the comprehensive issue. Try an email to Cary Bass on the Foundation side and to one or more of the sitting arbs to apprise them of this developing situation and to ask for guidance about how to head off future problems of a similar type. If the underlying matter were less sensitive then an onsite request to the ArbCom announcements board talk page would be a natural place to go--and maybe that's what they'll advise this time too. If they do suggest that, it wouldn't be effective to head there right away due to the very high odds of current hot discussion migrating there with all its heat intact.

Wiki community discussions are better at addressing short term and immediate issues than at resolving long range systemic failures. If a mechanism is flawed and breaks down in predictable ways, the consensus response will not look beyond the immediate manifestation. A vocal subgroup will disparage any attempt to identify or address the underlying systemic flaws. That subgroup usually thwarts effective followup because it makes a much more cogent sound bite to shout X is just stirring more drama! or Y is forum shopping! than to actually identify a pattern of systemic failures and initiate a dialog about options for preventing future problems. The latter requires patience and nuance, which tend to be in short supply where they would do the most good. One's best hope of holding any long range discussion is to wait until a dispute simmers down in hopes that the hottest heads will turn their attention elsewhere while the others recover from the storm.

At any rate, I'd be flattered if you cc'd me. Looks like you really have put your finger on the pulse of something that ought to be addressed proactively. Durova³⁶⁹ 22:47, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

My hope is that someone on ARBCOM has already noticed this and is working behind the scenes to make this problem never happen again, quietly and as invisibly as possible, given of course that there will be some visibility to administrators. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail) 23:08, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

One dependable assumption with regard to the Arbitration Committee is that they usually have more on their plates than any volunteer panel can reasonably manage. Their mailing list traffic has increased steadily during the past couple of years, with the resulting problem that matters which actually get brought to their direct attention have been known to slip through the cracks. The most visible recent example of this was the Law/Undertow ban appeal, which was submitted for their consideration repeatedly without meaningful action on the Commmittee's part--and finally came to a head after the editor had created a new account and passed RFA. I know of several other instances where formal requests, even those of a simple and straightforward nature, were delayed for quite a few months without any apparent reason or in some instances never dealt with at all. Certain Wikipedians may disagree with parts of this assessment, but overall the pattern is not consistent with the type of committee that addresses long range problems proactively. In a nutshell: they are too busy putting out fires.

It's still worth raising the matter to their attention. They might resolve it well if you do. But I wouldn't count on them going out of their way, otherwise. Durova³⁶⁹ 00:43, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

A little late in replying, but I was not the one who blocked Tyciol; rather, I questioned Ryan's block of Tyciol because there was no policy reason given for the block (and I wasn't aware of the ArbCom case which apparently supported the block). You can see a fairlyt short summary here. Hope that helps in understanding the basis for this interesting mess. ···日本穣^? · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe 03:43, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for the link and apologies for having gotten that side of it backwards. Whatever course of action the Foundation and/or Committee establishes as appropriate, the site's administrators do have a need to know what that is. It's very sad that this delicate matter surfaced at an RfB. Best wishes. Durova³⁶⁹ 06:37, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

Found this whilst browsing..

:) –Juliancolton | ^Talk 15:01, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

Happy Thanksgiving!

Happy Thanksgiving!

I just wanted to wish those Wikipedians who have been nice enough to give me a barnstar or smile at me, supportive enough to agree with me, etc., a Happy Thanksgiving! Sincerely, --A Nobody^{My talk} 19:04, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

Featured pic

Was just wondering if File:Close-up of a skylight on coastal plain, with lava stalactites forming on the roof of the tube.jpg would be the type of thing for an FP nomination. Not my thing, so I ask Wikipedia's own image expert :) Cheers, ResMar 19:54, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

Bump. ResMar 23:29, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

teh term wiki-stalking is back

I know you've strong views here, and a bit of why. Anyway, I just referred to you in a post here:

• Wikipedia talk:Arbitration/Requests/Motions/Jack Merridew one year unban review/mentors page#Trolls everywhere

Teh water's quite hot, and very, very, fowl. You're serious woman; you can take it ;)

Cheers, Jack Merridew 06:31, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

Hi, again ;) I replied at the above and referred to it at;

• Wikipedia talk:Arbitration Committee/Clerks#Wikipedia:Harassment#Wikihounding

and Dougweller has requested users to suitably amend their edits. The WP:AE archive has not been fixed and

• User talk:Dream Focus#Wikihounding versus wikistalking

is sticking his wiki-feet in the wiki-ground and I suggested that this post would get him (or her?) a few words from you on this issue. Thanks, Jack Merridew 03:31, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

coughs quietly. Cheers, Jack Merridew 03:12, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

---

(opening night, New York;) Other side some years later. (could be you meant this, but computer says no) Cheers, Jack Merridew 06:25, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

Dog and Skip

Skip and I are fast becoming friends, check out my user page and especially this new pic. — Dog The Teddy Bear • ^Bully! • 17:46, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

That is so cute. :) Good signature, by the way. Durova³⁶⁹ 18:39, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

...but I just tweaked the sig-code a bit; css font-family properties should be quoted (single-quoted, in an html style attribute) when the attribute value contains any space characters. I'll point Dog at this edit to get the issue sorted for the future. Off to see if Skip has a user page, too ;) Cheers, Jack Merridew 03:50, 28 November 2009 (UTC) (and nods at my post above which may have gotten lost in a sea of orange bars;)

Removal of PROD from PICMG 1.1

Hello Durova, this is an automated message from SDPatrolBot to inform you the PROD template you added to PICMG 1.1 has been removed. It was removed by Joe601 with the following edit summary 'adding references'. Please consider discussing your concerns with Joe601 before pursuing deletion further yourself. If you still think the article should be deleted after communicating with the 'dePRODer,' you may want to send the article to AfD for community discussion. Thank you, SDPatrolBot (talk) 19:38, 27 November 2009 (UTC) (Learn how to opt out of these messages) 19:38, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

Weird...the PROD removal occurred two and a half weeks ago. Heading over to communicate with the bot owner. Durova³⁶⁹ 19:47, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

Mud slinging ineffective

Durova, if you think your post about two year old grievances is going to result in mud slinging,[11] you always have the option to not hit "save". When somebody does something you don't agree with they might not be pure evil. Perhaps there could be a more innocuous explanation such as different styles, incompetence, ignorance, presumptuousness, rudeness or misunderstanding. I think Wikipedia would benefit if many users, not singling you out, would be more tolerant of others. I found your comments at Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Franamax to be embarrassing example of how we should not treat each other. If you don't like mud, stop slinging it. A wise person once told me What you say about others will have very little effect on their reputations, but could have a big effect on your own.

When User:Archtransit blocked me, did I go baying for blood? No. I was peeved at first, but then calmed down and tried very hard to assume good faith at Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Archtransit. Soon enough he revealed his true colors and was de-sysoped and banned. When a user really needs to be sanctioned, the fact will become evident to a large number of people. There's no need for any one editor to go out on a limb. (That was in fact the mistake I made back in the summer of '08, going out on a limb.) As a recent example, check the dialog at User talk:Mobile historian. I assumed good faith of the user and was prepared to unblock them.[12] When they thought they had won my trust, the user insisted upon restoring bad edits and linking to spam sites.[13] So I denied the unblock request, and had the sites blacklisted.[14][15] Yep, assumed good faith, but still got to the bottom of the rabbit hole. Jehochman ^Talk 23:23, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

Am not sure what that broad ranging post is intended to communicate. Its context and framing lead to wonder whether the intended audience is the 421 people who watchlist this page. There is a very great difference between your unsolicited advice today, and this allegation[16] from a year ago or this one[17] from earlier this month. Both accusations were entirely unfounded --and this is strong term to use--I regard the former as a lie. Please lead by example by following your own advice. Durova³⁶⁹

I think what Jeh is trying to say is that if you feel wronged by someone, it's best to let it go as much as possible, rather than insisting on getting your "pound of flesh". Raking over the past; alluding to private communication that "the community couldn't possibly evaluate" whereas apparently you alone have the one true picture; drawing your own conclusions about people's entire character and presenting them as obvious fact - sure, you can choose to live your (wiki-)life that way, but it's much better to just move on with life in general. In my case, you chose to exercise an old grievance and present it as though I would be a mortal danger to the wiki (which I notice still seems to be running fine, better in fact since I got db14 un-replagged :). I respect your choice, but it's not one I would have made. That's how I interpret the post above anyway... Franamax (talk) 01:03, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

Indeed I have "let it go as much as possible". Jehochman initiated an arbitration request himself, to invite scrutiny. Surely you don't mean to insinuate that waiting for the invitation and accepting it is a vindictive act. The only "pound of flesh" getting carved this weekend comes from the ham in the refrigerator. Please leave me to enjoy it in peace. Durova³⁶⁹ 02:19, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

Durova, I hope you enjoy your ham and your weekend. Sincerely and with best regards, Jehochman ^Talk 02:55, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

It would be easier to enjoy if your allegations were withdrawn, per links in my post above. It is not pleasant to tread on eggshells. The politics gets far too thick and interferes with useful work. This discussion interrupted a survey of historic featured pictures. This is the first draft: it covers October 2004. Sometimes you invite me to assist your content development. I have been unable to locate the image indicated in this discussion. It is not linked from the archive, is not linked from the historic page revision, is unrelated to the current featured picture of the Orion Nebula (which was promoted two years later), and does not appear in the category for FP delisting discussions. Takes quite a bit of double checking to hunt down these quirks in the middle of a tense conversation. Would you like to assist? Durova³⁶⁹ 03:33, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

[Jehochman impersonates Yoda] Found your missing nebula, we have. [18] Jehochman ^Talk 11:54, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

It's okay. Turns out the original upload had occurred locally, then been deleted as copyvio a few months later. Afterward a different image got uploaded to Commons with the same filename. Thank you for finding the original. Durova³⁶⁹ 15:28, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

One of us could email the photographer and ask for a release. What do you think? Jehochman ^Talk 21:30, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

Need support for Arbcom appeal

I'm trying to get User:Brews ohare (Prof. John R. Brews in real life) back to editing physics/engineering articles. Currently he is subject to a physics topic ban, which i.m.o. is quite ridiculous. Brews got himself into trouble basically by dominating certain talk pages, particularly the the speed of light talk page, to get his way. That led to an Arbcom case leading to the topic ban. Given what happened during and after the Arbcom case (I'll explain below in detail), I think there have to be some well known Wikipedians involved in any appeals process.

The way this Arbcom case proceeded was i.m.o. highly problematic. The issue was never topic related. It is true that Brews not only dominated the talk page but was also wrong on the point he was arguing in favor of. That may have led the Arbitrators, who mostly don't know much about physics to think that Brews is the typical crank who should not edit any physics pages. The fact that User:David Tombe, who fits the desciption "crank" much better, was the subject of the same Arbcom case could be a factor here. Ironically User:David Tombe got off with a lighter sentence as far as physics is concerned. Unlike David, Brews can't even discuss any physics on his talk page.

Since this topic ban was imposed, Brews has been active on some policy related pages, he also contributed to my essay. That led to complaints that i.m.o. are highly exaggerated. He has been accused of "fighting old battles", even though most of the points he was arguing in favor of on the policy pages were not seen to be relevant during the Arbcom case. So, if it was irrelevant then, it can't be relevant now.

Thing is that Brews is only interested in physics. After the Arbcom case, I though he would leave Wikipedia permanently. So, I was happy to see him stick around here. The negative comments to his involvement on the policy pages mainly come from uninvolved people who were involved in the orignal Arbcom case. E.g. Jehochman seems to have Brews on his watchlist and every time he sees Brews editing a policy related talk page he calls that "disruption" and goes to the Arbcom enforcement or Clarification page. Some other editors are acting in the same way.

I would say: If Brews is editing a page that you are not involved in then that is none of your business. However, these people got their way and Brews is now not allowed to edit any policy related pages. This is where things stand right now.

I made a compromize proposal to allow Brews to edit physics related pages on his own user space, to be released to Wikipedia after approval, while the topic ban formally stands, so Brews cannot directly edit any physics apges, not even the onces written by him after being released. see here for details. Brews has told me that he is willing to edit under such severe restrictions. But it seems that this proposal is falling on deaf ears. It seems that the Arbitrators somehow believe that the current topic ban is the right way to go forward.

This view of the Arbitrators makes me sceptical that they are able to deal with this issue in a pragmatic way. They seem to be so absorbed by Wikipedia's rules that they do not see the engineering professor who could make (and has already made) many valuable contributions to Wikipedia.

Another very negative development is that my efforts have led to attacks on me by Jehochman. This seems to be because I have also defended User:Likebox, who is an expert in theoretical physics. Like Brews he also caused some trouble. In his case it was pushing his POV on a math topic a bit too hard. To Jehochman, Brews and Likebox are troublemakers who should leave Wikipedia. Anyone who tries to mediate to get unreasonable sentences overturned and tries to get the editors back to editing their topics of interests and expertise are seen to be part of the problem as well. Nothing I wrote to Likebox or Brews suggests that I want to make them cause trouble at all.

This whole negative climate surrounding this case makes it necessary i.m.o. to have some well known Wikipedians like you to be involved in any appeal. Count Iblis (talk) 03:28, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

It's more than a little disconcerting to see "need support" in this header: when I review a matter I do so with an open mind, then post whatever conclusion the evidence and reasoning indicate. Unless you can link to some prior discussion that obligates me to follow up now, will respectfully decline. Requesting refactor to a wording that could neither be confused for an attempt at canvassing, nor create a mistaken impression that I would be swayed by such a request. Durova³⁶⁹ 03:43, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

Of course, you should review the matter yourself using the links to the Arbcom case I gave above. The basic issue now is not to fight the original issue again. It is simply to get a compromize proposal off the ground along the lines as suggested here. On my talk page, Brews agreed that he is willing to edit under such severe restrictions. Look, if someone supports my view as I explained above, then that person would be able to support lifting the topic ban almost entirely. But the proposal is that even though Brews feels he could now edit physics articles without causing problems, he is willing to do that under the proposed restrictions that guarantee that there can be no disruption whatsoever.

What you could do e.g. is see if there are problems with my proposal as I formulated it and suggest some alternative proposal that would work better or be more acceptable. I'm not looking for just more people supporting my or Brews' opinions in some very polarized discussion. I am looking for new people who want to advocate finding some pragmatic solution which does not necessarily have to be the same as what I've proposed. The reason why I think this is necessay is simply to have a discussion of proposals at all instead of the usual fingerpointing. Count Iblis (talk) 16:32, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

It is disappointing to read a followup that contains none of the requested refactoring. Equally disappointing to see an assertion "you should..." without any evidence of a prior involvement that might obligate followup. If such an involvement exists I do not remember it, and "please" would be more appropriate. I have plenty of existing obligations. Durova³⁶⁹ 17:33, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, as a non-native English speaker, I probably misunderstood what you meant with "refactoring" and have expressed myself with "you should" in an inappropriate way. With the latter, I meant to address the canvassing issue, should you decide to get involved at all. But reading between the lines, I think that you don't feel much for getting involved in this issue. Count Iblis (talk) 18:05, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

We edit conflicted. While you were writing I posted to the ArbCom appeal to distance myself from this request. Please do not approach me regarding this matter again. Durova³⁶⁹ 18:09, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

To be in PD or not to be?

Hi, Durova, I'm little bit unclear whether this image of modern art piece is in PD not. I came across the image by reviewing a DYK hook. The copper art piece produced by Santa Clara del Cobre, a Mexican village is obviously a modern work, but purchased by the writer and nominator Thelmadatter (talk · contribs). In that case, how do you label its copyright? Is it treated same as copyrighted commercial products with trademark? I think this could not be in PD, but I could be wrong. Your help would be appreciated. Thanks.--Caspian blue 18:56, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

Should be either transwikied to en:wiki with a downsample and nonfree use rationale, or someone should get an OTRS release from the artisan. Lovely work. The photograph is derivative. Durova³⁶⁹ 19:29, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for the advice, Durova. --Caspian blue 01:22, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

Opinion on an image?

Could you please give me an opinion on what sort of work should be done to make this image better?-- fetchcomms☛ 21:55, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

Have you tried the Wikipedia:Picture peer review program? Durova³⁶⁹ 22:31, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

Oh, I just meant improving the lighting and stuff for visibility; I'm not really looking for an FPC.-- fetchcomms☛ 23:13, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

Good composition, a bit overexposed. Durova³⁶⁹ 00:12, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

Updates

Lord Kitchener still lurks here. upstateNYer 01:40, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

Source isn't updated yet.[19] Waiting for the change to go live before implementing the filename change and notes. Durova³⁶⁹ 01:45, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

Valued pictures and ITN in the WikiCup

Hi. I am contacting you on behalf of the WikiCup judges because you were involved in our previous points polling. Though most of the polls are now closed, we have restarted polls relating to the points value for both valued pictures and in the news entries. You are welcome to submit your votes here; the polls will be closing in a week's time. J Milburn (talk) 20:02, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

The point of these polls is to come to a final decision- the opinion of the majority of poll participants was that VPs should receive points, and so it is now just a matter of determining how many. The nature of simple polls like this means that there's no way everyone can be happy, but at least this way we have something to point at, rather than just offering the points values on a stone tablet. J Milburn (talk) 20:09, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

The point needs no explanation; was explaining the reason for abstention. Durova³⁷¹ 20:16, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

That makes sense. J Milburn (talk) 20:22, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

Heads up

You have double posted here. Nothing urgent, I am sure a clerk will come along in due course if you don't get to it. LessHeard vanU (talk) 20:42, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

Corrected. Thank you for the heads up. :) Durova³⁷¹ 21:33, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

Thanks …

… for taking the time to read that RfC and close it. I appreciate the effort. Deor (talk) 20:55, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

You're welcome. Durova³⁷¹ 21:34, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

Portal peer review

Would appreciate any input you might have at Wikipedia:Portal peer review/Christmas/archive1. Yeah, it is a bit late for reviews, which I noticed myself, but that portal is probably going to be at its peak viewing around now, so now is probably the time to work hardest to make it good. John Carter (talk) 16:53, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

Done. Suggested a few images; current Selected Picture 12 needs replacement (deleted at Commons). Durova³⁷¹ 20:28, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

Improving an historic recording

Looking through the archives of WP:FSC, I see that you have been known to restore sound files as well as images. Is there anything that can be done with this one, or is it as good/bad as it'll get? In any case, is it worth a run through FSC? No rush to answer. Regards, Bencherlite^Talk 21:04, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

Actually I don't restore sound files. The restoration part of my FSC nominations was always done by someone else, if it needed restoration. Try asking Seddon or Dendodge. Durova³⁷¹ 16:40, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

Request for advice

I'm writing about how to deal with the talk page edits on Talk:Celestial spheres. Since your closing of the RfC, Logicus has resumed his abrasive editing style on the talk page (which includes arguing OR there, but not in the article).

A slightly involved editor whose opinions I respect told me that an RfC/U would be useless and

"Admins won't act at AN/I unless there is ongoing disruption, and I don't think his talk page posts are sufficiently disruptive to take to AN/I.... Administrative action is solely for the purpose of preventing continuing disruption, not punishing past misconduct."

The system seems to be well designed to deal with acute problems but is there a way to deal with long term (over two years) chronic, small scale, disruptive editing? (For an example of what I have in mind I've gathered a dossier in a draft RfC). If the advice I received was correct I fear that insofar as "exhausting the patience" is by definition a chronic, not an acute problem, WP:DE has become a dead letter.

I know you have past experience with these issues (including on the abandoned Community sanctions noticeboard) and your advice on the best way to proceed would be most welcome. --SteveMcCluskey (talk) 02:48, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

Conduct RfC is a good idea. There are two reasons for it: one always hopes it has the desired effect, but if that doesn't happen it can show uninvolved editors which editors are reasonable and which aren't. That does make things easier to deal with afterward. Durova³⁷¹ 04:06, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

Thanks. Do you mind if I quote your comment on the draft RfC's talk page? --SteveMcCluskey (talk) 15:00, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

Go ahead, thank you. Durova³⁷¹ 16:33, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

Reply to your close

In case you missed it, Logicus has posted a reply for you at Talk:Celestial spheres. --SteveMcCluskey (talk) 23:38, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

Link removal

If you're going to start removing links to sites reposting emails they have received, you're going to have a LOT of links to remove. Was your removal well considered? --Gmaxwell (talk) 04:29, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

Um, first there's WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS and then there's tons of edits I've actually put in doing just that sort of thing. WP:LINKVIO crops up a lot in music articles. Durova³⁷¹ 04:37, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

I'm not concerned about linkvio… It's a good policy that I've promoted in the past. I'm specifically referring to removal that only involves the publication of emails. Generally with "other stuff exists" we'd consider it a worthwhile goal to actually get the other stuff fixed, eventually, and are only constrained by operational realities. In this case it's not clear that removal would ultimately be a worthwhile goal... But if it were we could make a good step in that direction by SBLing all links to usenet archives, which are festooned with email reprints. (I'm also not aware of any successful copyright litigation regarding that form of republication, and a quick database search turned up nothing.)--Gmaxwell (talk) 07:08, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

Gmaxwell, have you actually looked at the edit history and block log of the account that started this? It was a troll. The remainder of your post would be better expressed at the policy talk page. Durova³⁷¹ 17:00, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

G'day D - to dive right in; I don't think the block log or behaviour of a dodgy account relates directly to whether or not links to David's blog may, should, or must be removed. I think it's a silly interpretation to insist that they are removed, and it would be better to avoid such removal - regardless, I dropped a specific question in to the admin's noticeboard because this singular interpretation may be handily dealt with over there? Hope you're good :-) Privatemusings (talk) 01:08, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for notification. Durova³⁷¹ 01:10, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

Bruce's Beach

Hi Durova. I appreciate your refactoring of an unnecessarily provocative thread heading, although I would have preffered it if you would have done it for all of headers in the relevant discussion. :) I've been warned before for trying to lessen drama by doing something like that, but I think good faith and the need to keep things collegial trumps the frantic objections of the paranoid and suspicious. Anyway, I came by to see if you wanted to dig up a photo for this new article which is also a DYK nom. It was in operation in the 1910s and early 1920s. If you have insights, suggestions, or want to do the heavy lifting of finding an old photo for that article I'd appreciate it. I think you pointed me where to look a long time ago, but I forgot. In the interests of elevating focusing my expertise on an appropriate area of specialty, I usually work only on photos post 2004. If you're busy (actually, it's probably fair to assume you're busy) and want to maintain your focus I certainly understand. Cheers. ChildofMidnight (talk) 21:25, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

Searched the Library of Congress site and came up with nothing, sorry. Durova³⁷¹ 21:58, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

Thanks very much for having a look! ChildofMidnight (talk) 22:16, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

Concern at ANI]

This article when I googled Hochman : [20] and the computing company that is mentioned in the article along with what he says about his company made me believe that they were one in the same. Not a Jewish name conspiracy theory.--Die4Dixie (talk) 02:36, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

POTD notification

POTD

Hi Lise,

Just to let you know that the Featured Picture File:Layla and Majnun2.jpg is due to make an appearance as Picture of the Day on December 4, 2009. If you get a chance, you can check and improve the caption at Template:POTD/2009-12-04. howcheng {chat} 18:18, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

CSN (wikihistory mention)

Excuse noise ... Saw your response to SirFozzie at AN, and noted the CSN reference. (Recently learned of WP:PAIN by a similar passing mention). Historical perspective is always good. And dropping by your user page is surely pleasant in that respect. (And beautifully done.) Just holiday drive-by noise, but thank you, Durova — whose username is now invested with meaning. (And, wow!, on that Obama/Durova comparison stat. lol) Cheers. Proofreader77 (talk) 23:59, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

Ah, that thing. A stroll down amnesia lane... ;) Regards, Durova³⁷¹ 00:05, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

Re: Durova invited

That diff should be oversighted immediately. It looks like the subsequent one was, but they missed the previous one (with your name in it) as well so you should request it. Radeksz seems to have cut and pasted his entire inbox into the article, and from what I can tell, he merely invited you to join Gmail at some time in the past. Skäpperöd should revert your name from his addition to the evidence page. Viriditas (talk) 00:06, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

Next...

Thought you'd care to see what I'll be working on next. Hoping to use this in White Sea and maybe Northern Dvina River. Looks like it will mainly just be removing smudges, dirt, etc; so maybe I can handle this one on my own :). I've got classes wrapping up in the next couple weeks, so I may be slow, but I'll let you know when I have a decent restoration for you to check out. Jujutacular ^T · C 00:12, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

You are on AN and ANI way too much

Too much Durova.--The Fat Man Who Never Came Back (talk) 03:08, 4 December 2009 (UTC)