Misplaced Pages

Excuse me, how did you try to contact me? I don't recall receiving anything from you in the past week or so. If it was e-mail maybe the messages didn't get delivered? My spam filter might have caught them or something. Durova 21:06, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

Re: Astroturf

Hi - I have contacted the user - I'll see what comes of it, AGF now has a chance to bloom if it so wishes - perhaps I am just getting a bit fed up of the extent to which WP is getting mangled these days due to its internet prominence. SFC9394 15:51, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

I think of this as a growth curve: nearly everyone with an Internet connection knows we exist but most of them don't have much experience here. Unfortunately a good deal of the press coverage hasn't been all that accurate. It often gives viewers and readers a misleading idea of policy. Here's an outside link I find useful. It's not officially endorsed by the community, but it's listed at WP:COI. Best wishes, Durova 21:09, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

• Thanks SFC for informing me of the WP's COI policy, and Durova, that's a good article about how WP works in relationship to PR professionals.

However I'd like to say that my edits to the AstroTurf and FieldTurf pages weren't based on vandalism or bias. If you look at the history logs you'll find that my edits to both articles were neutral and were only intended to make each article more accurate and less one-sided. The FieldTurf article has a few false claims and leading statements that I attempted to correct several times. Since the article has been reverted back to where it was before my edits to neutralize it, the false statements are still prominent and reflect negatively towards AstroTurf or overly positively towards FieldTurf.

By not allowing someone who has an invested interest and first hand knowledge in a certain subject to make neutral corrections, you're basically expecting someone with possibly lesser knowledge and lesser interest to care about the accurateness of your articles. I understand the use of the talk pages to discuss the controversial subject matter until a resolution has been reached, but in the meantime inaccurate information is being copy/pasted into the posts of numerous blogs on a daily basis spreading to countless readers who don't know the source or the accuracy of the content. Tygast411 15:18, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

I'm all for neutral corrections by editors who know a subject well. What I like to see is the potential conflict of interest openly declared. The shortcoming I saw in those edits was that they were unencyclopedic in tone - more in the style of PR writing than what we like to use. Not everyone who's good at public relations adapts to Misplaced Pages's prose style. In that case it can be good to post proposed changes to the talk page along with citations and ask uninvolved editors to adapt the material, or if the pages seem to be low traffic post to a related Wikiproject. Durova 22:00, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

E.Shubee

I really dislike having to do this, but E.Shubee seems to be up to his disruptiveness again. We currently have a discussion over some POV links at Talk:Seventh-day Adventist Church and as usual he is disruptive and adding a dissertation to his user page because he disagrees with what's trying to take shape and calling for comment. I'm not sure what I'm trying to accomplish, but it would be nice if you could watch and keep an eye on him and or make comments on the discussion taking place, if you so choose. A simple consensus discussion has now taken on the form of a battle. I grow weary of just trying to keep peace when he comes around. Thanks! --Maniwar (talk) 03:48, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

I'll get on it as soon as I can. Durova 22:01, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

Okay, I've left a caution. E.Shubee hasn't violated 3RR but I do rate this as edit warring against consensus. Considering his long history I've notified him that I'm close to proposing a community siteban. That would go up on WP:AN with a notice to his userpage if it happens, so I suggest you watchlist his userpage if you haven't already done so. Thanks for your patience. Durova 23:53, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

Thanks!

Thanks for helping me a few months ago (here it is in your archive), when I was new, on how to add an article to DYK. I finally added something, the Close Combat: A Bridge Too Far entry yesterday. I couldn't have done it without your help! · AndonicO 13:52, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

I've offered barnstars to editors who were in arbitration if they turned things around and got an article into DYK. I don't see why I shouldn't give you one too for achieving that without getting into a dispute first. Not too long after you posted that request I updated my user space to include tips for DYK applications. You inspired me: thank you. Cheers, Durova 21:56, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the barnstar! It mean much more coming from someone I look to. I hope I can add more articles soon, but it's not easy to create new ones (I'm looking through my mythology encyclopedia, but all the Greek ones—the interesting ones—are taken). You're welcome for inspiring you, although I didn't know I did it. :-) · AndonicO 00:36, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

Nudge

Took some time away, thanks for the nudge;)--Hu12 20:36, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

I'll keep this on your talk? Durova 20:36, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

I can follow here or there, your page is on my watch list.--Hu12 20:40, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

We're posting over each other. If you follow up here again I'll just keep it here. I'm surprised you watchlist this: my talk page sees more traffic than some noticeboards. Cheers, Durova 20:45, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

Should trim down my watchlist, think I'm @ 1300 +. Watch the noticeboards also. I mainly add talk pages to watch for vandalism, and responses to notes (or warnings) I place on them. Cheers,--Hu12 23:12, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

Should I place the 3 q's on the nomination page?--Hu12 02:47, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

I went ahead and formatted the page, pleas undue if incorrect. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Hu12 (talk • contribs) 03:01, 8 February 2007 (UTC).

A question regarding my pending statement

Hi Durova. I left the following message on my talk page regarding evidence already posted in the Waldorf matter, but wasn't sure you'd seen it. Thanks in advance for your reply:

Durova: I've read your statement and you seem to be familiar with the enduring dynamic between Thebee and myself. I've already documented evidence of his WP:CIVIL and WP:BITE misbehavior towards me in the evidence section. Obviously, I am no longer satisfied with his apology, since he keeps attacking me and I intend to press this issue. My question is: is what I've already posted sufficient, or should I write it into a statement as you have done? Thanks again - Wikiwag 20:35, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

Could you post a few words to update it? I think you'd be the best person to cover events of the last week. Durova 21:38, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

Understood. Thanks again. - Wikiwag 22:58, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

How's this? - Wikiwag 13:42, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

You certainly put a lot of effort into that. I have one request I posted to the review talk page. Best wishes, Durova 21:00, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

Thanks Durova. Your request has been taken care of. - Wikiwag 21:42, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

Durova in your opinion

Sexuality of Abraham Lincoln is this article a NPOV? --ⅮⅭⅭⅬⅩⅩⅤⅠⅠ 20:54, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

I'm flattered you canvassed me at the same time you canvassed Jimbo (am I really that well known?), but you'd be better off if you filed an article content WP:RFC and contacted the relevant WikiProjects. Although I have a degree in history I really don't know this specialized topic. Regards, Durova 22:06, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

If you have a free moment

The list of 60+ JB196 socks has grown to over 80. (thankfully the IP's have now been blocked). See the thread over at AN/I for more info. Happy Almost-Friday to ya! :) ] SirFozzie 20:51, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the heads up. Whack-a-mole continues. Durova 20:55, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

Community-enforced mediation

I don't think he's even aware I proposed it, yet, but if you check the histories behind the recent kerfluffles at WP:MUSIC, WP:BIO, and WP:WEB, and WP:CREEP to a point, it comes down to a battle between Radiant and myself regarding making sure consensus is reflected in our policy/guideline changes and promotion. It's been bubbling under recently, came to a head last week, and I'd rather not go to ArbCom and see results for either of us that would be contrary to our interests, but it's getting close and this proposal seems like the perfect fit. I won't know how he feels until tomorrow, judging by his editing habits, but yeah. --badlydrawnjeff talk 21:41, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

I'll wait until Radiant replies, and of course we would all need to wait until this gains enough support to move forward experimentally. Based purely on your reputations I'll say I'd be interested if both of you are. Durova 21:56, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

Well, my hope is that the two of us and the mediator can run it as a test case anyway to show how it would work and resolve this dispute at the same time. I know Radiant is a proponent of the proposal as well, so I'm keeping my fingers crossed. --badlydrawnjeff talk 22:01, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

Drop a few words by Radiant and suggest it. It's up to both of you to make the first moves. Durova 03:09, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

It's sadly not looking good. Not sure what else I need to do... --badlydrawnjeff talk 15:45, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

• Once more - for the last several weeks, Jeff has been persistently making false accusations and personal attacks about me all over the wiki, and that includes this so-called mediation request. Basically, any recent discussion with him boils down to him namecalling rather than making actual arguments. Several people have pointed that out to him already, but he apparently feels justified in attacking people he considers disruptive. If someone can get him to retract those accusations and attacks, and to stop making them in the future, I'd be happy do discuss our disagreements. >Radiant< 15:48, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
  • This fundamental disagreement is why we need this. I've replied over there. --badlydrawnjeff talk 15:55, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

Radiant, Jeff's statement to me just express that there's been a conflict and ask for a chance to resolve it. If you see anything objectionable in this thread I'll ask Jeff to strikethrough. I've got no comment on the surrounding disagreement, but this request for mediation seems reasonable and civil. I'd consider this as a test case if you're both willing to try it. Durova 16:10, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

Whack-a-mole

Speaking of Whack-a-mole, what's your position on limiting editing to registered users? I think far too much time is wasted on IP-related problems. -- Fyslee's (First law) 22:04, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

It's a perennial proposal. In the past I've advocated restricting unregistered access from variable IP ranges, but AOL has made some adjustments (I understand) that make checkuser feasible. That reduces one form of headache. Did you ever touch bases with this guy's ISP? He's made well over a hundred sockpuppets since his ban. Anyway, they usually get tired of the game after a while. Durova 22:07, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

Writing an encyclopedia is not a game, and those who want to play games should not have access here. Misplaced Pages is the biggest battlefield, biggest time waster, and biggest collection of discussion lists on the internet, and that's a shame. It's also ironic considering what a fantastic resource it is, and how much better it could be if not for time consuming idiots and their games. If Misplaced Pages would begin to exercise some form of editorial control, just like a real encyclopedia, the quality and reliability would soar to new heights. It's simply not run in a professional manner. There are too many holes in its quality control. Right now Misplaced Pages isn't even a reliable source, according to its own definitions, and that's too bad. -- Fyslee's (First law) 22:51, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

For me, I think there are a lot of people who enjoy playing whack-a-vandal, and until that changes, it'll be hard to persuade people that there are better ways of doing things. Regards, Ben Aveling 02:34, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

We need vandal fighters. They're like the litter squad that cleans up the trash by the side of the information superhighway. Durova 02:46, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

Agreed. We do, and we always will. But there are things we could do to reduce the amount of litter if we had to. Regards, Ben Aveling 03:15, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

One thing I'd like to see is better media relations so at least the press provides a Kids, don't try this at home disclaimer when they report on a breaching experiment. Durova 03:16, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

We have whack-a-vandal. They have whack-a-pedia. They live on conflict, so they'll always spin things to cause trouble, because trouble is news. <wish>What I'd like is a rule that says "while an organisation condones its employees encouraging vandalism, that organisation will be denied read and write access to wikipedia"</wish> So long as we're completely harmless, they'll keep poking sticks at us for fun. Grumph. Ben Aveling 05:20, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

Easy, Ben. Grumphy responses only tickle the rubbery-green-bridge-dwelling moles. I prefer Yawn. *thwack* Yawn. *thwack* *sip coffee* *thwack* Eventually they discover the game's more boring than fun and run off to World of Warcraft or something else. Durova 16:55, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

Re: Adminship?

Durova, thanks for the encouraging comment you made a couple of days ago. Unfortunately, I'm really swamped in RL right now, and can't devote the time/energy that an RfA would require. I may give it some thought once things calm down, but that won't be for awhile. --Akhilleus (talk) 02:41, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

Drop me a line when you're ready. I'd be honored to submit the nomination. Best wishes with RL. Durova 02:44, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

Community-enforced mediation

Hey there, Having done a little MedCab work recently, this project definitely seems promising. I'd like to be join in on the project as some kind of trainee mediator, as you described on your project page. I'm not entirely sure whether I'm just supposed to just show an expression of interest here or some kind of more formal application, but I though I'd leave the former. I'd be happy to give you any more info about myself if you'd like. Cheers. Jem 18:28, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

Stephanie Adams

I saw your comments there. I suppose an RfC is an option, but the problem is that other than Hoary, most of the "regular" contributors there appear to be people that Ms. Adams has had disputes with elsewhere on the internet or Ms. Adams herself (or possibly her representatives, there is more to this that I'm really not interested in going into at this point). WP:DUCK there is quite a bit of puppeting going on their as well. I've just fully protected the article for the time being because it is getting kind of ridiculous. Really, when you get right down to it there are several individuals there that WP:COI should not be editing that article (to be fair though, one individual who has been participating in the talkpage is aware of his WP:COI and has apparently voluntarily stayed away from editing the article space).--Isotope23 18:31, 9 February 2007 (UTC)