| Revision as of 20:59, 21 April 2009 editJehochman (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users, Page movers, Pending changes reviewers, Rollbackers46,281 edits →Do you care about accuracy?: suggestion← Previous edit | Revision as of 21:12, 21 April 2009 edit undoDurova (talk | contribs)Autopatrolled, Extended confirmed users, Pending changes reviewers, Rollbackers60,685 edits →For better accuracy: replyNext edit → | ||
| Line 607: | Line 607: | ||
| : If you want to impress me, you could help review ]. ] <sup>]</sup> 20:59, 21 April 2009 (UTC) | : If you want to impress me, you could help review ]. ] <sup>]</sup> 20:59, 21 April 2009 (UTC) | ||
| ::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 ] dead letter; what I do assert is that your actions and statements amount to an equivalent argument. What you appear to be asserting now is that local consensus can trump policy. What are the boundaries of that thesis? Does that apply only to ], or globally? <font face="Verdana">]</font><sup>'']''</sup> 21:12, 21 April 2009 (UTC) | |||
Revision as of 21:12, 21 April 2009
Want to restore images? See Commons:Potential restorations: dozens of images ready and waiting for you.
The first editor to write a featured article while sitebanned newly posted to my blog.
My edit count, a good example of why automated tools should be filtered through common sense. Although only about 30% of edits have been to Misplaced Pages namespace, that averages to one featured content credit for every 61 mainspace edits over 3.5 years.
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 69Info 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)
- Thanks very much for the research. :) Durova 19:07, 12 April 2009 (UTC)
WikiCup Newsletter XII
| The WikiCup Newsletter | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Delivered for the WikiCup by ROBOTIC GARDEN at 17:00, 13 April 2009 (UTC). To report errors see the talk page.
Message
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 Misplaced Pages 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)
- Does it now? /me runs back to double check. Thank you. Cheers, Durova 15:05, 14 April 2009 (UTC)
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)
- Your request is flattering, and unfortunately the response must be disappointingly mundane. WP:COIN is the place to report it. Durova 03:25, 15 April 2009 (UTC)
- Thank you for the quick reply. Off to WP:COIN I go! :) momoricks (make my day) 03:28, 15 April 2009 (UTC)
Misplaced Pages: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)
- 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 19:30, 15 April 2009 (UTC)
- 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)
Fix
http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Misplaced Pages%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)
- Yes, thank you. Durova 19:56, 15 April 2009 (UTC)
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)
- Sounds very worthy; I've been putting more focus into African geography lately. Best wishes with yours. Durova 20:25, 15 April 2009 (UTC)
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)
- Thank you very much. :) Durova 23:02, 15 April 2009 (UTC)
Ha ha!
Great post and edit summary! :D Acalamari 23:37, 15 April 2009 (UTC)
- Thank you very much. :) Durova 00:21, 16 April 2009 (UTC)
Congratulations!
 |
- Thank you. :) Durova 13:58, 16 April 2009 (UTC)
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)
- Looks great, thanks. Durova 23:42, 16 April 2009 (UTC)
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:
- David Fuchs
- AndonicAO
- Jappalang
- Sephiroth BCR
- Gary King
- TKD
- Kung Fu Man has also been nominated.
— Levi van Tine (t – c) 06:34, 17 April 2009 (UTC)
- Should be possible. What would be the image? Durova 14:13, 17 April 2009 (UTC)
- How about File:Gamepad.svg? — Levi van Tine (t – c) 09:17, 19 April 2009 (UTC)
- That might work. Durova 14:53, 19 April 2009 (UTC)
- How about File:Gamepad.svg? — Levi van Tine (t – c) 09:17, 19 April 2009 (UTC)
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)
- Gathers stamina, brews coffee, rolls eyes, and does forty push-ups. Sure, why not? What could go wrong? Durova 17:31, 17 April 2009 (UTC) Famous last words.
- 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)
- Drop me a link to the nom. please? Durova 17:44, 17 April 2009 (UTC)
- Done! (on commons) Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 17:54, 17 April 2009 (UTC)
- Um, you did check your Commons talk page, right? Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 20:51, 17 April 2009 (UTC)
- Done! (on commons) Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 17:54, 17 April 2009 (UTC)
- Drop me a link to the nom. please? Durova 17:44, 17 April 2009 (UTC)
- 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)
Congratulations!
 |
- Thank you. :) Durova 18:39, 17 April 2009 (UTC)
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)
- "Rick, Rattle, and Roll" recent edit summary Durova 20:49, 17 April 2009 (UTC)
- 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)
- 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 22:50, 17 April 2009 (UTC)
- ! 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 03:50, 18 April 2009 (UTC)
- 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.
- "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 03:50, 18 April 2009 (UTC)
- ! Ben
- 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 22:50, 17 April 2009 (UTC)
- 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)
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)
- Lol, your mind is even further in the gutter than mine. Entirely unintentional, I assure you. Durova 22:24, 17 April 2009 (UTC)
- "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)
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.delanoyadds 05:41, 18 April 2009 (UTC)
- Growls Wishing they had released to Commons instead of to the commercial site... Durova 16:17, 18 April 2009 (UTC)
bonk
- {{Rivers of Kenya}}
Cheers, Jack Merridew 09:56, 18 April 2009 (UTC)
- Ooch! Thank you. Durova 16:16, 18 April 2009 (UTC)
- {{Rivers of Tanzania}}
- {{Rivers of Rwanda}}
- {{Rivers of Burundi}}
- {{Rivers of Uganda}}…
- Cheers, Jack Merridew 04:10, 19 April 2009 (UTC)
- You don't give a lady a break, do you? Durova 04:13, 19 April 2009 (UTC)
- 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
- You don't give a lady a break, do you? Durova 04:13, 19 April 2009 (UTC)
- {{Lakes of Kenya}}
Cheers, Jack Merridew 07:02, 19 April 2009 (UTC)
Cargo cult encyclopaedia article writing
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)
- 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 Misplaced Pages 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 19:42, 18 April 2009 (UTC)
- 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)
- 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 15:10, 19 April 2009 (UTC)
- 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)
- Heh, good on ya! Durova 02:25, 20 April 2009 (UTC)
- 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)
- 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 15:10, 19 April 2009 (UTC)
- 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.
Havana Bay Image
It has disappeared. --MadameArsenic (talk) 00:36, 19 April 2009 (UTC)
- Yes, and I'm not sure why. Durova 00:37, 19 April 2009 (UTC)
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)
- Thank you. :) Durova 02:44, 19 April 2009 (UTC)
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)
- But of course. Durova 03:05, 19 April 2009 (UTC)
- 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)
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)
- 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 07:22, 19 April 2009 (UTC)
- 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 07:23, 19 April 2009 (UTC)
Back Atchya
Enjoy... --WebHamster 16:07, 19 April 2009 (UTC)
- Lol! Now I'm afraid of what you'd do to Michelangelo's David. Durova 16:41, 19 April 2009 (UTC)
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)
- 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 00:49, 20 April 2009 (UTC)
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 Misplaced Pages 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 02:25, 20 April 2009 (UTC)
Congratulations!
 |
 |
- Thank you. :) Durova 03:00, 20 April 2009 (UTC)
WikiCup Newsletter XIII
| The WikiCup Newsletter | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Delivered for the WikiCup by ROBOTIC GARDEN at 09:32, 20 April 2009 (UTC). To report errors see the talk page.
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)
- Replied at user's talk. Durova 15:20, 20 April 2009 (UTC)
- Thanks, will get in touch over the next few days! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dottydotdot (talk • contribs) 18:54, 20 April 2009 (UTC)
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)
- Thanks. Strange that it used to display and stopped. I don't recalling saving anything as interlaced, but perhaps I did. Durova 22:03, 20 April 2009 (UTC)
- A lot of things have evidently broken in that manner. =/ Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 22:51, 20 April 2009 (UTC)
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)
- 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)
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)
- Ok, point taken. Durova 15:00, 21 April 2009 (UTC)
FYI
User talk:CIreland#Talk:Julie Bindel confirms what I had suspected. -- Banjeboi 16:48, 21 April 2009 (UTC)
- 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 17:24, 21 April 2009 (UTC)
- 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)
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)
- 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 19:04, 21 April 2009 (UTC)
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 20:49, 21 April 2009 (UTC)
- If you want to impress me, you could help review Gamma-ray burst. Jehochman 20:59, 21 April 2009 (UTC)
- 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 asserting 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 21:12, 21 April 2009 (UTC)