| Revision as of 01:33, 6 December 2007 editDurova (talk | contribs)Autopatrolled, Extended confirmed users, Pending changes reviewers, Rollbackers60,685 edits →Arbcom statement: thanks← Previous edit | Latest revision as of 01:21, 18 October 2024 edit undoZ1720 (talk | contribs)Autopatrolled, Checkusers, Oversighters, Administrators29,156 edits I'm Just Wild About Harry listed for good article reassessment (GAR-helper) | ||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
| {{Not around|3=May 2017}} | |||
| <div id="talk" style="border: 1px solid #CC9; margin: 0em 1em 0em 1em; text-align: center; padding:5px; clear: both; background-color: #F1F1DE"> | |||
| {{User:Durova/templates|pagetop}} | |||
| ].]] | |||
| ''Welcome to my talk page. Please sign and date your entries by inserting '''<nowiki>~~~~</nowiki>''' at the end. I'll reply here if you post here.<br > | |||
| '' | |||
| ] I've met a lot of Humans 1.0.]] | |||
| </div > | |||
| <div style="background-color: #f0f0ff; border: 1px solid #333 ; padding: 5px; width: 495px;">'''Archived talk ] ] ] ] ] ] ] ] ] ] ] ] ] ] ] ] ] ] ] ] ] ] ] ] ] ] ] ] ] ] ] ] ] ] ] ] ] ] ] ]'''</div> | |||
| <div style="background-color: #f0f0ff; border: 1px solid #333 ; padding: 5px; width: 495px;">'''Archived talk ] ] ] ] ] ] ] ] ] ] ] ] ] ] ] ] ] ] ] ] ] ] ] ] ] ] ] ] ] ] ] ] ] ] ] ] ] ] ] ] ] ] ] ] ] ] ] ] ] ] ] ] ] ] ] ] ] ] ] ] ] ] ] ] ] ] ] ] ] ] ] ] ] ] ] ] ] ] ] ] ] ] ]'''</div> | |||
| == Triple crown request == | |||
| ---- | |||
| == ''The Bugle'': Issue CXVIII, January 2016 == | |||
| Sorry to bother, but I've decided to nominate myself for one of the coveted ''Imperial Triple Crown Jewels'' awards. | |||
| *DYK: ] • ] | |||
| *GA: ] • ] | |||
| *FC: ] (]) • ] (]) | |||
| :--]<sup>]•]</sup> 05:10, 3 December 2007 (UTC) | |||
| ::Awarded. <font face="Verdana">]</font><sup>'']''</sup> 10:53, 3 December 2007 (UTC) | |||
| {| style="width: 100%;" | |||
| == Greetings == | |||
| | valign="top" style="border: 1px gray solid; padding: 1em;" | | |||
| The australian project - does it need crowns? Surely boomerangs or didgeridoos would be a lot more locale specific - crowns in australia are reflective of what a misunderstanding what australia is in the twenty first century even if prince charles camilla and lady di have downed more trees for the womens magazines of the last ten years than any other persons on the planet. Great idea to reward the achievers, pity about the symbols. Cheers - and all meant in good faith (and bet there is nothing in any of it that rewards the maintainers who have to tidy up after others - like stuffed up category tags, or oz arts with no cats etc etc) - so great idea and im not knocking it - but someone has to point out that there is more than one way to assert positive messages to the thin crowd on the ground who actually really do anything in the australia project - so thanks for that at least! ]] 10:47, 3 December 2007 (UTC) | |||
| {| | |||
| :Think of it in terms of horse racing. Maybe that idea will go down better with a Foster's. :) Best, <font face="Verdana">]</font><sup>'']''</sup> 10:53, 3 December 2007 (UTC) | |||
| | ] | |||
| | width="100%" valign="top" | <div style="text-align: center; color: darkslategray;">'''Your Military History Newsletter'''</div> | |||
| <div style="-moz-column-count:2; -webkit-column-count:2; column-count:2;"> | |||
| * Project news: '']'' | |||
| * Articles: '']'' | |||
| * Book review: '']'' | |||
| * Op-ed: '']'' | |||
| * Timeline: '']'' | |||
| </div> | |||
| |- | |||
| |} | |||
| |} | |||
| <div style="font-size: 85%; margin:0 auto; text-align:center;"> | |||
| ''The Bugle'' is published by the ]. To receive it on your talk page, please ] or sign up ].<br/>If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from ]. Your editors, ] (]) and ] (]) 11:23, 26 January 2016 (UTC) | |||
| </div> | |||
| <!-- Message sent by User:Ian Rose@enwiki using the list at https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=User:The_ed17/sandbox3&oldid=701440818 --> | |||
| == ''The Bugle'': Issue CXIX, February 2016 == | |||
| ::Maybe - I prefer boags myself - but just because one horse gets a brrass razoo in november - doesnt mean that dyk countitis or fa or ga countitis is the best way to see how projects are kept up and running, my feeling is the horses right rear leg is being rewarded with a golden slipper when the real work of keeping projects away from the chop is usually the other three legs too - :) ]] 11:05, 3 December 2007 (UTC) | |||
| {| style="width: 100%;" | |||
| :I am probably about to be off wikipedia very soon for about another 3 months - I will try hard to ignore your stuff so as to not interfere with the positive aspect of it regardless of the redundancy - and put up a suggestion on the oz noticeboard for the real workers - the project creators and maintainers - with a drovers hat and corks - where the things that matter are things like coding the templates and starting and maintaining projects - and keeping watch over the hot spots in the projects - there are the places in my opinion that some editors who may never get a single FA GA or DYK actually save the projects from oblivion. Probably wont have the time to create the slouch hat and corks image - but in my opinion australia has got more from sheep/cattle drovers in the last 100 years than a crown ever did for the place apart from thousands of australians dying in wars - ok ive done my piece - I wish you peace and have a good christmas! ]] 11:29, 3 December 2007 (UTC) | |||
| | valign="top" style="border: 1px gray solid; padding: 1em;" | | |||
| {| | |||
| | ] | |||
| | width="100%" valign="top" | <div style="text-align: center; color: darkslategray;">'''Your Military History Newsletter'''</div> | |||
| <div style="-moz-column-count:2; -webkit-column-count:2; column-count:2;"> | |||
| * Project news: '']'' | |||
| * Articles: '']'' | |||
| * Book review: '']'' | |||
| * Op-ed: '']'' | |||
| * Timeline: '']'' | |||
| </div> | |||
| |- | |||
| |} | |||
| |} | |||
| <div style="font-size: 85%; margin:0 auto; text-align:center;"> | |||
| ''The Bugle'' is published by the ]. To receive it on your talk page, please ] or sign up ].<br/>If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from ]. Your editors, ] (]) and ] (]) 14:14, 27 February 2016 (UTC) | |||
| </div> | |||
| <!-- Message sent by User:Ian Rose@enwiki using the list at https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=User:The_ed17/sandbox3&oldid=705057126 --> | |||
| :Since you are completely inactive, I have removed your name from ] so as to not continue cluttering up your talk page with newsletters you probably aren't reading. ···] · <small>] · ] · ]!</small> 22:05, 27 February 2016 (UTC) | |||
| == POTD notification == | |||
| ]]] | |||
| Hi Lise, | |||
| Just to let you know, the Featured Picture ] is scheduled to be Picture of the Day on July 17, 2016. If you get a chance, you can check and improve the caption at ]. Thank you for all of your contributions! — ] (]) 00:49, 1 July 2016 (UTC) | |||
| == Triple Crown request == | |||
| {{-}} | |||
| == Interest In Learning Restoration Practices == | |||
| Hi. I believe I qualify for Triple Crown for work on the Australian wikiproject: | |||
| Durova, per your userpage I am reaching out to see what I can assist with in re: restoration of images or other documents that can be uploaded to Misplaced Pages/Wikimedia. I have no knowledge of this subject at the moment and am a fledgling user, so any information you have will be beneficial—necessary programs, practices and all the rest. Cheers! ] (]) 17:17, 6 September 2016 (UTC) | |||
| *DYK: ] (]) <!-- When it's created --> | |||
| *GA: ] | |||
| *FC: ] (]) | |||
| == POTD notification == | |||
| Thanks. ] 11:24, 3 December 2007 (UTC) | |||
| ]]] | |||
| ==Triple Crown== | |||
| Hi Lise, | |||
| ] Thank you very much for the triple crown! You are an individual of great ideas and the triple crown is a most excellent one. Thanks again. ] 16:53, 3 December 2007 (UTC) | |||
| Just to let you know, the Featured Picture ] is scheduled to be Picture of the Day on September 24, 2016. If you get a chance, you can check and improve the caption at ]. Thank you for all of your contributions! — ] (]) 01:24, 10 September 2016 (UTC) | |||
| == Matthew Hoffman case == | |||
| {{-}} | |||
| == Possible removal of AWB access due to inactivity == | |||
| Hi Durova. I saw the evidence you posted at the Hoffman arbitration case. Can I ask how your evidence fits in with the following sections of evidence? ], ], ]. Also, this case started when someone claiming to be Matthew C. Hoffman e-mailed an arbitrator, so the claim here is that there is a real person called Matthew Hoffman operating the account, which quite plainly means he is not a sock-puppet. I'm aware that articles like ] suffer from lots of sock-puppet attacks, but is the answer really to put the article and related ones on parole? Has that really helped in past cases? ] 21:36, 3 December 2007 (UTC) | |||
| :Also, "For an adult who takes the time to read documentation and look at examples of article text, it is trivial to understand what Misplaced Pages is and how it works before contributing." - should we expect such adults to not mind being suspected of being sock-puppets? ] 21:39, 3 December 2007 (UTC) | |||
| Hello! There is currently a ] of a bot to manage the ] ] by removing inactive users, among other tasks. You are being contacted because you may qualify as an inactive user of AWB. First, if you have any input on the proposed bot task, please feel free to comment at the ]. Should the bot task be approved, your access to AWB may be ''uncontroversially'' removed if you do not resume editing within a week's time. This is purely for routine maintenance of the CheckPage, and is not indicative of wrongdoing on your part. You will be able regain access at any time by simply requesting it at ]. Thank you! ] (]) 23:36, 8 November 2016 (UTC) | |||
| (edit conflicted) | |||
| <!-- Message sent by User:MusikAnimal@enwiki using the list at https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=User:MusikBot_II/Inactive_MMS_targets&oldid=748573976 --> | |||
| :I have no direct involvement in the case and little else to say, although I may add more to my own evidence and participate at the workshop. What happened was that I noticed the case a few days ago, saw that someone had mentioned the possibility of offsite canvassing, and noticed that nobody had presented evidence directly to that effect. Several months ago I had seen a series of Discovery Institute blogs while I was doing routine searches on other subjects. It's rare for such an established organization to take those positions in an official manner, so it seemed like something worth following up more systematically. | |||
| ==wikisleuths== | |||
| I am a computer guy and think I would fine this very interesting, please let me know ] (]) 13:29, 19 June 2017 (UTC) | |||
| == ] listed for discussion == | |||
| ] A file that you uploaded or altered, ], has been listed at ]. Please see the ] to see why it has been listed (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry). Feel free to add your opinion on the matter below the nomination. <!-- User:FastilyBot/Task12Note --> | |||
| <span style="color:red;font-weight:bold;">ATTENTION</span>: This is an automated, ]-generated message. This bot DID NOT nominate any file(s) for deletion; please refer to the ] of each individual file for details. Thanks, ] (]) 23:55, 10 August 2017 (UTC) | |||
| == ArbCom 2017 election voter message == | |||
| :I also don't see how you eliminate the possibility of sockpuppetry by that argument. All that really states is that someone who ''claims'' to be Matthew C. Hoffman e-mailed an arbitrator. I do not know whether that is actually the person's real name, although the Committee might have better information, but if it is true there's no particular reason to conclude that this person never used a previous account or edited unregistered by some IP address. That also provides no reason to exclude the possibility of offsite canvassing or meatpuppetry. That said, I have no definitive reason to conclude that either sockpuppetry or meatpuppetry ''was'' involved in this instance. My evidence demonstrates that these are routine practices among activists in this movement, and that Matthew Hoffman's edit history is consistent with that hypothesis. | |||
| {{Ivmbox|Hello, Durova. Voting in the ''']''' is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 10 December. All users who registered an account before Saturday, 28 October 2017, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Wednesday, 1 November 2017 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once. | |||
| :Reviewing the circumstances, I would have preferred very much if a longer and broader community discussion had taken place. To criticize the few uninvolved parties who did respond and to name them as parties to arbitration is counterproductive: these ban discussions need more input, not less. Probably some probational unblock with mentorship would have been my response if I had noticed this instance as it unfolded. | |||
| The ] is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the ]. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose ], ], editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The ] describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. | |||
| :In response to your amended comment, my evidence demonstrated some background worthy of consideration. Most encyclopedic topics are not surrounded by specific activism of this type. <font face="Verdana">]</font><sup>'']''</sup> 21:56, 3 December 2007 (UTC) | |||
| If you wish to participate in the 2017 election, please review ] and submit your choices on the ''']'''. ] (]) 18:42, 3 December 2017 (UTC) | |||
| ::''"My evidence demonstrates that these are routine practices among activists in this movement, and that Matthew Hoffman's edit history is consistent with that hypothesis."'' - but if his edit history is also consistent with that of an editor who created an account two years ago and recently started editing, after lurking for some time, how do you distinguish the two? Is it more harmful to assume he is a sock puppet, or more harmful to assume he is a de-lurking user? And do the sites you mention routinely impersonate real people to push their POV? Surely impersonating real people is a crime in most countries? ] 23:18, 3 December 2007 (UTC) | |||
| |Scale of justice 2.svg|imagesize=40px}} | |||
| <!-- Message sent by User:Xaosflux@enwiki using the list at https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Misplaced Pages:Arbitration_Committee_Elections_December_2017/Coordination/MMS/03&oldid=813406725 --> | |||
| == User group for Military Historians == | |||
| *''..."there's no particular reason to conclude that this person never used a previous account or edited unregistered by some IP address..."'' - by this definition, we are all possible sock puppets. ] 23:21, 3 December 2007 (UTC) | |||
| ::Perhaps I should amend that to say there's no definitive reason to conclude that this person is a sock- or meatpuppet. In some respects the difference hardly matters: an account with a short history that quotes policy and demands the respect that would be accorded an experienced editor arguably deserves to get blocked like an experienced editor when he or she violates policy. By that standard it doesn't make much difference whether the policy knowledge comes from extensive lurking or some other means. The log for this account shows it had existed for two years. Or to look at the other side of this case, a fair measurement of Adam Cuerden's decisions ought to weigh the context of sustained disruptive activism. If this action had come out of the blue on some uncontroversial topic, then I'd have greater worries about Adam Cuerden's judgement. Clearly the administrators who volunteered on this subject had a lot of work responding to disruptive activism. I'd like to see article parole for this subject. That solution has done good things for ] and ]. I'd also like to see a better community banning policy, because the one we have right now has some serious shortcomings. <font face="Verdana">]</font><sup>'']''</sup> 23:56, 3 December 2007 (UTC) | |||
| Greetings, | |||
| :::Sure. The 3RR block was uncontroversial and warranted. But I disagree with you on the 72-hour block. Where was the evidence of the allegation of harassment made in the block log? Where was the evidence of the allegation of "extreme rudeness" made in the block notice? ] 10:37, 4 December 2007 (UTC) | |||
| ::::I'd base the case on ] instead of rudeness because of the singlemindedness of article edits and talk page dialog. This person was persistently arguing against consensus. The tricky point it - and you may have a good case to make here - what's the difference between disruption and a legitimate minority view? When I gave this matter a first pass I was thinking this was an obvious candidate for an article content RFC. Then I looked into the off-wiki side of things and wasn't so sure that would work. And in fairness to Matthew Hoffman I'll mention the possibility that the article talk was being watched independently even if he had nothing to do with that movement. Based upon the Discovery Institute blog about an IP that got blocked after only three days of editing, the best interpretation of that situation is that the Discovery Institute keeps very close watch on Misplaced Pages articles at this topic. I suppose that depending on one's view of ID the chain of events can take a dramatically different appearance. <font face="Verdana">]</font><sup>'']''</sup> 10:58, 4 December 2007 (UTC) | |||
| "Military history" is one of the most important subjects when speak of sum of all human knowledge. To support contributors interested in the area over various language Wikipedias, we intend to form a user group. It also provides a platform to share the best practices between military historians, and various military related projects on Wikipedias. An initial discussion was has been done between the coordinators and members of WikiProject Military History on English Misplaced Pages. Now this discussion has been taken to Meta-Wiki. Contributors intrested in the area of military history are requested to share their feedback and give suggestions at ]. | |||
| :::::You really think people should be blocked for "persistently arguing against consensus"? And how do you balance between letting a new editor argue their point at one article before widening their interests <small>(and in fairness and good faith the new editor assumption needs to be made in the absence of any article parole or evidence of sock puppetry)</small>, and deciding that this editor is only interested in one thing (ie. a single-purpose account)? One day, a week, two months, 5 edits, 20 edits, 100 edits? In this case it was one week and 19 edits (some quite long talk page posts, but that is nothing to be overly concerned about). Remember what Nascentathiest said: ''"I would be remiss in my responsibilities as an editor if I didn't respectfully suggest that, if an action is deemed necessary, a more restricted ban be instituted, perhaps from the Project for a few days, and a longer ban from the subject article and talk page - just to see if this is, indeed, a single-user account, or if "Matthew" can find other ways to contribute to the Project by editing other articles about which he doesn't have such strong feelings."'' - that would have been the perfect end to what had been a poorly-handled situation, and Adam turned round and (not wanting to "over-ride consensus") said "no". Extremely poor judgment. ] 11:31, 4 December 2007 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::Sorry, just realised I veered off towards the indefinite block again. Still, I don't think a 72-hour block for arguing on the talk page was warranted in the slightest. That has a chilling effect on talk page discussion. ] 11:31, 4 December 2007 (UTC) | |||
| :::::Another point, returning to ] here, is that people using their real names ''will'' be affronted if they are accused of sock puppetry. If you used your real name and were accused of being a sock puppet, how would you feel? You can't just say "you registered two years ago and seem to know what you are talking about, so don't be so sensitive to allegations of sock-puppetry" - that devalues the seriousness of a sock-puppetry allegation. ] 11:29, 4 December 2007 (UTC) | |||
| :::::::The tough call is whether to treat an account with a very short edit history that acts this way as a new user or an experienced one - AGF leaves us with long term lurker. If I had been Adam I wouldn't have done it; I would have opened an AN thread in place of the 72 hour block. But I don't think the use of one's real name has any bearing on the decision. <font face="Verdana">]</font><sup>'']''</sup> 11:37, 4 December 2007 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::::With the point being that no-one realised it was a 2-year old account until I pointed this out after the arbitration case had been opened. It seems that most people don't click on the "logs" bit of a set of user links. I only noticed when I saw that the talk page welcome template was two years old. So it looks like most people were still assuming this was a new user, not a 2-year lurker, or at best kept silent about this. And it is not impossible to register an account and only ''sporadically'' lurk over 2 years before taking the plunge. If people lurking right now are seeing things like this happening, will that make them more or less likely to start editing Misplaced Pages and is that good or bad? (no, that's obvious, it's bad if lurkers decide not to get involved because they see how people are treated). ] 11:49, 4 December 2007 (UTC) | |||
| :::::::::In fairness, I didn't even realize anything was going on until arbitration was underway. If I'd seen the noticeboard discussions I would have tried to work something out. May I put a totally different spin on this? I'm curious what you think of the examples I listed as evidence. Particularly the admitted sock accounts. How would you have handled them if you did or didn't know that they were socks? <font face="Verdana">]</font><sup>'']''</sup> 11:54, 4 December 2007 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::::::OK, I'll do that if you say how you think we should treat good-faith lurkers. :-) ] 11:58, 4 December 2007 (UTC) | |||
| :::::::::::I guess you and I have considerably different estimates of that. I'd certainly have handled the unblocking part more proactively, but I wouldn't come down quite so hard for blocking in the first place. Can we respectfully agree to disagree on a couple of points? <font face="Verdana">]</font><sup>'']''</sup> 12:03, 4 December 2007 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::::::::Fair enough. This has been a useful discussion. Thanks. I'll have a look now, but it may take me a while to respond to your examples. Remind me if I forget. ] 12:18, 4 December 2007 (UTC) | |||
| I did have a brief look, mainly at the Chahax section. I'm not convinced, as the main thing I see there are reasonable arguments that should be rebutted, rather than silenced by blocking. A widespread and persistent pattern is needed before that crosses the line from being argumentative to being disruptive, in my opinion. ] 12:47, 4 December 2007 (UTC) | |||
| ] (]) 11:30, 21 December 2017 (UTC) | |||
| :The "sock" issue is a bit of a red herring. Socks, in themselves, aren't the problem. The problem is tendentious POV editing that wastes the time of legitimate editors who are actually seeking NPOV articles. The process of finding the text for this can be difficult, and it involves, sometimes, editors to be bold even in asserting their own POV, but socks become relevant to this because a sock is risking little, especially if it is a sock of a user who has already been blocked, for socks, if they have a strong POV to push -- and often they do, that's why they are socks -- are not restrained by the prospect of sanctions. If a tendentious editor shows reasonable signs of being a sock *in the judgment of the administrator*, I consider it legitimate to block. Thus Durova was correct, even if she was erred. If an administrator never errs, the administrator is not bold enough to function as Misplaced Pages needs. Treating a block, which is easily reversible, as if it were a death penalty and imposing it in error a crime, is little short of insane. When an administrator uses blocking to preserve some personal agenda, *this* is a problem, and should be addressed directly. | |||
| <!-- Message sent by User:Krishna Chaitanya Velaga@enwiki using the list at https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Misplaced Pages:WikiProject_Military_history/Members&oldid=545621623 --> | |||
| == April 2018 Milhist Backlog Drive == | |||
| :Socks and tendentious editors should, in my opinion, be treated with the utmost courtesy. And firmness. An administrator who is functioning appropriately is acting on behalf of all Misplaced Pages users, and should keep that in mind; administrative actions are quite similar to the actions of a chair of a meeting; the chair rules on points of order, and has total freedom to do so, but is also always subject to appeal to the membership. A chair can order a member considered disruptive removed from a meeting. If the chair does this in a punitive way, it's offensive. But done as protection, it is quite proper whenever the chair, in his or her sole discretion, considers it necessary. And then if the members don't agree, any one of them can protest, and if any other member seconds the appeal, it takes priority. All these principles were worked out centuries ago.... Don't trust the chair to decide properly and neutrally: move that the office of chair be vacated! And then elect a new one. Don't like how a Misplaced Pages admin operates? Challenge it, that's proper, and the problem here is that the process became offensive and abusive, from what I've seen, to Durova. We should have been protecting her, even if it was necessary to correct an error. Administrators should not have to defend themselves or their action. I've been a chair of a national meeting of a very contentious group. If I was challenged on a ruling, I didn't argue it. I briefly presented my reasons -- and not necessarily all of them, and then proceeded with the appeal process, being not attached to any outcome. My job as chair was to serve the consensus, not my own opinions, and if the majority wanted to do something different, that was their prerogative, entirely. Besides, I make mistakes, I can be wrong, it's an important realization. (In a face-to-face meeting majority rule makes sense, because the alternative is not supermajority rule or consensus, it is minority rule; Misplaced Pages is different for lots of good reasons.) | |||
| G'day all, please be advised that throughout April 2018 the ] is running its annual backlog elimination drive. This will focus on several key areas: | |||
| :It is a Misplaced Pages guideline not to describe how to damage Misplaced Pages. It's clear to me that certain puppet masters are becoming more sophisticated. I could describe what they are doing, and how I can still detect them -- even without checkuser, which, of course, I don't have and which is cumbersome to request unless one is familiar with it -- but that could then help other puppet masters more rapidly improve their techniques. I understand why Durova was reluctant to reveal her methods, and I find it offensive that it would be demanded that she do so publicly. Administrators are "trusted servants," and they either should be trusted or not. When an article I was working on was infested with sock puppets, a long-term anonymous IP editor who turned out to be the executive director of the major advocacy organization on the topic, COI editors, and the sock set up another sock to 3RR me out, an admin took a look at the situation and blocked almost everyone in sight, including two SPAs. When the administrator was challenged on the SPAs, he refused to explain his action and insisted it was justified. He was not, in any way, censured, nor should he have been. When I intervened to suggest that the SPAs could be unblocked and could be useful to the article, another admin unblocked them (and my intervention was cited). Which was also appropriate. I've somewhat regretted my intervention! -- but the principle was right. One sock has commented on Jimbo's user page that Devil's Advocates are important to Misplaced Pages, I agree. Within limits; the limit is that we aren't wasting much of our time dealing with repetitive POV edits, over and over. | |||
| :--] 17:17, 4 December 2007 (UTC) | |||
| * tagging and assessing articles that fall within the project's scope | |||
| ::I missed this later addition to the thread. I agree with a lot of what you say here, providing the socks are correctly identified. Identifying on behaviour alone is difficult. Some people say page protection to force talk page discussion is preferable to blocking, others say blocking works better. I still see those heavily involved in sock puppet-infested article failing to consider new editors, though. Where do they come into this. Is it acceptable when they get caught in the cross-fire? ] (]) 15:28, 5 December 2007 (UTC) | |||
| * adding or improving listed resources on Milhist's task force pages | |||
| * updating the open tasks template on Milhist's task force pages | |||
| * creating articles that are listed as "requested" on the project's various lists of missing articles. | |||
| As with past Milhist drives, there are points awarded for working on articles in the targeted areas, with barnstars being awarded at the end for different levels of achievement. | |||
| :::Yes, identifying on behavior alone is sometimes easy, sometimes difficult. However, there is a difference between identification and inference, between proof and probable cause, or even reasonable possibility. I wrote an unfortunately long comment to Wikipedia_talk:Blocking_policy on this.(). There is an unfortunately analogy used all too often. A block, particularly if it is subject to quick review, isn't "firing" a weapon. It should never be done in an offensive manner. There should be a presumption, in fact, that the user has innocently been caught in something that merely *looks* like a problem, the alleged sock or offender should be treated as by a professional keeping order in any place. The message that a blocked user gets should *apologize* to the user for any inconvenience. "I'm sorry, but the name on this warrant seems to match your name, I'll have to take you into custody." And the arrested person only gets hurt -- except for the inconvenience -- if they resist. | |||
| The drive is open to all Wikipedians, not just members of the Military history project, although only work on articles that fall (broadly) within the scope of military history will be considered eligible. This year, the Military history project would like to extend a specific welcome to members of ], and we would like to encourage all participants to consider working on helping to improve our coverage of women in the military. This is not the sole focus of the edit-a-thon, though, and there are aspects that hopefully will appeal to pretty much everyone. | |||
| :::When a sock was created to report me for 3RR violation for reverting edits by another incarnation of the same sock (plus some cooperating with the first sock), I was blocked for a short time. I followed procedure and was promptly unblocked. It was a nuisance. Not an offense, that administrator did exactly the right thing: stop all possibly problematic action, then sort things out. Was the blocking of me an "error"? Actually, no. An officer acts according to the officer's discretion, according to the officer's understanding of the needs of the public, at the time of the action. Durova believed that she had sufficient evidence to block. She acted *correctly*. She also, by the way, acted correctly according to existing policy in everything I've seen that proceeded later, and *beyond* policy, including her resignation. I've chaired contentious meetings, and I would quite likely immediately resign as chair if it appeared that I did not have the support of a supermajority of the meeting, only under very unusual conditions would I continue based on a mere majority. Misplaced Pages suffers from severe participation bias, so knowing the true level of support for anyone can be quite difficult. Durova may also have resigned simply because she was tired of carrying that burden, she had taken on a difficult job likely to lead to stress. | |||
| The drive starts at 00:01 UTC on 1 April and runs until 23:59 UTC on 30 April 2018. Those interested in participating can sign up ]. | |||
| :::There is a solution to the problem of participation bias, I'm actually surprised that there seems to be no discussion here regarding it. It's not like it's a secret. It would be experimental, to be sure, but it's also essentially free and efficient, by design. The small burden created is born only by those who choose to carry it, and no harm is done to those who don't participate. It was *designed* for Free Associations which Misplaced Pages resembles in many ways. (The user community, not the web site itself, which is equivalent to the service corporations which commonly accompany existing Free Associations. AA World Services, Inc., is *not* Alcoholics Anonymous, and has no control over the latter, nor does the latter have *legal* control over AAWS, Inc., it merely advises it. | |||
| For the Milhist co-ordinators, ] and ] (]) 10:54, 27 March 2018 (UTC) | |||
| :::The solution has also been invented by others, in part, and on Misplaced Pages it is called ]; elsewhere it is more commonly known as "delegable proxy." Essentially, a relative small number of active people can represent a very large number (even the whole population of the planet, if everyone joined and named a proxy), with almost no effort. It's just a question of looking at a list of opinions, then considering which opinions represented, *roughly*, how many users. It's not really about making decisions by voting, it's about judging true consensus, with participation bias balanced out. And then there are other aspects too, that fall out from the concept and the natural freedoms that people have by default, some of which aren't obvious to most on first consideration. Call it noise filtering. | |||
| <!-- Message sent by User:AustralianRupert@enwiki using the list at https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Misplaced Pages:WikiProject_Military_history/Members/Active&oldid=831112019 --> | |||
| == goat == | |||
| :::However, this isn't going to solve the immediate problem. Revising the messages displayed to blocked editors, taking all reasonable steps to ensure that a block is not an insult, and, further, starting to treat the discussions that ensue from contested admin actions are carried on in the same spirit of AGF that should really be required everywhere, not just in editing article pages. I'm actually a serious proponent of free speech, it's essential, *but* civility in discussion is what makes "free speech" possible in the real world. Without it, "unrestrained speech" too easily becomes a battle, and a lot of damage can occur. | |||
| ] | |||
| :::While concern for newcomers is very appropriate, socks tend to hurt newcomers more than experienced editors. I know what to do when a sock starts reverting me, newcomers just go away with a very sour feeling about Misplaced Pages. Socks tend to not be polite with edits! They may wikilawyer the newcomer far beyond his or her capacity to research and comprehend, it takes time to become familiar with policies and guidelines. | |||
| goat | |||
| ] (]) 02:30, 14 May 2018 (UTC) | |||
| :::It is also possible that even banned and thoroughly blocked editors could continue to contribute to Misplaced Pages; it's really very simple, and I've already seen it recommended, but systems have not been set up to make it easy. Essentially, if a blocked editor has a contribution to make, all that it takes is a non-blocked user willing to claim that the edit is legitimate and helpful to the project, to take responsibility for it. Ideally, though, an edit to an article by a sock or other blocked editor should be reviewed by someone familiar with the topic; I've seen socks be quite good at presenting a front that their edits are reasonable and opposition is disruptive, particularly to editors and administrators that aren't familiar with the issues. As we know, every article has its unique problems, which is one reason why there is ]. No set of rules can cover all the contingencies, that is precisely why we rely upon the group intelligence we call consensus. Eventually, tools might be created that would allow attribution of the edit to the original editor, plus an approval field by the editor taking responsibility for it. Indeed, this could make it much easier for experts and COI editors to participate. (], I think, does suggest something like this for COI editors. | |||
| <br style="clear: both;"/> | |||
| :::--] (]) 19:55, 5 December 2007 (UTC) | |||
| == ] == | |||
| ::::Another fascinating read! The idea of liquid democracy is something that really needs to be discussed with a wider group. I would respond in more detail, but I have a little correction to make down below first... ] (]) 22:47, 5 December 2007 (UTC) | |||
| ], a featured picture ], has been proposed for replacement with ]. Your comments are welcome at ]. ] 20:28, 29 October 2018 (UTC) | |||
| :::It's a balancing act. That's one reason I favor article parole. I wish there were a way to implement that without resorting to arbitration because there are certainly other topics that could benefit from early intervention (various national/ethnic dispute arbitration cases come to mind). I think we should look for ways to implement more safeguards without coming down too hard on the administrators who intervene in good faith on controversial areas. While it's important to AGF regarding new editors, I also think it would be a net loss for the site if the pendulum swings so far that administrators become afraid to intervene where it's needed. <font face="Verdana">]</font><sup>'']''</sup> 16:49, 5 December 2007 (UTC) | |||
| ::::Agreed. But maybe a better analogy is needed than a pendulum and the either-or mindset. There are win-win solutions that satisfy both philosophies. They just need to be worked out and put into practice. BTW, in case you weren't aware, I'm involved in two discussion that resulted from edits to this talk page. See ] and ]. It's probably best if you don't get involved directly in those discussions (see my contribs history if you have trouble tracking them down), but I'd be interested in your opinions on the varying approaches. ] (]) 17:14, 5 December 2007 (UTC) | |||
| :::::I agree that searching for win-win solutions is a very good idea. Will check out those discussions you mention. <font face="Verdana">]</font><sup>'']''</sup> 17:17, 5 December 2007 (UTC) | |||
| == ] nominated for replacement == | |||
| (unindent) Good work, ], on the block of ]. It *should* be swift like that. When I first saw this, just based on the edit here, I thought "Gee, that seems extreme. Guy asks about an article, is it true? Certainly, if we AGF, it could indeed be an innocent question. Then I looked at two other recent edits. Nope. "Moron." "cold-hearted evil dump." "stop trying to cover up the truth." And then, as his last edit, shortly after writing the quoted phrases, "has never personally insulted anyone." I'm not sure what he needs, but editing Misplaced Pages at this point isn't it. I'd assume that he could start over, if he wants, keep his nose clean, etc. Eventually. As to the article, interesting manifestation of ]. | |||
| --] (]) 20:19, 5 December 2007 (UTC) | |||
| :Um, I hate to break the news to you, but I didn't block Metsguy234. That would be ]. I'm saying that the indefinite block was excessive, and that the block log and notice is misleading. See for details. It is possible that Neil misread the year of the earliest edit, and thought that the account was created this November to attack Durova, but from where I'm sitting it was created ''last'' November after arriving from another wiki. ] (]) 22:47, 5 December 2007 (UTC) | |||
| ], a featured picture you nominated, has been ] with a ]. Your comments are welcome. ] 17:16, 20 November 2018 (UTC) | |||
| == DYK == | |||
| *The same applies for ] - see ] and ]. ] 18:16, 7 December 2018 (UTC) | |||
| == Precious == | |||
| I placed your DYK in the next update but it was removed citing the short length. The overall length exceeds 1500 but someone else says it's 773 character, possibly because they didn't count all the references, etc. If you need help with it, let me know. I am always willing to help others write their articles so that it meets DYK criteria or to keep AFD candidates from deletion. ] 23:03, 3 December 2007 (UTC) | |||
| {{user precious|header=Nadezhda Durova images|thanks=for quality articles such as ], ] and ], for taking excellent care of countless historic photographs, in fine galleries, for service from 2005, - Lise, repeating from ten years ago:}} | |||
| {{User QAIbox | |||
| | title = Awesome | |||
| | image = Cscr-featured.svg | |||
| | image_upright = 0.35 | |||
| | bold = ] | |||
| }} | |||
| Miss you --] (]) 22:32, 16 January 2019 (UTC) | |||
| ] --] (]) 08:29, 11 March 2019 (UTC) | |||
| Thanks for the heads up. I was a little concerned about the length on that one, myself. I'll get right on it! <font face="Verdana">]</font><sup>'']''</sup> 23:05, 3 December 2007 (UTC) | |||
| Thank you today for what you did for ]! --] (]) 04:56, 29 May 2019 (UTC) | |||
| Expansion noted on the DYK page so there shouldn't be any complaints now! I love to help with DYK and to get good DYK hooks fixed. Nothing's worse that a good article failing to make DYK because of a technicality. In my opinion, it could be selected tomorrow! ] 23:43, 3 December 2007 (UTC) | |||
| ::) Much appreciated. <font face="Verdana">]</font><sup>'']''</sup> 03:48, 4 December 2007 (UTC) | |||
| A year ago, you were recipient no. ] of Precious, a prize of QAI! --] (]) 10:40, 16 January 2020 (UTC) | |||
| == Thanks == | |||
| ==Disputed non-free use rationale for File:Hearst and Morgan.jpg== | |||
| Thank you very much. One of the lovelier barnstars if I may say so. Out of interest, which topics do/did you find the most interesting? Regards, ] (<small>]</small>) 04:48, 4 December 2007 (UTC) | |||
| ] | |||
| *] had me fascinated. I've never been to Scotland but there's a little bit of Celtic in me (Welsh). Living in a country where hardly any structure is more than a century or two old, history and ruins that go back so far have always fascinated me as something precious. Thanks for the hard work that went into making it featured. <font face="Verdana">]</font><sup>'']''</sup> 04:59, 4 December 2007 (UTC) | |||
| Thank you for uploading ''']'''. However, there is a concern that the rationale provided for using this file on Misplaced Pages may not meet the criteria required by ]. This can be corrected by going to the file description page and adding or clarifying the reason why the file qualifies under this policy. Adding and completing one of the templates available from ] is an easy way to ensure that your file is in compliance with Misplaced Pages policy. Please be aware that a non-free use rationale is not the same as an ]; descriptions for files used under the non-free content policy require both a copyright tag and a non-free use rationale. | |||
| If it is determined that the file does not qualify under the non-free content policy, it might be deleted by an administrator seven days after the file was tagged in accordance with ]. If you have any questions, please ask them at the ]. Thank you.<!-- Template:Di-disputed fair use rationale-notice --> | |||
| == Triple crown nom - Doctor Sunshine == | |||
| <span style="color:red;font-weight:bold;">This bot DID NOT nominate any file(s) for deletion; please refer to the ] of each individual file for details.</span> Thanks, ] (]) 01:00, 15 November 2019 (UTC) | |||
| *] | |||
| == ] of ] == | |||
| :* DYK: article - ], but has several others as well: ], ], ], ], ], ] | |||
| ] | |||
| :* GA: article - ] | |||
| :* FC: page - ] - article of the day today, no less | |||
| --]<sup>]</sup> 16:47, 3 December 2007 (UTC) | |||
| The file ] has been ] because of the following concern: | |||
| == re. Triple Crown == | |||
| <blockquote>unused, low-res, no obvious use</blockquote> | |||
| While all constructive contributions to Misplaced Pages are appreciated, pages may be ]. | |||
| Sorry about that, just wanted to save you the trouble. If you like, I can hand out the awards on your behalf, otherwise I don't think they should come and collect them... ] <sup>]</sup> 07:56, 4 December 2007 (UTC) | |||
| :Sure, if you like. Usually I do all the reviews myself, so it's kind of odd to be discussing this. But you're familiar enough with this and I trust your integrity. Could you route future noms through my user talk? Thanks, <font face="Verdana">]</font><sup>'']''</sup> 07:59, 4 December 2007 (UTC) | |||
| ::OK, will do (in the future). I need to run now, could you please dish out the crowns? Thanks, ] <sup>]</sup> 08:08, 4 December 2007 (UTC) | |||
| :::There's one problem: both you and ] are claiming credit for the same DYK. Normally DYKs go to just one person. If either of you have a spare we could sort that out. I'll wait for your reply. <font face="Verdana">]</font><sup>'']''</sup> 08:11, 4 December 2007 (UTC) | |||
| :I'm claiming ], he's got ] (I have it for my Napolean TC because we both expanded on it - it can be removed from there if necessary). ] <sup>]</sup> 08:15, 4 December 2007 (UTC) | |||
| ::Okay, we can sort that out. I'm doing some Commons ambassador work ATM so I'll probably handle this tomorrow (it's late night in my time zone). <font face="Verdana">]</font><sup>'']''</sup> 08:29, 4 December 2007 (UTC) | |||
| ] pottery shows up in regional museums but it doesn't seem to be very widely known.]] | |||
| You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{Tlc|proposed deletion/dated files}} notice, but please explain why in your ] or on ]. | |||
| :::Dihydrogen, why do you say you expanded the article by yourself? I think you expanded like about one or two sentences....??? ] 14:35, 4 December 2007 (UTC) | |||
| Please consider addressing the issues raised. Removing {{Tlc|proposed deletion/dated files}} will stop the ], but other ]es exist. In particular, the ] process can result in deletion without discussion, and ] allows discussion to reach ] for deletion.<!-- Template:Proposed deletion notify --> | |||
| == Smile == | |||
| <span style="color:red;font-weight:bold;">This bot DID NOT nominate any file(s) for deletion; please refer to the ] of each individual file for details.</span> Thanks, ] (]) 01:01, 17 November 2019 (UTC) | |||
| I was busy with personal fmaily business (my dying mother), and noticed just now that you were under quite a series of attacks. Smile and ]. ] 17:36, 4 December 2007 (UTC) | |||
| == Precious anniversary == | |||
| ==Hoffman== | |||
| {{User QAIbox/auto|years=Two}} --] (]) 10:24, 16 January 2021 (UTC) | |||
| You proposed article parole, but I think it is actually called ]. I've taken the liberty of changing that, so correct me if I erred. - ] <sup>]</sup> 18:09, 4 December 2007 (UTC) | |||
| == |
== FAR for Joan of Arc == | ||
| I have nominated ] for a ]. Please join the discussion on whether this article meets ]. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. If substantial concerns are not addressed during the review period, the article will be moved to the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Delist" the article's featured status. The instructions for the review process are ].<!--Template:FARMessage--> ] (]) 18:18, 4 September 2021 (UTC) | |||
| I believe I have qualified for the upgrade to the Imperial Triple Crown Jewels: | |||
| === Featured Article Save Award for ] === | |||
| *DYK: ], ] | |||
| There is a ] nomination at ]. Please join the discussion to recognize and celebrate editors who helped assure this article would retain its featured status. ] (]) 14:33, 4 September 2022 (UTC) | |||
| *GA: ], ] | |||
| *FA: ], ] | |||
| ==File source problem with File:Clapboard farmhouse in Florida 1911.gif== | |||
| Thanks. ] 19:10, 4 December 2007 (UTC) | |||
| ] | |||
| Thank you for uploading ''']'''. I noticed that the file's description page currently doesn't specify who created the content, so the ] status is unclear. If you did not create this file yourself, you will need to specify the owner of the copyright. If you obtained it from a website, please add a link to the page from which it was taken, together with a brief restatement of the website's terms of use of its content. If the original copyright holder is a party unaffiliated with the website, that author should also be credited. Please add this information by editing the ]. | |||
| If the necessary information is not added within the next seven days, the image will be deleted. If the file is already gone, you can still make a ] and ask for a chance to fix the problem.<!-- Template:You can request undeletion --> | |||
| ==Troubles they come, and troubles they go.== | |||
| <div style="border-style:solid; border-color:blue; background-color:AliceBlue; border-width:1px; text-align:left; padding:8px;" class="plainlinks">] | |||
| Please refer to the ''']''' to learn what images you can or cannot upload on Misplaced Pages. Please also check any other files you have uploaded to make sure they are correctly tagged. Here is a . If you have any questions or are in need of assistance please ask them at the ]. Thank you.<!-- Template:Di-no source-notice --> ]] 07:07, 29 August 2022 (UTC) | |||
| {{{1|]}}} has smiled at you! Smiles promote ] and hopefully this one has made your day better. Spread the WikiLove by smiling at someone else, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend. Happy editing! {{{2|}}} <br /> Smile at others by adding {{tls|Smile}} to their talk page with a friendly message. | |||
| </div><!-- Template:smile --> Remember what dear old ] said, "There is only one thing in the world worse than being talked about, and that is not being talked about. " ] 20:48, 4 December 2007 (UTC) | |||
| :My wallpaper and I are having a duel to the death. :) <font face="Verdana">]</font><sup>'']''</sup> 21:40, 4 December 2007 (UTC) | |||
| == ] == | |||
| ==Hi== | |||
| It's happy to know you have resigned. The person who erased the previous message belongs to the Wiki-Administrators. So it's right... everything is spoiled here... how sad. | |||
| --] (]) 00:49, 5 December 2007 (UTC) | |||
| :I think she meant well. This talk page had to be semiprotected. I doubt that particular publication meets Misplaced Pages's standard for a reliable source. Anyway, I'm doing my best to be productive in other ways now, like category sorting at Commons and updating the Triple Crown awards. Best wishes to you, <font face="Verdana">]</font><sup>'']''</sup> 00:58, 5 December 2007 (UTC) | |||
| == Melt the clouds of sin and sadness, drive the dark of doubt away! == | |||
| Hello {{u|Durova}}, | |||
| <div style="float:center; border-style:solid; border-color:green; background-color:AliceBlue; border-width:1px; text-align:left; padding:8px; vertical-align: middle;" class="plainlinks">] | |||
| <!--Begin message--> | |||
| {{{1|] ]/]}}} has given you a kitten! Kittens promote ] and hopefully this one has made your day better. Share the WikiLove and civility with everyone and keep up the excellent editing! Send '''kittens''' to others by adding {{tls|Joy message}} to their talk page with a friendly message. | |||
| </div> ] ]/] 04:23, 5 December 2007 (UTC) | |||
| :Thank you very much! That's sweet. :) <font face="Verdana">]</font><sup>'']''</sup> 04:38, 5 December 2007 (UTC) | |||
| ==Chat== | |||
| Hi Durova, | |||
| I was looking over your page and found the Triple Crown concept interesting. Did you come up with the idea? How does a person qualify for one? Take care ] (]) 05:40, 5 December 2007 (UTC) | |||
| :Yup, basically you write one ''Did you know'' entry, help write a ], and help create a piece of ]). Cheers, <font face="Verdana">]</font><sup>'']''</sup> 05:52, 5 December 2007 (UTC) | |||
| == DYK == | |||
| {| class="messagebox {{#ifeq:{{{small|}}}|yes|small|standard}}-talk" | |||
| |- | |||
| |] | |||
| |On ], ], ''']''' was updated with {{#if:{{{4|}}}|facts|a fact}} from the article{{#if:{{{4|}}}|s|}} ''''']'''''{{#if:{{{4|}}}|{{#if:{{{5|}}}|, |, and}} ''''']''''' | |||
| }}{{#if:{{{5|}}}|{{#if:{{{6|}}}|, |, and}} ''''']''''' | |||
| }}{{#if:{{{6|}}}|, and ''''']'''''}}, which you created or substantially expanded. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the ]. | |||
| |} <!-- ], ] --> | |||
| As one of the original parties to the "Durova" arbitration case, you may be interested in the current ]. A motion has been proposed to modify principle 2 by removing copyright-related wording from it. | |||
| Good to see your DYK hook. It was interesting so I put it as a next update nomination. Sometime later, someone from Canada added my name to the credits on the next update page which got me a DYK recognition box. But you did all of the work save for my little edit, small expansion to get the article to meet the requirements, and a little notation noting that the hook was now compliant. As they say "don't kick a gift horse in the mouth". Thank you for your article idea and to that Canadian.] (]) 00:04, 6 December 2007 (UTC) | |||
| ::Thanks. I'll try to do some more DYKs in the near future. WikiProject Textile arts is an underdeveloped area that has a lot of gaps and stubs. I tried to time ] for Misplaced Pages's two millionth article as a nod to Hawaiian culture for giving us the word ''wiki''. Hawaii's quilting tradition is a very big deal in the quilting world. The main challenge is finding sources that gear toward academic, cultural, and artistic aspects because most of the readily available texts are how-to books. Best regards, <font face="Verdana">]</font><sup>'']''</sup> 00:17, 6 December 2007 (UTC) | |||
| Best regards,<br>] (]) 04:03, 7 July 2024 (UTC) | |||
| == Slashdot; rhetoric == | |||
| First, I want to thank you for taking on a subject (such as Irreducible Complexity) that I would fear to approach. That material, and particularly the insistence that Irreducible Complexity is science, and not Creationism, is actually very important in contemporary American politics. I don't believe it's possible to ever reach consensus as I do not, myself, believe that the same valuation of logical principles applies to all concerned camps. That said, I have some (unasked for) advice about what went wrong. | |||
| == Arbitration motion regarding Durova == | |||
| * There are two main issues, broadly "disruptive edits" and "sockpuppetry". In the debate, and particularly in the gloss at Slashdot, these issues diverged; presumably enough had been said about disruptive edits, and attention focused on the sockpuppetry. This resulted in the ''apparent'' conclusion, "He's a sockpuppet for reasons I can't tell you, so I banned him" (which riled even me, previously unaquainted with the matter). If the sentence were, "The sockpuppet evidence contains confidential and private material which I have submitted to <committee of permed admins>; there is no consensus there yet. However, on the basis of continued disruptive edits documented <here> and the pervious warnings and bans by <admin So and So> documented <here>, I have banned the user for <time T>." The point is to be first, persistently open about what isn't open (like the CIA saying, "we can't tell you what we did but it is being reviewed by a Congressional Oversight Committee which you elected" instead of "we can't even admit if we have done anything that we can't tell you"). And second, to keep the core reason for banning now (persistent disruptive edits) distinct from the fuzzy sockpuppetry issue (under review). In that formalism, any objections are matters of degree. From what I've glossed just today, it appears to me your only mistake was flagging rhetoric. | |||
| The Arbitration Committee has resolved by ] that: | |||
| * The policy (or merely, precept) of "no private dialogue" is idealistic and IMO impossible. I favor closed meetings for committees (and particularly, private mail distros), for the simple reason that they can communicate privately anyway. This can be balanced by ''open'' meetings where the people to whom the committee is responsible (such as voters, or editors) can ask questions and demand answers. Democracy need not be impaired by privacy. Imagine Alice telling Bob, "Charlie makes me so nuts I want to strangle him. Will you talk to him for me?" If Charlie hears this he will be insulted. But the point of ''that'' sentence is to communicate to Bob (meaningfully, albeit emotionally), not to Charlie or the public. We all communicate like that all the time; private channels are not innately threatening, and I hope prohibitting them is not necessary to protect democracy, because I would judge it impossible (besides Orwellian). At LambdaMOO, the Architecture Review Board had a private distro (where we could talk about confidential things, like user account info; and where we could rant freely) and a public mail list (where questions could be asked, comments made, and answers demanded). We were often accused of elitism (a sure sign of unwashed plebs polluting our environment, of course :-) but we got by. | |||
| {{ivmbox|Principle 2 of ], ''Private correspondence'', is changed from<br>{{tqq|2) In the absence of permission from the author (including of any included prior correspondence) <s>or their lapse into public domain</s>, the contents of private correspondence, including e-mails, should not be posted on-wiki. <s>See Misplaced Pages:Copyrights.</s>}}<br>to<br>{{tqq|2) In the absence of permission from the author (including of any included prior correspondence), the contents of private correspondence, including e-mails, should not be posted on-wiki.}}}} | |||
| For the Arbitration Committee, | |||
| ] ] 23:23, 12 July 2024 (UTC) | |||
| : Discuss this at: '''{{slink|Misplaced Pages talk:Arbitration Committee/Noticeboard|Arbitration motion regarding Durova}}''' | |||
| == Best wishes == | |||
| I regret the outcome and I hope you resume admin'ing at some point. Please drop me a note if and when you reapply. ] (]) 00:45, 6 December 2007 (UTC) | |||
| :Thanks Pete. Two such volatile subjects. It isn't often that I'd feel freer discussing intelligent design than discussing Wikipedian issues. Whatever I say on the latter tends to spark contention and get construed against me, so I'll just repeat that I'm sorry about the mess. With regard to the ID issue, I agree that a full NPOV treatment requires the different aspects of that debate receive distinct and respectful treatment. ID is significant in North American politics and carries some cultural weight. But to set aside my Wikipedian hat for a moment, I have difficulty accepting anything as science unless objective control group experiments are possible. I consider my own college major to have been a humanity even though the university classified history as a social science. After all, we can't find out what the history of the twentieth century might have been if Hitler had died in a trench during World War I. There are many worthy disciplines and meaningful inquiries that fall outside the realm of science. Science can't tell us that the Mona Lisa is a great painting or why ''Hamlet'' is a great play. A proposition may be untestable, but true. <font face="Verdana">]</font><sup>'']''</sup> 01:10, 6 December 2007 (UTC) | |||
| I miss Durova. I hope she is doing well. ] (]) 01:53, 13 July 2024 (UTC) | |||
| == Arbcom statement == | |||
| == Good article reassessment for ] == | |||
| Hesperian revised his wording, so I removed your request for him to change it as moot. Hope you don't mind. ] ] 01:30, 6 December 2007 (UTC) | |||
| ] has been nominated for a good article reassessment. If you are interested in the discussion, please participate by adding your comments to the ]. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, the good article status may be removed from the article. ] (]) 01:21, 18 October 2024 (UTC) | |||
| :np, ty <font face="Verdana">]</font><sup>'']''</sup> 01:33, 6 December 2007 (UTC) | |||
Latest revision as of 01:21, 18 October 2024
 | This user may have left Misplaced Pages. Durova has not edited Misplaced Pages since May 2017. As a result, any requests made here may not receive a response. If you are seeking assistance, you may need to approach someone else. |
The Bugle: Issue CXVIII, January 2016
|
The Bugle is published by the Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please join the project or sign up here.
If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from this page. Your editors, Ian Rose (talk) and Nick-D (talk) 11:23, 26 January 2016 (UTC)
The Bugle: Issue CXIX, February 2016
|
The Bugle is published by the Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please join the project or sign up here.
If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from this page. Your editors, Ian Rose (talk) and Nick-D (talk) 14:14, 27 February 2016 (UTC)
- Since you are completely inactive, I have removed your name from this page so as to not continue cluttering up your talk page with newsletters you probably aren't reading. ···日本穣 · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WP Japan! 22:05, 27 February 2016 (UTC)
POTD notification
Hi Lise,
Just to let you know, the Featured Picture File:Ty Cobb sliding2-edit1.jpg is scheduled to be Picture of the Day on July 17, 2016. If you get a chance, you can check and improve the caption at Template:POTD/2016-07-17. Thank you for all of your contributions! — Chris Woodrich (talk) 00:49, 1 July 2016 (UTC)
Interest In Learning Restoration Practices
Durova, per your userpage I am reaching out to see what I can assist with in re: restoration of images or other documents that can be uploaded to Misplaced Pages/Wikimedia. I have no knowledge of this subject at the moment and am a fledgling user, so any information you have will be beneficial—necessary programs, practices and all the rest. Cheers! Finktron (talk) 17:17, 6 September 2016 (UTC)
POTD notification
Hi Lise,
Just to let you know, the Featured Picture File:MonroeStreetBridgea.jpg is scheduled to be Picture of the Day on September 24, 2016. If you get a chance, you can check and improve the caption at Template:POTD/2016-09-24. Thank you for all of your contributions! — Chris Woodrich (talk) 01:24, 10 September 2016 (UTC)
Possible removal of AWB access due to inactivity
Hello! There is currently a request for approval of a bot to manage the AutoWikiBrowser CheckPage by removing inactive users, among other tasks. You are being contacted because you may qualify as an inactive user of AWB. First, if you have any input on the proposed bot task, please feel free to comment at the BRFA. Should the bot task be approved, your access to AWB may be uncontroversially removed if you do not resume editing within a week's time. This is purely for routine maintenance of the CheckPage, and is not indicative of wrongdoing on your part. You will be able regain access at any time by simply requesting it at WP:PERM/AWB. Thank you! MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 23:36, 8 November 2016 (UTC)
wikisleuths
I am a computer guy and think I would fine this very interesting, please let me know BernardZ (talk) 13:29, 19 June 2017 (UTC)
File:Wappen Rdecraon.jpg listed for discussion
ATTENTION: This is an automated, bot-generated message. This bot DID NOT nominate any file(s) for deletion; please refer to the page history of each individual file for details. Thanks, FastilyBot (talk) 23:55, 10 August 2017 (UTC)
ArbCom 2017 election voter message
Hello, Durova. Voting in the 2017 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 10 December. All users who registered an account before Saturday, 28 October 2017, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Wednesday, 1 November 2017 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.
The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Misplaced Pages arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.
If you wish to participate in the 2017 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 3 December 2017 (UTC)
User group for Military Historians
Greetings,
"Military history" is one of the most important subjects when speak of sum of all human knowledge. To support contributors interested in the area over various language Wikipedias, we intend to form a user group. It also provides a platform to share the best practices between military historians, and various military related projects on Wikipedias. An initial discussion was has been done between the coordinators and members of WikiProject Military History on English Misplaced Pages. Now this discussion has been taken to Meta-Wiki. Contributors intrested in the area of military history are requested to share their feedback and give suggestions at Talk:Discussion to incubate a user group for Misplaced Pages Military Historians.
MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 11:30, 21 December 2017 (UTC)
April 2018 Milhist Backlog Drive
G'day all, please be advised that throughout April 2018 the Military history Wikiproject is running its annual backlog elimination drive. This will focus on several key areas:
- tagging and assessing articles that fall within the project's scope
- adding or improving listed resources on Milhist's task force pages
- updating the open tasks template on Milhist's task force pages
- creating articles that are listed as "requested" on the project's various lists of missing articles.
As with past Milhist drives, there are points awarded for working on articles in the targeted areas, with barnstars being awarded at the end for different levels of achievement.
The drive is open to all Wikipedians, not just members of the Military history project, although only work on articles that fall (broadly) within the scope of military history will be considered eligible. This year, the Military history project would like to extend a specific welcome to members of Misplaced Pages:WikiProject Women in Red, and we would like to encourage all participants to consider working on helping to improve our coverage of women in the military. This is not the sole focus of the edit-a-thon, though, and there are aspects that hopefully will appeal to pretty much everyone.
The drive starts at 00:01 UTC on 1 April and runs until 23:59 UTC on 30 April 2018. Those interested in participating can sign up here.
For the Milhist co-ordinators, AustralianRupert and MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 10:54, 27 March 2018 (UTC)
goat
.jpg)
goat
Programmer520 (talk) 02:30, 14 May 2018 (UTC)
File:Duck And Cover (1951) Bert The Turtle.webm
File:Duck And Cover (1951) Bert The Turtle.webm, a featured picture you nominated, has been proposed for replacement with a higher resolution version. Your comments are welcome at Misplaced Pages:Featured picture candidates/delist/Duck and Cover. MER-C 20:28, 29 October 2018 (UTC)
File:The Anatomy Lesson.jpg nominated for replacement
File:The Anatomy Lesson.jpg, a featured picture you nominated, has been nominated for replacement with a higher resolution version. Your comments are welcome. MER-C 17:16, 20 November 2018 (UTC)
- The same applies for File:Under the horse chestnut tree2.jpg - see File:Mary Cassatt - Under the Horse-Chestnut Tree - Google Art Project.jpg and Misplaced Pages:Featured picture candidates/delist/Under the horse chestnut tree. MER-C 18:16, 7 December 2018 (UTC)
Precious
Nadezhda Durova images
Thank you for quality articles such as Nadezhda Durova, Cultural depictions of Joan of Arc and Congress of Arras, for taking excellent care of countless historic photographs, in fine galleries, for service from 2005, - Lise, repeating from ten years ago: you are an awesome Wikipedian!
 | |
| Ten years! |
|---|
Miss you --Gerda Arendt (talk) 22:32, 16 January 2019 (UTC)
Ten years again! --Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:29, 11 March 2019 (UTC)
Thank you today for what you did for State Route 74 (New York – Vermont)! --Gerda Arendt (talk) 04:56, 29 May 2019 (UTC)
A year ago, you were recipient no. 2121 of Precious, a prize of QAI! --Gerda Arendt (talk) 10:40, 16 January 2020 (UTC)
Disputed non-free use rationale for File:Hearst and Morgan.jpg
Thank you for uploading File:Hearst and Morgan.jpg. However, there is a concern that the rationale provided for using this file on Misplaced Pages may not meet the criteria required by Misplaced Pages:Non-free content. This can be corrected by going to the file description page and adding or clarifying the reason why the file qualifies under this policy. Adding and completing one of the templates available from Misplaced Pages:Non-free use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your file is in compliance with Misplaced Pages policy. Please be aware that a non-free use rationale is not the same as an image copyright tag; descriptions for files used under the non-free content policy require both a copyright tag and a non-free use rationale.
If it is determined that the file does not qualify under the non-free content policy, it might be deleted by an administrator seven days after the file was tagged in accordance with section F7 of the criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions, please ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thank you.
This bot DID NOT nominate any file(s) for deletion; please refer to the page history of each individual file for details. Thanks, FastilyBot (talk) 01:00, 15 November 2019 (UTC)
Proposed deletion of File:Jousting helmet.jpg
The file File:Jousting helmet.jpg has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:
unused, low-res, no obvious use
While all constructive contributions to Misplaced Pages are appreciated, pages may be deleted for any of several reasons.
You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated files}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the file's talk page.
Please consider addressing the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated files}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and files for discussion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion.
This bot DID NOT nominate any file(s) for deletion; please refer to the page history of each individual file for details. Thanks, FastilyBot (talk) 01:01, 17 November 2019 (UTC)
Precious anniversary
| |
| Two years! |
|---|
FAR for Joan of Arc
I have nominated Joan of Arc for a featured article review here. Please join the discussion on whether this article meets featured article criteria. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. If substantial concerns are not addressed during the review period, the article will be moved to the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Delist" the article's featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. Z1720 (talk) 18:18, 4 September 2021 (UTC)
Featured Article Save Award for Joan of Arc
There is a Featured Article Save Award nomination at Misplaced Pages talk:Featured article review/Joan of Arc/archive2. Please join the discussion to recognize and celebrate editors who helped assure this article would retain its featured status. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:33, 4 September 2022 (UTC)
File source problem with File:Clapboard farmhouse in Florida 1911.gif
Thank you for uploading File:Clapboard farmhouse in Florida 1911.gif. I noticed that the file's description page currently doesn't specify who created the content, so the copyright status is unclear. If you did not create this file yourself, you will need to specify the owner of the copyright. If you obtained it from a website, please add a link to the page from which it was taken, together with a brief restatement of the website's terms of use of its content. If the original copyright holder is a party unaffiliated with the website, that author should also be credited. Please add this information by editing the image description page.
If the necessary information is not added within the next seven days, the image will be deleted. If the file is already gone, you can still make a request for undeletion and ask for a chance to fix the problem.
Please refer to the image use policy to learn what images you can or cannot upload on Misplaced Pages. Please also check any other files you have uploaded to make sure they are correctly tagged. Here is a list of your uploads. If you have any questions or are in need of assistance please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. mattbr 07:07, 29 August 2022 (UTC)
Amendment request: Durova
Hello Durova,
As one of the original parties to the "Durova" arbitration case, you may be interested in the current amendment request about the Durova case. A motion has been proposed to modify principle 2 by removing copyright-related wording from it.
Best regards,
~ ToBeFree (talk) 04:03, 7 July 2024 (UTC)
Arbitration motion regarding Durova
The Arbitration Committee has resolved by motion that:
Principle 2 of Misplaced Pages:Requests for arbitration/Durova, Private correspondence, is changed from2) In the absence of permission from the author (including of any included prior correspondence)
or their lapse into public domain, the contents of private correspondence, including e-mails, should not be posted on-wiki. See Misplaced Pages:Copyrights.
to2) In the absence of permission from the author (including of any included prior correspondence), the contents of private correspondence, including e-mails, should not be posted on-wiki.
For the Arbitration Committee, SilverLocust 💬 23:23, 12 July 2024 (UTC)
- Discuss this at: Misplaced Pages talk:Arbitration Committee/Noticeboard § Arbitration motion regarding Durova
Best wishes
I miss Durova. I hope she is doing well. SmokeyJoe (talk) 01:53, 13 July 2024 (UTC)
Good article reassessment for I'm Just Wild About Harry
I'm Just Wild About Harry has been nominated for a good article reassessment. If you are interested in the discussion, please participate by adding your comments to the reassessment page. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, the good article status may be removed from the article. Z1720 (talk) 01:21, 18 October 2024 (UTC)
Categories: