Misplaced Pages

User talk:Durova: Difference between revisions

Article snapshot taken from Wikipedia with creative commons attribution-sharealike license. Give it a read and then ask your questions in the chat. We can research this topic together.
Browse history interactively← Previous editContent deleted Content addedVisualWikitext
Revision as of 14:24, 21 November 2006 editDurova (talk | contribs)Autopatrolled, Extended confirmed users, Pending changes reviewers, Rollbackers60,685 edits →My special contributions ← Previous edit Latest revision as of 01:21, 18 October 2024 edit undoZ1720 (talk | contribs)Autopatrolled, Checkusers, Oversighters, Administrators29,071 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.<br >
].]]
''
].]]
</div >
<div style="background-color: #f0f0ff; border: 1px solid #333 ; padding: 5px; width: 220px;">'''Archived talk ] ] ] ] ] ] ] ] ] ]'''</div>


== Question ==


<div style="background-color: #f0f0ff; border: 1px solid #333 ; padding: 5px; width: 495px;">'''Archived talk ] ] ] ] ] ] ] ] ] ] ] ] ] ] ] ] ] ] ] ] ] ] ] ] ] ] ] ] ] ] ] ] ] ] ] ] ] ] ] ] ] ] ] ] ] ] ] ] ] ] ] ] ] ] ] ] ] ] ] ] ] ] ] ] ] ] ] ] ] ] ] ] ] ] ] ] ] ] ] ] ] ] ]'''</div>
Okay so we setup a new poll ], but can anon users vote? (I'm referring to 138.25.252.110's vote.) ] 05:27, 12 November 2006 (UTC)
----
:They can try. I guess the admin who tallies the responses will look at the anon's history. This seems to be a unique IP with a modest contribution history over quite a few months. I really don't know their standards there - it's hard to call the play from this distance. <font face="Verdana">]<sup>'']]''</sup></font> 05:31, 12 November 2006 (UTC)


== ''The Bugle'': Issue CXVIII, January 2016 ==
== 11-M ==


{| style="width: 100%;"
Hi Durova,
| 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 ] (]) 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 ==
Just for the record, I answer Randroide comments,


{| style="width: 100%;"
1)The quotes are not from a blog but are from a forum in the official website of the conspirationists so one that heavily supports Pedro J. I took it from there because if were not true would have been contradicted by the administrators who are known as fanatic supporters of the "cause".
| valign="top" style="border: 1px gray solid; padding: 1em;" |

{|
2)Randroide was simulating that he was sincerely interested in the issue so I tried to help him references and tips. I should have not been so moron since he was only trying to evade himself from the fact that El Mundo investigations are completely unsupported by any world class newspaper execept one phrase in one article in the Guardian. Anyway this issue is completely unrelated with the article and I named just to give some context. Randroide engage inmediately as a way to evade.
| ]

| width="100%" valign="top" | <div style="text-align: center; color: darkslategray;">'''Your Military History Newsletter'''</div>
3)I am a person who normally works with books. If required I can offer books that explain the process that leads to the coup d'etat in 1981 and the implication of LM Anson that is well known here. The problem is that I suspect that Randroide insistence on this is just another way to evade from the main question so I will no be so moron again to engage.
<div style="-moz-column-count:2; -webkit-column-count:2; column-count:2;">

* Project news: '']''
Randroide is trying to use you as you probably have noticed.--] 16:01, 12 November 2006 (UTC)
* Articles: '']''
:Forums aren't an appropriate source either, but books from reputable (non-vanity) publishers would be fine. It looks like the editors on this page could use some outside input about reliable sources. Not having visited Spain and knowing only basic Spanish, my advice has its limits. I strongly recommend an article content ]. Regards, <font face="Verdana">]<sup>'']]''</sup></font> 16:06, 12 November 2006 (UTC)
* Book review: '']''

* Op-ed: '']''
::The quotes about Pedro J opinions in the 80s about dirty war against terrorists were published in a magazine and it is given the name of it and the date of publication. Pedro J was the director of the magazine. The forum was not what gives the veracity but just a reference for people accesing instantly. And as I said, in the heavily ideologized website where this forum is, a false and inconvenient statement of one their heroes would not have survived ten minutes.
* Timeline: '']''

</div>
::Regarding LM Anson I will give the source in his own article from fully reliable books to not allow Randroide in his escape from what is being discussed in 11-M. Since Anson's newspaper is just copying El Mundo, his credibility (as low as it is) is not relevant. In fact he left the newspaper some months ago and now works in El Mundo.

::I think your help have been unvaluable by establishing that not any published thing in a newspaper is automatically gospel. I will continue proving that El Mundo is doing investigation not supported by facts and that contradicts primary sources thus being of not use here except for "alternative theories" section as has been done in 9/11 with this kind of material. I will read RFC. Thanks. --] 16:43, 12 November 2006 (UTC)
:::That post makes me doubt that you understand what I've been saying: it is inappropriate to link to a forum just because one editor considers that more convenient than a proper citation. Likewise, if a given newspaper is generally respected as a reliable source, then Misplaced Pages does not pick and choose which of its stories are reliable (unless other reliable sources subsequently debunked a particular story). <font face="Verdana">]<sup>'']]''</sup></font> 16:49, 12 November 2006 (UTC)
::::Should I understand that a newspaper article should be quoted even when evidently contradicts the primary source that is also accesible? Should I understand that a single newspaper that has been the one to create the story must be quoted even when nobody else believes such story?--] 17:14, 12 November 2006 (UTC)
:::::Copyedit that question just a little bit and it would make a good ] article request for comment introduction. <font face="Verdana">]<sup>'']]''</sup></font> 17:46, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

== F1 race results ==

Thanks - sorry to have to raise it again. ] 18:49, 12 November 2006 (UTC)
:Not a problem. Please add any new developments to the existing report. That would help another administrator to address the problem if I happen to be unavailable. Because these are unregistered IP addresses it would be inappropriate to impose a permanent ban. Let's hope that a month long block discourages this editor, but I'd be more than willing to renew it (or possibly extend as far as three months) if the problem crops up again. Regards, <font face="Verdana">]<sup>'']]''</sup></font> 18:51, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

== Proper places ==

Hello.

User:Deathrocker, in his talkpage, is claiming I behaved bad (I am referring to his comment against the 48 hours block). My old "friend" Kingjeff is also keeping on claiming that I edit in "bad faith" (see ] for ''some'' of the other cases in which he called my edits "bad faith"). Where is the correct place to answer to their allegations? I can't keep on checking their edits to defend myself, but at the same time I cannot afford to let them attack me without countering their false (in my opinion) claims.

Best regards
] 21:13, 12 November 2006 (UTC)
:I've asked them to raise the matter at ] if they decide to pursue it. So far they haven't. You might want to bookmark that page. <font face="Verdana">]<sup>'']]''</sup></font> 23:15, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

== Amended RfC comments ==

Hi Durova,

Thanks for your amended RfC comments. I tried to explain in the PAIN - but maybe didn't do a good job - that I was under the impression that ever since the Encyclopedia Dramatica controversy, off-Wiki attacks were being taken much more seriously. I also have seen quite a AfD's where an editor pointed out that other editors were soliciting votes off-Wiki, (meatpuppetry) and had never seen anyone object to that documentation as being innappropriate content to post on-Wiki.. Considering all that, I thought that PAIN was an appropriate avenue to pursue, but I guess since there were no corresponding on-Wiki attacks DIRECTLY associated with the off-Wiki attacks, there was no proper place to complain about such an incident. - ] 23:19, 12 November 2006 (UTC)
:If the attacks occurred only off Misplaced Pages then the proper thing to do is to raise concerns with the administrators of the other website. I would have looked into the query if you had chosen to supplement that with evidence of Misplaced Pages personal attacks, but you chose not to do so. I don't think this needs going over again because I've already explained it several times. If you need someone to consult on site policies and standards then I recommend ]. <font face="Verdana">]<sup>'']]''</sup></font> 23:30, 12 November 2006 (UTC)


==WP:RFI==
] seems to be more about direct vandalism and not bad faith editing. ] 00:28, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
:If it's a content dispute then that board won't resolve it, but if there's been misconduct and rules breaking then it should help straighten things out. RFI is for investigations - things that go into too much depth for ]. If it's mostly about content then check out ]. Regards, <font face="Verdana">]<sup>'']]''</sup></font> 06:24, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

==Waldorf Education==

Durova, I'm sorry I missed this comment:

If you're serious about the allegation that one editor's financial conflict of interest affects the article then I hope you can present supporting evidence. If you do have that evidence - and you may quote me as necessary - then in my opinion as an administrator the appropriate step would be to open a request at Misplaced Pages:Requests for arbitration. Note that I have only read your prose summary of the situation, not actually seen whatever evidence you may have, so this is a conditional recommendation. The dispute appears unlikely to resolve through lesser measures. DurovaCharge! 23:24, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

:Yes, I have evidence. HGilbert is ... (deleted) ... Please have a look and advise me what to do. Thanks! '''] 04:37, 13 November 2006 (UTC)'''

::Please open an ArbCom request and exercise discretion about another user's identifying personal information. An arbitration clerk can advise you on the proper procedure for providing that sort of evidence. ]. Regards, <font face="Verdana">]<sup>'']]''</sup></font> 06:28, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

:::OK, sorry. Would it be OK to simply ask him to withdraw from editing voluntarily? I don't have a lot of confidence that this would happen, but if presented with the conflict of interest argument, he might see how this appears to others. Would you consider mentioning this to him? '''] 14:17, 13 November 2006 (UTC)'''
::::It's certainly all right to suggest it. Try citing ] or perhaps (depending on the details) ]. <font face="Verdana">]<sup>'']]''</sup></font> 03:15, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

If you wish to suggest that Misplaced Pages bans doctors from editing articles on medicine, scientists from editing articles on science, teachers from editing articles on education, and so on - because they all have a "financial interest" in the success of the subject in question - well, this is an interesting idea. It must be noted that most encyclopedias actually seek out people with expertise in a subject, rather than people with no experience therein.

Also see ], which suggests that in cases of a POV dispute, "it may be easy to make claims about conflict of interest. Don't do it. This is negative advice, but the existence of conflicts of interest as a fact of life here does not mean that ] is past its sell-by-date. Quite the opposite." ] 02:44, 15 November 2006 (UTC)
: If a medical doctor edited a Misplaced Pages article so that it read like a public relations release for that particular doctor's medical practice or a university professor edited an article to make it resemble promotional literature for that professor's university then my advice would be the same. ''A Waldorf school is not just an alternative to public schools or another independent school; its curriculum and philosophy proceed from the worldview and the insights into the nature of the child that Rudolf Steiner has given us in Anthroposophy. '' That phrase and many others like it violate ] and ]; insistence that the article read this way violates ]. As an administrator I strongly recommend you reconsider that position and collaborate in accordance with site policies because I would support a request for arbitration related to ]. Having read the above post, I am now considering opening that request myself. <font face="Verdana">]<sup>'']]''</sup></font> 12:42, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

::Actually, Durova, it would be great if you did open the request. There has been so much of this sort of thing already from this group, it would look retaliatory if I opened the request. Inability to get a NPOV past the brochure language pushers has caused the Waldorf Education article to be stalled for months now. '''] 15:41, 15 November 2006 (UTC)'''

:::That passage is "brochure language" because it was taken from the Waldorf companies internet "brochure". It was used in this article by another editor who was critical and complained about "anthroposophy" people and how too much stuff is all covered up. Pete K changed it to put his own opinion in there or own complaint about what school websites do or don't say, , without any source. But you think the part that is sourced has to come out because its too "brochure like" when the section is about what the school literature discloses. Take out the criticism about what it dose or doesen't in school "brochure language" first if you don't want examples of the "brochure language" used in the article. Too many are pointing fingers where they shouldnt'.] 18:14, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

::::Thanks, but this isn't the issue. The issue is whether there is a conflict of interest here. That brochure language exists in the article is not being contested is it? HGilbert is responsible for at least some of it... and for defending some that was introduced by others. Much of editing goes on in the back pages where language and references are being discussed. As I recall, I put my unreferenced comment in after a discussion that it could certainly be supported by taking a sampling of Waldorf websites. It went in without challenge on the discussion page. I would challenge references that go to brochures and PR material for Waldorf, BTW. '''] 18:37, 15 November 2006 (UTC)'''

:::::I don't think your withdrawing, are you? Your a founder of a Waldorf school and your a Waldorf reformist. And you know you cannot do your own sample testing for the articles. Thats original research, everybody knows you cannot do that for articles at wikipedia. That idea is not even very good research for researchers to do, do you think its okay to do a google study, pick some websites, and call it a research source? ] 19:06, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

Thanks, but again this isn't the issue. I have no financial interest in whether Waldorf succeeds or fails. HGilbert does. That's a foul. This issue has nothing to do with whether I do good research or not - it has to do with whether HGilbert has the obligation to step down from editing the Waldorf Education article due to a conflict of interest. That's all. Nobody is suggesting he shouldn't continue editing articles about other subjects. Some of us have to spend hours arguing points with him about the language used here. He has a financial interest in the outcome of those arguments. It's like he's getting paid to argue the points. It's unfair and inappropriate. '''] 19:16, 15 November 2006 (UTC)'''

::On this page yYou said you have a book about this issue "in the works". ] 20:02, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

:Durova: the phrase you quoted, in fact the whole section as it stands, was added by other editors, hostile to Waldorf; much of what you might call brochure language has been contributed by a range of editors, including Pete himself. Pete presumably didn't remove it, in fact added to it, because he supports brochure language that "exposes" Waldorf's "real" basis in anthroposophy.

:I am astonished at the assumption that I am responsible for what Paka and Pete have done, or that I have defended this. I am astonished at Pete's comment about me being responsible for "some of it" when it has just been revealed that he is responsible for what was quoted as an egregious example of it. Why don't you quote another example of "brochure language", Durova, and we can track down where that one came from? This could be quite revealing. Do you really want to know who has been POV-pushing here? ] 19:27, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

:I have no financial interest in this article; I am not paid to write material, nor can it have any conceivable influence upon my income. Pete has a special personal interest in Waldorf being maligned, representing a clear conflict of interest which I'd rather not bring up here but am willing to if we are exploring this topic; he knows what I mean. Much of what Pete spends hours defending is "brochure language" and/or purely his own personal opinion, with no verifiable basis. The example quoted above is indefensible; why does it still stand? ] 19:27, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

Anyone can look at the discussion pages and the edits and determine for themselves whether or not you have been defending brochure language Harlan. The article is filled with it and you've been fighting to remove the advert tag. Excuse me, but I am unable to find the diff you're pointing to that supports your claim that I am responsible for introducing brochure language. Could you provide it again or point me to it? As a Waldorf teacher, you absolutly benefit from how successful this article is in producing new customers to your school's doorstep. Without question. I won't be blackmailed by you, BTW, so if you can prove I would have any financial benefit from Waldorf's success or failure, bring it on. You don't, however, and want to tie my divorce into this. I have no financial ties to Waldorf - I don't even pay tuition. Whatever your mind has conjured up is of no relevance to this discussion - and I'm not giving you permission to bring details about my personal life here - but if you have something that you feel constitutes a financial conflict of interest and feel you can prove this, we can discuss it. You are a Waldorf teacher and you are producing brochure language on an article that can benefit you financially. This has nothing to do with POV pushing - it has to do with conflict of interest... and that conflict of interest in your case is clear and undeniable. '''] 20:11, 15 November 2006 (UTC)'''

:The article has a lot of brochure language; it seems (according to Venado's research) that you and Paka are responsible for some of the worst of it. I'm waiting for Durova, a presumably objective observer, to find another egregious example so we can see who was responsible for that one.

:You seem to have a financial interest vis a vis your planned book and a non-financial but extremely personal/emotional investment due to the aspect of your personal life you don't wish me to bring here. Perhaps you should withdraw from the article. I have no financial interest in this article. ] 22:54, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

::We should note that Hgilbert has not suffered this reticence to discuss other people's personal lives in the past. In fact the reason Pete checked out what was going on with these articles on wikipedia articles in the first place, and got interested in editing them, was that someone (me) told him Hgilbert was over here spreading all kinds of ridiculous (and false) rumors about Pete's personal life.] 23:24, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

LOL! ''You'' demanded that I specify details about the personal nature of PLANS people's conflicts of interest, actually, Diana, which is how Pete's name came into it - I regret having agreed to give his name. The conflict of interest is still valid, though I had one detail wrong about a particular part of a legal agreement that doesn't affect the case at hand, or the general conflict of interest. ] 23:33, 15 November 2006 (UTC)


:::There is NO conflict of interest on my part. I not only don't work for Waldorf, I have no financial contact with Waldorf or any Waldorf teachers or the Anthroposophical society. I don't think future plans to write a book, even if they come to fruition, constitute a conflict of interest before the book is written. I'd be happy to get a ruling on this by Misplaced Pages. However, once again, YOU have a conflict of interest. You work as a teacher for the school system you are promoting with this brochure language. The case is clear cut. Who said what, when and where doesn't matter at this point. '''] 23:40, 15 November 2006 (UTC)'''

'''Administrator blows referee whistle''' - the bottom line here is that Misplaced Pages's goal of providing encyclopedic information is not being achieved at this article. Productive collaboration is not occurring there, hasn't occurred in months, and people's energies are going to waste. Anyone can open a request for arbitration. Someone who knows all the angles of this dispute could open it better than I could (I'd be neutral but I'd probably miss some significant aspects). So first, consult an arbitration clerk - they're the experts on arbitration. You may mention my name as an administrator who recommended arbitration although I have no direct influcence on whether the committee actually accepts the case.

On a side note I do recommend recusal from articles whenever an editor's personal feelings interfere with objective contributions. For example, I never edit ] or ] because my nearest relative was one of the last people to escape from the Twin Towers alive. I joined the armed forces and went to war because of that day - so while there's obviously quite a bit I could say on those subjects I wouldn't be good at collaborating. With due respect for the editors at ], that's an example I'd like to hold forward for others to consider emulating. <font face="Verdana">]<sup>'']]''</sup></font> 01:19, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

:"LOL! ''You'' demanded that I specify details about the personal nature of PLANS people's conflicts of interest, actually, Diana, which is how Pete's name came into it." Nope. You were over there stating that Waldorf critics (whom you did not think were listening; you'd been trashing critics for awhile without anyone opposing this) had no credibility because they were mostly people who did not have custody of their children! *Completely* untrue - pure invention. You were not discussing "conflicts of interest" regarding editing of these articles because no critics were editing those articles at that time - and had never previously. I incredulously demanded to know who you were talking about, never dreaming you'd pop names into the conversation - since there aren't ANY critics who fit that description - not one. I noticed later that you tried this, "I so deeply regret that she goaded me into naming names" excuse, but it's phoney baloney.] 02:11, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
::My user talk is not the place to conduct a dispute. You've all been at this long enough. Let an independent panel settle the matter. <font face="Verdana">]<sup>'']]''</sup></font> 12:30, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

I am sorry you didn't examine Venado's citation of the diffs above, as it shows that another editor added the sections you find problematic, and that that editor is critical of Waldorf education. Please look at this quote from his post above: "It was used in this article by another editor who was critical and complained about "anthroposophy" people and how too much stuff is all covered up. Pete K changed it to put his own opinion in there or own complaint about what school websites do or don't say, , without any source." I hope you see that this was indeed shown on your talk page, even if you didn't take notice of it at the time (for whatever reason). ] 02:45, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
:I most certainly did examine Venado's diffs above. I also read Pete K's response to the one diff of his edit, a rebuttal which you fail to mention. Your own repeated assertion that Pete K has inserted brochure language remains unsupported as does the related implication that other involved editors named in the arbcom request inserted brochure language. I strongly caution you against attempting further guesses, particularly when referring to my role as an administrator in your statements to the arbitration committee. That sleight of word looks like very bad faith. <font face="Verdana">]<sup>'']]''</sup></font> 04:25, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

:Actually, Harlan (and apologies to Durova for using this talk page again) the change I made WAS discussed even though there was no source provided. The discussion was a challenge to YOU to find even a single website that has adequate information about Anthroposophy on it. Here's the discussion:

::::"Phrases like "Some schools do not give sufficient information about..." without any citation or backup is pure weaseling. This is editorializing at its worst; it is simply an editor's opinion dressed up as fact. Hgilbert 00:15, 7 November 2006 (UTC)"

::::"Nonsense. The truth is NO schools give sufficient information about Anthroposophy on their websites. But I'll challenge you to find some that do. Not links to information - but actual information on the website. I could easily take out the "some" and make the sentence a lot less weasly. Pete K 01:21, 7 November 2006 (UTC)"

::::"This is a little backwards. To make such a claim, you must positively source or otherwise prove it - unsourced claims do not stand until disproved. I have provided a compromise wording that is indisputable. Hgilbert 19:48, 7 November 2006 (UTC)"

::::"Thanks Harlan, but that's not truthful. I'll adjust your "compromise" wording to be more in line with the truth. Thank goodness I'm here and able to do this. Pete K 21:30, 7 November 2006 (UTC)"

::::"What you call 'truth' is merely your opinion. What amount of information about 'anthroposophy' is "sufficient"? Once again, claims made have the burden of verifiability; you cannot merely claim anything and demand that others disprove it. Hgilbert 11:30, 8 November 2006 (UTC)"

:While this edit didn't satisfy HGilbert (few edits do), it was discussed before it was made. Again, apologies to Durova. Harlan, if you would like to discuss this further (I still don't see the point you are trying to make in the links you have provided) - there is a discussion page on the Arbitration page. We should leave Durova's page for Durova's stuff. Thanks. '''] 04:34, 20 November 2006 (UTC)'''

::Oops, sorry Durova (again) I didn't realize you were responding to this. '''] 04:36, 20 November 2006 (UTC)'''

The arbitration request is open and heading toward acceptance so you'd both really serve yourselves better by focusing your efforts there. I recommend the most heavily involved parties seek mentors and avoid continuance of the conflict on all other pages. If you haven't done so already, browse some past cases. Most of the statements in this request have been short on page diffs. Allegations carry little weight with the committee; page diffs do. It probably helps to be forthcoming about one's own mistakes and take personal initiative toward improving them as early as possible in this process. I mean this advice equally toward both sides. <font face="Verdana">]<sup>'']]''</sup></font> 05:02, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
:Another note on the arbitration: usually these cases move at a glacial pace. That may or may not be the way people would like them to proceed, but an editor could take a three or four day weekend and not miss much. That does give people the chance to get on with real life and prepare the best possible presentation. I serve no official function at arbitration and have no secret strings to pull: the committee probably views me as an uninvolved editor who happens to have sysop powers. Occasionally my ''role'' as an administrator might come into play. Since I really have very little to do with the present dispute I hope that doesn't happen much. From what I've observed, the committee does a very good job of examining all sides of a case: it isn't a chess game where one side gains an advantage by moving first or attempting to flank the opposition. Anything I comment here, however, is merely observation from an editor who's contributed evidence at a couple of cases. Arbitration is a necessary evil and one I strive to avoid. <font face="Verdana">]<sup>'']]''</sup></font> 03:16, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

== My post ==

What disturbs you about it? ] 06:14, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
:Diff, please. <font face="Verdana">]<sup>'']]''</sup></font> 13:45, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
::Can you please tell me clearly what bothers you about my post? Also where is the personal attack noticeboard where I can read the complaint that was made against me? ] 07:27, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
::I found the noticeboard. However I still request that you explain your post. I have a question for you. Let us assume (for the sake of discussion) that itaqallah is a bully. Am I allowed to say that to people he bullies? Also, none of his posts to the noticeboard constituted a "slur" against Islam. I said: "The fact that your religion forces critics to use the internet as their medium..." Is there something untrue about this? The internet critics who are cited in the articles itaqallah and I have been struggling over receive hundreds of death threats from Muslims. ] 07:40, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
:::I'd be glad to explain it if you would give me a link to the relevant post. <font face="Verdana">]<sup>'']]''</sup></font> 00:24, 15 November 2006 (UTC)
:Durova, i would like to bring to your attention attack ("wahabi" is derogatory slur), and i had already recently this user for such behaviour. ] 17:14, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
::Is that a joke? ] 22:38, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
:::Okay, here's the link to the report that I responded to: . Regarding the alleged slur ''Wahabi'', post evidence that this is a slur: what language it is a slur in and what it means in that language (not personal claims but links to reliable outside sources). <font face="Verdana">]<sup>'']]''</sup></font> 02:41, 17 November 2006 (UTC)
::::for one example, see the glossary document from of Pittsburgh University, . other resources confirming that the term is either offensive or used to cause offense are as follow: for further references, see (paragraph 6), (second sentence), (paragraph 2). ] 00:47, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

:::: That's true. Wahabi's, ''according to what I was taught in Iran'', are the most extreme Sunnis who believe killing shias gurauntees paradise. It might be wrong but that's what I was told. -] 00:50, 18 November 2006 (UTC)
:::::Okay, uncivil - but unless I'm missing connotations it's the sort of incivility that should get a warning. No content dispute should drag on this long. Have a look at ] and see what stones are still unturned. <font face="Verdana">]<sup>'']]''</sup></font> 02:50, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

:::::: Durova, but it is incivility. It is not related to the recent content dispute and should be considered separately. Frankly, if one refers to me as Wahabi, it would be an insult. Really. --] 02:57, 18 November 2006 (UTC)
:::::: Furthremore, I think content disputes could only be addressed when all parties remain civil. Uncivil comments are only provoking. --] 02:59, 18 November 2006 (UTC)
:::::::All right then: go ahead and address it by leaving a warning template on the offending editor's talk page. <font face="Verdana">]<sup>'']]''</sup></font> 03:03, 18 November 2006 (UTC)
::::::::Wahabiism is a sect of Islam. A user complained that itaqallah was promoting Wahabi POV in Islam related articles, and I responded to him that by observing itaqallah's tactics, he could help keep Wahabi bias out of wikipedia articles. Hopefully, Aminz and itaqallah will continue to waste their time with these kinds of things. ] 09:39, 18 November 2006 (UTC)
::::::::: Regarding someone as Wahabi is clearly an insult. Al qa'da is also a reading of Islam, but an extreme one. --] 09:42, 18 November 2006 (UTC)
:::::::::: I can regard anyone in any way I want, and I do. I didn't even suggest that itaqallah is a member of the Wahabi sect, though I suspect that he is. I guess you can ask him if you really care to know. What you were told in Iran about Wahabiism is probably just as reliable as what Saudis are told about the party of Ali. ] 10:00, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

::::::::::: No, you can not. --] 10:02, 18 November 2006 (UTC)
:::::::::::: Maybe you don't know what "regard" means. We don't have thought police on wikipedia, though maybe you wish we did. ] 10:13, 18 November 2006 (UTC)
:::::::::::::], Arrow. Give this a rest. <font face="Verdana">]<sup>'']]''</sup></font> 21:07, 19 November 2006 (UTC)
:::::::::::::: ] 13:02, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
:::::::::::::::24 hour block. <font face="Verdana">]<sup>'']]''</sup></font> 18:08, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

==Thanks for your input==

Thank you for taking part in ]. The RfA was '''not''' successful, mostly because I did a pretty bad job of presenting myself. I'll run again sometime in the next few months, in the hopes that some will reconsider.

In the meantime, one of the projects I'm working on is ]. This is a wikibook how-to guide intended to help new administrators learn the ropes, as well as to simply "demystify" what adminship entails. If you are an administrator, please help out with writing it, particularly on the technical aspects of the tools. Both administrators and non-administrators are welcome to help link in and sort all of the various policies regarding the use of these tools on wikipedia in particular (as well as other projects: for example, I have almost no experience with how things work on wiktionary or wikinews). Users who are neither familiar with policy or the sysop tools could be of great help by asking questions about anything that's unclear. The goal is to get everything together in one place, with a narrative form designed to anticipate the reader's next question.

A second project, related but not entailed, is a book on wikimedia in general, with a history of how various policies evolved over time, interesting trivia (e.g., what the heck was "wikimoney" about?), and a history of how the wikimedia foundation itself came about and the larger issues that occurred during its history (such as the infamous "Spanish Fork").

Again, thanks for your input on the RfA, and thanks in advance for any help you might be able to provide for the handbook. --]|<sup>]</sup>|<sub>]</sub> 12:58, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
:As you can see, my time has been spread very thin lately. Post here with specific requests about how to prepare for your next RFA and I'll do my best to coach. Regards, <font face="Verdana">]<sup>'']]''</sup></font> 03:16, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

==You helped choose ] as this week's ] winner==
<div style="text-align: center; margin: 0 10%;">
{| class="notice noprint" id="{{{id}}}" style="background: #ffccFF; border: 1px solid #ff33FF; margin: 0 auto;"
|- |-
| ]
| Thank you for your support of the ''']'''.<br>This week ''']''' was selected to be improved to ] ].<br>Hope you can help.
|} |}
|}
</div>] 13:11, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
<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)
== User John Spikowski ==
</div>

<!-- Message sent by User:Ian Rose@enwiki using the list at https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=User:The_ed17/sandbox3&oldid=705057126 -->
Thank you for your help. We already tried to talk to him several times (in fact this goes now on for more then 2 years outside of Misplaced Pages). We also made attempts to resolve this on Misplaced Pages like but he refused to see the facts (as in his recent attack). He decelerated peace just to start the fight again. His "Group" consists of only one person and he tries to make our lives as hard as possible. For example he removed our mailinglist from Nabble where he is now banned and he has his "forum" on his site where he and his sock puppets "talk" . alicia, JS and admin are the same person. I am aware that these are outside issues but I just wanted to show you that he is not a normal troll, because he will not go away (we already ignored him for 3 month). Please tell us what we can do. I am tiered of the daily look on the watchlist just to find out that he vandalized (as ) the page of PanoTools, removed links (24.17.56.230 is his IP address) or started a new article to flame ). Any advice would help. Thx. --] 14:05, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
: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)
:In that case a guideline worth looking into is ]. The ] I suggested at ] could help one way or another: either by (one would hope) breaking the deadlock with fresh input from uninvolved editors or by establishing consensus for further administrative action. I suggest if you need to follow up (and you probably do) open your next report at ]. That's really designed for the more complex situations such as this. Best wishes, <font face="Verdana">]<sup>'']]''</sup></font> 01:05, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

== hi ==

hi um im bored want to talk about sometnig like, how the heck do you put a photo on your user page reply to user talk: Yes my name is sarah please.
:]. <font face="Verdana">]<sup>'']]''</sup></font> 12:46, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

== Regarding the mention of RFCU on WP:PAIN ==
Hello Durova. I noticed that on the WP:PAIN case you suggested a request for checkuser on an account that the other party thought had a sock. I would like to extend a friendly warning that unless the user has some evidence other than a name match, this kind of report may be taken as fishing by dmcdevit or another CU administrator. Just thought I'd give a friendly notice. Take care. ✎ <b>]</b> <sup>(]) (]) (]) (])</sup> 01:48, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
:Actually I was referring to a suspected sockpuppet report, where standards are a little more flexible. <font face="Verdana">]<sup>'']]''</sup></font> 12:28, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

== Sorry for stopping by again ==

Durova, as far as I remember you were involved a bit in the ] way back. ] argues that he is a reliable source for wikipedia . Furthermore, he calls Academic scholars like ] and ] as silly scholars . I would be thankful if you could comment on that. Also, his edits are getting kind of uncivil towards Prophet Muhammad: "he had a mission as a egomaniacal anti-Semite with an unhealthy lust for booty. Report the facts, not excessive interpretation and biased wording of pro-Islam scholars." Please note that the pro-Islam scholars whom he is refering is the '' Encyclopedia of world history '', Oxford University Press. ''He is calling Prophet Muhammad anti-semitic.'' --] 06:41, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
::In I think the appropriate double entendre to be topical. Also it says a lot about Aminz that he capitalized Academic. I'm looking at Spencer's two most famous books now. One is published by Regnery, a 60 year old subsidiary of Eagle Publishing, and the other is published by Encounter books, which seems to publish lots of reasonable authors like Spencer, but seems pretty prominent. He is also published by Prometheus. He's a best selling author and an excellent scholar. If he is a hired polemic so is Carl Ernst. You can't expect the ivory tower to look fondly at someone who eschewed getting a PhD from it and isn't an apologist for Islam. Anyway the Islamic Studies departments at major universities are left-wing groups, so this is the pot calling the kettle black. Muhammad was anti-Semitic. After assuming power in Medina he exiled two Jewish tribes, and as to the third, he beheaded all the men and sold all the women and children into slavery. The Quran contains numerous anti-semitic statements that shape Muslim views of Jews to this day, including that some were turned into monkeys by God. The ] hadith say that they are sons of pigs and dogs, etc. ] 09:57, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

Durova, He says :"The Quran contains numerous anti-semitic statements that shape Muslim views of Jews to this day". From an academic point of view this view has no support (it for example contradicts ] and ] and all other scholars) and from the perspective of wikipedia, it is incivility. --] 10:08, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

:They might disagree but it is a fact. Muslim kids in Egypt are told that Jews are the descendants of pigs and dogs. That is a fact, and they showed videos of it on CNN this very day. Therefore, I'm right. ] 10:13, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

:Please see the discussion . There's one thing I'd like to add to it. Ernst is inside the establishment, Spencer is outside. Spencer is much more influential. That's it. They are both scholars. ] 10:37, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

Durova, He is now accusing prophet muhammad as anti-semitic, the position which no *scholar* have ever taken. Anti-semitism was a western phenomenon. See what kind of editors I have to deal with. P.S. some academic quotes:

"There is nothing in medieval Islam which could specifically be called anti-semitism", ], a distinguished Islamic historian states by comparing medieval Christendom and medieval Islam. ] states that "In Islamic society hostility to the Jew is non-theological. It is not related to any specific Islamic doctrine, nor to any specific circumstance in Islamic sacred history." --] 10:41, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

:As usual with Aminz, this isn't the place for this discussion. However I will continue it. So there aren't any Muslim anti-Semites, eh? I'll have to store that piece of information in my brain for use later. There might not be an Islamic doctrine promulgating hatred of the Jews per se (though ] is oppressive and demeaning for all non-Muslims), but the statements are there in the Quran and the hadith, and they are well known. ] 10:55, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

Aminz has ceased to make constructive edits in ], and did not respond to my questions and comments on the talk page and in the edit summaries before reverting hours' worth of edits wholesale. Isn't there some kind of penalty for that sort of behavior? ] 11:17, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

=== ] ===

Per ], Misplaced Pages can't advance a hypothesis that ] was anti-semitic unless some scholar somewhere has written that opinion. Like it or not, people who hold Ph.D. degrees in a subject and who publish through non-vanity presses about their field of expertise meet the definition of reliable sources. A particular Misplaced Pages article won't necessarily cite all of them per the undue weight clause at]. However, an assertion that the Ph.D. is biased or that this person's publisher is biased is not itself a reason to challenge suitability as an encyclopedic source ''even if that assertion is true''. The appropriate solution to such perceived biases is to cite other reliable sources that reflect other views. <font face="Verdana">]<sup>'']]''</sup></font> 12:49, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

:Thank you for this helpful statement. The discussion now needs to move on. ] 17:39, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

::I agree with you. I'm not saying we shouldn't include the scholars I have a low opinion of, I'm just saying that we can't take someone's dismissal of Spencer very seriously. Also I never wrote in an article that Muhammad was anti-semitic, I just said it myself in response to a POV sentence of Aminz's in an article. ] 22:40, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
:::If someone who dismisses Spencer has a Ph.D. in the field and publishes through a non-vanity press, then the opinion meets Misplaced Pages's standards for encyclopedic content. Whether or not to take that opinion seriously is a matter for Misplaced Pages's readers to decide. <font face="Verdana">]<sup>'']]''</sup></font> 01:49, 17 November 2006 (UTC)
::::The issue is that Aminz wants to keep Spencer out of all articles because he disagrees with him (though he is a professional scholar, a bestselling author who has been consulted by the US government, and a meticuluous researcher) and is using the dismissal of one or two very pro-Islam professors as justification. ] 03:06, 17 November 2006 (UTC)
:::::I've already explained how to handle this. The logic is the same regardless of who wants to exclude or include a source. <font face="Verdana">]<sup>'']]''</sup></font> 02:39, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

==Assistance please==
Durova, you provided me a civility warning a few weeks back. Unfortunately, in doing so you have "fed the troll" in Duke53 and his cohart Sqrnjn. Could you please review the edit history on ] and the article itself. It has become an edit war and Duke has threatened to revert everyone that counters his position. Between the two of them they accuse everyone else of vandalism as the revert others. The article should be frozen (can't think of correct term) until a solution is achieved. Any assisttance would be appreciated. There is already an admin involved in the editing but he, appropriately, is not able to act as an admin in this situation. You will note that I have posted warnings. ] ] 23:21, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

:: Durova, please do get involved; as you can (and will see) this guy's incivility hasn't ebbed one bit. He is now<I> 'interpreting'<I> things as incivility that simply are not. I explained to other editors that I would no longer be responding to him since he made <I>false accusations</I> about me using sockpuppets. His <I>'suggestion'</I> to 'freeze' the article in question is also rather disngenuous, as he should be aware that I requested and received page protection and am attempting to get arbitration over this matter. <font face="raphael" color="green">] | <sup>]</sup></font> 00:34, 17 November 2006 (UTC)
::: Per the disclaimer at the top of this page, please avoid ''the t-word''. I don't interfere with open ArbCom cases or ArbCom requests. Otherwise reopen the noticeboard case so that other administrators can join the review. Provide page diffs rather than links. Respectfully, <font face="Verdana">]<sup>'']]''</sup></font> 01:42, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

== Making contact ==

I would really appreciate it if you could make contact. I'm not looking for conflict, I would appreciate the opportunity to make you aware of the bigger picture surrounding my ban.] 23:50, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
:It was just a 31 hour block, not a ban. The report I responded to is at ]. It includes several page diffs that demonstrated incivility and personal attacks as well as three previous warnings, two of which had been posted to your user page. All of those diffs checked out. Your unblock request claimed that you hadn't been warned before (which you had) and that the block was groundless. Actually, considering the degree of incivility, 31 hours was fairly light. I didn't count the previous block against you since the other administrator reverted it. <font face="Verdana">]<sup>'']]''</sup></font> 01:38, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

== Mmm... ==

Somebody you blocked, ], seems to be looking for trouble... . Just thought I'd bring that to your attention. —] <sup><small>( ] | ])</small></sup> 09:43, 17 November 2006 (UTC)
:This user is also clearly editing anonymously to avoid the block as can be seen by the summary of and when he signed his own talk page using the same IP as can be seen . -- ]] <small>19:59, 17 November 2006 (])</small>
::This sort of information should go onto the noticeboard so it's all in one place. AOL IP address: not much point in blocking that, but I'll extend the block on the main account. Semi-protected the article page. <font face="Verdana">]<sup>'']]''</sup></font> 02:30, 18 November 2006 (UTC)


== POTD notification ==
== Sugaar and other nonsense at RFI ==
]]]
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!&nbsp;—&nbsp;] (]) 00:49, 1 July 2016 (UTC)
What is the story with this situation? Should there be a checkuser? And why did you "recuse" yourself? —]→]&nbsp;&bull; 21:42, 17 November 2006 (UTC)
{{-}}
:I'd have no objection to a checkuser, if that's what you're asking. Basically there's a nexus dispute around the editors of ]. They cross posted requests to several boards and opened up several overlapping requests, generally paying little heed to the noticeboard guidelines and ignoring my requests to standardize the presentation. At the start of this I began to look into the matter, but the evidence was inadequate. Soon another admin stepped in, probably based on a suspected sockpuppet report, and I saw no point in duplicating the same effort. The last I looked at it, the situation looked like it would wind up at ArbCom. <font face="Verdana">]<sup>'']]''</sup></font> 02:58, 18 November 2006 (UTC)


== Interest In Learning Restoration Practices ==
== "Positive" and "negative" conflicts of interest ==


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)
The present page on ] describes one type of conflict of interest, based on a wish to promote or put an activity or person in a positive light, because you have a very personal relation to the subject of an article, including an economical interest in putting it in a positive light.


== POTD notification ==
What the ] page does not mention is the opposite, that someone may have a more or less strong motivation to put a subject, a company, an activity or a person in a negative light, based on a more or less strong negative personal relation to it for one or other reason.
]]]
Hi Lise,


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!&nbsp;—&nbsp;] (]) 01:24, 10 September 2016 (UTC)
You may feel that you have been hurt of suffered damages in relation to some person, a company or other activity.
{{-}}


== Possible removal of AWB access due to inactivity ==
You have had a number of manuscripts rejected by a publishing company, or you think - rightly or wrongly - that some company has been the cause of a disease of a child of yours. You may have been a member of a band, gotten in conflict with the others and having had to leave, or working for a company and then having been fired, putting you in deep financial trouble.


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)
To the most negative personal relations belong more or less bitter divorces.
<!-- Message sent by User:MusikAnimal@enwiki using the list at https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=User:MusikBot_II/Inactive_MMS_targets&oldid=748573976 -->
==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 ==
One such would be the since May 2006 and divorce between ] and ]. How would Misplaced Pages consider the editing by one of them of the article on the other person after that divorce?


{{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.
Another type of example would be a couple that have been married for long, and then divorce bitterly maybe partly based on diverging life views. They have their children in one or other special school form, and disagree over whether their children should continue in that special school, becoming part of a custody issue. One spouse may strongly support it, the other is strongly against it. One spouse may have a stronger relation to the school than just being a parent, maybe working there, even as a teacher, with even, at worst..., the "classical" mother-in-law or a father-in-law having a strong personal relation to the school, maybe even working there and supporting the divorce.


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.
As one result, the spouse opposed to the school, in connection with or after the divorce, may start to write extensively in a negative way about the school or school form in different media or internet fora, maybe feeling it has been the primary cause of the divorce. How would Misplaced Pages view that as a basis for editing Misplaced Pages articles related to the school or school form?


If you wish to participate in the 2017 election, please review ] and submit your choices on the ''']'''. ] (]) 18:42, 3 December 2017 (UTC)
Or Valentina Pedroni, the wife of Arun Nayar, about to then marry Liz Hurley, would start to edit the article on ]. How would you view it if Pedroni started editing the Misplaced Pages article on Hurley?
|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 ==
Or ], former spouse of ], recently accused of having abused his ex-wife, and she, if she had been still alive, had started editing the Misplaced Pages article on him.


Greetings,
Here (above) at your Talks page, you tell that you do not participate in the editing of the Wiki articles on ] and ], because your nearest relative was one of the last people to escape alive and that you joined the military and went to war because of that day.


"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 ].
This is a principle question: how would you judge the different possible cases described, and is there a Misplaced Pages policy or guideline, not only on the "positively" biased interest, described by ], but also on this type of strongly emotionally negative relation as a conflict of interest somewhere?


] (]) 11:30, 21 December 2017 (UTC)
Or - just seeing this - would you consider the official Misplaced Pages policy described at ] to be the policy applicable in the hypothetical cases described?
<!-- 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 ==
Thanks, '''] 15:16, 18 November 2006 (UTC)'''


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:
:If 20 ex wives of Tom Hanks came here all saying the same thing... what then? '''] 15:30, 18 November 2006 (UTC)'''


* tagging and assessing articles that fall within the project's scope
::Get these revolting personal insinuations off of Misplaced Pages. I hope the admin removes it and censors you. Nobody's divorce and custody arrangements belong on wikipedia. Lots of divorced people and single parents like Rudolf Steiner, too; shall we dig up court proceedings on all their divorces, too? Check through your own favorite anthroposophical email lists or consider the anthroposophists you know in real life. Might any of them happen to be divorced? Single parents?
* 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.
::And how are you going to get rid of critics who AREN'T divorced? We've been through this all before; I'm very happy to pull up the talk pages here that show Harlan Gilbert trying the same stunt. He wasn't reprimanded, at the time, becuase I was new to wikipedia and it didn't even occur to me. He should have been - he should have been booted for even having the nerve to try this junk. And he's the one getting all sensitive that "personal information" has recently been revealed on him - personal information being that he's a Waldorf teacher! not who he's married to or not, or anything about his FAMILY or CHILDREN. This is just so disgusting.] 16:59, 18 November 2006 (UTC)


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.
:::Actually, Harlan has posted his own article about himself here promoting his ideas and book. I'd like to point out that no matter how TheBee characterizes any personal situation between any people, it is IMPOSSIBLE to prove any of his claims. In the case of HGilbert's conflict-of-interest, there's nothing to prove - he's a Waldorf teacher, plain and simple. Now if we really want to talk about people acting out of grudges and vendettas, let's look at TheBee and his motives for providing little tidbit in the Waldorf article - something that he cannot support and that he attributes, as the source for the comment, a group of 5 people including himself and Professor Marginalia. '''] 17:53, 18 November 2006 (UTC)'''


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 ].
PeteK, the of aggression, personal attacks and incivility you have let loose and displayed here at Misplaced Pages against different people from on 20 Aug, defended by and defending DianaW, probably to most stand out as puzzling and difficult to understand.


For the Milhist co-ordinators, ] and ] (]) 10:54, 27 March 2018 (UTC)
One has commented:
<!-- 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 -->
:"''Pete K, you are being incredibly aggressive. Please stop attacking editors. Disagreements are normal. Accusing someone of playing naive to do harm is, in my opinion, very inappropriate and demeaning. I cannot comment on the article because I know very little about it. But I can say that you are way out of line regarding Misplaced Pages’s policies in handling disputes''."


== goat ==
You have been asked a number of times without success to stop your personal attacks and stay civil, , (leading to a follow up condescending comment on the request ), , , , , , , and
.


]
At you describe your highly emotional negative view of and relation to Waldorf education and schools as the basis for what you write here, defend your repeated aggression here at Misplaced Pages, and tell that you feel no remorse about it.
goat


] (]) 02:30, 14 May 2018 (UTC)
You have also told that you are a divorced Waldorf parent, and that two of your children, in spite of your extremely negative view of and relation to Waldorf education, go to a Waldorf school accross the street.
<br style="clear: both;"/>


== ] ==
At , I describe my background and among other things my relation to Waldorf education, and during a number of years of the small anti-Waldorf fringe group PLANS in S.F., that you in cooperation with Diana intensely work at defending here at Misplaced Pages.


], a featured picture ], has been proposed for replacement with ]. Your comments are welcome at ]. ] 20:28, 29 October 2018 (UTC)
Above, I give a hypothetical description of a situation, that I know in different instances reflects aspects of relations between divorced Waldorf parents, where one divorced spouse more or less strongly supports that one of more of the children involved continues to go to a Waldorf school, while the other has become a more or less public and vocal Waldorf critic, and at times search for and extensively try to defame the Waldorf school, in those cases as part of a custody dispute.


== ] nominated for replacement ==
You write:
:"''... no matter how TheBee characterizes any personal situation between any people, it is IMPOSSIBLE to prove any of his claims.''"


], a featured picture you nominated, has been ] with a ]. Your comments are welcome. ] 17:16, 20 November 2018 (UTC)
Why not tell yourself what of my hypothetical description above is or is not applicable in your case, to make understandable your repeatedly high level of aggression towards Waldorf education, and basically all people who seem to be more or less exlicit supporters of it, and to make clear if what you write here in articles on and related to Waldorf education corresponds to and falls within the Misplaced Pages policy on what Misplaced Pages and , as you have tried to clarify in relation to editor Hgilbert? Thanks, '''] 17:25, 19 November 2006 (UTC)'''
*The same applies for ] - see ] and ]. ] 18:16, 7 December 2018 (UTC)


== Precious ==
::Frankly, Sune, I can't bear to read through another one of your posts. You cannot prove ANYTHING you have said above. I have no aggression AT ALL toward Waldorf education. I have had problems with a few misguided Waldorf teachers and administrators. I participate fully in my kid's Waldorf school, I volunteer my time, work at fundraising, I take classes on camping trips, I've even been asked to teach a couple of classes. So I don't really know what you are talking about here. I have no "remorse" for editing articles here... why should I? You believe anyone who doesn't gush at the idea of Waldorf must be part of an anti-Waldorf fringe group. That's YOUR problem, not mine. I think Waldorf needs to improve, (so do lots of people including Waldorf teachers) and I have indeed improved the school my kids go to (and have received thanks from many people there). So you're WAY off base.
{{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)
::The divorce you are talking about is over - there is no custody dispute - I ended up with the lion's-share of custody. You have invented this "custody battle" in your mind and now brought it to the pages here - and apparently on your own websites. If I have been critical of or even rude to you, it's pretty much because you have insisted on this kind of behavior towards me. You have started countless topics on talk pages throughout Misplaced Pages trying to disparage me, discredit me AND my family. You drag the personal details of my family and divorce (as you have invented them) onto Misplaced Pages. Frankly, I don't see why anyone should have to put up with this type of behavior from you. You bet - I lose my temper with you, and it sometimes comes out in my writing. Why don't you stop harassing me, and you might get less aggression. I haven't looked at your links, but I suspect they are all dated - I've tried very hard to ignore your rudeness and harassment lately. Yet here, again, you continue to harass me - trying to make a case that a divorce constitutes a conflict-of-interest. Please give it a rest. '''] 17:46, 19 November 2006 (UTC)'''


Thank you today for what you did for ]! --] (]) 04:56, 29 May 2019 (UTC)
I've already blown the referee whistle and made my call: take it to arbitration. <font face="Verdana">]<sup>'']]''</sup></font> 22:02, 19 November 2006 (UTC)


A year ago, you were recipient no. ] of Precious, a prize of QAI! --] (]) 10:40, 16 January 2020 (UTC)
:Thank you Durova! '''] 23:00, 19 November 2006 (UTC)'''


==Disputed non-free use rationale for File:Hearst and Morgan.jpg==
== Joan of Arc bibliography ==
]
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 -->
Hi Durova, You might have noticed that there's a dispute in progress on ] about the specific issue of whether Hobbins' new translation of the trial transcripts should be included. As the editor who started the article, would you care to comment? One of the things I'm curious is just how inclusive/selective the bibliography was intended to be. ] (]) 17:29, 18 November 2006 (UTC)
:Done. <font face="Verdana">]<sup>'']]''</sup></font> 21:09, 19 November 2006 (UTC)


<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)
== Issue with hostile editor ==
== ] of ] ==
]


The file ] has been ]&#32;because of the following concern:
I am sorry to have to bother you again. Problems associated with the user E.Shubee have continued unabated since the lifting of his one-week block. Despite a "last warning" by user Maniwar for personal attacks issued on 19th October, 2006, he has since continued to make a number of unwarranted and personal attacks against users who have been posting contributions to Adventist related pages, such as the ] entry that I have been attempting to improve. In so doing, I have welcomed constructive criticism by editor JBKramer, and have done as all ''neutral'' commentators have suggested.
<blockquote>unused, low-res, no obvious use</blockquote>


While all constructive contributions to Misplaced Pages are appreciated, pages may be ].
After the warning, E.Shubee accused user MyNameIsNotBob of "extreme, militant anti-Adventism" "purposely overlooking Misplaced Pages rules on notability and verifiability," because he disagreed with E.Shubee's proposed changes, which I also consider quite biased and unnecessary. Two days ago he accused me of being someone else (an individual named Walter McGill) and saying that I was not only misrepresenting myself, disguising my identity and providing false information on my user page, but also promoting "Notorious deception, delusion and fraud" by contributing to the article. Since he believes that the CSDA Church only has "four members," I imagine this is part of the reason he thinks that I am this other person since I happen to also be a member of that Church.


You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{Tlc|proposed deletion/dated files}} notice, but please explain why in your ] or on ].
At almost every possible instance has sought to slip in inflammatory terms, links to his own personal research (that has already been disqualified by both editors and administrators as a valid resource) and weasel-words to the article mentioned above and its associated talk page. He has made it clear (from his comments to me and the content of his website and attempted contributions) that his reasons for this have less to do with interest for distributing neutrally-toned information and far more to do with a personal grudge. I realize that this is strong language, but I believe that this is a suitable description given the things he has said.


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 -->
He has not shown any sign of seeking to communicate with other editors in a reasonable manner, and when confronted he will say that since he is a "true Seventh-day Adventist" anyone who opposes him is fulfilling some sort of conspiracy prophecy (as he states openly on his "talk" page).


<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)
Thank you for your time. ] 20:03, 19 November 2006 (UTC)
:This was a tough call: instead of issuing another block I've left a final warning on that editor's talk page and posted a link to ]. Follow up if problems resume. <font face="Verdana">]<sup>'']]''</sup></font> 21:44, 19 November 2006 (UTC)


== Precious anniversary ==
::For the record, similar issues are occurring with E.Shubee on ]. ] 01:23, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
{{User QAIbox/auto|years=Two}} --] (]) 10:24, 16 January 2021 (UTC)
:::I also looked into that. The tone on the discussion page there seemed to be more in line with the normal range of editorial discussion. Please explain with diffs if the problem has been duplicated on a subtler level. <font face="Verdana">]<sup>'']]''</sup></font> 01:25, 20 November 2006 (UTC)


== Survey == == FAR for Joan of Arc ==
I spearheaded the "university students' Misplaced Pages survey" which you recently filled out. I thank you for your well-spoken input. It was one of the most insightful essays into the experiences of a Wikipedian I have read of many hundreds.


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 hope to conceive of further questions for you in the near future. In the meantime, thanks again.


=== Featured Article Save Award for ] ===
-jamie
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)
:Thank you for the comment. Let me know if you conduct a follow-up. <font face="Verdana">]<sup>'']]''</sup></font> 15:55, 20 November 2006 (UTC)


==File source problem with File:Clapboard farmhouse in Florida 1911.gif==
== Your recent statement on Requests for Arbitration ==
]
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 -->
http://en.wikipedia.org/Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration


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)
Hi Durova


== ] ==
First of all thanks for making an insightful and positive statement about the shennanigins surrounding the Steiner family of articles. I just want to clear up one thing: The allegations of 'brochure language' are being directed at TheBee and HGilbert, not PeteK and DianeW. When HGilbert complains about 'brochure language', he is actually complaining about this complaint being ''made against'' him (if you catch my drift). I completely agree with the rest of your assessment, it is the best statement made so far, but you might want to correct that one error. --] 10:23, 20 November 2006 (UTC)


:Oops, I have now read what you wrote again, and followed the link to the bizarre assertion by HGilbert that it is in fact PeteK who has introduced 'brochure language'. I see what you mean now- please disregard the parent post.--] 10:30, 20 November 2006 (UTC)


Hello {{u|Durova}},
== Personal attacks by Isarig ==


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.
Hi - I posted this to the personal attack noticeboard, but in case you didn't see it there -- Please read the personal attacks on my job (, which have nothing to do with the edit dispute. Isarig is citing disputes with other editors and totally mischaracterizing the debate on the ] page. The personal attacks are way out of line. ] 20:57, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
:Responded at ]. <font face="Verdana">]<sup>'']]''</sup></font> 02:39, 21 November 2006 (UTC)


Best regards,<br>] (]) 04:03, 7 July 2024 (UTC)
==Mike Searson's personal attacks==
Dear Durova,


== Arbitration motion regarding Durova ==
Thank you for not deleting my complaint and for prompting me to read how to use diffs. In my haste to get the attacks stopped, I didn't notice the guide at the top of the page. At your earliest convenience, please arbitrate the complaint. I think it is a pressing matter because, when I read his user page, I become concerned that this is a dangerous individual with a volatile personality. I am especially concerned when I see the veiled threats he has made on the complaints page, itself, about calling me at home to "discuss" the matter. Thank you. ] 02:22, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
:I'm glad you're getting the hang of the site. It can be confusing at first - I've been there. ] has a limited purpose and most of what I see looks like a content dispute. So my usual response would be to refer you to ]. Your statement about veiled threats is a different matter: please post page diffs specifically to show that at the noticeboard thread. Respectfully, <font face="Verdana">]<sup>'']]''</sup></font> 02:39, 21 November 2006 (UTC)


The Arbitration Committee has resolved by ] that:
Pardon me, but do my diffs not already show him calling me "a troll," "a liar," and "a failed writer"? Please see this one The attacks are in the green highlighted section (green in my browser, anyway.) None of those are content disputes, surely.
{{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,
]&nbsp;] 23:23, 12 July 2024 (UTC)
: Discuss this at: '''{{slink|Misplaced Pages talk:Arbitration Committee/Noticeboard|Arbitration motion regarding Durova}}'''


== Best wishes ==
Further, this user shows some serious contempt for the process by carrying on on the personal attacks intervention board. That's where you will find the veiled threat to telephone me about all this. How do I diff to that? When you see stuff like that from a guy who boasts about his background as much as he does, on his user page, it's something a prudent man has to take seriously. Thanks, again. ] 03:21, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
:Copy/pasted and replied to one of the two threads at ]. <font face="Verdana">]<sup>'']]''</sup></font> 05:15, 21 November 2006 (UTC)


I miss Durova. I hope she is doing well. ] (]) 01:53, 13 July 2024 (UTC)
== My special contributions ==


== Good article reassessment for ] ==
Look, I gave you a link of my special contributions. I only want to remove them, please help. There has to be a way to remove my special contributions because I don't want to see them for the rest of my whole life. Please give me tipps, who shall I contact to remove my contributions. ] 10:37, 21 November 2006 (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)
:This is an unusual request. I'll ask other admins. <font face="Verdana">]<sup>'']]''</sup></font> 14:24, 21 November 2006 (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 WikiCup.


Archived talk 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 65 66 67 68 69 70 71 72 73 74 75 76 77 78 79 80 81 82 83

The Bugle: Issue CXVIII, January 2016

Full front page of The Bugle Your Military History Newsletter

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

Full front page of The Bugle Your Military History Newsletter

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

POTD

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

POTD

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

A file that you uploaded or altered, File:Wappen Rdecraon.jpg, has been listed at Misplaced Pages:Files for discussion. Please see the discussion 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.

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

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)

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!

Awesome
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

Notice

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

Precious
Two years!
--Gerda Arendt (talk) 10:24, 16 January 2021 (UTC)

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 from
2) 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.
to
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, 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: