User talk:Durova/Archive 2

Thanks

Thanks. WikiThanks.

I would like to express my thanks to all the good people who spent their valuable time time and effort working on my (failed) RfA voting. Especially for those who actually voted to support me :). Lets move on and make together our Wikipedia an even greater place abakharev 10:02, 12 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Anatoly Durov

That's another article related to your name which could benefit from your skill in English. As it is new, we could get it featured in WP:DYK. --Ghirla | talk 16:19, 12 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for thinking of me. I've made the changes. Had to remove some POV praise. You could put it back in the form of a quotation if you have the right source. Best wishes, Durova 17:08, 12 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks a lot. --Ghirla | talk 17:44, 12 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Barbara Amesbury and Wikipedia:Talk page highlights

Mind if I ask exactly what's funny enough about my quote to merit inclusion in a compendium of talk page humour? Because I frankly don't see the humour in it. Bearcat 19:17, 12 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Of course it's a serious question and a legitimate dilemma. It's also among the oddest situations I've seen at RfC. All of the quotes on that page are topical within their original context. Are you offended? Say so and I'll delete it. It's meant in good spirit. Durova 19:44, 12 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No, not offended...just don't really understand the humour in it. Bearcat 19:48, 12 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well, every one of those quotes fit within the context of editorial discussion. Then I stepped back and looked at the weirdness quotient, as in editors actually defining zombie cannibalism. Transsexuality has been around for decades, but the idea of someone who's only famous for recording a hit before the change and then getting edited that particular way - it merited a double take in my fairly broad minded view of life. Durova 19:59, 12 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, okay, fair enough. Gotcha now. Bearcat 20:05, 12 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

DYK

Did you know? has been updated. A fact from the article Dawn Steel, which you recently created, has been featured in that section on the Main Page. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the "Did you know?" talk page.

--Gurubrahma 10:06, 13 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Dawn Steel

Greetings:

I think you may have mistargetted a warning. User:Stormraven didn't do anything vandalistic to Dawn Steel. Looks like an anon IP did that particular blanking.

All the best.
Ξxtreme Unction|_{yakkity yak} 21:58, 13 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Oops! Thanks for the catch. I'll fix it right away. Durova 22:02, 13 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

EffK, Hitler, etc.

Thank you for your attention to this case and to this issue.

I agree with you that there is an issue of the moral failure of Christianity to protect Germany from the lapse into Nazism, and that to the extent that there is a fault, it is with the Lutheran church as well as the Catholic Church. I do not agree with the portrayal of Pope Pius XII as heroic, but I do not agree with his portrayal as a devil-figure.

I have a girlfriend who is a German scholar and philosopher who thinks that Kant made a wrong turn that encouraged too much respect for authority.

I am very interested in an analysis of moral errors in Germany. I am not interested in conspiracy theories about what went wrong in Germany, except for getting rid of trolls.

Unfortunately, I do not think that it will be possible to do this sort of analysis, and to keep it encyclopedic, while EffK is editing Wikipedia. It appears that he knows what the answer is, which is that the Catholic Church is responsible for the evils because it was seeking power. Simplistic conspiracy theories are easy. In any case, conspiracy theories are an easy way to avoid thinking about human moral error. Robert McClenon 05:58, 14 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. I wish that I could be optimistic. I am not. I tried to do the same thing in July 2005, and then he turned on me. Robert McClenon 08:31, 14 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Durova, I have replied to your proposal on Talk:The Great Scandal. I am afraid I must second what Robert wrote here and I predict that EffK will react to your proposal with the accusation of "narrowing down censorship". As for my dispute with EffK, I am quite willing to sum it up for you in a few sentences, if you want to. Cheers, Str1977 10:17, 14 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Vivien Leigh

Hi Durova. Recently you posted a comment to Talk:Vivien Leigh for which I thank you. I've been spending a lot of time on this article recently, and I'm pleased that you noticed it and commented. You mentioned possible featured article consideration... I wanted to just let you know that I've nominated it at Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Vivien Leigh. I hope it you have time you will have another look at it, as it has changed somewhat since you commented. thanks Rossrs 06:01, 14 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You've got my vote. I was thinking of nominating it myself, but deferred because you were making active improvements. I have high hopes for this nomination. Cheers, Durova 06:04, 14 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

That was fast! :-) Thank you. I appreciate your comments, and your support. Cheers Rossrs 06:24, 14 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Battle/Seige of Orleans

Your comments on the talk page of Battle of Orleans were spot on. I will be working on this article in the very near future, as soon as I am finished with the Battle of the Herrings article. One question: why didn't you move the article to Seige of Orleans? That is certainly the more appropriate name. So, before I move it, I thought I would ask if there was some reason for your not having moved it already.

JFPerry 16:53, 14 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No reason other than other projects distracted me. Please go right ahead. Regards, Durova 16:59, 14 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I put in a move request at Wikipedia:Requested_moves. As it says there: "Normally, logged in users can do uncontroversial moves themselves using the [move] tab found at the top of every page. . .. However, sometimes this does not work because the target is already occupied (usually in the form of a redirect with a page history)." As that was the case here (the page had previously been moved from Siege to Battle), it was necessary to go through this cumbersome process. The good news is that I was able to enlist La Pucelle herself in support of this request! :-) See the discussion page. JFPerry 20:58, 15 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I've posted my support on the talk page. Cheers, Durova 21:05, 15 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

FK OK

Try. EffK 19:01, 14 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Amero logo

The logo I made for the page is based on the logo as given on the Fraser Institute website [1] 159753 21:05, 15 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, I see. When I couldn't find this on the Internet I thought it was someone's sick joke. The Fraser Institute's symbol appears to be left shifted so that part of the letter A appears outside the circle. The symbol you used is identical to the popular symbol for anarchy. Durova 21:11, 15 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Re: List of notable brain tumor patients

Appreciated, but that's not that I meant. My comment was intented as a joke given that you nomination started as "Wikipedia has yet to feature a list of people", while a lot of FLs are in fact about cricket players, i.e. people. My bad.

Regards. -- Rune Welsh | ταλκ 03:36, 16 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe I should have stated things more clearly: none of the lists in Category:Lists of people have gained featured status yet. Your comment was valid even if you meant it in jest. It was worth a little sleuthing to see if I could add a pro cricket player to the sports figures. Best wishes, Durova 03:49, 16 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Mediation Cabal case

Dear Durova: Hello, I'm Nicholas Turnbull, mediator and coordinator down at Wikipedia:Mediation Cabal. A request for us to mediate has recently been made regarding an ongoing link dispute on the Derek Smart article, and you have been named as an involved party in the mediation request. The Mediation Cabal request page is here:

Wikipedia:Mediation Cabal/Cases/2006-01-12 Derek Smart external link

I would be exceptionally grateful if you would please review the mediation request and comment as appropriate at the mediation page in the "Responses by involved parties" section, indicating whether or not you would wish to enter into mediation and, if possible, any suggestions on what you would consider to be an ideal goal of the mediation to be. Remember, this process is entirely voluntary, and you won't be subject to any disciplinary action for either participating or refusing to do so, so you don't need to feel forced to do anything. If you require any assistance relating to this dispute, please feel free to contact me; I am entirely at your service. Best regards, --NicholasTurnbull | (talk) 19:14, 16 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Image Tagging Image:Levittown.gif

This image may be deleted.

Thanks for uploading Image:Levittown.gif. I notice the image page currently doesn't specify who created the image, so the copyright status is therefore unclear. If you have not created the image yourself then you need to argue that we have the right to use the image on Wikipedia (see copyright tagging below). If you have not created the image yourself then you should also specify where you found it, i.e., in most cases link to the website where you got it, and the terms of use for content from that page.

If the image also doesn't have a copyright tag then you must also add one. If you created/took the picture then you can use {{GFDL}} to release it under the GFDL. If you believe the image qualifies as fair use, please read fair use, and then use a tag such as {{Non-free fair use in|article name}} or one of the other tags listed at Wikipedia:Image copyright tags#Fair_use. See Wikipedia:Image copyright tags for the full list of copyright tags that you can use.

If you have uploaded other images, please check that you have specified their source and copyright tagged them, too. You can find a list of image pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that any unsourced and untagged images will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. cohesion★talk 21:39, 16 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

File:Film Reel Series by Bubbels.jpg

You voted for the winning nomination on Cinema Collaboration of the week, Bee Season. Please help improve it to match the quality of an ideal Wikipedia film article.

Wikipedia:Talk page highlights

I found your "orphaned" page. Good idea - funnier than all those tedious spoofs in the main Bad Jokes pages.--shtove 15:33, 18 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Religion/profession page

With regret, I will no longer be participating in Wikipedia talk:Centralized discussion/Lists by religion-ethnicity and profession. Although a guideline would be useful, it's clear that there are more people there with unrelated agendas than there are people who want to discuss the primary topic. I recommend you just remove it from the Centralized Discussions and let the trolls fight it out in peace. —Wahoofive (talk) 16:35, 18 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Pius XII

Pius XII is being accused for being silent during the holocaust.

Both defendants and critics of Pius XII have their views about this topic but in the wikipedia-entry there are predominantly the views of the defendants.

One of their arguments seems to be logic, but is in fact a lie (in many ways).

Some time ago i was on the discussionpage, but noboy wanted to hear me. One User told me that the discussionpage was not the right place for discussions. I was new to wikipedia and my english is not that good, so I tried no longer to talk about the topic.

You said, that you are "the neutral party".

So would you read what I`ve written about the argument, that Pius XII feared that a protest would only lead to more atrocities?

http://mitglied.lycos.de/ganzdoofername/ammv.htm

Here it is. It's german and I hope you unterstand it. If not i can summarize some parts of the text for you.

Could you help me if you find that my argumentation is logical?

--87.122.83.114 11:44, 21 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

WikiProject Military history: Coordinator elections

The Military history WikiProject is currently holding elections for project coordinators. Any member of the project may nominate themselves and all are encouraged to vote here. The elections will run until February 5.

--Loopy ^e 04:51, 23 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The pic of Harold Lloyd / Safety Last

The only reason the image got axed is because it didn't have any source/copyright tag on it. If you can get a still of that again and put it up as {{film-screenshot}} I think it would stand scrutiny, as it is the most famous shot from that film by far, much more so then the poster. 68.39.174.238 04:34, 24 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Unfortunately I didn't upload that image. It was already on the Safety Last page. I moved it over to Cinema of the United States because it needed a silent era image. There are plenty of other stills of Lloyd on the Web, taken within seconds of that moment. Would they stand scrutiny, do you think? The problem is that it's 1923, barely the wrong side of Sonny Bono's copyright law. Durova 04:39, 24 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm trying to get a copy of that film so I can make my own "fair use" pic of it and resolve this. 68.39.174.238 01:07, 31 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

That would be wonderful. Thank you. Durova 06:59, 31 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It exists @ http://img348.imageshack.us/img348/6994/haroldlloydsafetylastomg1dd.png , I suggest you upload it with the {{film-screenshot}}. 68.39.174.238 02:05, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

AfD Thanks

Please accept my embarrassingly belated thank you for supporting my RfA, which much to my surprise passed 102/1/1, earning me minor notoriety. I am grateful for all the supportive comments, and have already started doing the things people wanted me to be able to do. And hopefully nothing else... Just zis  Guy, you know? ^[T]/_[C] AfD? 12:48, 24 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You have me thinking . . .

thanks for the "thumbs up" at the American sculpture article. Having glanced at your user page and noted you interest in military history I realized the there should be a slot in the sculpture page for war/war hero sculpture, since it is a rather large slice of the sculpture pie, but one that is not often singled out. It [your page] also reminded me of two unfinished articles that I am writing, the[Battle of Cieneguilla]] and the Battle of Embudo Pass - both of which occured near to where I live and both of which were insignificent enough to have avoided the usual battle searchlight. Life is good, Carptrash 17:48, 24 January 2006 (UTC) [oh my god. Embudo Pass showed up in blue. Did I forget posting it - or, did someone beat me to it. Talk to you later, I gotta run !!!!![reply]

Category:Joan of Arc

In the spirit of being bold, I have created a Joan of Arc Category. The Wikipedia guidelines state:

"In certain very notable cases, people are being categorized by the name of the person itself, for example Category:Abraham Lincoln."

I felt that this applies to Joan of Arc. There are certainly enough disparate types of articles (battles, places, events, people) very closely related to Joan that I thought they should be brought together in one place. Anyway, thought you might want to know.

JFPerry 18:28, 25 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Good idea, thanks. Durova 18:54, 25 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think I'll do any editing on Joan of Arc other than reverts of obvious vandalism if I see it. I have created some articles related to Joan of Arc, mainly books, plus a Timeline of Joan of Arc. Also, there is a page for Jules Quicherat on the French language Wikisource, but nothing entered so far. I'm going to check into getting the Proces up on the Wikisource. That means researching what it would take (copyrights, hardware and software requirements, and time requirements). I read Latin, but not French, by the way, and I understand the Trial transcripts are in Latin. These will likely keep me pretty busy! Do you know anyone who could put up an article on the Proces with a detailed table of contents? JFPerry 03:17, 28 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Great ideas. I might take a stab at the Quicherat article. Just about all of Pierre Cauchon and a good slice of Joan of Arc in art were my translations. And you're right: the trial transcripts are in Vulgate Latin. Have you looked at Virginia Frohlick's and Allen Williamson's websites? They've got some of the original documents in English already. Maybe Wikipedia can complement their efforts. Regards, Durova 03:37, 28 January 2006 (UTC) Actually the English article on Quicherat is much longer than the French article, but most of it looks like it comes from the 1911 Brittanica. What sort of help exactly do you mean about a table of contents? Do you need someone who can table format? Durova 03:50, 28 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No, I didn't mean HTML formatting help. I just don't know exactly what is contained in the Quicherat books (the 5 volumes originally published in 1841-49) and what language it is in (what parts are in French and what parts are in Latin). Look at Joan of Arc (book by Marina Warner). There is a TOC for the book in that article. Something similar for Quicherat would be helpful. (Eventually, I (or others) will expand the Warner TOC with a brief sentence or two on each chapter.) The Quicherat material I was referring to is not in the French Wikipedia but the French Wikisource. There is also a Latin language Wikisource, but nothing on Quicherat. JFPerry 15:29, 28 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Requested template

Hi. You requested that a template for inappropriate citations be created. Please take a look at {{citecheck}} and let me know if anything should be adjusted. --CBD _☎ ^✉ 19:37, 26 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. Durova 20:01, 26 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

1980s fashion

I would just like to say thanks for your good work on 1980s fashion. It's really looking nice now. :) Gflores ^Talk 02:55, 27 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you very much. Durova 02:56, 27 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comments on "Dixie"

I sincerely apologize if you found my comments uncivil. Could you tell me how I should have phrased my objection? (I mean this sincerely, as I did not intend any offense.) Thanks, — BrianSmithson 21:03, 31 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, I took a second look. In retrospect, "Please don't gum up the article with information that does not belong here" is a bit dismissive. I've struck through this particular comment; please accept my apologies. — BrianSmithson 21:12, 31 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No problem. I'm sure you've been very busy today with all the edits. Congratulations on being featured article of the day. Best wishes, Durova 22:03, 31 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Environmental issues

In your posting in Talk:Cat entitled "I'm restoring to my previous version.", it is signed Durova xx:27, 22 January 2006 (UTC) but in Talk:Cat - History it says xx:27, 23 January 2006 Durova (→Conclusion). Can you explain this? --WikiCats 12:57, 1 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

When I read Talk:Cat - History that post appears as 22 January. Durova 16:52, 1 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Oh. Would you like me to get the people from Cat to look into this? I had hoped that you would have shown some degree regret for the mistake that you had made. --WikiCats 11:26, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

There is no mistake. [2] shows unambiguously that the dates match. I think you misread the history. - Just zis  Guy, you know? ^[T]/_[C] 10:04, 4 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. Durova 16:06, 4 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you Durova. The admin. has confirmed that the changes were made to the encyclopedia within minutes of the Talk posting. That is the problem. It makes it very hard to reach agreement if others are not given the chance to contribute. On another occasion FreplySpang said “that maybe (I will) contribute a bit more about that” but you (or an anonymous contributor) acted to prevent that from happening. I am happy to work with you but it needs to be according to the Wiki guidelines.--WikiCats 05:12, 5 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

My suggested change listed 18 references on the talk page for three days before implementation. Other editors changed the entire content without verification and virtually without comment. The only response was your quote about Australian ecology, which basically repeated an earlier post. I had addressed this concern in an NPOV manner through new article links and the statement about local experts. I'm glad you want to work within Wikipedia guidelines. Please begin with Wikipedia:Assume good faith and WP:NPOV. Durova 22:33, 5 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

In the disscusion about the “Environmental issues” section you have listed three sites that support the “No credible threat” view.

There are indeed many more.

• The Australian Threat Abatement Plan for Predation by Cats page that you have listed says “Sound evidence that feral cats exert a significant effect on native wildlife throughout the mainland is lacking.” and gives three references. It also says “With few exceptions, rare or threatened species do not occur in or near cities and are not directly at risk from domestic cats.” So there is nothing to threaten. Maybe that page should be in the other list.

• You listed the Victorian Department of Sustainability and Environment. They have said "Hard evidence on cats ecological impact is difficult to obtain." and “It is often difficult to assess the impact of cat predation on species' survival.”

Other sites include

• The Bush Cat

• Benefits of Feral Cats

• Cats in the Urban Environment

• The indoor/outdoor cats debate

• The Metropolitan Domestic Cat Survey

• The truth about cats and wildlife

• Natives, Newcomers and Learning to Trust Nature

• Feral Cat Coalition

• Feral Cats, New Environmental Witch-Hunt

• How Cats are treated in Australia

• Cats - Facts and Myths This one sums it up.

and there are many more.

My point is that there are not just three sites that support the “no credible threat” case. --WikiCats 01:37, 7 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry. The above was no meant to be a personal criticism of your work.

When these allegations were first made about 12 years ago, I searched for the proof to what was being said. What surprised me was that I keep coming across statements such as “the allegations have never been proved” from very eminent sources. And this was not just with respect to pet cats but also included so called “feral” cats. The suggestion is that predation within nature destroys nature. This is a bold proposal since it is generally accepted that predation is a vital part of nature. Cats have become the scape goat for the impact on nature caused by habitat destruction. I am interviewed by the press for expert opinion on cat control laws and the impact of cats. There is not even one published paper that establishes that cats are a significant threat to other species. --WikiCats 03:29, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Actually I noticed an earlier comment of yours to that effect and checked that time frame while I was researching because I recall hearing about about this twenty years ago. I located references to peer reviewed research from 1975 onward, which you can find through my posted links. I've reviewed your links. PetNet Australia appears to be suitably encyclopedic. The others all have problems, although some of those point to references that might be encyclopedic:

• 2 links to Animals Australia, an organization I already cited.
• An unreferenced essay about the Australian bush cat from Animal Liberation Australia.
• A short list with no references from saveacat.org, the website of Alley Cat Rescue of Bethesda, Maryland.
• 2 links to someone's personal website. This fails Wikipedia:Citing sources.
• A survey by PetNet Australia. This research does not appear to have been published in a peer reviewed journal.
• 2 links to The Feral Cat Coalition of San Diego, California. The first describes its feral cat trapping and neutering program, but not biological diversity. The second link republishes a press release from Alley Cat Allies, an organization I already cite.
• Another personal web page that can't be used as a Wikipedia reference. Durova 04:19, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I am a researcher. I have written to most of these organizations with a simple question. “Other than theories, what proof do you have to support your allegations.” Not one has been able to provide proof.

Putting this together with statements like “Sound evidence that feral cats exert a significant effect on native wildlife is lacking” from numerous environmental departments as well as biologists and environmentalists leads me to believe that the allegation is not proved.

There was no public vilification of cats prior to 1989. By 1994 the most popular attack on cats became the environmental criticisms. --WikiCats 12:56, 9 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Vilification? Attack? Really, that kind of characterization does not belong in an editorial discussion. Repetition is not equivalent to dialogue. I have already addressed bias allegations, evidentiary standards, and research history. I have edited to the article in question exactly twice. This discussion should have ended six weeks ago. Durova 18:09, 9 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

List

Regarding the featured list discussion pertaining to the List of Mega Man weapons, I have completed the article here, and linked it to said canidate. You may wish to comment at the discussion. -Zero^Talk 14:00, 4 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I've reviewed both pages and posted my response. I don't think this list is quite ready for featured status. It's pretty close. The simplest way to get my vote would be to take a day this weekend and convert the list into tables in alphabetical order. There may be some good reason for organizing a different way. If so, please reorganize and explain the reason. Add a few line citations and you'll have more supporters. If you don't have the time this week then renominate when it's ready. Regards, Durova 16:55, 4 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree with the table format. The weapons are not as insignificant to warrent a suppository listing such as that. I've no qualms about aphalbetical order, however. -Zero^Talk 17:03, 4 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

When I was getting List of notable brain tumor patients ready for nomination I surveyed a few dozen featured lists for ideas I could incorporate into my format. List of Final Fantasy titles has some similarity to your subject. It might be a good place to start. Best wishes, Durova 17:09, 4 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

As have I. I've added links to subsections in regards to the seperate article in each subsection, and I have organized into alphbetical order. -Zero^Talk 17:26, 4 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Image Tagging Image:CUMB.jpg

This media may be deleted.

Thanks for uploading Image:CUMB.jpg. I notice the 'image' page currently doesn't specify who created the content, so the copyright status is therefore unclear. If you have not created this media yourself then you need to argue that we have the right to use the media on Wikipedia (see copyright tagging below). If you have not created the media yourself then you should also specify where you found it, i.e., in most cases link to the website where you got it, and the terms of use for content from that page.

If the media also doesn't have a copyright tag then you must also add one. If you created/took the picture, audio, or video then you can use {{GFDL}} to release it under the GFDL. If you believe the media qualifies as fair use, please read fair use, and then use a tag such as {{Non-free fair use in|article name}} or one of the other tags listed at Wikipedia:Image copyright tags#Fair_use. See Wikipedia:Image copyright tags for the full list of copyright tags that you can use.

If you have uploaded other media, please check that you have specified their source and copyright tagged them, too. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that any unsourced and untagged images will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Longhair 15:05, 4 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I must have done that very late at night. My apologies for the lack. I have contacted the Columbia University Marching Band and asked them to supply an image with unambiguous copyright status. Regards, Durova 16:16, 4 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Joan of Arc

Good catch; thanks. --Tagishsimon (talk)

AiG RfC

Durova, please note that the Warner quote is one of three quotes from reputable sources. Warner criticises AiG USA, Dr. Sharpe criticises Dr Lisle of AiG USA, and Dr Henke's criticism is a more generalized version. It would, IMO, be POV to include three negatives. Could you please comment on that point?

Would "In it for the money?" be a more appropriate title then? This is the phrasing common to the three critics, although seen to be too POV for the article as a header.

Lastly, as the editor who requested comment has left Wikipedia (see below) does this close the RfC request? Thanks (copied from Talk; there's a lot of stuff on that page) agapetos_angel 08:10, 6 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi again Durova. Could you please review the AiG (mirrored on Ken Ham) article and see if this revision is better (please feel free to put the tag back in, if you think it still isn't up to standard). Also, could I ask you to make a RfC on Jonathan Sarfati? I am in a minority trying to get the article up to NPOV standards, but I'm faced with admins on a POV mission. Even with several editors (including myself) working in compromise to find the best revision, I am being subjected to ad homs, false accusations of sock puppetry, and assumptions of malice because I am daring to point out that POV is, well, POV. I tried to talk with another admin via email, but I obviously picked the wrong one to discuss the situation with, as I now see there is a pattern of cooperation with that admin and the admin I am conflicting with, and while there wasn't time for her to address the valid issue I made of admin conflict of interest, she jumped in to admonish me with an assumption of malice where there was a misunderstanding, and the admin who is falsely accusing me jumped in with a 'me too' admonishment. As you don't appear to have edited anything (other than responding about Gastrich) in either evolution or creation, I was hoping for your impartial comment. I feel more than a bit like I'm swimming upstream, but the miniority opinion (especially when it's willing to compromise) does not equate the wrong one merely because it is in minority. The article (especially the 'Scientist?' section) is not reflecting NPOV. I'm not requesting a hagiography and have several times pointed out that I would agree to seemingly negative points being raised as long as they were appropriately attributed and relevant to the article. I'd made a RfC, but removed it to make a RfM when the accusations by admin:FeloniousMonk had increased the severity of the problem. There are several attempts that I've made to get conversation back on topic, and to summarise the issues under dispute. I would appreciate your assistance, but thank you regardless. agapetos_angel 03:37, 7 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your confidence. I'll do my best. Durova 07:12, 7 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I appreciate your impartial commentary which addressed the main points of contention, I feel, in the Sarfati article. Hopefully there will be reasonable discussion as a result, especially as it can be shown that you have not 'debated', or even edited' on the side of creation or evolution. And again, thanks for the input on AiG/Ham. I'm still not totally pleased with the wording, but I think it more accurately represents the criticism. agapetos_angel 01:20, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Then again maybe not. No discussion, just rollbacks to the version full of errors (even neutral ones). Sigh. agapetos_angel 01:23, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You might proceed to formal mediation. Good luck, Durova 01:33, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

DYK

Did you know? has been updated. A fact from the article Shakespeare garden, which you recently created, has been featured in that section on the Main Page. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the "Did you know?" talk page.

Shakespeare garden

Hi! Your Shakespeare garden article is mentioned on the Main Page with a quote that Shakespeare was an avid gardener. It's an attractive and informative article. Nice one! But I do have a problem with the unproven claim that Shakespeare was a keen gardener. I have made some adjustments to your piece and left a brief explanation on the discussion page. A claim that Shakey was a keen gardner is disturbing and controversial and spoils the general peace and harmony of the rest of the article. Cheers! SilkTork 09:04, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I've added two references. There's no reason to shy away from controversy: if you have references to the contrary then please add them and convert the controversy to a subsection. Durova 16:15, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Joan of Arc

The article is near FA standards, IMO, but it's troubling that (if the lack of footnotes is to be trusted) that a substantial portion of the article is unsourced. Johnleemk | Talk 16:27, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the feedback. I've been addressing that shortage since I became a Wikipedia editor last fall and will continue to do so. One thing is puzzling: this article already has more footnotes than most of the biographical FAs. Claudius was featured on the main page on January 24, 2006 with only nine more footnotes than the Joan of Arc article. Could you clarify the standards? Durova 16:36, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It's not about the number of footnotes. It's about corroborating the article content, and portions of the article go on for paragraphs without a single footnote, indicating they aren't corroborated by a source (yet). Johnleemk | Talk 00:32, 9 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for comment re 86.10.231.219

Thanks for the independent comment to the individual at IP address 86.10.231.219. Having outside comments is needed as he has come to believe that he is being ganged up on by physicians with a narrow POV. I appreciate your taking the time to write to him to provide an independent view. Regards, Steve. Kd4ttc 22:20, 9 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It's good to see the positive feedback. I hope this editor responds well. Best wishes, Durova 22:25, 9 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you Durova for your comments here [[3]].

How can I help? What do you consider of concern about Talk:Anecdotal evidence. It seems to me the content points you raised at Talk:Anecdotal evidence were answered in an appropriate manner. What did you find gave you concerns at Talk:Anecdotal evidence." Some specifics would be helpful.

Kd4ttc has personal involvement on a number of levels. What did the two editors who second your views think? I assume he is not one?

Your personal involvement includes a differing opinion of and defence of the behaviour noted here [[4]] of the anon editor using 4 different IP addresses to make comments worthy of a raised eyebrow.

The relevance of Kd4ttc's comment being "ganged up on by physicians with a narrow POV" defeats me I have to confess as I do not see anyone at Talk:Anecdotal evidence suggesting anyone is being "ganged up on". Is that what you think? The Invisible Anon 00:04, 10 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The two editors who seconded my comments were User:Justin Wick and User:Tearlach. Their responses are right next to our dialogue on the article talk page. To the best of my knowledge, User:Kd4ttc and I haven't interacted at all before today. I suppose "ganged up on" refers to posts of yours such as at the Anti-vaccinationists AfD: "This page is being used as part of a POV war by a group of medical contributors - a partial list found here [[5]]. It is their latest tactic. They are at present hoovering up numerous Wikipedia pages containing information they do not agree with, dumping it here to marginalise it." I suggest you ask User:Kd4ttc if my guess is right.

Other than that, I'd recommend the Wikipedia mentorship program. It matches experienced editors with newer editors. Best wishes. Durova 00:50, 10 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]