User talk:Durova/Archive 7

Jimbo Wales and criticism sections

Good hello. I've just tracked down that quote by Mr. Wales, you may find it here [1]. Cheers. L0b0t 11:30, 17 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. I've noted that in my new comment on the article talk page. Regards, Durova 20:39, 17 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You're quite welcome. Kudos on the adminship. Do you anything about a Soviet pilot from WWII, I think her name was Lily Litvak? I read a comic book about her written by Spain many years ago and can't find an article about her here. Cheers. L0b0t 21:01, 17 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You might check The Encyclopedia of Amazons which lists a number of female combatants from World War II. The Soviets had the highest rate of female participation in the armed forces and several of their flying aces were women. Durova 21:04, 17 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Congratulations

With an impressive showing of support, you're now an admin. Have fun using the new tools to improve the project. Use them conservatively, especially blocking as polite warnings can often de-escalate situations instead of inflaming them. As you get the hang of it, dig in and help out with the backlogs. Again, congrats and have fun. - Taxman ^Talk 20:44, 17 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Still had this talk on my watchlist. Congrats, Garion96 (talk) 21:00, 17 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Congratulations, Durova! Best of luck with your adminship. :) Cheers, Sarah Ewart (Talk) 21:04, 17 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You're welcome for the support, Durova! Happy Editing! -- P.B. Pilhe t / Talk 21:16, 17 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Many thanks for the congratulations. I'm running down the list at this moment to thank the people who supported the nomination. With warmth and smiles, Durova 21:21, 17 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Congratulations! I have no doubt you'll be an excellent admin! :-) Kirill Lokshin 21:24, 17 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Congratulations! Have fun as admin. If you have any admin-related questions, feel free to contact me. =) Nishkid64 22:00, 17 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Хорошее Утро, поздравление! Well earned, do not misuse your new powers, ok? 85.214.28.144 01:40, 18 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

And from me too; that's a pleasing and appropriate final tally. Looking forward to your next mastodon article! :-) Antandrus (talk) 03:32, 18 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'll add my voice to the crowd: congratulations! Your promotion is well deserved. --Akhilleus (talk) 03:39, 18 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Congrats! I should have paid more attention to RfA, so I could have joined in the mandate. :) --EngineerScotty 20:16, 20 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Help

First of all, congratulations on your selection as an editor! My most sincere felicidades to you. I came here to be your probable first complex request for investigation case. I want to take advantange of your enegery as a newly appointed editor, because it seems that I have been unable to get the attention of other editors in this matter. Please, read this [2] and [3] request, as all the evidence is provided there. The issue was almost solved, but for a technicallity, it was reverted as you can read here [4].

This is a long-term complex issue. Users E Pluribus Anthony, Cogito ergo sumo and Ex post factoid are the same person. As I already said, I got them blocked but then unblocked due to the fact of a technicallity regarding sockpuppetry. Reason? Their edits do not overlap, so it can't be considered sockpuppetry. Perhaps I am not presenting the facts and the evidence in a very good way, so, ask me whatever you need to know. Thanks in advance for your time. AlexCovarrubias 01:43, 18 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You're certainly right about this being my first request. I'll look into this if you want. Yet to be candid, I'm still thanking my supporters and haven't handed out my first vandalism block yet. You'd probably get swifter results from an administrator who isn't wet behind the ears. Durova 02:50, 18 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, I'm getting up to speed. Here's what I see so far: User:Ex post factoid is indef blocked as a sockpuppet and the User:E Pluribus Anthony account has been inactive since August. User:Cogito ergo sumo is unblocked, but hasn't edited since dropping what they call in sports radio "the F bomb" on an administrator. What's your goal in bringing this to my attention? Durova 03:26, 18 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No, both users are unblocked. Another admin blocked them, but then unblocked them as you can see here [5] and [6]. I just found out that an "anonimous" user under the IP 209.105.199.40 also in Ontario, Canada [7] left a threatening message in my User_talk:AlexCovarrubias. My goal is that some admin can really deep investigate this issue, because all the evidence is there if you really read it carefully :( and it is very obvious! and based on that to take action (block accounts or block IPs) because this user is a long-term abuser and anonimous IP sockpuppeeter. --AlexCovarrubias 04:41, 18 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I see: the block message is still on the user page but the account got unblocked. I also read the message on your user talk from the anon. While I've been through a few user conflicts myself and I know how frustrating it can feel, the inactivity of the last few days looks like this may blow over with benign neglect. The anonymous comment on your user talk resembles a taunt - you're two countries away so (correct me if I'm wrong) I doubt there's actual danger. My reaction leans toward wait and see. I suggest you blank the insult and alert me if the problems happen again. Durova 14:13, 18 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Congrats and apologies

Congrats for becoming an admin - I really admired your work when I used to update your noms to DYKs. And apologies that I couldn't vote on your RfA - I've been way too inactive, of late. --Gurubrahma 05:35, 18 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Congratulations. Here are what pass for words of wisdom from the puppy:

Remember you will always protect the wrong version.
Remember you must always follow the rules, except for when you ignore them. You will always pick the wrong one to do. (See #5)
Remember to assume good faith and not bite. Remember that when you are applying these principles most diligently, you are probably dealing with a troll.
Use the block ability sparingly. Enjoy the insults you receive when you do block.
Remember when you make these errors, someone will be more than happy to point them out to you in dazzling clarity and descriptive terminology.
and finally, Remember to contact me if you ever need assistance, and I will do what I am able.

KillerChihuahua^?!?

DISCLAIMER: This humor does not reflect the official humor of Wikipedia, the Wikimedia Foundation, or Jimbo Wales. All rights released under GFDL.

Congratulations on your promotion, and you're very welcome! --Merovingian ※ Talk 21:22, 21 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Joan of Arc

Why not put the image here. Especially if you write a bit about War Stamps (found this great site for other posters). Also, there is a WW2 image so yours could be the WW1 image. It is a great image!--Justanother 13:30, 18 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Good idea! Durova 13:40, 18 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Cultural depictions

Hi - I noticed all your notes on talk pages. This is of course a well known and big problem with a large number of articles on Wikipedia. Perhaps what we need is a MoS page that recommends a standard name for "cultural depictions" articles, how to format them, etc.. one thing that is absolutely vital is a date for the work be included, and the works be sorted chronologically, and be segmented into categories (sculpture, tv, etc..). The other thing is while I like the look of the JoA featured article, it is not user friendly for newbies to add new entries - or even for more experienced users - to figure out the syntax and placement of where things go - which creates an extra barrier. I don't know what the solution is, other than simple is good. Anyway, we need a community forum to discuss, MoS page, project page, etc.. -- Stbalbach 13:47, 18 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for taking an interest in this idea! I've started a worksheet at User:Durova/Cultural depictions of core biography figures, which other editors are welcome to join. Maybe it would be good to use the worksheet talk page as a discussion forum. Cheers, Durova 14:03, 18 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I have the same reservations as Stbalbach to your suggested approach. Very few biography subjects warrant a separate page just for cultural references. (The sections for such topics should never be headed "Trivia", in my opinion, because trivia is by definition not WP:EN.) Separating them detracts from the completeness of the main article and forces the reader to follow a link for information that belongs in the same article. Cultural references frequently get deleted because they are unsourced or are too trivial to be meet encyclopedic standards.
A better forum for public discussion of what you propose as a new guideline for biography articles would be on the talk page of the biography project or of an appropriate MoS page, rather than on a sub-page in your user space. Finell (Talk) 16:55, 18 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that relatively few biographies warrant this, which is why I've posted only at Core Biographies. The reason I included biographies where this material is scarce or absent is because some users delete large sections (as with Talk:Alexander the Great) so editors who've worked on a page for a while might respond, "We had a large section like that eight or ten months ago - let's take a look through the history files."

Stbalbach's suggestion is the first time MoS has been mentioned in relation to this. Really this is in an embryonic phase, so it would be relatively easy to move the discussion to some other place if interest grows. That's the way the Wikipedia:Expert rebellion discussion originated. Would you be willing to join me in my user space as an interim step? I also posted to Wikipedia talk:Core biographies. I'm not intending to step on any toes here. Cheerfully, Durova 17:15, 18 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Echoing the above, do you have an idea about the criteria you would use to justify a fork into a separate article. I agree that sometimes it is a good idea. but I doubt it should be applied too liberally. (congrats on the RfA btw) Eusebeus 19:53, 18 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

At Joan of Arc we forked when the list material pushed the article above 32kb, which is the point at which some browsers encounter problems with page loading. This type of list material often counts against an article at WP:GAC and WP:FAC, so any drive toward WP:GA or WP:FA could consider forking. Also, some deletionist Wikipedians object to this material on principle. Forking would be one way to compromise. The criterion I use where I'm not an active editor is the opinions of the editors who are active. So far I'm the only editor who's brought this type of fork to featured list recognition, so basically what I'm saying, This solution has worked over here. Would you like to try it? Durova 20:02, 18 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I've posted to Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Biography, WP:RFC, and Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style. If this generates a critical mass of interest I'll move the page into Wikipedia namespace as a proposal. Durova 20:54, 18 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

RFA

Congrats on your RFA outcome. As I said on the nom page, those were the only significant interactions I recall having with you, so I'd no first hand basis on which to support, without taking the time to review your contribs (which I didn't manage to do). But as I also said, the strength of support from various others makes me feel I don't have too much to worry about. Alai 17:14, 18 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Gundagai editors

Hello,

An Arbitration case involving you has been opened: Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Gundagai editors. Please add any evidence you may wish the arbitrators to consider to the evidence sub-page, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Gundagai editors/Evidence. You may also contribute to the case on the workshop sub-page, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Gundagai editors/Workshop.

On behalf of the Arbitration Committee, Arbitration Clerk, FloNight 22:13, 18 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thatcher131 has already covered most of the bases. I've added a section about WP:POINT. Regards, Durova 22:02, 19 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

MLCamp

Hey, I saw your message earlier but I was at school, so I didn't have time to respond completely. The best solution is to provide a civil request to the editor and tell him to stop editing your user page with stupid things. The user is basically using his user page as a test sandbox, so it's nothing too serious. A civil reply sometimes is all that is needed to resolve disputes.

Nishkid64 19:11, 19 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This editor hasn't touched my user page - but other editors have stepped in and I suppose it's moot now. Regards, Durova 19:28, 19 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Edgar Allan Poe

The editors over at Edgar Allan Poe desperately need to be informed about your "cultural depictions" solution. Right now, half the article is devoted to "cultural depictions". Kaldari 22:00, 19 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I posted about that to the talk page two days ago and no one has responded. Since this is a new initiative and general consensus hasn't formed yet I've waited for the green light from each page's editors before proceeding. In some places there's been prompt and enthusiastic response - one page's editors even proposed the change six months ago. Elsewhere editors have been more skeptical. You're welcome to voice your support on Talk:Edgar Allan Poe if you think this is a particularly good page for my proposed solution. And frankly I'd have no objection if another editor decided to be bold and create the list page - but if you do so please drop me a line so I'll remember to update my worksheet. Regards, Durova 22:09, 19 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Another need for your mop

File:Ndurova.jpg

Thanks for your kind words. I'm sure you will make an excellent admin. Here's another image for your article. Perhaps it's not fit for Place des Pyramides, but still... --Ghirla ^-трёп- 10:02, 20 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you very much for your comments on the talk page for John Bowlby. I hope it serves to break the cycle of the very unholy mess occurring there.

Would it be improper to ask you to post a similar comment on the talk page for Candace Newmaker? The mess is even worse there!

Best regards, Larry Sarner 05:29, 20 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Not improper at all. The next step is for you to open the WP:RFCs - without which my posts are unlikely to change anything. Also I suggest you read the WP:DE guideline. You're in the minority here so I should mention there's a chance that if the outside comments reach the same consensus as the involved editors you could face community sanctions. On the other hand, if these articles are being "owned" by a group of editors who have a conflict of interest, outside comments may vindicate you. This particular dispute is outside my expertise so I really can't estimate which side has more merit. Please be scrupulous to observe site policies such as WP:3RR and WP:CIVIL, which editors sometimes forget during an edit war. Best wishes, Durova 05:46, 20 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You may have noticed that User:Sarner was banned for a period of time from the Bowlby page by an administrator and that he may have what appears to be a conflict of interest regarding his position on the inclusion of information about Advocates for Children in Therapy on the Candace Newmaker page because he is a leader of Advocates for Children in Therapy and author of the main text used as a reference in both articles. DPeterson^talk 11:34, 20 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Could you show me the diffs about this conflict of interest? And to Larry Sarner is this true? If so, have you disclosed this? Durova 14:09, 20 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks

Thank you very much! I was just leaving for Myconos, when I saw your star. It is a great honor. By the way, cons for being an adm. I'll be back in a couple of days.--Yannismarou 10:47, 20 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks very much for the star, though I think Garion96 put a lot more work in than I did. Trezatium 21:16, 20 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Actually Garion96 replied with a comment thanking me for including you. You've both earned it. Wear it with pride. Cheers, Durova 21:19, 20 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

WP:PAIN

No, not stepping on anybodies toes at all. :) (though, I had asked for Shells opinion.) Your actions seem ok though, so I'll toodle off to her talk and let her know that it's been dealt with :) Thanks --Crimsone 15:31, 20 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for posting. As you can see I'm a freshly minted admin. I spent many months at WP:RFC which is pretty good training for WP:PAIN, but of course I don't know everything yet (give me about five more days for that ;) ). Your advice and guidance are welcome. Cheers, Durova 15:41, 20 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thankyou - you flatter me. lol! I must say though that I'm one of those bold(ish) editors WP:ADMIN mentions - I may sometimes appear to act as though I were an admin, but I'm not actually an adminisrator. I just act on interpretation of policy and the status quo of process (though I am responsible for some changes to the WP:PAIN header and an implemented idea for a new section at WP:RM. lol). I don't even have a failed RfA, let alone a successful one :p. I would have to say though that when in doubt, the advice of Brenneman and Shell on WP:PAIN couldn't be better IMO - both have volumes of experience there.

Congrats on your shiney new adminship, good luck, and most of all, thankyou --Crimsone 16:02, 20 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

HamishMacBeth

Keep an eye on HamishMacBeth. I have argues with him all the time because he continues removing celebrities from the list of famous tall men without any commentaries on my discuss page. I'm one who accepts the Wikipedia rules and he always disabuses me. If he doesn't stop removing celebrities then block him please or tell me how to block a user, thanks.

I'll post to the list talk page. This looks like an editing dispute. Durova 18:41, 20 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

User:CC80 and WP:3RR

Hi... can you take a look at User:CC80's revert-warring here? They just violated 3RR in their ongoing effort to remove sourced information, and this isn't the first time the user has been warned about 3RR. I'm trying for a more expedient solution since the 3RR noticeboard seems to have a week's backlog going. wikipediatrix 20:35, 20 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Replied on wikipediatrix's talk page. Durova 20:42, 20 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Citing IAR

By the way, there is no point in citing a rule about not citing rules. Just do what ought to be done for the reason it ought to be done, with the only explanation needed being that reason. —Centrx→talk • 21:36, 20 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I was following advice at Wikipedia:Suggestions on how to ignore all rules. When ignoring a rule, own up to it. State your choice to ignore rules in the appropriate public place, specifying the applicable rules and your reasoning for not following them this time. Besides accepting personal accountability for your decision, this will help people notice that a rule has a consistent blind spot, which may suggest that it needs modification. Durova 21:38, 20 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Part of the reason for IAR is that one should just take the right action without trying to have an encyclopedic knowledge of rules. For one example, there is actually on some "official" policy or guideline about vandalism or talk pages somewhere a statement about it being legitimate to remove invalid vandalism warnings but there is no reason to scour through these pages to cite the exact guideline.

Regarding "owning up to it", Wikipedia:Suggestions on how to ignore all rules, that was introduced by User:Alienus who, aside from being banned was a troll. Also, there are two main sides to Ignoring all rules. On the one above, it is just to go about your business but without keeping mind of every stupid rule minutiae. On the other, IAR is sometimes cited to choose to disregard written rules. There is still little point in citing IAR for every first action, but there is this distinction where "owning up to it" is totally irrelevant to simply "not being acquainted" with the rules, rather than knowing but willfully disregarding them. —Centrx→talk • 21:54, 20 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Interesting background on the author! The only times I've cited IAR are for removing warning templates from user talk pages, which is currently a gray area because it's under debate. There are three reasons I've named it: first, I referenced the essay during my admin candidacy; second, it discourages non-editors from doing something similar in bad faith; third, it makes a useful reference in my edit history. So if I think some guideline needs amending it'll be easier to cite diffs for when I ignored it. Does it really bother you to see IAR in my posts? Durova 22:34, 20 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It diminishes the point of IAR in two respects. First, it would be citing a rule about not citing rules, almost self-contradictory. Second, it is a fundamental Wikipedia principle, up along with NPOV. You don't revert vandalism saying "Per the Vandalism policy, I am reverting this vandalism" and you don't block someone saying "Blocking per the Blocking policy, section "Abusive sockpuppet account", it just gets blocked with the simple message "Abusive sockpuppet account". The use of any policy, and especially IAR, depends on the reason for it being used, not the text on the page.

I just happened to notice your edit summary. —Centrx→talk • 01:36, 21 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hm - your position surprises me. Seems to me the parallel examples are obviously redundant, while an instance of WP:IAR wouldn't be apparent without explanation. Durova 04:55, 21 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

What is the reason for it needing to be apparent? It is a part of the natural functioning of the encyclopedia. —Centrx→talk • 05:16, 21 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It's expressed in the quote from the essay - to state that I do so thoughtfully and for specific reasons, not out of ignorance or disrespect. Durova 05:32, 21 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

For half the cases, it is just not wasting time finding out whether there is a rule, so there is no "reason for not following it", the action may be in accord with it and there is nothing to "own up" to. In all cases, reasons for taking an action should be indicated, but that's not the same thing as saying "Per WP:IAR". If a policy page is in error, which would be the reason one would not follow it, then you can go change it or bring it up on the talk page to fix it.

Regarding the vandalism warning discussions, I don't think there is any disagreement about whether it is valid to remove illegitimate warnings—the discussion was about relaxing an existing rule that already allowed for that, and the discussion was about the users themselves removing warnings. Administrators or uninvolved users in good standing performing administrative tasks are free to remove illegitimate warnings. —Centrx→talk • 06:20, 21 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sounds good to me. Durova 06:29, 21 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Cultural depictions of Wolfgang Amadeus Mozart

Sorry about that. I didn't see the edit summary. My mistake. --Spring Rubber 04:43, 21 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

NP, new pages patrol is a tough task so kudos to you for doing it. I haven't got the patience. Cheers, Durova 04:47, 21 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Cultural depictions

I'm not sure there exist enough cultural depictions of Frederick II, Holy Roman Emperor, to make a worthwhile fork (though he's rightly a core-biography candidate, he's probably not a widely depicted iconic figure, unfortunately). Your scheme, however, brought to mind two articles that might be appropriate targets for your note—not core biographies but articles about mythologised historical figures: Elizabeth Báthory and Lucrezia Borgia (in fact, an article called "Cultural depictions of the Borgia family" might be feasible, since Alexander VI and Cesare Borgia have often been depicted along with Lucrezia). In both cases, the articles are heavily adulterated with innuendo and fantasy informed by and informing cultural depictions. If those articles were forked, the residual core of fact might be left relatively bare and unsensational (no bad thing, perhaps) and the cultural-depiction articles the more interesting prong of the fork.

Of course, there haven't been so many cultural depictions of these two as there have been of Joan of Arc. I've just looked at your article Cultural depictions of Joan of Arc; it's brilliant, a great credit to you (tips képi)! I wouldn't know how to go about compiling such an edifice myself; it's one thing to have a few books around the house with which to Gradgrind a topic, but I don't watch films or television much, and, perhaps unnecessarily, I'd want to see the depictions myself. (I have seen Dreyer's film, though, and it gets in my favourite ten films ever.) I suppose my main interest in your scheme would be to purify articles of judgements influenced more by cultural depictions than historical fact. Anyway, best of luck to you (but don't be surprised if people with your skills and diligence aren't exactly springing out of the wainscot). qp10qp 13:43, 21 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you very much for your compliment. The Joan of Arc cultural page actually grew out of a pop culture section that accreted while the bio article had been neglected. Another editor suggested I add a literature section and eventually we branched this part to its own page. The French Wikipedia had a list of high culture references, so whenever I had time I translated and looked for citations. We pretty much stumbled onto a solution that worked.

When a similar section at Alexander the Great got deleted the idea hit me - back in my college music history class a lot of students thought they had never heard any Richard Wagner until the instructor reminded them of Apocalypse Now and "What's Opera, Doc?". These references make wonderful teaching tools. If young people first encounter Edgar Allan Poe through a Halloween episode of The Simpsons, then The Simpsons can be the first step on the path to Charles Baudelaire. So maybe Wikipedia should organize and preserve this information for educators. Durova 03:44, 22 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Citecheck and Mahmoud Ahamnijead

Did you read the section immediately before your post? -- Avi 00:16, 22 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I've reread it and now it makes sense. That's an innovative use for this template, yet I suppose it's a fair one. There certainly doesn't seem to be any other template that comes as close to your purpose. Thank you for clarifying. Durova 03:57, 22 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Joan of Arc (CZ pilot project article)

The recent fork of Wikipedia known (at least for the moment) as Citizendium (CZ) has launched a pilot project:

CZ Pilot Project

I will be editing a few articles related to Joan of Arc on that pilot project. The book articles related to Fresh Vetdics and Marina Warner's book will be expanded there with the new content (at least my new content) brought back into Wikipedia. I have also brought the main body text of the Joan of Arc article over to the pilot project where I will be editing it, mainly in an effort to shorten the article as it is generally of very good quality as is.

Please feel free to join in this effort if you want. JFPerry 15:37, 22 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'd consider joining that project if they removed the requirement to reveal one's real world name. Now that I'm an administrator here, I intervene in disputes and sometimes block people. There have occasionally been problems with users pursuing disputes outside Wikipedia into the real world. Durova 15:42, 22 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You mean to tell me that Durova is not your real name?!? ;-) JFPerry 20:01, 22 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

WP:PAIN New entry

Hi Durova, I request you to pls intervene and help me out here This user has crossed all limits of civility as well as those of Wiki policies. Please read through that new report and fix it. Thanks Sudharsansn 20:23, 22 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The date stamps look like you've come to me after someone else checked this out and determined that it's outdated. If you think this merits attention, post additional reasons to the WP:PAIN board. Durova 23:56, 22 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

==Lies From wattle==

Can u note that somewhere in the tangle of this page, wattle has made the lieing claim I used abuse re RMC.

This is a total lie. What I actually did was ask who put the line "[edit] FAK's': Name given to Staff Cadets who were once Officer Cadets, stands for "Fucking ADFA Cadets"

on the RMC article page under abbreviations, for a very particular reason. The cite on that page re the Handbook, I also put as it wa sme put the 'Charter' on that page from that handbook. I would only have that handbook for one reason so am not likely to be putting abuse on that page. Wattle has told numerous similar total fabrications where the truth has been twisted to suit her purpose.

Peytalholmes I think removed the abusive comment as noted above from the RMC article page not long after I queried it on the discussion page. If I find that sort of garbage on the RMC article page again, I will make sure the RMC Commandant knows, and the press.

Wattle can twist and turn all she likes about all she likes. Its very very obvious she has some agenda of her own where she is prepared to tell lies. Grow up wattle. You are too ridiculous.

Also Durova, you turned didnt u. I remove the thanks I gave u. Guess the ability to turn is how u have to be here though, to fit in. That attitude is going to mean wik ends up with just aggro dimwits that run on gang dynamics.

The Nutz that Get here

I just read Durovas idiotic note to me in her archive.

Durova, u grow up also. Do u have any idea at all hwo this up yerself attitude u and others put on, causes aggro.

Its u guys causing the trouble on wik so how about u all take a long brathe, have a look at yourselves in the mirror, read an article or two on bully tactics and cult dynamics, then find a cliff...and take sail.

All those who get on the wrong end of this mob, its a grand compliment to be rejected by psychotics such as this. Who would wan tto be accepted by them. No one in their right mind as they are totally and utterly, bizarre.

I'd have corrected th etypos but my typos match the level of this palce so added some more..

Replied at Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Gundagai editors/Evidence. Durova 16:11, 23 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

In the course of my Pablo Picasso vandalism patrol

it gets hits many times a day, i discovered your Depiction of PP in Culture suggestion, which i will second there. I see that you have several other such pages, [i already tweaked Joan of Arc a bit], but i'd like to suggest that all the title be changed to PP in popular culture, or JofA in popular culture etc. This has been done for coyote in popular culture and i think it is, or would be, easier to look up, remember and spell than what you've been using. Either way i love the conceipt and am looking for a master list of these cultural collections. Carptrash 13:46, 23 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Actually the move away from ...in popular culture was deliberate, in order to include high culture. Would you like to join the discussion at Wikipedia:WikiProject Biography/Core biographies/Cultural depictions of core biography figures? Durova 14:49, 23 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Red herring

Ref [8] - yes - thank you :-)--Golden Wattle ^talk 10:21, 25 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You earned it. Durova 12:46, 25 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

the renaming discussion on French Wikipédia

Hi there, the discussion about renaming an article on Japanese emperor Hirohito to Showa emperor or something to that effect. In Japan, the emperor is not referred to by his given name or surname, but rather the name given to his time of reign. At least that's my understanding. I'm sorry if I misled you. --Kyok o 12:42, 25 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Not a problem. I was wondering why I hadn't seen that on the comparable talk page. Durova 12:46, 25 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

At the risk of stating the obvious, my whole point in mentioning the Hirohito/Showa renaming controversy was whether it is better to use the most widely-known name, or the most accurate one. If I remember correctly, there was a slight preference (55-60%) in favor of Hirohito, and the other viewpoint favored a renaming to something like "Empereur japonais Showa", with Hirohito being made into a redirect. The situation struck me as being very similar to the whole Joan of Arc/Jeanne d'Arc thing. --Kyok o 15:51, 25 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Heh, if we tried to rename it for accuracy we'd have to lock twelve Medievalists into a room and let them bicker. When one of them finished garotting the others and announced the solution, nobody else alive would recognize it. Durova 15:58, 25 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry it's a bit late...

Glad your adminship passed! Thanks for the handwritted mesage - it's nice to see. ^{Well Drawn} Charli e 18:47, 25 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

How sweet! Thank you. Durova 19:30, 25 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter: Issue VIII - October 2006

The October 2006 issue of the Military history WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you.

This is an automated delivery by grafikbot 21:17, 25 October 2006 (UTC) [reply]

New message for you

Hi Durova, I left a comment for you here, and also below that. Oroboros 1 10:37, 26 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]