Have you ever met Jimbo? [1]. Jehochman ^Talk 06:25, 2 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Not face to face. Durova^Charge! 06:26, 2 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Check the link, searching for Jimmy Wales, Wikia Search. Also, look for your own name. Jehochman ^Talk 06:28, 2 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Wow you guys are famous and notable, time to write an article about you two. But they will probably be deleted for lack of notability..:) I would love to come to SMX and hear you speak about Wikipedia that would be very exciting. Unfortunately I just went to SES London and will not be going to the States soon. Maybe if Barry will do SMX Israel I will come to attend. Enjoy the conference and be good ambassadors for Wikipedia. Igor Berger (talk) 03:25, 3 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This is about to go live. Not sure if you want to be involved but as you have been tangently involved in the preparation I thought you might appreiate the notification. Viridae^Talk 11:20, 2 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for letting me know. Sigh... Durova^Charge! 17:56, 2 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Your Featured picture candidate has been promoted Your nomination for featured picture status, Image:Bedouinwomanb.jpg, gained a consensus of support, and has been promoted. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates. MER-C 11:35, 2 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Your Featured picture candidate has been promoted Your nomination for featured picture status, Image:AlfredPalmerRamagosa.jpg, gained a consensus of support, and has been promoted. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates. MER-C 11:35, 2 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. :) Durova^Charge! 17:57, 2 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

User Durova I would appreciate if you can comment, being that you know about SEI very well. Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:Social engineering Internet. Looks like the Inquisition has started. Igor Berger (talk) 21:25, 2 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I noticed this and wondered if, based on some of your comments*, you might be willing to give a second look to the "abuse of process" request for comment I tried to initiate on behalf of myself and Smee against the editor in question. In doing so I believe I can answer an **unknown for you as well. (I'm pretty sure Cirt is Smee, but even if they aren't the same person would you be interested in seeing diffs of why Smee signed on as the second in that RfC? Please understand I'm not trying to do anything except clarify that what I was doing before really isn't an abuse of process if one assumes good faith. It's also critical to note if I can prove that indeed the RfC was proper, I'm not interested in setting it up again due to the age of the issues it covered.) (*...has previous blocks for disruption, edit warring, and personal attacks and has minimal productive contributions. and This is intolerable, and for some **unknown reason he isn't getting blocked for it.) Anynobody 04:31, 3 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You're referring to an old RFC that got deleted? I can't read it if it is. Durova^Charge! 07:41, 3 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

In that case, Perhaps Category:Wikipedia administrators who will provide copies of deleted articles would be helpful. Cirt (talk) 20:04, 3 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Actually I wasn't suggesting reading it (I know you haven't re-sysoped yet) but instead looking at evidence (diffs) to prove the same thing had been happening to Smee around a year ago, and thus why she signed on to the RfC.

You know who harassing Smee on WP:ANI, WP:AN3R

2/10 (?User:Smeelgova reported by User:Justanother (Result:No violation) 2/22 Glen, there were (4) clear reverts. Started by another editor but the message is still the same. 3/5 User:Smeelgova archiving out recent material relevant to BabyDweezil case 3/5 (new thread) (?Violations - User:Smeelgova reported by User:Justanother) 3/5-1 Unhappy with admin's view re: Smee's reversions 3/5-2 turns it into forum for concerns about "egregious EL to highly POV possible copyvio site." 3/5-3 ?User:Smeelgova reported by User:Justanother (Result: no block) - ANY ADMIN - please look this over; User continuing to revert 3/5-4 ...(Result: no block) - please stop enabling him. please 3/5-5 now he is accusing me of harassment! please stop enabling him. please 3/5-6 Smee is seriously abusing the 3RR board now by bringing in unrelated items See #3/5-2 3/5-7 can someone please look at this? thanks 3/5-8 Related to this issue he begins a thread on WP:ANI (Melt down on WP:AN/3RR - Am I really a bad guy??) *See my editor review in the first list* 3/5-9 after another editor explains: Smee's "5th revert" which was restoring your version of the page, was clearly not trying to continue the edit war... he replies by mentioning her possible inadvertant violation of 4RR. 3/16 Disruptive editing by User:Smee 3/23 WP:HARASS by User:Smee reported by User:Justanother (posted here as requested by User:Jersey Devil) 5/13 Tendentious editor disrespects page protection and recreates disputed page 5/30 Pattern of abuse by Smee (formerly Smeelgova) 5/30-1 Smee (formerly Smeelgova) at work; WP:OWN; WP:BITE 6/4 (User:Smee reported by User:Justanother) 6/13 (POV-pushing on DYK) (Quote:Most are the work of one editor, Smee, formerly Smeelgova,) 6/14 Sticking together: DYK admin closes AfD out of process)

I can't emphasize strongly enough that I'm not trying to say I told you so (to anyone) or anything like that, but is it a reasonable possibility that the reason he has pursued editors like this for so long without being blocked stems from the fact that WP:DR failed and thus emboldened him? Anynobody 21:32, 3 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

A lot has changed in a year. Smee retired with 30 DYKs. Cirt has become a powerhouse of quality content in several areas, most particularly as the site's second most prolific contributor of featured portals. If you've done quality work, Anynobody, please list? I just haven't seen much useful work out of that other editor; he stopped using his main account months ago and looks like he's taken to IP sock disruption. If he turns things around, then great, but we can't have someone like that sniping at the productive people. And if the roles were reversed I'd be following up in exactly the same way. Durova^Charge! 21:51, 3 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That's right, you didn't comment on my request to clarify the COFS ruling, so didn't see my self justification. I create a lot of images which have been chosen for use on *many* international wikis besides our English version. Check the usage for commons:Image:Cvnanim.gif, I just did and got: 750 wikis searched. Cvnanim.gif is used on 15 pages in 10 projects or commons:Image:747 jal2.png. (Obviously not everything I've done is so widely used, but since I don't like to self nominate for featured stuff I imagine I've gotten less than those who seek recognition.) Anynobody 22:12, 3 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
(PS Here's the diff for my clarification request with a more in depth explanation of what I do.) Anynobody 22:15, 3 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
(PPS If you've gotten a WP:DYK award, there's a good chance I made it: )Anynobody 22:18, 3 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Coolness. Keep doing useful work and try not to let any antics drag you down. If someone goes out of their way to bother you, let me know. And yes, I picked up 25DYK last week. Thanks for designing it. :) Durova^Charge! 22:24, 3 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the acknowledgment, but back to my point, looking at the diffs I provided (and factoring in that the admin who deleted the RfC admitted I had done my best to resolve my issues with the editor in question) would you say the RfC was an abuse of process or actually a good faith attempt at DR? Anynobody 22:33, 3 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Looks more like good faith now. But hindsight is 20/20. Durova^Charge! 22:34, 3 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed it is, but luckily the clarity afforded by hindsight can be applied to fix misunderstandings. (Don't get me wrong I'm not planning on running back to WP:RFA again to seek another clarification or seeking your sponsorship, I just kinda always knew that if I let him, this editor would continue to show what he was actually here for and your comments indicated that others have started to notice too.) Anynobody 22:42, 3 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Just confirming that you're on track with WP:FCDW/March 10, 2008; it for any reason you won't be able to whip it up this week, I'll have to come up with a new topic. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:41, 3 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, will do. :) Durova^Charge! 21:37, 3 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Great, thanks! SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:40, 3 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Less than 24 hours to deadline, I'm starting to get nervous :-) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 03:45, 10 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, Sandy. I'm staying up tonight to do it. :) Durova^Charge! 05:14, 10 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Beautiful; thanks Durova :-) I submitted it to the newsroom, title the FCDW archive, and notified the other regulars (Karanacs, Marskell and Tony1) to have a look. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:33, 10 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Apparently Ral315 has the flu; not good for credibility when I lean on people to meet deadline. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:31, 13 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

So that's what's up. I wish I'd known. Adam Cuerden gave me a beautiful writeup about scanning but I was hesitant to incoroprate it because I feared there wouldn't be time to get a good copyedit before the piece went live. Maybe he could get a slot in a future week? His contribution was long enough to merit that. Durova^Charge! 01:39, 13 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

A lot of people wish they had known :/ We need to leave time for other processes before we repeat images. Don't know when the Signpost will go up, or what happens with the 17th now. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:44, 13 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I figured as much about the rotation. Any plans for DYKs? I'd be glad to collaborate with another editor about that, if we plan a little farther in advance. Durova^Charge! 01:49, 13 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I dunno; we need to see how this shakes out, and then discuss at WP:FCDW. Peer review is up next, and I want to do GimmeBot/Articlehistory sometime, and we have the list of proposals there. We have to give other processes a shot, to the extent they speak up. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:55, 13 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Absolutely. I'd like to finish the textile arts featured portal drive anyway, and there are a couple of other items on the back burner. It's been too long since I've seen you at FAC...maybe I'll lead a drive to bring another piece there. :) Durova^Charge! 01:59, 13 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Please note that User:Elonka has been making up the story that there were actually 3 letters called "Viam agnoscere veritatis", when I only spoke about one. It turns out it is actually just her own interpretation,[2] and is not corroborated in any way by published sources. These letters are called by three different names by scholars (Dei Patris immensa (March 5, 1245) Cum non solum (13 March, 1245) Viam agnoscere veritatis (22 November, 1248)) and actually nobody says there were 3 Viam agnoscere veritatis except her. I am asking an apology from her, and ask you to consider this examplar case of manipulation and wrongfull accusation.PHG (talk) 19:28, 3 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Let me see if I understand this. You quoted a Papal bull, misattributing its name in your citation because of its initial words, and claimed several different historians were referring to that particular bull when they didn't actually specify which of several bulls they were talking about. You admit the mistake in the title but sidestep the points about historial analysis. Among various attribution problems that Elonka identified, she pointed out that there were three different Papal bulls from the 1240s that began with the same words as your mistaken title. So now you seize upon a novel interpretation of WP:NOR to accuse her of fabricating research? Am I missing something, or are you trying to find her at fault because she can count to three? Durova^Charge! 21:34, 3 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I gave it a final review, and it passed. :) Sorry it took so long. Juliancolton ^{The storm still blows...} 00:26, 4 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you very much! (dances with glee) Durova^Charge! 00:29, 4 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No problem. If you need anything else, just leave me a message. Juliancolton ^{The storm still blows...} 00:30, 4 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

[Applause] Well done! - PKM (talk) 03:32, 4 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It also please me to see that an article I edited ([3], [4], [5], [6], etc.) has reached such a status. Kudos to all! Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 03:51, 4 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

What is the status of this BLP? DanaUllman^Talk 05:09, 4 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I apologized for not getting on that sooner. Right away. Durova^Charge! 16:55, 4 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Your Featured picture candidate has been promoted Your nomination for featured picture status, Image:Love or dutyb.jpg, gained a consensus of support, and has been promoted. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates. MER-C 11:56, 4 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you! Durova^Charge! 16:55, 4 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You're very welcome! In ways too complicated to explain, your (essential) role in this investigation has convinced me that this is a good moment for the whole project.--G-Dett (talk) 01:09, 5 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Wow, can I frame that? Durova^Charge! 01:19, 5 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Nice work on that California Gold Rush image of the ships in SF harbor ... really first rate - thank you! NorCalHistory (talk) 01:18, 5 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you very much. That was one of the toughest restorations I've ever tried. Durova^Charge! 01:20, 5 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The February 2008 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 has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 04:25, 5 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the great improvements to Moses H. Cone. It was selected as a DYK yesterday. I am presently working on new articles that I am hoping will make DYK. Can you look over Julian Price and Julian Price Memorial Park to see if there is any improvements that could be made. Thanks. --Doug ^talk 12:20, 6 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You're welcome. The textile arts wikiproject is doing a featured portal drive and we would like to put Moses H. Cone into rotation as one of the biographies. Thanks for your hard work. I'll take a look at the Julian Price articles next. Durova^Charge! 17:33, 6 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sounds Good! FYI, it was a 3 in 1 hook yesterday for the DYK: Flat Top Manor + Moses H. Cone + Moses H. Cone Memorial Park. I am going for a self nominated 2 in 1 DYK hook for Julian Price + Julian Price Memorial Park. It so happens that BOTH these Memorial Parks are right next to each other on the Blue Ridge Parkway. The potential 2 in 1 "hook" is: DYK...that the Julian Price Memorial Park of 4200 acres on the Blue Ridge Parkway was owned by Julian Price, a wealthy insurance executive who always rented his home until he was 60 years old? DYK also recently my article Folk Art Center was selected? --Doug ^talk 19:43, 6 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

First of all I don't know the user Mariosamoa, second I voted 5 minutes after him not him after me! I even left him a message on his talk page regarding his username, because my Yahoo Messenger nickname is mariosamoa but he didn't write back. I tried to contact him but failed. Again I don't know the person but it could be someone who knows me, i can't tell, and sincerely I can't understand your point of view, I assume you are trying to say that he is manipulated by me or even worse that he is some kind of alternative account of mine or i don't know. I assure you that I don't have anything to do whith this user and that i don't expect you to believe me but that is ok. Regards. Mario1987 13:30, 6 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I'm not actually trying to say all that, and I do trust your integrity, and I apologize if it hurt your feelings or confused you. What did seem likely was that this was some friend or family member who was just starting to get interested in Wikipedia. Stranger coincidences have happened, I suppose. It wasn't an easy decision to say something to you about it. Durova^Charge! 18:53, 6 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ok and thanks for clarifying all that. Sorry if i was a bit rough. Mario1987 19:46, 6 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hello there, Durova. I saw your note to WillowW about the Textile Arts newsletter, and thought I'd let you know that the article I started on the East Timorese weaving known as Tais was also featured at DYK on 12 February. Just FYI. Cheers! – Scartol • Tok 16:35, 6 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Awesome, thanks for letting me know. I'll add that. Durova^Charge! 19:15, 6 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Cheers for that. It's unlikely that I'll do other textile work, but then again who knows. I'll definitely let you know if/when I do. (And you'll hear from me again soon, since I'm almost up to the Napoleon triple crown.) Cheers! – Scartol • Tok 12:38, 7 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Durova. I'm just doing some tidying up of the work group's wiki site, and noticed we've not got a confirmation for your account. If you've got a spare moment, could you just note a quick reply, along the lines of "I'm Durova, I confirm I have control over User:Durova on the Work Group wiki", or whatever takes your fancy.

Whilst we're on this topic, I've posted an observation on the topic of inactivity (see the Observer's noticeboard). As somebody who usually has well-thought-out responses, I'd be interested in your thoughts on the matter. Any chance you could drop by? Otherwise, thanks in advance for the confirmation diff, and happy editing! AGK (contact) 20:55, 6 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, apologies for the delay. Been spreading myself thin lately. Durova^Charge! 22:42, 6 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Awwwww, Durova! Meanie :) SirFozzie (talk) 22:40, 6 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Follow my other recent edits if you'd like to express agreement in a more productive and encyclopedic way. Believe it or not, the file I found hadn't been used at any article. Durova^Charge! 22:41, 6 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• chuckles* I'd like to, but it's time for me to drive home from work :) SirFozzie (talk) 22:42, 6 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

F.Y.I. Just to let you know, this on my talk-page, hope you don't mind. Regards, Newbyguesses - Talk 02:38, 7 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

[7] Durova^Charge! 02:47, 7 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Did you make a post to user talk:AGK at 22:45 on the private wiki? Maxim_(talk) 22:55, 6 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yeppers. I posted on the private wiki last month also. Hadn't seen too much to comment on. Durova^Charge! 23:00, 6 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, that's sufficient confirmation. :D Maxim_(talk) 23:24, 6 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

For coming and being part of Wikipedia:NotTheWikipediaWeekly - the files are all online now, and it was fun to chat! Thanks again! - Privatemusings (talk) 03:04, 7 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for inviting me. My cat thanks you too. She spent half the conversation blackmailing me. I had to rub her belly to purchase her silence. ;) Durova^Charge! 03:07, 7 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I don't mean to take the wind out of your sails with my comment. The point I mean to make is, we're being told scope is limited because certain names and issues weren't added to the case. That makes sense on the face of it, but I have doubts when I think of the impact that adding my own name to the case had: going from there is no dispute to yes, but your dispute is beside the point. If that distracts from the main thrust of your statement then feel free to remove my comments from that subthread. Durova^Charge! 04:51, 7 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I don't have a problem with what you said. Cla68 (talk) 04:55, 7 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. Durova^Charge! 04:56, 7 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Your Featured picture candidate has been promoted Your nomination for featured picture status, Image:Ambrose Everett Burnside.jpg, gained a consensus of support, and has been promoted. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates. MER-C 06:30, 7 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Your Featured picture candidate has been promoted Your nomination for featured picture status, Image:Zahadolzhá--Navaho.jpg, gained a consensus of support, and has been promoted. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates. MER-C 06:30, 7 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You may be interested in Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/Mario1987. I feel the response he gave you was far from satisfactory especially since a quarter of Sathmar's edits were in Mario's userspace. I also don't see an attempt to contact Sathmar (unless this is it, in which case it's still unanswered). This seems a bit much for supposedly unrelated people. MER-C 06:30, 7 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the promotions and the link. I'll take a look. Durova^Charge! 06:37, 7 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

A correction: I confused Sathmar with Mariosamoa. It should be noted that all five suspected sockpuppets (and possibly some more) voted support on the butterfly and the sideburns. MER-C 11:41, 7 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Good call! The sockmaster account hasn't been blocked. How would you like to proceed? Durova^Charge! 21:19, 7 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Good call on removing the lyrics and IMDb links on the Rock Around the Clock page. I usually keep close tabs on the article, but those two got by me (though it is interesting that Wikipedia does allow the use of IMDb links under "External links" for biographical articles). 23skidoo (talk) 17:24, 7 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You're welcome. I've been going through old pop songs for that kind of thing. IMDB is all right for external links, but not reliable enough for inline citations. Durova^Charge! 22:17, 7 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hey Durova - longtime no speak. I have decided to come back to Wikipedia after extended wiki break - thought I would say hello - and that I am glad you are still very active. Hope to be seeing you around.

Cheers Lethaniol 17:35, 7 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, talk about a blast from the past, welcome back Lethaniol :) SirFozzie (talk) 17:41, 7 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Great to see you back! Durova^Charge! 22:57, 7 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I wanted to use this image: [8] in the article Porto do Son, but I am not sure I am allowed to. Also, do I have to download it from the Galician wiki and upload it to commons ? Or what do I have to do? or someone else?--Filll (talk) 21:13, 7 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well I don't speak Galician, but if Spanish cognates don't mislead me that particular image has been tagged for unknown copyright status. So you'd have trouble importing it to any other project. I looked through the first 200 Google Images returns and don't see where they got it from. Durova^Charge! 22:57, 7 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I was going to leave a note on the uploader's page in English or Spanish but I had trouble even getting an account on Galacian WP.-Filll (talk) 05:19, 8 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Fact is, I wouldn't have recognised it anyway - I tend to skip read much of the Bagley comments on WR, as the RL dispute is of some indifference to me. As for comments on the project talkpage - the UK time difference means I can spend as much as a couple of hours reading myself back to speed on hectic days; doesn't mean that it all sticks, though... Anyhow, I've amended my wording to indicate that it was I who missed the hints, rather than there being none to find. LessHeard vanU (talk) 22:44, 7 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The underlying dispute is of minimal interest to me as well. What does concern me is the divisiveness and the lingering doubts among Wikipedians who stopped trusting each other during this ordeal. Durova^Charge! 22:49, 7 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know about "stopped" during this process, since the division of opinion in this matter is reflected in many other areas of contention over Wikipedia. Some stances may have hardened, although it is easier to quantify that than those whose positions have softened - different to a perceived complete change of tack (per your contributions), but I don't think trust was eroded where it had previously existed. LessHeard vanU (talk) 14:12, 8 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well, let's work on fixing this and then work on figuring out how it dragged on for two years. And how we can learn from it. Durova^Charge! 16:59, 8 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Search Engine Strategies has been nominated for deletion. Can you take a look and see if you can shed some light on this nonsense. Igor Berger (talk) 22:53, 7 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Looks like it's going to be kept. The matter is about adequate demonstration of third party sources. See Wikipedia:Notability. Durova^Charge! 23:03, 7 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That was odd, someone with an Amsterdam IP blanked that thing that you noticed. I have my suspicions, but who knows. Not that it really matters that much. Obuibo Mbstpo (talk) 00:33, 8 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, that IP has been selectively blanking posts by TenOfAllTrades. Check the rest of the history. I've rolled back/replaced. Durova^Charge! 00:35, 8 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]