User talk:Durova/Archive 54

Thank you and my apologies if I wasted your time

Just a note to thank you. It is nice to see discretionary action expeditiously undertaken that resolves misunderstandings without recourse to the nuisance of partisan bickering in formal courts or noticeboards on adjudication. You may pass on this to our mutual friend, with whom I have a tough relationship. Neither User:Gatoclass nor I availed ourselves of the usual recourses, but held our silence, independently for a week, hoping for a change of mind. Though my judgements on my page were then harsh, (and he is welcome to express himself freely on my page in remonstration, whenever, without fear of my having recourse to sanctions. We're blokes), they were so to hasten a change of mind in lieu of the facile recourse to formal denunciations, which all to easily lend themselves to gaming and wasting administrators' time, something all too frequently used by many posters in this difficult area. Best wishes then, and that is the end of it. Nishidani (talk) 14:14, 15 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you very much for that post. It must have been terrible seeing that for days -- bad enough as it actually was, but with it seeming even worse...I really wish I had known sooner. Durova^Charge! 18:01, 15 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks

Thanks for your kind words at ANI. I really am flattered that you think I'd be a good sysop but as I said to Fozzie I just don't feel that I have the time to give that that office deserves at the moment. Hope everything is going well at your end. Actually would you mind have a quick read of Women's rights - just to give a quick opinion on how coherent and generally readable it is--Cailil ^talk 19:37, 15 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Consider it a standing offer with no flattery intended. You've earned that respect. Now I'll go look at that article and see what I can say. Durova^Charge! 21:16, 15 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

(outdent) It's hard to cover such a large topic in a single article. The page needs work. I'll bullet point this:

What's the scope? Is this article about legal rights only, or the broader sense of the personal is the political?
What's the organization: chonological, geographical, topical?
However you slice it up there are big gaps. Geographically those gaps are as big as China and Latin America (and several other places). Topically those gaps include maternity leave, education rights, employment discrimination, rape laws, and domestic abuse laws. Plus (no surprise to see me raising this, I'm sure) service in the armed forces.
Factually I'm not convinced it's entirely on target. From memory here (sorry no sources at my fingertips), I thought Blackstone's commentaries wrought a substantial change in married women's property rights under British law, and in France married women had the right to own property until Napoleon took it away, and during the Napoleonic era married women could own property under Russian law also. Even restricting this to the British example, Blackstone did accord married women certain limited property rights--which was one reason women set about acquiring fantastically expensive jewelry and silverware and table china (assets which were firmly their own and which could be liquidated if necessary). That would be a small example of the broader gender-based distinction between land ownership and portable wealth (Salic Law, etc.) that crosses many eras and cultures. I thought the first U.S. state to grant women the vote was New Jersey (briefly) in the early nineteenth century.
In terms of general format and copyediting, summary style is the right choice. That's probably the only way to go. Lists are disparaged in articles and it's unusual to see one in the lead section. Needs a going-over for consistency and encyclopedic tone.

Durova^Charge! 22:01, 15 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Poke me if I forget--I think I remember some historic suffragist photos in the Library of Congress archives that might be potential featured pictures. Durova^Charge! 22:04, 15 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the quick peer review. You should have seen it back in October[1]. Fundamentally I think the History of women's rights needs its own article and to have a summary of it placed at Women's rights. As it stands I too have concerns about some of the points in the Women's rights's history section.

Structurally my own view is that it should act as the parent page for a historical, thematic and regional description of the broader meaning of 'Women rights'. This would need thematic arrangement, I think, but I'm open to other ideas. I totally agree there is a huge systemic bias towards the Anglo-American there but that can be fixed. And BTW that list in the lede has been giving me stomach cramps since I first saw it - I'll have a look at fixing that tonight or tomorrow--Cailil ^talk 22:20, 15 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Good idea to put the historical aspects into a separate article. Some of the basics such as voting rights aren't entirely historical. Women didn't get the vote nationwide in Switzerland until the mid-seventies, and one canton held out until the nineties. Durova^Charge! 04:07, 16 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Your presence needed at User:Durova/Triple crown winner's circle/Nominations

Update

I have gone through and cleared out some stuff here, awarding users some well-deserved Crowns of varying sorts. (4) editors are left that I'd rather you look over/award instead of me. Myself and Awadewit (talk · contribs) are up for the "Alexander", which I think is a first for User:Durova/Triple crown winner's circle. Cirt (talk) 11:34, 16 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, and it looks like people have been leaving stuff for the "Great Triple Crown Race" on your talk page, but there is also one at the noms page, and I'll leave that to you as well. Cirt (talk) 11:43, 16 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

In keeping with your past efforts

In keeping with your past efforts, you may wish to nominate Don Murphy for deletion/merge/redirect (for a third time) as he has a Daniel Brandt level notability and trouble making probability and has asked for it to be deleted. Do we really want two years of Brandt like disruption over this? Why not move the most notable content to other articles like we did for Brandt and redirect the article to his most notable movie? There is a book written by his partner in which he figures prominently, but reviews of the book make it arguable that it could non-libelously be called fiction. If you choose to start such a deletion process, you can add my name or not as you choose. I dislike bureaucratic process and shy away from it. WAS 4.250 (talk) 16:30, 16 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Viridae said he thought about starting the delete process but he "frankly can't be bothered stick my neck out and arguing for someone who is frankly so nasty at every turn." WAS 4.250 (talk) 16:44, 16 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Heads up D. [[2]] Viridae ^Talk 02:27, 18 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I see... Durova^Charge! 02:46, 18 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Responded. NonvocalScream (talk) 02:57, 18 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Fan-stitch cardigan

Hi Durova,

I found myself in a Talbots yesterday and their spring line has a lovely 2-button, short-sleeve cardigan done entirely in fan stitch, crocheted from the neckline down. The spacing between the fans is gradually increased as you move down the cardigan, by increasing the number of chain stitches between them. It'd be really easy to make, I think, but has an understated, elegant look. Anyway, it made me think of you. :) I'll get to those revised crochet images soon, hang on a little longer! :) Willow (talk) 14:33, 17 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Awesome. BTW if you ever head over to Wikibooks there's a crochet module. I've contributed to it some, adding several of my projects, and it could use the help of a right-handed crocheter. Enjoy that new cardigan! Durova^Charge! 18:49, 17 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

thanks for being part of Wikipedia:NotTheWikipediaWeekly

all the files are now online - and thanks again for coming along for a chat... whether you were vocal, or more of a listener, your support is fantastic - and do consider hosting a skypecast of your own before too long! (I think I pressed all of three buttons this time!) - once again thanks, and I look forward to seeing you around! cheers, Privatemusings (talk) 03:18, 18 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for having me. Durova^Charge! 03:56, 18 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I would like to nominate this picture as WP:FP

Thank you, Igor Berger (talk) 03:30, 18 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Wow...jaw-dropping. Is it possible to get more detailed information about that particular image? Durova^Charge! 03:43, 18 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Bombing of Tokyo in World War II There were 100,000 civilians firebombed to death, but a historian thinks it could have been much more. Igor Berger (talk) 03:52, 18 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Do you have more specific information on this particular photograph? Durova^Charge! 04:07, 18 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The only thing i know it comes from commons here Igor Berger (talk) 04:13, 18 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Voters will have questions. Suggest you at least get a translation of the Japanese upload notes. Durova^Charge! 04:16, 18 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The photographer was Ishikawa Gwangyang, who died in 1989. The photo follows the Japanese public domain copyrights, because it was taken before 1946. his story here are more pictures and they are even more jaw-dropping This link has the refered picture in the set. Igor Berger (talk) 05:21, 18 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, please give me a heads up if you link to pictures of the World Trade Center. Durova^Charge! 07:40, 18 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Heads up..:) I am thinking where to go with this! I see an issue in the article itself. And the issue is bias, because there is no criticism of USA actions at all in the article. The general in charge of the bombing mission was awarded some medals by Japanese goverment, which is strange! (here) Curtis LeMay also became USA vice Chief of Staff. I have no COI here and I am not anti-American, but I try to bring NPOV to articles. I saw a few editors bring their consern on the article talk page, but it was not addressed. I am thinking of bringing this issue to Wikipedia:WikiProject_Countering_systemic_bias and requesting RfC. Can you advise? Igor Berger (talk) 09:48, 18 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

There's no reason to raise issues at RfC. Simply find a reliable source that documents criticism of the action, and then add it to the article. As for the photo, I don't think it will be a featured photo. Featured photos are usually nominated based on their being among the "finest" photos on Wikipedia, not just the most shocking or historically significant. From a photography standpoint it's not a great picture; it's just shocking. Equazcion •✗/C • 11:49, 18 Mar 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for your quick input. I will try to add to the article, and if I have troble I will ask you to take a look. Igor Berger (talk) 11:54, 18 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Durova, I am sorry I brought bad memories for you. Igor Berger (talk) 12:55, 18 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Don Murphy

Hello, I wanted to ask if you had seen my revision, since at the deletion review for Don Murphy, you did not think he was a notable figure. I had attempted to expand the article to cement his notability, but due to a sockpuppet reverting me, the article was then protected and discussion was initiated. I just wanted to see if you were aware about the more fleshed-out revision that seemed to show that he has been covered in much detail. RTFA (talk) 03:57, 18 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

My standard since last June has been this: when a BLP subject asks for a courtesy deletion I want to know whether any paper-and-ink encyclopedia would have an entry on this person. Mr. Murphy's main claims to notability have been public for a while, so show me one specialty encyclopedia that runs a biography on him. If not, then I support courtesy deletion upon request. Durova^Charge! 04:03, 18 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for explaining. I doubt that Don Murphy has an encyclopedic article, considering that paper-and-ink encyclopedias are pretty limited in identifying notable figures. I really would believe that Don Murphy is not the only notable person in Hollywood who would be neglected in such a print encyclopedia. Hopefully you've taken the time to review the references that I linked at the deletion review covering him in detail -- while I don't believe that he is a household name, I think he has definitely been talked about in the media (and has even spoken about himself), establishing that he is not just a private figure who wants to be left alone. I hope you understand what I'm trying to say, but we'll agree to disagree. RTFA (talk) 04:24, 18 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I can see where you're coming from. The way I take these things is to use standard notability guidelines unless the person objects, and then to honor their wishes unless they're so notable that a paper-and-ink encyclopedia covers them anyway. That leads to some quirky results (lucky for Mr. Murphy he hasn't played a role in the Star Trek universe...) but mostly gets it right and at least has some measurable cutoff. Durova^Charge! 04:37, 18 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You wanted to be alerted when the Don Murphy DRV was complete if it resulted in the article being overturned. That result has now occurred so I am alerting you. However, given how many people in the DRV thought that he was clearly too notable to be reasonably subject to courtesy deletion, and given the previous AfDs, I feel compelled to advise you not to AfD this. JoshuaZ (talk) 01:43, 23 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well it looks like you beat me to that anyways. JoshuaZ (talk) 01:45, 23 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Imperial Triple Crown Jewel (your msg)

Dear Durova,

Thx for your msg. informing me of the problem with one of the FA's listed in my application. I'm unclear for FA's as to whether you look at significant contribs by edit count (such as MOS fixes and added images) or solely inline cites (refs?). If the former, I had 12 edits/images on William Hillcourt between Feb. 7-26, when the article passed FAC.

But, even disqualifying William Hillcourt altogether, that still leaves me with two (2) featured articles on which I was the nom and major contributor by any criterion: Royal Blue (B&O train) and E. Urner Goodman. As such, don't 2 FA's, +2 GA's, and +2 DYK's still qualify me for the Imperial Triple Crown Jewel? JGHowes ^talk - 18:49, 18 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the clarification. I'll take another look into that. For purposes of triple crown credit I established a somewhat arbitrary cutoff of 10 inline citations. Basically it's there to head off attempts at gaming the system, so we don't wind up with people who hang out at GAC and FAC doing minor copyedits in order to collect the goodies. Hold on a little bit while I give a second review to your nomination, and thanks for being patient. Durova^Charge! 18:57, 18 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Durova, thought I'd drop by again to find out if you've had an opportunity to give this a 2^nd look. I see you're very busy, so would it expedite my Triple Crown Jewel if I simply re-nom myself without the questioned article? JGHowes ^talk - 16:49, 24 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

JGHowes (talk · contribs) - Yeah, why don't you go ahead and do that. Cirt (talk) 22:38, 24 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Eli Whitney "editorializing"

Regarding [3] I don't have a citation off the top of my head, but in material I've read about him, that's a pretty common sentiment. If someone wants to get out one of the dread tree sources on his life it shouldn't be that hard to find good source for that statement. At minimum, the summarizing note that the patents were heavily disputed is easily verifiable and important. JoshuaZ (talk) 04:16, 19 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Also, could you maybe take a look at my comment on the talk page? One of the sources we are currently using may not be reliable. JoshuaZ (talk) 04:20, 19 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If there were a better manner of expressing it I'd have no exception, but there's something grandiose about the tone and third person plural is not encyclopedic. I'll have a look at your note because I agree some of the things I see in that body disagree with the online sources I'm reading. Thanks for the heads up. Durova^Charge! 04:26, 19 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Re:Triple crown race award

Many thanks. I look forward to shooting for that Genghis Khan award (need eleven more pieces of featured content, and quite a few DYKs/GAs though :p). Cheers, Sephiroth BCR ^(Converse) 06:16, 19 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, and I still have an existing request at WP:CROWN/NOM for the "Napoleonic" triple crown award. Just a reminder. Thanks, Sephiroth BCR ^(Converse) 06:17, 19 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, getting to that. :) BTW did you notice I congratulated you by name at the Community Portal? Durova^Charge! 06:24, 19 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't notice that. Thanks a bunch. =) Sephiroth BCR ^(Converse) 06:45, 19 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Besty Ross

I made a bunch of improvements. Hopefully, it's a good start. Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 06:40, 19 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. Still needs a longer lead. I'll see what I can do there. Almost set to go. :) Durova^Charge! 06:51, 19 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You're welcome! :) Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 07:01, 19 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Special edition triple crown

Thanks for the award.— Rod ^talk 07:56, 19 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You're welcome. I also congratulated you by name at the community portal. Well done! Durova^Charge! 07:58, 19 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Shy?

[4] I thought you were too shy? Well maybe I will be able to remember. Hopefully. As you can see, I suggested this back in August. And now we are trying it! That is great.--Filll (talk) 00:12, 20 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Heehee, it is kind of fun. Interesting to hear people's voices for a change. :) Durova^Charge! 00:15, 20 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

When I suggested this to DGG last year, he was very negative about it. But I think it could be valuable in some cases, just like the meetups. I do have a very strange voice personally, however. It makes me cringe every time I hear it.--Filll (talk) 00:24, 20 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Cone Mills

Noticed you did some excellent edits to Moses H. Cone. Perhaps you would like to look over Cone Mills Corporation, a related article I recently expanded ten-fold and submitted as a possible DYK.--Doug ^talk 13:04, 20 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Excellent work! I hope it makes DYK. Durova^Charge! 19:10, 20 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Your opinion

Hi Durova. I recently read your excellent Signpost article and was inspired to attempt a restoration for myself, of a portrait of Ulysses S. Grant. The original image is public domain, from the Library of Congress, Image:UlyssesGrant.jpg, and my restoration is at Image:UlyssesGrant-restore.jpg. What do you think? I'm a complete novice at this, so any input or tips would help a lot. :) Best, Keilana|^{Parlez ici} 14:09, 20 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Good start! That's quite a bit of work you put in there and I can tell it was carefully done. That particular image is too small for featured picture candidacy, but I hope you'll do more. Suggest you save interim versions as something other than .jpg (the format overwrites itself and degrades). If you want more, feel free to pick up any of the gallery images from my workshop linked at the top of this page (there's plenty to choose from), and best wishes! Durova^Charge! 19:10, 20 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks very much. I've taken an interest in American Civil War portraits, are there any you'd recommend? Also, what size should they be to be a featured picture? Thanks. Keilana|^{Parlez ici} 23:42, 20 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I suggest you look up Matthew Brady's work at the Library of Congress site.[5] Try to concentrate on files where the original is at least 10mb because you'll probably need to do some cropping. Colloidon glass negatives tend to be unusable at the far edges. The minimum size for featured picture candidacy is 1000px on a side, although many featured pictures are larger than that. Wikipedia/Wikimedia hosting tends to cough and sputter if you get above 10mb, so for featured work I usually crop for esthetic/encyclopedic reasons and then resize to 3000px on the long axis. Feel free to touch bases with me as you go; I've got a couple of Civil War pics in the works too right now. :) Durova^Charge! 23:50, 20 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I've actually been looking through their public domain archives, there are some treasures in there. I just found another Grant portrait, it's a .tif file at 16.4 megabytes, would that be large enough? (here's a link: [6]) Thanks very much for your help, restoration is strangely addictive. :) Keilana|^{Parlez ici} 00:03, 21 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Grant would be a tough choice because Wikipedia already has one featured portrait of him. Suggest you check Wikipedia:Featured_pictures/People and go for someone who doesn't have a featured portrait yet. Durova^Charge! 00:09, 21 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ahh, useful to know. I may restore it anyways later for the historical value (or for the practice). I've been looking through the Brady collection, and found this. What do you think? Keilana|^{Parlez ici} 00:21, 21 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Interesting choice. At 20 megs it's definitely large enough to work with. Voters might have issues with the depth of field and sometimes people grouse about full profile. If you like it, give it a go. I think it has potential. Durova^Charge! 01:44, 21 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Happy First Day of Spring!

Just wishing you a wonderful First Day of Spring {{subst:CURRENTYEAR}}! ~~~~

If you live in the Southern Hemisphere and are entering the season of Autumn not Spring then I wish you a happy First Day of Autumn {{subst:CURRENTYEAR}}!
To spread this message to others, add {{subst:First Day Of Spring}} to their talk page with a friendly message.

Wikipedia

Please read, important. Igor Berger (talk) 09:02, 21 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You

...are just way too funny for your own good. Still laughing. --David Shankbone 14:09, 22 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

(curtsey) Thank you very much. :) Durova^Charge! 18:14, 22 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Don Murphy Redux

With all respect, I would have to let you know that the ~~overwhelming consensus on that DRV was that subject was notable~~. Doing an AFD so soon afterwards may not be desirable, given the DRV. NonvocalScream (talk) 01:53, 23 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The overwhelming consensus, as I read it, was that the deletion had been out of process. Quite a few people specifically stated that their decision there had no bearing on a potential AFD. Also, for people such as myself who support a two-tiered notability standard for BLP (low bar default, high bar for courtesy deletion requests), notable may have more than one meaning. I'd certainly vote to keep Mr. Murphy's biography if he hadn't requested its deletion. Yet he has asked in very clear terms and that merits consideration. Durova^Charge! 02:12, 23 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well, it might merit consideration and the community considered it. That was what AfD2 was. JoshuaZ (talk) 02:20, 23 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I've written up my reasons for nominating at Wikipedia talk:Articles for deletion/Don Murphy (3rd nomination). Durova^Charge! 02:32, 23 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for doing that, Durova. Hopefully we won't have to deal with the requests for snow closures. I'm not sure which way I'm going to go on it. Cheers! -- Flyguy649 ^talk 02:35, 23 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well, if it turns out to be a clearly snowball thing I'll request closure myself. I'll look into the thing after 12 hours or so and see where it's headed. Durova^Charge! 02:38, 23 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. I had a pretty good understanding of your motivation beforehand, but again, we already considered exactly this sort of request one AfD ago. I don't see what is substantially different between now and then. As to snowballing it, I'm not sure that's a good idea although I think if you were supporting such a snowball it would be much less likely to cause drama (in general snowballing drama-intense stuff seems to create more rather than less drama). JoshuaZ (talk) 02:39, 23 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well I haven't notified anyone of the nomination (apparently quite a few people were looking out for it) and the people who support deletion are likely to notice this pretty soon. Yet it takes a supermajority to change the status quo. So if the discussion doesn't change shape radically pretty soon then it won't make any sense to leave this open a full five days. In the interests of minimizing drama I'd be glad to step forward. Most editors probably know how impartial I am with these things. I wish there were a way to do this without any drama, and fully intend to do my best to keep that at a minimal baseline. Durova^Charge! 02:47, 23 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Just realized I hadn't addressed a concern you've stated twice, Joshua. I think it falls within the realm of reason to start a new nomination after half a year when the subject's wishes are strong. JzG didn't mention the relevant precedents in his writeup. So there's a little to this that hadn't been in the last discussion. I just wish I'd started this AFD days ago before Viridae went rouge. Looks like that's casting a long shadow over the present discussion. Durova^Charge! 02:54, 23 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Personally I'm quite happy with the new AfD, though I have to say I was startled at how quickly it appeared! Given the attention that the recent DRV has brought, I think it's probable that the current AfD will be as close to a definitive statement of the community's views as we're likely to get. Having said that, I do think that once the AfD closes there should be a moratorium on any further AfDs or DRVs on this subject - say six months or so. -- ChrisO (talk) 03:18, 23 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Half a year would be fine with me. Actually if you look a few sections up on this page I was discussing whether to write this AFD when Viridae stepped in and deleted the article. Durova^Charge! 03:24, 23 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

So you were. Well, we'll see how it turns out. Given the views expressed on DRV, I suspect there'll be a large-to-overwhelming !vote in favour of keeping the article. -- ChrisO (talk) 03:38, 23 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Durova, after reading your rationale on the talk page, I have to applaud your sense of doing the right thing. I have not looked at the talk page of BLP lately, have you considered proposing a policy change? NonvocalScream (talk) 04:16, 23 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Thank you very much. I guess it might be a good idea to propose the dead trees standard as explicit policy and let it stand or fall. With the way my last couple of courtesy AFDs have gone, I'm thinking about discontinuing that standing offer. Wish I had something better to offer, but I don't want to continue making these nominations if the community is backing away from the idea behind them. Wish I had something better to offer to resolve these situations without drama. Durova^Charge! 04:34, 23 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - This AfD is educating a lot of editors about BLP concerns, and you clearly have reason to be concerned and to bring this up. There seems to be quite a few ideas on BLP policy bubbling up these days. This discussion (which started a while back and has been revived) has Doc G's and SirFozzie's ideas. I think Doc's is more likely to pass, mostly because it works within concepts and practices we already use. Looking at the DRV and AfD, it seems there's a very strong vein of support for WP covering people between your higher paper-'pedia standard and the (vague) "marginal" / "ambiguous notability" level. There's also a lot of unease, even on the Keep side about how these biography articles can be vandalized. Here are some more ideas: Do we have bots that can identify articles in Category:Living people that have words likely to be used by vandals? (That might help with more childish vandals.) Can we put on the top of BLP discussion pages a notice that subjects of articles can contact the foundation? Perhaps it could be added to the box at the top of Talk:Stephen Abas (that's all one box!). We could even put a notice saying subjects could contact the foundation at the bottom of each article page whenever the Category:Living people is added to one of those pages (similar to our stub notices). I also wonder whether there would be enough support for a Living People WikiProject or some kind of specialized vandal patrol. Well, they're ideas, anyway. Noroton (talk) 14:27, 23 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

WP:LOTD

Congratulations! List of brain tumor patients was selected as a List of the Day for April. Let me know if you have a strong preference for a date.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTD) 07:20, 23 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks very much. :) Durova^Charge! 16:11, 23 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It is a list of the day for the month of April 2008. I will assign a random date in this month.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTD) 16:19, 23 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]