User talk:Durova/Archive 8

E.Shubee checkuser result

The checkuser case came back negative. Ansell 03:45, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the heads up. Durova 12:52, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

Republic

Hi Durova. Thanks for protecting Republic - hopefully a period of inactivity will be followed by a return to constructive editing when it gets unprotected. If you wouldn't mind, I'd appreciate your comments on my intervention there - I've not really been involved in a dispute on Wikipedia before and would welcome any feedback you have on my actions, or any suggestions for improvement in future. All the best, --YFB ¿ 18:34, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

Looks fine to me. You might check out WP:RFC or WP:3O. I wrote an essay about informal dispute resolution at Wikipedia:No angry mastodons. The most important suggestion I can offer about helping out at disputes is to avoid your own hot button topics. The second most important suggestion I can offer is to be flexible about the results: each page has its own mix of personalities. Thank you for valuing my opinion and best wishes. Durova 18:53, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

Thanks - I'd not come across WP:3O before, so I've learnt something already. I hadn't realised you were the author of WP:NAM - it's a work of genius! Cheers for the feedback, --YFB ¿ 19:28, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

Aw shucks. :) Durova 19:31, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

mentorship , mediation and such things

Hi! We made an agreement, some days ago, now I'm asking for your help to make things happen :) How to enter mentorship? Where? (Yes, I'm a lame finding things in wiki administration. :) --195.56.92.19 19:23, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

Not a problem. Try Wikipedia:Adopt-a-User. Welcome back, Durova 19:30, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

Hi. You blocked User:VinceB (aka 195.56.92.19 aka see the list at Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/VinceB) for one week and then, you shortened the block to 48 hours, assuming that his behavior would change (see User talk:VinceB). Well, it seems that his first action after his return to Wikipedia was trolling. He reported a violation of the 3RR rule by User:Juro which did not occur because the four reverts in question were spread over a period of three days.[1] He has used a similar strategy against other users before (his last request for investigation has been explicitely deleted as "trolling" and neither of his previous attempts to get help of un-informed admins had succeeded. I do not want to get involved in another dispute with that user. Since he now sees whatever I say as "a sneaky personal attack",[2] it would be perhaps better if it is you who warns him against trolling. Btw, in September, he has fooled me too and I really assumed his good faith. He even called his own sockpuppet (later confirmed by CheckUser) "some nationalist asshole".[3] Only later, I realized that his words are not always in line with his behavior. Thanks in advance for your help. Tankred 16:43, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

Please provide page diffs for the sockpuppet accusation. Durova 17:01, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

Oh, I am sorry for not being clear. I am not accusing VinceB of a renewed sockpuppetry because his recent use of an IP (195.56.92.19) was completely benign. The previous (less benign) case of sockpuppetry has been resolved by his first block and I hope he will never use sockpuppets in a disruptive way again. Now, the problem is trolling, in this case reporting a false violation of 3RR.[4] I do not seek a new block of him, just a warning that the formal procedures on Wikipedia should be used in accordance to their purpose. At least three users (Juro, PANONIAN, me) have been harassed by VinceB in a similar way in the past and I am afraid that this new attack against Juro may be followed by similar initiatives against me, PANONIAN, and perhaps Nyenyec - the users, who have recently disagreed with VinceB's controversial edits. Tankred 17:44, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

I've posted to his user talk page and asked for his side of things. I'll keep an eye on this. Durova 17:48, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

Thank you. Tankred 17:53, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

Well, a perfect example of Tankred's behaviour against me. I stated on my userpage on sept 9, that I do mainly anonim edits. Since he made a sockpuppetry and a checkuser case against me. (See difflinks above) Not asking, for ex: who's User:Slovan, since he several times, and now again stated, that he do not want to talk to me. Then how to dissolve disputes, if he ignores my attempts? Slovan is my roommate. With a simple question, this would be solved. Thanks to Tankred's agressivity Slovan does not want to participate in this wikipedia anymore. And I got blocked for sockpuppeting.... :) pfff

I thought 3RR means that the for the third one goes the block. I was negligent reading the policy. It takes time, and I'm far less active on enwiki, since I'm continously harrased here for month now.

Harassing: stating this above as trolling. See the answer for my report. That is not harassing.

Since we have a WP:Verify and WP:CITE, I gave cited and verifiable informations instead of the clearly biased fakes. I reported the deletion of this to the WP:ANI. Thus I got blocked, PANONIAN not even warned. Tankred does the same. Reverts as soon as able, the diff that he gives the editorial resumes personal messages also. I warned him several times to stop calling me a vandal, just because our point of views are the opposite.

Here this IP (195.56.131.37) is not listed, since I do not called myself a nationalist vandal, but I called a nationalist vandal a nationalist vandal. :-) Belive me or not, I'm not the only client of my internet provider :-)). Be aware, that he's playing on the laziness of others. (on the fact, that no one would give the time to check even this simple list, not to mention the more harder-to-verify/check things) I'm not an IT genious, so if it is not true, let me know, but I think, thus this provider does not give a fix IP, anyone, who is a client of them, can be verifed as a sockpuppet of me, or me as a sockpuppet of them. Not?

Misleading #3: This is their usual method of getting rid of any hungarians here. See: [5], the next one under it, and the Vince line also. He states that I harm three of them. By this difflink, you can count, that they got into a dispute as far as accusing them of being the same person (aka harming them): User:Erdelyiek, User:Bendeguz, User:Vay, User:Alphysikist, User:Al345 User:Khoikhoi, User:Kelenbp, User:Adam78, User:Fz22, and User:Zello. And they are doing this, in an organized a team work. I put myself User:VinceB, and my roomate, wheter he does not want to play a role or not, just for the example User:Slovan. This is twelve. 12. And not to mention those editors, whom are not listed here, for ex: User:Gubbubu, User:Alensha, User:Árpád, User:HunTomy, User:.... (this is +4 = 16!) and the line is almost endless, and contains everbody, who tried to edit those or similar pages, that I edited. And this is only with the hungarian editors. Just place a question about User:Juro and User:PANONIAN on the Wikipedia:Hungarian Wikipedians' notice board. What is the relation to Tankred? He's backing them, [6], [7] since he's the most intelligent and most calm one from the triumvirate. I do not checked how many checkuser and other similar cases were made by them, but I will, and all these cases.

As you see, this method never falled yet, and I'm not the first, but I want to be the last victim of them. PANONIAN is also frequently harming croatian and bosniak users with the same, and being friend of and sharing the same view with User:Bonaparte, User:HolyRomanEmperor, and such banned or to-be-banned (for ex: User:Juro) guys. What's the link to Tankred? He's sharing the absolutely same view with them, onpenly, an stated, so I do not look at them as individuals, but as a (organized) team, by their actions, and talk pages' content, and what I saw. For ex: usually they occur in the same place(s) almost immediately.

Umm, sorry for being long, but this is the ultra-very-very-very-very compact description of the case, what I want to write for the mediation case. If you got intrested, I would be more than happy if you even help to me to find the end and finish this *#>*! case. (sorry, Tankred made me angry several times, and I wrote sometimes such things, that in normal case - as like talking to normal ppl like you - I do not do, even at an argument.) I learned the lession, and I wont let him to make me angry again.

I wanted to make a case agains Juro and PANONIAN but it occured, that he's backing them, and he's a third one.

Sorry, I forgot what to answer :-), hope, I gave answers to all you wanted to know, if not, please ask again, and I'll answer. I got tired by writing this, I'm just signing myself up, to be adopted :-)). It will be a unique experience for me. :-) Regards. --VinceB 22:21, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

Just one more: he wants editors to believe that I wrote these agressively, or there is agression it this above. No, parts of it's called irony, and/or most of them as acridity. ... :-(( --84.236.89.208 22:28, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

These are very serious allegations. I'm all for the inclusion of multiple points of view and I realize how important this subject can feel for people who have a stake in it. I'll break down my thoughts in bullet points:

Let's not use the word for what these critters are.

• • Let's avoid the use of the t-word. I don't think either side here is a typical you-know-what.
  • It's easier for everyone when dispute participants abide by policies such as WP:CIVIL and WP:NPA and WP:AGF. That also makes the poor-ol'-admin's task simpler (contrary to popular belief I try to be fair).
  • Actually entering Wikipedia:Adopt-a-User would score a few brownie points.
  • Would you both consider Wikipedia:Requests for mediation? Durova 22:47, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

Nice and very appropriate picture of t...you-know-what, Durova. Happy Halloween! But now, back to the business:

• Well, I think VinceB's conspiracy theory about the so-called triumvirate sharing the same views is quite absurd. I disagreed with User:Juro on many occasions (our ongoing debate can be seen at Talk:Muráň Plain) and I rarely edit the same articles as User:PANONIAN does because our areas of specialization are quite different. What we three have in common is the disagreement with VinceB's disruptive edits and VinceB's subsequent failed attempts to use Wikipedia's formal procedures against each of us. Another commonality is that most of our edits are creation or expansion of the articles not related to ethnic issues or the time-consuming protection of Wikipedia's content against vandalism. Please, compare this with the patterns of VinceB's edits.
• I have never called the Hungarian users (and one Turkish user) listed by VinceB sockpuppets. In fact, I have a record of collaboration with some of them (especially User:Kissl and User:Zello) and we are usually able to reach consensus over sensitive issues. If you want, I can browse through talk pages and provide as much evidence as needed. VinceB is another story and his edits have been reverted also by well-established users from Hungary (most recently by User:Kissl and User:Nyenyec). This is neither an edit war between the Hungarian and non-Hungarian users, nor a personal dispute between VinceB and me. There have been several well-documented cases of VinceB's vandalism (for example, he blanked whole paragraphs[8], changed geographic names into their Hungarian version (hiding all the official non-Hungarian names)[9], and made subtle changes of numerical data[10]), personal attacks (see my unofficial and then official warnings at [11], [12], and [13]), and disruptive use of sockpuppets (see [14], [15] and [16]). If I enter the mediation process, there should be perhaps four or five users besides me and VinceB on the other side. And the mediation would concern content disputes in a dozen of articles. Do you think such an endeavor can be of any help?
• Contrary to VinceB's allegations, I have initiated CheckUser only once in my life and it proved VinceB's use of sockpuppets. I have never asked for CheckUser against other users, though this tool is completely legitimate. The evidence against VinceB was not based only by the same internet provider, but also by the absolutely identical edits of the sockpuppets and the sockpuppet master during several instances of edit warring. The admin, who blocked User:Slovan as a sockpuppet, did not buy the "roommate" story either. Anyway, all the formal measures against VinceB (CheckUser confirmation, blocks, deletion of his request of investigation explicitely as t...you-know-what) have been done by non-involved admins, not by me. Does this conspiracy against VinceB involve people from all around the world, including admins? Am I so vicious that I am able to turn everyone in Wikipedia against innocent and inexperienced VinceB? Please, just tell me how I actually did it. I would love to have such a skill. Yes this is an example of irony mentioned by VinceB above. I am sorry, but I did not laugh at his jokes, such as the one, when he copied the vandalism templates from his talk page and pasted them to my and PANONIAN's talk pages.[17]
• Since VinceB has tried to use formal policies against other users (he reported some alleged vandalism, incidents, asked for arbitration... everything has been rejected by admins because of the lack of evidence) several times, I really doubt that he is not familiar with the 3RR policy. But if you prefer not to call a false report of illegal actitivy t...you-know-what, I am fine with that. On the other hand, I will keep an eye on VinceB's edits (I encourage you and everyone to do the same with my edits) and I will report any new case of vandalism, sockpuppetry, or t...you-know-what. In September, before I started to use the warning templates, I tried to discuss with VinceB in the same way as I do with all other users, but it proved not to be fruitful. I must say I am somewhat sceptical about the usefulness of mediation in this case, but I am willing to enter one if other users involved in a dispute with VinceB think it can help resolve this unfortunate situation.

Tankred 03:12, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

In an ideal Wikipedia both sides of this dispute would use the disagreement as motivation to research better citations and improve the articles. I'd like to see VinceB in mentorship and improve the obvious problems that got him blocked. One page that both sides of this dispute should browse is Wikipedia:Disruptive editing. Durova 14:14, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

Names and titles

So what's inappropriate about Joan of Arc? Hildegard of Bingen makes the same point, but is still, I think, less notable. Septentrionalis 20:17, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

Joan of Arc really wasn't from a place called Arc, and probably neither was anyone else from her family. Joan_of_Arc_facts_and_trivia#Name explains most of it. My post at the bottom of Talk:Joan_of_Arc#Requested_move explains the rest. The example at names and titles had been at the back of my mind for a while - it's a common and understandable misconception. Hildegard of Bingen really was prioress of the Bingen convent. If you think of someone more famous then by all means substitute them. Cheers, Durova 01:40, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

F1 vandalism

Thanks. --4u1e 07:12, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

I never blanked Sugaar's talk page, while he DID vandalize the machismo article. As regards mediation, I'm all for it.--Marsiliano 08:57, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

Excuse the mistake. The link for mediation requests is Wikipedia:Requests for mediation. The editors involved have to request it themselves and post at the request that they agree to it. Durova 16:58, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for your attention on Al Gore III

I'd appreciate your encouraging any mediation process so we can make clear consensus on the issues which endanger the pedia under WP:BLP. I'm growing to have the opinion that there is one voice in this argument who acts like an inflamatory troll, and while I hesitate to think ill will, I'm concerned that the user might turn out to be active partisan POV pusher. User's contributions show no interest in any activity other than partisan POV and disruption. Not making any complaint at this time, but if we're dealing with such, it might be good to have lots of eyes aware of. BusterD 17:23, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

Here's my recommendation: open a WP:RFC on the article. Post a follow-up at WP:PAIN if blatant problems occur, but what I saw so far was more on the content side of things. However, I suggest you read up on WP:DE. It's a new guideline that got approved last month which streamlines resolution of certain types of problems - if this proves to be the type of problem you suspect it is. Assume good faith while this situation clarifies itself and best wishes. Durova 17:30, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

Page protection for Black supremacy

"... so that the parties can cool down"?

What? Do I even sound angry? lol But good move. deeceevoice 18:21, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

Well, I mean that in the sense of de-escalating the conflict. I seriously recommend you contact these editors at their talk pages. If that doesn't work, then post a request to some more high profile location. I only noticed your post because I was following up on the other day. Durova 18:31, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

No need to explain. I'm not sufficiently concerned/invested in this debate to bother. It's ludicrous. While I take these guys seriously enough to engage them, I don't take it personally; it doesn't get to me. I haven't bothered to write a countervailing section to this silly AA thing, because I don't have the patience. I can, however, deal with this guy on strictly editorial grounds. Besides, I figure others will, as you have, intervene to keep these entities in check.

Thanks for following up. deeceevoice 18:37, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

Just noticed the attempt at having me blocked for 3RR violation and your response. You might want to stop by and read my response. Ultimately, right decision, but not cool. deeceevoice 18:56, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

If you think so, tell the admin who made the comment. It wasn't me. Durova 19:33, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

Then my sincere apologies. The sig must refer to your intervention. (I think I was right the first time; it was Connelley. Figures.) deeceevoice 19:39, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

I've read the posts since page protection and I think RFC is the way to go here. Durova 19:40, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

You're probably right, but I don't have the time. I'm crunching some terrible deadlines and likely won't be doing much for a while. Please, please also turn your attention to Prognathism. I've repeatedly asked for comment on the talk page, but an anonymous editor (probably a sockpuppet) keeps reverting the article to a highly eurocentric version. It probably needs protecting and an RFC, as well. Thanks. deeceevoice 19:47, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

The activity on that page doesn't seem to be enough to merit page protection. I'm afraid I know next to nothing about prognathism, so my participation wouldn't be much use, but perhaps there's a Wikiproject where you could post to the talk page and ask for help. Regards, Durova 22:18, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

I've unprotected black supremacy. Suggest opening an WP:RFC. Durova 15:59, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

User:Stevewk

• Durova, [at the last minute, i'm leaving this with you because YFB is right, it should not appear on the Republic page, and it would be cowardly to "hide" this on any other page. I am asking for some answers; I am not being treated fairly in this. kindly read all the way to the end. Stevewk 20:57, 28 October 2006 (UTC) ]

[i left this last night and now responding to YFB and by extension, you. i'll leave a notice on Republic talk to see here]...

REPOSTED MATERIAL (deleted) REPLY (deleted)

Reply from Durova

My user talk page is not a dumping ground. Please post page diffs instead. I'll check into this once more, but I suspect what is needed here is formal mediation rather than administrative action. A few brief comments:

• It isn't standard procedure to block or warn a user whenever they post a WP:3RR complaint that turns out not to have actually been a 3RR violation. Sometimes an admin may take action if the situation is very clear, but there's also a reasonable chance that the poster may have acted in good faith. I wasn't the admin who made the decision regarding that complaint.
• Page protection usually just locks whatever version is up at the moment the admin steps in. It isn't an endorsement of one version vs. another.
• I prefer to be referred to as she. Durova 22:04, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

Apologies for the masculine personal pronoun. I had no idea, although looking at your userpage it should probably have been obvious. Sorry! --YFB ¿ 23:29, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

No problem. :) Durova 23:31, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

Follow-up from Durova

Yes, this looks like a content dispute. WP:RFC or Wikipedia:Requests for mediation would be the way to go here. Durova 22:16, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

I'll open an RfC. Thanks very much for your input, and sorry to have replied all over the place. I'll be more careful with talk pages in future. Best wishes, --YFB ¿ 23:31, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

WP:PAIN Notice

Hello, as you're already aware, I've been posted as a notice by an anon IP in the WP:PAIN ... and as valid as the complaints may or may not be (I'm not here to argue their validity - I've already apologize profusely to the user at least twice, possibly more since I have a sketchy memory) the conversation there has not been very conductive to anything constructive, and I find it a bit of a personal attack on myself to be brought up there. If I'm not stepping outside of boundaries, I would like to respectfully ask it to be closed.

Also, if you yourself have any suggestions on how I could have dealt with the dispute more positively, I would like to hear them. I realize my tone may not have been the best, and I could have explained myself more, and I apologized for that to the user, what else more can I do? I've recused myself from editing the affected article anymore, although I still post to the talk page ... what more can be done? What could I have done differently? -- Wizardry Dragon (Talk to Me) (Support Neutrality on Wikipedia) 23:17, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

I think the best thing you can do is to open dispute resolution. I've posted suggestions for specific methods of dispute resolution elsewhere. And if I haven't posted this essay link already, try a little reading material. Best wishes, Durova 23:28, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

If it's not asking too much, again, may you please close the WP:PAIN notice? It looks bad on myself, I think, and as you've said, other dispute resolution methods should be taken; which I'd go for completely if the anon would (I don't now what to call him/her other than "the anon" since they're either unregistered or not logged in). -- Wizardry Dragon (Talk to Me) (Support Neutrality on Wikipedia) 23:32, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

It's very unlikely that another administrator would take any action after my response. These things get archived in a few days so don't worry. I haven't issued any user warnings on either of you. Durova 23:35, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

I suppose I just worry that it reflects badly on me to be posted there, especially since I was trying my best, however unsuccessful I may have been, to be civil and helpful to the user. At least things seem to be gettingh resolved on my talk page, however slowly. -- Wizardry Dragon (Talk to Me) (Support Neutrality on Wikipedia) 23:40, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

I got in outside help a few days ago, so I'm obviusly not against other resolution methods. --217.235.241.172

Personally, I think if we can put this both behind us, it's best forgotten. "I said stupid things, let's both get over it", as my fiance would say :) - I don't purport to have been entirely correct in everything I do, and constructive dialogue is going on the article talk page, so I see little point in dispute resolution other than to air out more dirty laundry. I've (self-)recused myself from editing the page so as to avoid another edit war, and am simply giving my input on the talk page. (I'd voluntarily take a block from editing the article, if it doesn't stop me from replying to the talk page). For what it is worth, I am sorry for anything negative I've contributed. -- Wizardry Dragon (Talk to Me) (Support Neutrality on Wikipedia) 23:56, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

BattleTech

I don't understand. WD is constantly making false claims about me, and I'm chided if I call him liar for it? Please explain. --217.235.241.172

Per WP:CIVIL it's better to point to the behavior than the person. Present page diffs that prove the claim is wrong, extend the benefit of the doubt (poor syntax, faulty memory, etc.) and get thee to dispute resolution. If I knew more about the subject at hand I'd try to mediate, but I don't, and you really ought to bring in some fresh personalities before this degenerates into mudslinging. Durova 23:23, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

You're right, and I changed that part. Thanks for your help in this matter.

On WD's request, I just re-stated my point on the article's /Talk. Let's see if we need any outside dispute resolution after a few more rounds there. --217.235.241.172

F1 vandalism

Sorry to be a pain - 222.225.117.108 is at it again at the moment. Thanks for any assistance. --4u1e 08:52, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

I've issued a 48 hour block this time. Again I've requested that this user discuss the edits, but I really suspect this is someone with limited language skills. I've posted to Wikipedia talk:Esperanza in the hope that someone there is bilingual in Japanese and could do some outreach. Otherwise the next block will have to be even longer. Thank you for your patience. I know this leaves a lot of work to undo. Durova 19:59, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

Re: Machismo

I don't understand why you prevent me from editing machismo but not sugaar. Bearing in my mind that Sugaar has not actually contributed any writing to the article and that he doesn't have the linguistic competence to do so speaks volumes. Why are you giving editorial preference to a person who is unable to actually constructively edit an article in English (that's why he only reverts). Also I think it bears mentioning that this person purports to be defending a "Hispanic" world view but in reality is anti-Hispanic, in fact, he has described the use of Spanish as "contamination" (see his talk page). I urge you to review the machismo article and unlock it so all people can contribute, it's a total waste to bar the only person who's contributed to it in eons just because someone who can't even write in standard English complained.

P.S. Why didn't you bar the other participant in the edit war?

--4.245.245.107 16:30, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

I do have enough linguistic competence to read Spanish and the things you've posted on the article talk page are unacceptable in any language. Please keep it civil and encyclopedic. Durova 19:44, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

Japanese speakers

Hi - I saw your request at esperanza. Perhaps a more direct route might be to ask at Wikipedia:WikiProject Japan/Participants. Many if not most of the participitants there speak Japanese. -- Rick Block (talk) 20:14, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the suggestion. I've posted at the project talk page. Regards, Durova 20:17, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

You can also try Category:User ja. It is a complete list of all users who have the ja Babel template on them.--Ed^{I'm lonely, talk to me} _contribs 21:47, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

Thanks very much for the suggestion. I feel uneasy about that option, though - too much like spamming. Durova 21:50, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

Travels

I hope you don't mind me saying (you've ended up on my watchlist) but I think the US states part of your user page 'Travels' section is very smart. Once I've visited a few more states (tally is 1 so far, might take me a while) I may have to pinch your formatting! Kudos, --YFB ¿ 00:39, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

Aw, thanks. I'm just updating that stuff right now. I've pinched and tweaked a bit myself. Durova 00:48, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

And you know what? I somehow forgot Missippi and Virginia in the older version - don't know why I'd forget them. I used to live in Virginia. Durova 03:50, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

You helped choose Coffee as this week's WP:AID winner

– ClockworkSoul 04:03, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

Your username

Hi Durova. I came across your userpage through the Esperanza userpage contest. I never knew about Nadezhda Durova. How fascinating! I will look for her memoir the next time I'm at a bookstore. :) Cheers, Fang Aili ^talk 14:53, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

Thanks. You'd be very lucky to find it in a bookstore, but Amazon.com has it.[18] Regards, Durova 14:57, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

Your Contributions

Durova, I've noticed a number of your posts since your RfA (which I regretably wasn't present for), and I wanted to thank you for your excellent contributions. Wikipedia is richer for your presence here and I wish you a long, happy career as Admin. --Doc Tropics ^{Message in a bottle} 17:38, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

How sweet of you to say that! Thank you. Durova 17:43, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

Template:Citecheck

Thanks for letting me know. I had created the template {{failed verification}} to handle the case where the editor is certain that the source does not contain the assertion, and took {{citecheck}} to be similar, but I can see where my phrasing was subject to misinterpretation. Thanks for noticing. Robert A.West (Talk) 21:55, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

Not a problem. I think some users grab {{citecheck}} because it's near the top of the list. Every now and then I look at the transclusions to see where it might be misapplied. Hadn't thought to look at the Wikipedia namespace pages in a while, which is why I missed your work until now. Thanks for posting it there. I hope we've ironed out the kinks now. Cheers, Durova 02:59, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

Perhaps a different template name, such as badcite or citations questioned would be clearer? Robert A.West (Talk) 04:33, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

Or citations misused? I'm no coding wizard so please improve it if you can. Thanks very much. Durova 04:43, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

Blocks

Hello there, sorry to bother you again. I've been trying to informally mediate a dispute between to parties, and one of the parties has mentioned that the other has been subject to a block before. Is there a way that I, as a non-administrator, can verify this claim? If it's untrue than I'm pretty sure such a thing would be a personal attack, or at least, misinformed, but if it's true then it could use some digging into. Thanks in advance -- Wizardry Dragon (Talk to Me) (Support Neutrality on Wikipedia) 23:58, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

Er, never mind, I managed to figure it out :) Sorry about that! -- Wizardry Dragon (Talk to Me) (Support Neutrality on Wikipedia) 00:24, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

No problem, and good on you for being a peacemaker. I hope you're successful. Durova 02:56, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

Esperanza User Page Award

Congratulations, Durova, you have been nominated for the Esperanza User Page Contest! The judges have received the fifteen entries, and are ready to start judging. The judges will take a week to complete the judging process, and they will contact all the participants when the judging is done.

Please drop by the contest page for contest updates and questions. Take care, and good luck! Daniel.Bryant ^{[ T · C ]} 09:38, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

Sorry

Hey, sorry, calm down, that was just a joke. OK, I won't continue with this behaviour. And I only use this IP address, because this is my IP address. 81.223.23.159 12:15, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

As long as you edit productively you'll have nothing to worry about. Best wishes, Durova 13:38, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

RE

Yes ma'am! I'll try to be more careful from now on.

I just posted something on the IP's page. You can read that as a quick explanation.

Zarbat 13:55, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the prompt and polite answer (I kinda prefer ma'am) :) Cheers, Durova 13:58, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

Yeah I was just about to go change that when I re-read your user page more carefully. So apparently I'm not "prompt" enough! :) Score: 2-0. Zarbat 14:03, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

Chuckle Thanks for starting out my morning with a smile. (California time here and the sun's just rising). Durova 14:04, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

You sure the sun is rising? It doesn't look that way to me. Okay maybe it's time for bed~! (<< can't even type!~) (<< and again!) (got it right this time!) (<< and this time!) Okay good night/morning. Zarbat 14:09, 31 October 2006 (UTC) Zarbat 14:09, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, and it ain't springtime either (not that it matters much in this part of the States - if I threw a ball hard enough I could almost break a window in Mexico). Beautiful country you have down there, but marsupials are supposed to play dead by the roadside, not hop across it. Durova 14:22, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

Naw; you're assuming too much. I don't live in Australia. Score: 2-1. (On a side note, didn't they teach you that it was more proper to say "you're assuming so much" instead of "you're assuming too much"? I remember something like that. It never made any sense to me.) I don't live in Australia. Score: 2-1.

Oh and you made me click on opossum, which made me see this. It's Halloween time, but how am I supposed to sleep now? Score: 2-2.

I can go sleep now that we're tied. BTW, how's that investigation coming along? Do I need to contact my lawyer yet? Zarbat 14:45, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

Lawyer rather than solicitor...clue or red herring? Shucks, get some sleep. Durova 14:51, 31 October 2006 (UTC)