User talk:Durova/Archive 82

POTD notification

Hi Lise,

Just to let you know that the Featured Picture File:Military aviary2.jpg is due to make an appearance as Picture of the Day on March 12, 2010. If you get a chance, you can check and improve the caption at Template:POTD/2010-03-12. howcheng {chat} 22:42, 10 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Triple Crown nominations

Excuse me Durova, but I was looking at the triple crown nominations and the nominees list is close to 20. So, what I'm saying is, are you gonna review them sooner or later? I apologize in advance if you're busy right now. GamerPro64 (talk) 03:23, 11 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You're right to ask. Maybe we should move this to Wikipedia namespace. I don't have much time right now. Durova⁴¹² 21:10, 11 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Would it be alright if I can help with the move? GamerPro64 (talk) 01:40, 12 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Absolutely. Thank you very much. Durova⁴¹² 02:10, 12 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Just one question, though. Do I have to ask the Wikipedia:WikiProject Council/Proposals to move it? GamerPro64 (talk) 20:44, 12 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

They mostly see whether a brand new idea has enough support to be viable. This has been around for three years. And thanks very much for your help. Durova⁴¹² 21:24, 12 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

In response to a user talk request, I will attempt to move this to wikiproject space. If there is any problem that can be reverted and we can go throught the official hoops, but I think this is fairly well-accepted.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 04:05, 13 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks very much. Durova⁴¹² 04:24, 13 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Since you're usually busy and probably don't have time for reviewing the nominations, is it O.K if some other wikipedians and I can review them? It would be like Wikipedia:Four Award. GamerPro64 (talk) 04:35, 13 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Absolutely, please. You know the criteria? Durova⁴¹² 04:36, 13 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I believe so. I'm a reviewer for the Four Award. It can't be that different. GamerPro64 (talk) 04:41, 13 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

(outdent) Here's a FAQ: 1. Do I have to write a featured article?

Any type of featured content counts for the featured category (articles, lists, pictures, portals, sounds, topics).

2. Why do you require 10 inline citations for FA and GA?"

That's a measurable dividing line between major and minor contribution. People who make 10 inline citations usually write a lot of text, organize sections, and do substantial research.

3. Do they have to be 10 different sources?

No. You can cite the same source more than once.

4. Can I count the same article for different parts of the Triple Crown?"

Yes. One article can even count for all three parts if it's been a DYK, GA, and FA.

5. I want one of the multi crowns, and I have too many GAs but not enough DYKs. Can I shuffle the credits?

No. The minimum number is required in every category.

6. I have one type of triple crown and want to get a higher one. Does the work I've already done count toward the next crown?

Yes.

Makes sense? Durova⁴¹² 05:10, 13 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yes. GamerPro64 (talk) 17:01, 13 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hi and help

Would you please take a look at what is going on here. This is a vicious campaign to try and discredit me. I'd be glad to write you off-wiki about the circumstances. Thanks. Wildhartlivie (talk) 20:39, 11 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Wish I had more time to assist. A request for fresh eyes at the Commons admin boards might get better responses than at the Commons Village Pump. Best wishes getting it resolved. Durova⁴¹² 04:11, 12 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Midnight Knitter

I assume you have no inside information about this:

US town baffled by Midnight Knitter--Filll (talk | wpc) 20:42, 11 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

404 error. Could it be related to Knitta? Wikipedia has a GA on knitting vandalism. Durova⁴¹² 20:49, 11 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Link fixed. Killiondude (talk) 22:08, 11 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Possibly a guerilla Knitta action. It's a charming organization: everyone loves it even though it's against the law. :) Durova⁴¹² 04:05, 12 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Request to refactor evidence

You're only 77 words over your limit, but could you please redact them? Ryan Postlethwaite^{See the mess I've created or let's have banter} 23:38, 11 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

We've cross posted. Now I'm more over the limit. Shoemaker's Holiday removed more than quotes; he removed my entire conclusion and that substantially alters the tone and content of my statement. Overnight a different editor unstruck the previous statement that I had withdrawn, which created a confusing impression that I had not withdrawn it.

Arbitrators are asking questions and I don't know whether those questions are based upon my actual posts or the adulterated versions. With respect, the real world limitations are harder to work around. Durova⁴¹² 23:50, 11 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Replaced with a short summary which should tide things over. Durova⁴¹² 03:48, 12 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Motion regarding Durova and Shoemaker's Holiday

This request has been closed and the final motion is available at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Durova and Shoemaker's Holiday.

The Arbitration Committee notes and deplores the acrimonious nature of the dispute between Shoemaker's Holiday and Durova, and the way it has been needlessly prolonged and intensified on- and off-wiki by both parties, and resolves that:

a) While noting the provisions in paragraph (b):

i) Shoemaker's Holiday shall neither communicate with nor comment upon either directly or indirectly Durova on any page in the English Wikipedia.

ii) Durova shall neither communicate with nor comment upon either directly or indirectly Shoemaker's Holiday on any page in the English Wikipedia.

iii) Both parties are expressly prohibited from responding in kind to perceived violations of sections (i) and (ii) above and should instead report the perceived violation to the Arbitration Committee by email.

b) Both parties may, within reason, comment within the same pages (for example, in the Wikipedia:Featured Pictures topic area and similar) providing their comments do not relate directly or indirectly to the other party. They may also, within reason, revert blatant third-party vandalism to each others' or shared works.

c) Should either Shoemaker's Holiday or Durova violate the letter or spirit of these restrictions, they may be blocked by any uninvolved administrator for short periods of up to one week; after the third such violation, the maximum block length shall be one year. All blocks shall be logged below. Appeals of any blocks may be made to the Arbitration Committee.

On behalf of the Arbitration Committee, ~ Amory (u • t • c) 04:47, 15 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Discuss this