User talk:Durova/Archive 1

Barnstar
Just have a look at your barnstar... &#8212; HAJARS 11:18, 30 October 2005 (UTC)

Mediation and opposition
Your request seems alright to me. I'm sure some mediator will pick it up. &#8212; HAJARS 16:01, 30 October 2005 (UTC)


 * See my respons at my talk page. &#8212; HAJARS 18:21, 30 October 2005 (UTC)

Hang in there, but don't get too involved. You should perhaps make yourself aware of No original research when confronting the Ballards and Allens of this world. Noisy | Talk 00:01, 31 October 2005 (UTC)

Yes, I agree. Although I doubt the point would register with them. Durova 00:25, 31 October 2005 (UTC)

Re: New Entry
See my Talk. &#8212; Switisweti 11:53, 12 November 2005 (UTC)

Testosterone poisoning, citation style
Hi Durova, thanks for the kind words. As for the citation style, I agree that having the footnotes and in-line citations is a bit ugly. I'd rather convert them all to proper reference/citation style and loose the footnotes style, in part because I'm more used to this, but also I think it's the preferred format according to the Manual_of_Style's citation guide Cite_sources. Best regards, Pete.Hurd 18:03, 12 November 2005 (UTC)
 * Be my guest. Either is fine with me as long as it's consistent. Durova 18:08, 12 November 2005 (UTC)

WP:SCH
You know what? I agree. I really do. It's hopeless to try and cover every single school on the planet on Wikipedia.

Conversely, attempting to delete a school stub a hopeless fight. As long as things are kept tidy (no more useless fights over two-line not-even-a-stubs), let's put this one to rest. If a ceasefire can be declared on AFD, then people can go back to working on the encyclopedia, and stop wasting effort to plump up totally useless articles instead of merging them with articles that actually offer useful content to the unlikely searcher who goes looking for one of these articles of negligable value.

All that said, if you can make a less inclusive proposal and form a consensus to support it, I'd love to see it. I don't much like this compromise and I don't like the precedent, but I don't really see any alternative. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 00:17, 17 November 2005 (UTC)

Jewish lists
Hi, Jewish people are a diaspora and ethnicity just like African Americans. If you do not think that African American lists should be deleted then please change your vote on these lists. Arniep 18:25, 17 November 2005 (UTC)

Meanwhile, somewhere else on Wikipedia...
Hi Durova! Still busy deleting articles? It's a job that needs to be done. Meanwhile I just finished my new entry. Tomorrow I'll try to find appropriate links to it. &#8212; Switisweti 01:51, 19 November 2005 (UTC)
 * I love it. One thing I've always wanted to do is to take a bicycle tour of some really flat part of Europe and eat every pastry along the way. Durova 03:18, 19 November 2005 (UTC)

List of North American cities founded in chronological order
I'm so glad that someone else agrees with me about the inherent bias of this list. (You commented about this just after I did in the AFD discussion.)WAvegetarian 17:01, 20 November 2005 (UTC)

List of Methodist dentists
To fellow voters at WP:AFD, there have been a lot of nominations lately for (religion/ethnicity) matched with (profession/professional achievement) lists. List of Methodist dentists is an example per WP:NOT of how overly inclusive policies can lead to nonsense lists. My position is:
 * 1. Keep the list when there's an obvious relationship List of Muslim theologians.
 * 2. Edit for relevance when there's a possible relationship List of Catholic artists.
 * 3. Keep the list if its members faced significant discrimination List of first black Major League Baseball players by team and date.
 * 4. Edit for relevance if only certain members faced significant discrimination List of Chicano scientists.
 * 5. Delete unrelated lists List of Methodist dentists.

In the interest of fairness I apply the same standards to all my votes. Sometimes this means I vote against a well crafted and extensive list. My suggestion is to host the list elsewhere and link as appropriate.

Religious affiliation and ethnic heritage are equivalent for my voting. I do handle citizenship on different terms. People who hold a particular citizenship might represent their country internationally. So I vote yea on List of Israeli chess players but nay for List of Jewish chess players. Durova 16:38, 21 November 2005 (UTC)

In a few situations, bias against some group of people may be so pervasive that most lists about them meet criterion number 3. Roman Catholics in England met that standard for several centuries. Untouchables in India meet it. People with leprosy meet that standard everywhere and in all eras. This is one reason I apply a narrow definition to my voting policy.Durova 10:18, 23 November 2005 (UTC)


 * I didn't create any of the Catholic lists as far as I recall. I do think I was too snotty to you. I'm not sure if there's anyway for me to explain why I think religious people in a given science could be relevant except to say they do have Category:Scientists by religion so apparently the link between the two is not totally beyond the pale here. On musicians or composers possibly it would be best to just delete and then start over with a better annotated one. Even though on musicians I think the Catholic musicians list is pretty well annotated now.


 * On the LGBT composers list I think I was too snotty to you. I'm just not sure why being gay is anymore important to musical composition then being Jewish, Catholic, or Muslim. Maybe you can explain.(I may not be back for awhile though. I don't really like going to other peoples' talk pages though unless I "know" them to some degree.--T. Anthony 17:37, 23 November 2005 (UTC))
 * See above. Durova 17:47, 23 November 2005 (UTC)

Amending the above, I occasionally vote against a list on the grounds that a subject deserves treatment in essay form rather than list form. List of antisemites got a delete vote from me today. The subject of antisemitism certainly belongs in an encyclopedia. An indiscriminate list that places Bobby Fischer alongside Adolf Hitler is an inappropriate handling of the subject. Durova 04:53, 10 December 2005 (UTC)

Nadezhda Durova
Hi, why don't you write an article about your eponym? This article has been long overdue. --Ghirlandajo 18:44, 21 November 2005 (UTC)
 * Nice article, thanks. I will add images when uploads are enabled. --Ghirlandajo 15:18, 22 November 2005 (UTC)
 * Your article inspired me to start Hussar Ballad, which article you are welcome to expand. --Ghirlandajo 13:04, 23 November 2005 (UTC)
 * I wish I could. I've never seen it.  Best wishes with the article. Durova 13:08, 23 November 2005 (UTC)

RuneScape cheats AfD

 * OK, here's a list of items specific to the game (contrary to ManInBlacks point):
 * Casting weaken on tree stump
 * Scar is RuneScape specific
 * Random events is very RuneScape specific - other games have yet to implement this workaround (google it)
 * Armour trimming - explicitly game specific
 * Alt-F4 scam (google it: it comes up with 3 runescape hits on the first page, and NO other games)
 * there are more but that's a quick list.Jonathan888 (talk) 01:05, 23 November 2005 (UTC)
 * Thank you, adding links to generic cheating for common subjects makes sense to me to, and it will get edited that way when I have a bit of time.Jonathan888 (talk) 02:21, 23 November 2005 (UTC)

Extreme card manipulation
This may get few hits on Google and may possibly be invented, but card manipulation (not Extreme) is not only used by magicians but also used as a show of of dexterity, so in that regard the article is right and Card magic needs serious expansion. Would you consider a merge? - Mgm|(talk) 09:07, 23 November 2005 (UTC)
 * As long as it's NPOV, sure. Durova 09:18, 23 November 2005 (UTC)

DYK

 * Congratulations! :-D &#8212; Switisweti 00:02, 25 November 2005 (UTC)

Mikhail Doroshevich
Please revisit the AFD. The nominator claims there's insufficient claims of notability in the article. If you could drop the most important ones you mentioned in the AFD with a few sources, I'll do my best to inform the others of the changes and get it kept. - Mgm|(talk) 21:06, 24 November 2005 (UTC)
 * Of course. I should have thought of that.  Thank you. Durova 21:19, 24 November 2005 (UTC)

One particular person vandalising through AOL accounts
I've been spending some more time investigating the IP adresses mentioned (and the related contributions) and I must agree there are a lot of similarities &#8212; even on topics that don't have anything to do with Joan of Arc etc. I agree with you that most edits were possibly done by one person that we know as Allen Wiliamson. If it's really all him, his behaviour is not very sound. I've expanded my record on his sock puppets and will expand it further. &#8212; Switisweti 02:25, 26 November 2005 (UTC)
 * You might support my petition to AOL. I mention the IP addresses but don't give his name.  If we're right then he's really created problems: think of all the hours people have wasted because of his interference and all the legitimate AOL users who couldn't access Wikipedia during his blocks.  At one point a whole group of AOL IPs got blocked.  You've got a longer history with this than I have: perhaps you could write to AOL and explain the connection.  Wikipedia urges users to make these reports as necessary. Durova 02:36, 26 November 2005 (UTC)

An editor who was not the subject of the above discussion read things the wrong way. I have apologized for the misunderstanding. To other users: the person we are discussing appears to have received well over 100 user warnings and many blocks. We are approaching his ISP for the good of the Wikipedia community (and our own peace of mind, of course). Durova 07:41, 26 November 2005 (UTC)

AFDs
The afds on the smaller jewish american lists are gone because the larger one was nominated for deletion. I'd like to know why you think my nomination of these was a WP:POINT and what "deal with nominator per WP:POINT means? Thanks. StabRule 21:23, 26 November 2005 (UTC)
 * It appears this user is even more obsessed with Jewish lists than I thought, this ip Special:Contributions/72.144.161.73 nominated Articles_for_deletion/Log/2005_November_18 and then another ip from BellSouth.net Inc.Atlanta also voted on the same nomination Special:Contributions/72.144.71.234 which was noticed by User:JJay in his comment Strong Keep. Changing my vote. Don't like anon noms here + 2nd anom vote, both out of Atlanta.-- JJay 05:55, 23 November 2005 (UTC). The ip which StabRule acknowledges on his user page Special:Contributions/65.9.143.76 is also a BellSouth.net Inc.Atlanta address. Arniep 00:56, 27 November 2005 (UTC)
 * please see my comment at: Articles_for_deletion/Log/2005_November_26. Arniep 02:51, 27 November 2005 (UTC)

Not unhappy at all
Hi. Thanks for your support at Talk:Het land van (song). &#8212; Switisweti 00:32, 30 November 2005 (UTC)

Recategorising Girls in War
Why make this children in war? These girls are not children, nor are they women. They are girls. You could have a separate category for Children at War, but Zoya and Joan of Arc are not children. I note that Joan of Arc is in Women in War. She was hardly a woman. She was a girl, and I think you know it. You removed her from this category, presumably as you either thought she wasn't a girl, or she never took part in any war. Another problem with putting Zoya etc in with children at war, is that they will be swamped with male children, boys and youths. Wallie 07:30, 27 November 2005 (UTC)


 * When a male joins an army at the age of seventeen, fights in several battles, and dies at nineteen, tradition calls him a man. This is also what Joan of Arc did. Durova 09:10, 27 November 2005 (UTC)


 * Your problem with me is obviously that you consider that Joan of Arc is a woman and not a girl. That is fine with me, and I would have left it at that. However, you are questioning now the whole category of Girls at war, and also insulted me at the same time, somewhat of an over-reaction. Wallie 14:55, 27 November 2005 (UTC)


 * It is regrettable that you perceive the nomination as an insult. If your evaluation is correct then you have nothing to fear from an impartial vote. Durova 15:41, 27 November 2005 (UTC)


 * No. The insult was when you first called me a vandal, when I categorised Joan of Arc as "Girls in war". Wallie 20:37, 27 November 2005 (UTC)


 * I have already explained that the text is a standard Wikipedia template. I suggest listing standards for inclusion in the heading, such as cutoff age and combatant status.  You can create subcategories if the list grows.  Durova 20:50, 27 November 2005 (UTC)

Your vote on List of Jewish Americans
Please look at why we are nominating it for deletion - there are identical articles already existing - this is just a amalgamation of those. Why vote keep on a list that already exists? I don't get it. StabRule 19:33, 27 November 2005 (UTC)

Image:Chateau_Beaugency_ballon.jpg
Done! &#8212; Switisweti 21:43, 28 November 2005 (UTC) Thanks! Durova 00:04, 29 November 2005 (UTC)

Joan of Arc
Excellent work! Enjoyed reading the article. deeptrivia (talk) 03:04, 29 November 2005 (UTC)

Hammertime
I just want to direct your attention back to the article Hammertime and the corresponding AfD due to an error on my part, the page you looked at was missing some previous edits and that may affect your voting decision. Thanks. Peyna 19:43, 29 November 2005 (UTC)

Re:Max rspt
Well, he's entitled to his opinion regardless of his apparent POV. He was reported here for performing 4 RR but nothing was done about it, and that was enough to get him to stop reverting so nothing probably would have happened. I have two rules for myself...1)only in the rarest of circumstances will I block for 3RR, 2)I never block anyone I am in disagreement with, but I may report them...in this case someone else did it before I could. I encourage everyone to contribute and if their viewpoint is as outlandish as his, the facts are readily available, even on the net, to usually silence them...I never did see him come up with an academic account that conflicts with the UN definition of terrorist...when I came up with it, he disagreed with it. It is also important to remember to let go of our own POV when working on articles that have such a personal closeness to us. I myself lost a friend at the Pentagon and know of three others in the towers so both of us need to be careful to not let our sentiments interfere with the integrity of an article such as that. But, the bottom line is, the actions of the 19 hijackers clearly fits the definition of terrorism by almost anyone's definition. Let me know if you need anything and I'll do what I can to help.--MONGO 01:42, 30 November 2005 (UTC)

Well, I don't do much editing there at all...just revert vandalism and deal with extremist viewpoints. Nice to meet you and happy editing.--MONGO 02:09, 30 November 2005 (UTC)

École Mondiale World School
I have rewritten the article so that it is a school stub. I believe that there is enough verifiable third-party evidence to warrant a stand-alone article. I would be grateful if you could take a look. Capitalistroadster 19:04, 6 December 2005 (UTC)

Russian architecture
Thanks a lot for your thoughtful comments in response to my RfC at talk:Russian architecture. I anticipate that it will help us resolve the POV dispute, although there's still a little way to go in finding the sweet spot of consensus. Regards. —Michael Z. 2005-12-7 18:08 Z 

Slotted spoon
I don't appreciate your "read the article" comment. I wouldn't have deleted the link to it if I hadn't read it first, and I found that the article you linked to mentions slotted spoons *twice*, both times in one small section. It's entirely about absinthe. (In fact, at this point, the slotted spoon article itself is almost entirely about absinthe, and what's here should just appear in absinthe instead.) I also find your claims that without the absinthe FAQ the page would violate NPOV and the page might be construed as an advertisement for absinthe to be without merit. There's no advocacy anywhere in the article. And this just isn't what NPOV means. I've deleted the link again; it's just not related to the article's topic. | Klaw ¡digame! 06:10, 14 December 2005 (UTC)
 * No personal insult intended. The article does end with a statement about the attractions of absinthe and includes three other absinthe related links, none of which discuss risks. The third is a rather glowing narrative. In my judgment, adding one link that both covers slotted spoon preparation and also says here are the drawbacks is the responsible NPOV approach. If you have a better solution then by all means implement it. I don't agree that a better solution is nothing.Durova 06:35, 14 December 2005 (UTC)
 * I don't see anything in the text of this article that qualifies as NPOV. Explanation does not equal advocacy. Absinthe is often consumed with the use of a slotted spoon; that's an undeniable fact and there is no POV in saying so. Padding the external links section is unnecessary and is likely to confuse the debate over whether slotted spoon deserves its own article. | Klaw ¡digame! 17:14, 14 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Where were you for two days while this was a stub bound for deletion? I locate several references, expand a single sentence into something passable, and you seem to show up just to pick a fight.  Please make productive contributions. Durova 17:28, 14 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Perhaps you should review the guidelines on no personal attacks before you start making baseless claims about "productive contributions." As to your question, I am the one who nominated the page for deletion five minutes after it was created, so I really have no idea what you're talking about. I have already said there's not enough material to turn this into a full article. Adding a graf on absinthe doesn't change that. | Klaw ¡digame! 17:57, 14 December 2005 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure what motivates you, but I'm here to edit and improve an encyclopedia. Apparently you choose not to accept my assurance that no personal insult was ever intended.  You really do seem to be trying to provoke a quarrel.  Let's keep this in perspective: it's a spoon. Durova 19:33, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

Pazhuvil Church
Hi. Just wanted to say thank you for your work on Pazhuvil Church. --Whouk (talk) 21:00, 14 December 2005 (UTC)
 * You're welcome! Durova 21:02, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

EffK is forced to Abandon a Corrupted Wikipedia
I refer you to my response of a few moments ago at 15 December [],http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/EffK/Evidence#3_December_2005 EffK 03:11, 16 December 2005 (UTC)


 * Thankyou for your reply to Arcom place. I am the editor who placed all the history concerning The Great Scandal/Hitler's Pope. This of course touches any thirties Germany Articles. It leads to instant and un-yielding clerical denialism under the guise of steady reserved Str1977. There are in fact a group of users who act in concert against all I source in good faith. I request you to study the actual last diff at Evidence there, and see for yourself how blatant dishonesty, a contradiction by the chief ab-user, Str1977 of himself, corrupts even the Adolf Hitler Article. I suggest to you that this is a digital equivalent of what happened in the thirties. Who will be next ? You need for your own or others' protection to attend to serious revisionist activity. I have, due to the scandalous nature of the real past, attracted all the odium apparently to myself, but this is to be persuaded by the forces of revisionism to go down down the ad hominem alley. I do not see that there would have been any alternative  but to have consistently availed of good faith and reason and caused the disputes everywhere I have been. This will presumably reach Arbcom, and you may see them follow these diffs, at least. I have stopped attempts as they become pure time-wasting, but I still can see and  type .  Thanks ,Durova EffK 10:41, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

Creighton Lovelace
Nice work with the article. FYI, I didn't nominate it, but was just completing the nomination after it had been tagged for speedy by User:Computerjoe. howcheng  [ t &#149; c &#149; w &#149;  e  ] 07:07, 16 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Thank you very much. Durova 07:18, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

Illinois v. Gates
I withdrew it, but no speedy yet because we have 1 delete vote. You'd have to get them to change the vote. --Woohookitty(cat scratches) 17:37, 16 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Thanks, I'll leave a message on their talk. Best wishes. Durova 17:47, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

Vote fixing
Thanks, but please keep in mind that User:Dwain is not the Dwain of the vote fixing. That Dwain is User:Pitchka, who uses his first name as his moniker. User:Dwain is a newbie with only three edits. So far, I've distinguished User:Chooserr and User:Pitchka as the active fixers/spammers. Perhaps there are more, but most of the keep (the category)/delete (the article) voters seem to be only followers of their "advice". This is unfortunately definitely something to keep an eye out for. Aecis praatpaal 21:23, 16 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Thanks, I'll alter my statement. Durova 21:26, 16 December 2005 (UTC)
 * I have now brought the case to the attention of the administrators. Aecis praatpaal 01:54, 17 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Thank you very much. Durova 02:01, 17 December 2005 (UTC)

Thank you
I left a similar message to Aecis. I want to echo my thanks to you regarding the civil and respectful tone on the CfD. We may disagree, but I feel that your statements were made in good faith and I do respect them. I have my opinions on things, but it's important to me to be a good Wikipedian. I look forward to working with you in the future. --Elliskev 02:06, 17 December 2005 (UTC)

About maintained
Hey Durova, I was wondering if you had any opinions on the Maintained, see Template_talk:Maintained and discussion on Templates_for_deletion. If you do, I for one would be keen to hear them. Best regards, Pete.Hurd 18:57, 18 December 2005 (UTC)

Eras
Durova, hi.

Is there any way I can persuade you to express your opinions at Wikipedia talk:Eras? The polling format is fine for informal information gathering, but I'm really trying to avoid it turning into an AfD style "vote". I would love to be involved in a discussion with you, but that's not really happening in little columns labelled "support" and "oppose". Let's start talk page sections about various proposals and discuss them. Please. -GTBacchus(talk) 02:13, 20 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Sure, thanks for the link. Durova 02:21, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

Answered
Hi-, I answered you more fully where you posted. You have no need to reply, but just so as you'd know. Anyway, someone here explains all : EffK 10:40, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

Hitler's Pope and Great Scandal
I have read your exchange with Effk and partly agree and partly disagree. Some background is in order

I came to the Hitler's Pope article in July in response to Str1977's request for an outside opinion. I largely agree with Cornwell as to his criticism of Pope Pius XII. I tried to mostly agree with EffK on content and disagree with Str1977 on content. Unfortunately, I found it impossible to be on the side of Famekeeper/EffK. His writing is often very difficult to understand. He also does not appear to understand the difference between POV and NPOV. That is, if Cornwell concludes that Pius XII was focused too much on papal authority and not enough on the Jews, he thinks that is can be stated as fact because it is stated by a scholar. He also engaged in extremely long posts on article talk pages that were not directly related to article content, such as a repeated demand that Popes Pius XI and Pius XII be dug up from their graves to stand trial posthumously. He also engages in personal attacks, calling any content disagreement "censorship", accusing other editors of bad faith, or even "being an agent of the Vatican". (He appears to think that all editors who are observant Catholics are acting as agents of the Vatican. I know that the Vatican does not pay me.  I know that I do pay it voluntarily once a year.)  I agree that criticisms of the Catholic Church with respect to Nazi Germany, presented as respected opinions, need to be given more focus. However, he is not the editor who is capable of providing that balance. I infer that you very likely are.

After repeatedly trying to deal with Famekeeper/EffK, I concluded that he was a disruptive editor, and had to file an RfC against him. Then he posted a very strange post to Jimbo Wales, who in turn said that he appeared to be the sort of editor as would probably be banned soon, and advised him to leave Wikipedia. Then he returned, and resumed insulting his opponents, and I had to request arbitration against him.

Maybe when the ArbCom closes the case against him, so that he is no longer disrupting articles on Nazism and the Catholic Church, you or other historians may be able to provide the balance. Robert McClenon 23:42, 20 December 2005 (UTC)


 * First, I agree with you that Joan of Arc was not a girl at war. She fought as a woman and died as a woman.


 * Second, I just sort of wanted to express frustration at how difficult it is to work with EffK. He apparently would not make any distinction between willed evil (e.g., Hitler), and complicity in evil, and errors of moral judgment having the effect of advancing evil.  I tried to argue that Catholic leaders had made serious errors in judgment in underestimating the maliciousness of the Nazis, but that they had not knowingly cooperated in the Holocaust.  I don't think he understood that distinction.  Also, he seems to think that presenting a timeline of events establishes causation.  Also, I was in the very awkward position of being an editor who wants to allow the presentation of unfavorable descriptions of actions by leaders of his Church while insisting on standards of scholarship.  Thank you for listening. Robert McClenon 00:42, 21 December 2005 (UTC)


 * I elswhwere rejected this user's barren insinuations and charges .The shortest way to put it is to tell you that if they accept anything, and they don't judgeing by Sr1977 at my 15 Dec diffs -It is that there is an absolute cut-off in quid pro quo / kick-back before 9 April.(Papen's arrival in the Vatican) . Of course this ignores copious source concerning the 23 Hitler accomodation u-turn, the Fulda conference u-turn, the Kaas private meeting of the 2 April, my source from the Saar, Mowrer, Klemens von Klemperer, even Shirer !  All before 9 April has to be my pet theory. This is the line beyond which they will not go , or allow us to go.


 * You will get a lot of soft soap and insinuations, but it is too late to continue this denialism . As to HPope, where I also answered you (and this user), I have lots of experience of being told the thing is off-topic, so going along with the line re Pius XII, does not of itself solve the problem of the Great Scandal, which touches a plethora of articles (or rather is not allowed to so do)and anyway starts with Pius XI . Sorry.

EffK 09:02, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

AfD: Saint Petersburg Democratic Club
Thanks for your input on the AfD page. I have responded to your comment there. I'd be glad to read any other thoughts you have in light of that information. ALC Washington 05:29, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

Forward-looking statement
Hello. When you have a minute, could you explain why you tagged this as a nonsense speedy? Thanks -- JJay 18:33, 23 December 2005 (UTC)


 * I posted my Google search results to the talk page. User:Dzonatas created this page and three templates last night as a result of a discussion about copyediting Joan of Arc.


 * He asserts that the United States Securities and Exchange Act of 1934 is a usage guideline for medieval history articles. "Forward-looking statement" is not a linguistics term. To toss this together with "gerund" and assert it has anything to do with centuries-old subjects is WP:Complete Bollocks. The term has a very narrow technical application in United States financial law. Either this editor is very confused or it's a deliberate attempt to snow people. Durova 18:56, 23 December 2005 (UTC)

Thanks for your response. Whatever problem you might have regarding Joan of Arc, the forward looking statement article does not mention French history, medieval history or anyone named Joan. It seems to be focused on the term "forward looking statement", which incidentally gets around 1 million google hits and is used, as you know, by every listed company in the United States. It is a good attempt to explain forward looking statement and should be expanded. Tagging it as a nonsense speedy is plainly wrong. If you are that opposed to this article, for whatever reason, please follow procedure and take it to AfD. Thanks. -- JJay 19:10, 23 December 2005 (UTC)


 * What's this? You advise me to submit this for regular deletion and then accuse me of bad faith for following your advice. Durova 19:53, 23 December 2005 (UTC)

Please reread my comments above. Particularly where I say it is a "good attempt" that "should be expanded". Did you really believe I was advising the deletion of the article? I believe you are in some kind of edit war over an unrelated article. That may have influenced your judgement and reaction to forward looking statement. In no case should it have led to a speedy tag. I was advising you to follow procedure, but I question the motivation and therefore the necessity for the course of action you have embarked upon. -- JJay 20:01, 23 December 2005 (UTC)

Redundant Categories
Hello. I noticed that you reinserted the category link for Women in war into the Nadezhda Durova article. While Nadezhda Durovna of course a woman in war, she is already in the Women in war subcategory of Female wartime crossdressers, and hence it is considered redundant to place her in the Women in war category as well. I myself made a similiar mistake regarding the category Native American people and its subcategory of Native American leaders, and was informed of my error by another Wikipedian. I just wanted to let you know why I'm changing it back to the way it was. -User:Asarelah

Thou shalt not give Hitler posthumous victories.
This is a stupendous job on an incredibly important topic. I'm amazed you could throw something together like this in one day. I wish I had the knowledge to contribute to this article, but I don't. Whatever you may think of me based on our recent encounter, I was right out in front supporting the article in the AfD (nominating this was of course a ridiculous mistake and should be withdrawn). -- JJay 15:44, 25 December 2005 (UTC)

Six bored teenagers?
Heya, quick question on a phrase you used in the Conlangs Straw Poll section. Is the "six bored teenagers" phrase something you came up with? It looks to me like it's the same idea as Wikipedia is not for things made up in school one day, but I like your phrasing better - it's shorter and can be nicely abbreviated as 6BT. So before I add it as a quote, I wanted to make sure I had its genesis correct. Thanks and happy holidays. | Klaw ¡digame! 16:06, 25 December 2005 (UTC)


 * I thought it was so clever - a concise way of summing up a huge class of articles that look encyclopedic but absolutely don't belong here. I haven't seen the phrase elsewhere, but I used it myself on a current AfD (Articles_for_deletion/Anticurro) that reminded me of your phrase. So at the least, I'll be doing my best to popularize it. I think "6BT" would be a great shorthand for use in CSD and AfD nominations. If I have time, I'll put up a Wikipedia: page on it. | Klaw ¡digame! 23:53, 25 December 2005 (UTC)


 * How sweet! I'm flattered. Durova 23:57, 25 December 2005 (UTC)

Condoms
I guess I see where you are coming from as to your edits on the condoms page. I probably rambled in my attempt of making it NPOV, but since the information is sound or at least a medical worry to some extent I will re-word, if it's alright by you, and add the information so it talks of Condoms. Chooserr 00:02, 26 December 2005 (UTC)

Move
It's nt that I didn't like them. I'm just poitning that copy-n-paste is NOT the way to perform moves since that doesn't preserves the article history which is needed for GFDL complaince. I thought it was a copy-and-paste move and as I mentioned in the page, I could be wrong and I accept my mistakes. On the other hand, ot'd be best if we wait for the afd to be closed, since then people coming at the new article will not be sent to the afd discussion -- ( drini's page &#x260E;  ) 07:02, 26 December 2005 (UTC)

Jewish court
Lets take the issue of "Thou shalt not give Hitler posthumous victories" to a Jewish court, so we can get law final law. Nor you or I have got dayoness (the right to be able to judge a Jewish law) it is the only way we can solve this. 220.233.48.200 09:47, 26 December 2005 (UTC)


 * Perhaps you have mistaken my intention? I'm really not advocating either side.  I'd like to present both points of view fairly and neutrally.  You could help by naming and citing an authoritative voice for your position. Durova 02:31, 28 December 2005 (UTC)


 * http://jewishcontent.org/general/daily-rambam/329.htm The Rambam 220.233.48.200 21:29, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

Joan of Arc debate
Well, I might get involved if the other side were reasonable, but just take a look at Rei's most recent response to you: instead of addressing your point that the footnote numbering is all out of sequence (12, 13, 11, 12, 12, 12, 14, etc) and some of them lead to the wrong citation, Rei instead responded by picking out one of the few functional footnotes and reporting that it works for her (well yes, that one works for everyone - that was never in dispute). Dzonatas, for his part, wants to insert a tortured version of English while claiming that he's "improving" the grammar. Like many discussions at Wikipedia, this is likely a senseless debate. I'm going to ask Jossi to unlock the article so this stuff can at least be reverted again.

creating articles in a low profile
I kept thinking last night about your comment you didn't want to attract attention to the article until you've written it good enough. Here's a trick. You can start creating the article as a subpage of your user page, as in User:Durova/A new article and work on it. Since it's on your userpage, most people won't care enough. Once it's goog enough, you then move it to the proper title on mainspace (using the "move" button on top of pages, if need assistance as for sysop help).

There's just one thing to keep in mind, as you'll put a lot of personal efort on article, don't take it in a personal way when others start changing and editing your article when it goes to mainspace. Hope my advice helps. -- ( drini's page &#x260E;  ) 17:29, 26 December 2005 (UTC)

Joan of arc problem
Hello, I couldn't answer before to your request because of a computer crash I had.

From what I see, the best should be try to talk again to the editor who messes with the footnotes. If this doesn't work, you should list in Request for comment or maybe list the user (but this should be a further step).

Any question? --Neigel von Teighen 19:12, 27 December 2005 (UTC)


 * Hi, thanks. I think that problem has worked itself out.  We might go to a request for comment over other issues. Durova 02:29, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

Gaming the system?
I'm baffled by your statement that the merge attempt for Brian Chase is an attempt to "game the system". Would you care to comment at Talk:Brian_Chase_%28Wikipedia_hoaxer%29? I appreciate any more input you care to give. Friday (talk) 17:21, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

Skull symbolism
Hi Durova, you dropped by the Skull (symbolism) page the other day. I wondered if you'd mind helping us to resolve the current dispute and tell me if I'm being unreasonable, particularly at Talk:Skull (symbolism). Would be really grateful if you could lend a hand. Soo 12:35, 1 January 2006 (UTC)

Would you spare 5 minutes?
Could you read these two diffs, Durova, please.I requested help from anyone concerned with humanities at the h. reference desk, and on the village pump to assist here where the problem is most apparent[],http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Pope_Pius_XII#Visible_1_1_2006_Impossibility_of_a_Serious_Article and to consider the a.r.t./''article resolution template I suggested here at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Vatican_Bank#WP__Article_resolution_template. The template is not a template in the wiki form but more in the general working sense. Thanks and sorry to have to ask .I am still no more than an  observer, as before this  gets solved or the 'a.r.t. accepted anything else is one step forward and pushed two steps back. HNYr EffK 02:04, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

Virago
please consider this Slrubenstein  |  Talk 23:21, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

Hitler's Pope
Dear Durova. I just wanted to inform you that today someone has removed the NPOV-tag you place on this article some time ago, saying the tagging were not explained on the talk page. TC, Str1977 15:21, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

Jewish lists-do they pose a risk?
Hi Durova. I have had a think about this and really it seems if you want to find out if someone is Jewish it only takes a few seconds on google so I don't think whether Wikipedia lists people or not is going to make any difference. This may not be the case for some academics or minor journalists who are not really famous but maybe they shouldn't be in Wikipedia anyway. Arniep 02:40, 6 January 2006 (UTC)
 * I suppose one issue is if one goes delving into grandparents etc. (often mentioned in biographies), which may "reveal" people to be of Jewish ancestry where this was not commonly known. As I said previously I think maybe we should just use the parent rule for Jews. Cheers Arniep 02:44, 6 January 2006 (UTC)
 * isn't there a similar risk in having lists of gay people, muslim people etc? Arniep 14:01, 6 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Durova I have made a statement here which I think sums up the problem Wikipedia_talk:Centralized_discussion/Lists_by_religion-ethnicity_and_profession. Arniep 14:31, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

Mythology
Thank you for your observations on Talk:Mythology. I've left a message there asking you to expand your comments; please take a look. Cheers. JHCC (talk) 13:56, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

proposed move of Yom Kippur War
You comment supporting the move of this article was placed outside the "voting" section, so it is likely to be ignored when the poll is closed. I thank you for your support of Wikipedia's NPOV policy in the face of populism. If you choose to move, copy, or otherwise repeat your comment in the voting section, it would be appreciated. Un focused  14:37, 6 January 2006 (UTC)


 * Hi Durova, may I ask you to please reconsider your vote. This most common name was chosen not because "one side from this conflict celebrates Yom Kippur" but to reflect the fact that the date was intentionally chosen by Egypt and Syria to jointly attack the Jewish state on the holiest day of the Jewish calendar in order to catch the Jewish defenses off guard. Regards. &larr;Humus sapiens&larr;ну? 22:50, 6 January 2006 (UTC)


 * I appreciate you deliberating this. First, YKW is the most commonly used name by mainstream historians, so it would be in line with WP:NC. It is not up to us WPians to rename the Hundred Years' War simply because it did not last for 100 years.
 * Second, I am not very familiar with the history of Vietnam War. Here we should consider who was the attacking side. In this case, it was not the Muslims who were attacked when their defense was the weakest. The choice of the Jewish holiest day was an important part of the warplan: the IDF in big part consists of reservists (think logistics), and indeed worked for a while. I totally understand that the attacking side wants to hide this ungentlemanly behavior. Thanks. &larr;Humus sapiens&larr;ну? 00:35, 7 January 2006 (UTC)


 * You may try Google test to see what I was unable to convey. In any case, I respect your opinion but let's agree to disagree on this. &larr;Humus sapiens&larr;ну? 11:36, 8 January 2006 (UTC)
 * How does your comment relate to the above? Google test of what? Durova 15:16, 8 January 2006 (UTC)


 * Oops, I am awfully sorry, I posted my comment to a wrong section. This is where it belongs. Cheers. &larr;Humus sapiens&larr;ну? 06:46, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

Question on your original proposal
Hi, I just noticed it said "(revised addition) Editors may wish to add notes or subcategories for individuals whose presence on a list carries ambiguities", which led me to think - you are aware that currently all of the Jewish lists have these notes? (I.e. "Jewish father, raised Christian" where appropriate or "Jewish paternal grandfather; raised Jewish", see for example List of Jewish actors and actresses). A lot of the other ethnic lists also have these, and I have been a vocal supporter and insister that these be there, otherwise the lists are grossly misleading. You may already know of all this, but if you didn't I'm sure this majorly changes the discussion. Also, you're probably right about the Cherokee thing. I've seen a couple of interviews with celebs who have distant Cherokee rooks, where they highlighted those roots. Vulturell 09:14, 7 January 2006 (UTC)


 * Relevance categories and notes apply to any list where relevance needs to be established. Some religions and ethnic groups could also use membership notes.  It's good to see Jewish lists attempting this.  That's only one small part of the broader picture.


 * To offer an example of how the Jewish lists could also improve, see List of Jewish American photographers where only three names have any note and these carry the disputed descriptor "half Jewish." An introduction could offer guidelines for how and when to annotate an addition.  It would be useful to a researcher if Heading A listed photographers who documented Jewish life and culture, Heading B listed those who made professional sacrifices for their religious observations, and Heading C named the first Jews to make certain notable contributions to the field: the first National Geographic photographer, the first to win the Pulitzer Prize in photojournalism, the first full professor at a famous art school.  Ideally the list could convert to a table format and convert the relevance types into columns. Durova 10:26, 7 January 2006 (UTC)

Admin present
I refer you to Tom Harrison at Pius XII talk. I second that protestantism shjould be reprted, but evidently to do so would require that the enire overall be based at Nazi Accession Question. Neither Pius XII nor HP to them relate other than thru Adolf Hitler/Germany. Possibly rename Hitler and the Church to Hitler and the Churches. Anyway all those same guys have entered and your view is apposite. I have to repeat that I don't want a merge to be a means to excise and accept dominance of un-sourced attitude. I refer you to sourced statements I brought there, and very particularly to that of Cardinal Primate Bertram made 19 March prior to 23 EAct and 28 Fulda conference. In fact to all, such as the confirmation by the late pontiff of the term scandal itself. I place all such there, or wherever such that other editors can complete tasks I may be unable for. I am openly prepared to sacrifice my userdom for the balance of history to be reported. This is a heavy responsibility to all involved. Thanks EffK 13:26, 7 January 2006 (UTC)

Risks
Hi, Kinneyboy made a very good point in the discussion that Americans are also endangered due to current circumstances in muslim countries. I don't think anyone has suggested removing American lists. Cheers Arniep 10:05, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
 * That's really a red herring. I haven't proposed removing any lists on the grounds of personal danger.  United States citizens reveal their citizenship whenever they show their passport. Durova 12:45, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

Centralized discussion
If you wish, we can resume our discussion reagrding your question at Wikipedia_talk:Centralized_discussion/Lists_by_religion-ethnicity_and_profession.Regards, Pecher 22:07, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

My RfA
Hi, can you look into my Requests for adminship/Alex Bakharev? I got somehow more Oppose votes as I was expecting. We worked together on Nadezhda Durova article, did I really such a staunch Russian nationalist as my opposition claim? abakharev 04:36, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
 * I have no idea about any controversy surrounding you, but you definitely get my vote. It's already on the page.  Cheers, Durova 04:48, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

List of notable brain tumor patients
I thought the page header said Featured article candidates not featured lists. I went out and ate, came back, realized my mistake, removed my oppose, and apologized. That's what happens when you are in a rush and try to post something quickly. I again sincerely apologize to you as it was not my intention to oppose lists in general. :)-- SusanLarson (User Talk, New talk, Contribs) 00:32, 12 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Not a problem. Thank you for explaining.  Regards, Durova 00:34, 12 January 2006 (UTC)