User talk:Durova

Barnstar

Just have a look at your barnstar... — HAJARS 11:18, 30 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Mediation and opposition

Your request seems alright to me. I'm sure some mediator will pick it up. — HAJARS 16:01, 30 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

See my respons at my talk page. — HAJARS 18:21, 30 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Re: New Entry

See my Talk. — Switisweti 11:53, 12 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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 Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style's citation guide Wikipedia:Cite_sources. Best regards, Pete.Hurd 18:03, 12 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Be my guest. Either is fine with me as long as it's consistent. Durova 18:08, 12 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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. — Switisweti 01:51, 19 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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))[reply]

See above. Durova 17:47, 23 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

Nice article, thanks. I will add images when uploads are enabled. --Ghirlandajo 15:18, 22 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Your article inspired me to start Hussar Ballad, which article you are welcome to expand. --Ghirlandajo 13:04, 23 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I wish I could. I've never seen it. Best wishes with the article. Durova 13:08, 23 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]
  - 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)[reply]

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)[reply]

As long as it's NPOV, sure. Durova 09:18, 23 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

DYK

Did you know? has been updated. A fact from the article Nadezhda Durova, which you recently created, has been featured in that section on the Main Page. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the "Did you know?" talk page.

Congratulations! :-D — Switisweti 00:02, 25 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

Of course. I should have thought of that. Thank you. Durova 21:19, 24 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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 — 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. — Switisweti 02:25, 26 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

It appears this user is even more obsessed with Jewish lists than I thought, this ip Special:Contributions/72.144.161.73 nominated Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Log/2005_November_18#List_of_Jewish_jurists 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)[reply]

please see my comment at: Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Log/2005_November_26#List_of_Jewish_Americans. Arniep 02:51, 27 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Not unhappy at all

Hi. Thanks for your support at Talk:Het land van (song)#Copyright on lyrics?. — Switisweti 00:32, 30 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

Image:Chateau_Beaugency_ballon.jpg

Done!

— Switisweti 21:43, 28 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! Durova 00:04, 29 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Joan of Arc

Excellent work! Enjoyed reading the article. deeptrivia (talk) 03:04, 29 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]