User talk:Durova/Archive 47

WP:IPCOLL low tension article

Hi Durova. I got rid of the tongue in cheek intro as you suggested. Just posted a list of potential low tension articles. I can come up w/more candidates, well - maybe, if you tell me what you might be looking for. Thanks. HG | Talk 08:49, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

Durova, greetings. It seems to me that the best chance of getting a low-tension article effort underway would be if you spearhead the effort. It seems unlikely that we'll get folks to put up candidates and make choice anytime soon, it would be much simpler and effective if, just as you did with Palestinian costumes, you choose an article and spearhead the effort. (I can keep suggesting options until you find one you like. I'll pitch in myself and make an effort to invite various involved parties.)

I hope you're willing to give this another try, especially since you helped get so much improvement on Costumes. Alternatively, perhaps we could go with one of the more tense situations, as Tiamut suggested. While you said that you wouldn't contribute as much content, just having you there for basic editing and work on images, etc., would be a good model and might loosen things up more than you might imagine. Thanks, I know you're busy, and I appreciate your giving this consideration.

PS. In terms of the restored pottery image (userbox/barnstar), will you be working on it? Not my forte, I'm afraid, but let me know if I can help out. Thanks again very much, HG | Talk 16:48, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

fyi sent you email about the pottery image contact info. Thanks. HG | Talk 17:21, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

Well, we're here to work with both cultures. After getting a FP and a GA candidate for the Palestinian project it's time to do more for the Israelis. I've been working with Jaakobou toward an article about Biblical clothing laws. Our aim is to make it a DYK so it won't go live until it's nearly ready. Also I've had my eye on 613 Mitzvot, which could become a featured list if the introduction were better written and referenced. Durova^Charge! 19:57, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

Greetings again. Haven't got much response on the polling for a low (or high) tension article. Still, there seems to be a budding interest in Israeli-Palestinian conflict. I wrote you a note on the IPCOLL Talk. Maybe we could set it up in some way, where a few of us try to resolve the live dispute -- yet encourage other project members to drop by and do low-tension improvements? Just an idea. Pls respond on the project Talk page when you have a chance. Be well, HG | Talk 23:16, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

Let's move with this organically. Durova^Charge! 23:20, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

Troubles

jc37 has requested some help on a recurrent issue, and with your previous involvement with the problem, I was hoping you might help him out. If you didn't have anything to do with this, then my apologies. Octane ^{[improve me]} 21.01.08 0854 (UTC)

Ah, I see. Sad case. He's welcome to e-mail me if he wants. But really, it seems like he's made his choices and decided not to adjust. I wish him well. Thanks for touching bases with me. Durova^Charge! 09:08, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

Re: Image

Regarding your vote from Cape St. Vincent image, that is not an image of earth, it's actually an image of Mars. - Ohmpandya ^{We need to talk... ♦ contribs} 17:49, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

Show me? Durova^Charge! 19:41, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

Ok. Look at the alternative image # 1. I have never seen that on earth last time I checked! If you have, please take me there :). Also, please reconsider if you like on Alternative 1. - Ohmpandya ^{We need to talk... ♦ contribs} 15:23, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/San Francisco, 1851

Your Featured picture candidate has been promoted Your nomination for featured picture status, Image:SanFrancisco1851a.jpg, gained a consensus of support, and has been promoted. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates. jjron (talk) 16:35, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

Nice edit job too, but you only get one of these; I've credited your edits on the FP page though. --jjron (talk) 16:35, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

Thank you. :) Durova^Charge! 18:49, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

Thanks

Hey, just wanted to say thanks for all the work you've been doing on the WW2 FPCs. I really like what you have been submitting. Keep up the good work! Clegs (talk) 18:06, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

Thank you very much. I've got another possible nominee in the works right now, could I ask for your feedback on it before PPR? Durova^Charge! 18:50, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

Triple Crown Race Entrant!

Oh wow...just remembered this. Here goes;

• FA: I Don't Remember (FAC)
• GA: Black Tears
• DYK: Nambour State High School (Jan 14)

Dihydrogen Monoxide (party) 03:16, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

Felbrigge Psalter DYK

On 22 January, 2008, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Felbrigge Psalter, which you created or substantially expanded. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

--BorgQueen (talk) 13:53, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

Thank you. :) Durova^Charge! 18:40, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Portal peer review/Textile Arts/archive1

I have given a peer review for Portal:Textile Arts. I laid out five key points, using examples from five currently Featured Portals. Hope that helps, Cirt (talk) 23:33, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

IRC

I think you have made a wise decision in respect of this. I also suspect that Jimbo's reaction was instinctual rather than reasoned; it's hard to fault anyone for being insulted when they've been called arsehole and worse - and I am quite sure that plenty worse has been said there. What I find saddest of all is that the problems seem to bubble up mostly in the admins channel, where one might expect a higher degree of decorum. Although heaven only knows why. Well, we can continue to avoid IRC together. Risker (talk) 07:32, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

It's the nature of the beast, I think: real time communications are more prone to see things that - on wiki - a reasonable person would leave on the screen, walk away from the computer for a glass of water, and then not send. Add to that a leakyish channel and a perception of power, and periodic to-dos are just about inevitable. A similar dynamic probably operates on other channels, but minus the perception of power nobody much cares. More often I've felt foolish by standing on principle about that, but in this particular arbitration it's been a huge relief. Durova^Charge! 07:46, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

Triple Crown awards

Hey, just curious if you're not awarding triple crowns at the moment, as I've had a request present for about a week and a half. By all means, I'm not faulting you, I'm simply curious as to whether there's a reason or extenuating circumstances. Cheers, Sephiroth BCR ^(Converse) 07:49, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

Sorry about the delay. I'll have it out shortly. Durova^Charge! 08:24, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

No problem at all. I was simply satiating my curiosity. Cheers, Sephiroth BCR ^(Converse) 08:29, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

The Miroir or Glasse of the Synneful Soul

On 23 January, 2008, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article The Miroir or Glasse of the Synneful Soul, which you created or substantially expanded. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

--BorgQueen (talk) 15:50, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

Thank you. :) Durova^Charge! 18:38, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

It's not always about you

As per your original answer to a question that wasn't posed to you. El_C 07:53, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

Obviously there were parts of her complaint that I couldn't address. Phil Sandler had been responsive to my input before. It's possible to try to do some good without imagining oneself the center of attention. It's dismaying to see the way you phrase this title. Please adjust it to something in better faith. Durova^Charge! 08:30, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

Face it, your record of interaction with Bishonen's friends is, infamously, bleak. El_C 08:31, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

Various featured picture candidacies

Your Featured picture candidate has been promoted Your nomination for featured picture status, Image:AlfredPalmerM3tank1942b.jpg, gained a consensus of support, and has been promoted. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates. MER-C 03:41, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

Your Featured picture candidate has been promoted Your nomination for featured picture status, Image:Waldenburg1945edit.jpg, gained a consensus of support, and has been promoted. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates. MER-C 03:41, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

Congrats! I'll keep my eyes open for any other possible candidates. BrokenSphere^{Msg me} 06:31, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

You too; you found it. Please do keep your eyes open. :) Durova^Charge! 06:39, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

Your Mentoree

Hi Durova,

Are you still mentoring User:Jaakobou? If so, you might want to to have a look at some of the recent discussions he's started (if not for WP:AGF, I'd assume he's picking fights) on Talk:Israeli-Palestinian conflict, namely here and here.

I was going to wait for one more discussion to take it to WP:AE for an opinion, but I thought maybe I should give you a heads-up first.

Cheers, pedro gonnet - talk - 25.01.2008 07:52

Hi, yes I'm mentoring him. I've made a comment at the second thread. Regarding the first one, please bear in mind that I don't claim expertise on content issues. May I suggest that the first discussion is a little bit "hot" and that turning the temperature down would be a good thing? Thanks, Durova^Charge! 08:02, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

Hi Durova, thanks for your input! I was a bit upset about the casualty figures issue since the issue had been discussed on that same talk page over a period of weeks, namely here, here, here and again here. Considering User:Jaakobou's interest in the article, it is hard for me to believe that he could have missed them. In any case, I will try to tone-down the discussion.

Cheers and again, thanks pedro gonnet - talk - 25.01.2008 08:26

Well, it looks like you've made a fair effort to discuss this. Next time I talk to Jaakobou I'll show him those diffs. Thank you for your help. Durova^Charge! 08:34, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

User:Jaakobou's understanding of mentorship clearly includes demands that the mentee be challenged over particular edits he has made - eg these demands.

And it might appear to be time that you challenged Jaakobou, over some of his activities concerning WP:UNDUE, WP:BLP and WP:FRINGE, particularly with regards to Saeb Erekat. Or concerning his relationship to the edits of User:MouseWarrior and User:Paul_T._Evans. PR^talk 23:37, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

I offered to mentor Jaakobou on specific terms that I defined and he accepted. There might someday be an angle of Israeli-Palestinian issues where I do feel knowledgeable enough to step forward as you request, because I'm not entirely ignorant, but bear in mind that I live on the other side of the world. The big news over here this week is whether several respected museums were heavily involved in an art theft ring. We have perennial debates about people who die of exposure in the desert as they try to cross the border, or whether langostino can be sold as lobster. I don't ask you to weigh in on whether the economic interests of Maine fishermen should take precedence over a different imported Mexican species because, in all likelihood, you would be as much at sea as I would be if I attempted to fulfill your request. Previous opinions you believe Jaakobou to have held about other mentors whose talents and skills were different from mine really aren't binding upon my mentorship. I have never agreed to such terms, nor has anyone but you suggested them. Durova^Charge! 00:08, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

My attempt at assuming good faith

Being as perplexed as you, I'm having a hard time trying to imagine what sort of weird scenario would have to exist for this situation to arise as it has, assuming good faith of the arbcomm members involved. I started with a list of about a dozen scenarios. Upon carefully considering all of them, these are the situations where I believe I am assuming the greatest possible amount of good faith:

1. Arbcomm members cannot understand what has happened because they are too busy to read the RfC or they somehow had a problem understanding what the people responding to the RfC were saying.
2. There is dramatic evidence that arbcomm members are privvy to that they have not shared with the rest of us because of foundation issues.
3. The arbcomm members truly believe the community to be wrong in this instance and are trying to gently lead us away from the path to certain destruction.

This is me assuming the greatest amount of good faith that I can find with as much bending-over-backwards as I can muster. In each of these situations, I'm assuming that arbcomm members are acting with the best of intentions, but in each of these scenarios I'm still left with a poor evaluation of the arbcomm members in question. If 1 is the explanation then we probably should get rid of the arbcomm members in question since they are either too overworked to be able to make reasonable decisions or they simply don't understand what's going on. If 2 is the explanation then there should at least be some indication that this is going on. An appeal to WP:OFFICE could be made or an arbcomm member could mention e-mails or the like that indicate to the community that there are issues that could not have been addressed by the RfC. Assuming this is the case, then there has been a dramatic misstep on the part of arbcomm members and they owe the community an explanation at the very least. Having not provided one in a timely fashion seems almost inexcusable. If 3 is the explanation then arbcomm has inappropriately expanded its mandate and deserves censure. Is there any other explanation I'm missing here? Because I'm really trying very hard to assume good faith and this is all I can come up with.

ScienceApologist (talk) 09:35, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

For the Committee's sake, I hope option two; for Adam's, I hope anything else. There's a comment at the bottom of the proposed decision page, but it stops a long way short of explaining why they paused for a month for the community to give feedback, then acted this way. Durova^Charge! 09:52, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

If you're talking about User:FT2's comment, I can only say that this only really makes sense if option 3 is correct. If we assume that 2 is correct due to the cryptic mention that Adam wants to be desysopped for six months, then we're put in a very weird situation which requires me to assume an extreme amount of bad faith on Adam's part. It would entail Adam saying one thing on Wikipedia pages -- including, quixotically, asking for help from ANI -- but saying something else entirely when privately discussing the matter with the arbcomm members. If this is the case, then Adam should be banned for disrupting Wikipedia to make a point. Yikes! I have interacted with Adam enough to know that he doesn't do this kind of thing. So, in order to minimize the amount of bad faith in total (I'm being utilitarian here) I must assume that FT2 is really telling us that option 3 is what is going on. Is my analysis incorrect? ScienceApologist (talk) 10:11, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

For what it is worth, Adam has indicated that he has been e-mailing the committee about certain wider issues (ie. private issues similar to option 2). These issues were briefly raised before. I don't want to go into details (Adam has e-mailed me about this before), but that might be what has resulted in the ArbCom going in this direction. I would say a combination of 2 and 3. Option 1 is also possible if you look at the sheer volume of pages to read concerning arbitration cases. Go to all the open arbitration cases and try and read them all. Include the open requests, and the arbcom mailing list (which gets requests for unblocks as well), and they have a lot of work. Not an excuse, but just a reminder of the workload. I suggest e-mailing Adam to offer your support. It would probably help. Carcharoth (talk) 11:30, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

Carcharoth, I'm well aware of their workload. Being an arbitrator may be the toughest assignment at this site. That's one reason why I wonder they increased their load by taking on this experimental case in lieu of normal dispute resolution, about an old block on an account that had hardly ever been active in two years. Nobody forced this upon them, and it would even reasonable for them to conclude that the experiment failed and to close the case without prejudice. A lot of people put a lot of time into that RFC at the Committee's invitation, believing that their opinions were valued. If the Committee has relevant information that the community doesn't have, then it would be a relief at least to get a signal that there's more to this case than there appears. I trust the Committee to weigh confidential evidence. But frankly, I don't like what this appears to be. Have you ever talked to someone who asked you a question, then interrupted your answer in order to contradict you? It's rude. Durova^Charge! 11:42, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

About the last bit, you mean ArbCom interrupting the "answer" of the RfC? Well, there was a deadline and that passed. No need for the RfC to drag on. As you are in contact with Adam, ask him what I mean by "other issues" here. It maybe that I am missing the point entirely, and the ArbCom aren't responding to that, but I can't expect them to confirm any of this. What they can do is confirm this to Adam privately, and indicate more clearly that private correspondence impacted on the decision. Carcharoth (talk) 11:47, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

Actually what I mean is they interrupted the arbitration case in order to run the RFC that ought to have preceeded RFAR. Given the point things had reached by that time, I think they were right to put the case on hold for that purpose. What surprises me (and I suppose other people) is how little it seems to have mattered. Durova^Charge! 20:32, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

The blocking admin

I noticed no one had posted a follow-up to Alison's note at David's talk page. It's possible he hasn't logged on since the AN thread heated up. Probably we've all been surprised occasionally to see a flareup after we took a day off. Let's assume good faith. I've urged him to drop by the noticeboard as soon as he's back online. Durova^Charge! 07:01, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

I would be surprised if Gerard comments on the issue. The entire affair has been a huge black eye for him, Jimbo, the project, and a great many other editors, me and you included. I don't believe the entire truth of the matter has come out yet. Hopefully it will eventually for the sake of all concerned. Cla68 (talk) 14:30, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

Well, I hope my good faith in David Gerard proves to be well founded and he addresses the concerns as soon as he comes online. Likewise, if you really want to help this editor, you might steer him in a more productive direction? There's another editor banned from en:Wikipedia I've been working with who's making positive contributions to another WMF project. None of us are perfect. Let's move forward as best we can. Durova^Charge! 20:27, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

Triple crown assistant

Sure, what would I have to do? First off, instead of combing through your talk page, I think it would be easier if all of the requests were in one subpage somewhere. (Could be your own user space, or project space, but either way it'd be easier if they were in one location.) Cirt (talk) 15:08, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

A subpage would be fine. Durova^Charge! 20:21, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

Okay, can I be WP:BOLD and start moving the nomination requests from your user talk page to User:Durova/Triple crown winner's circle/Nominations ? Cirt (talk) 21:54, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

Sure. Thank you. Durova^Charge! 22:26, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

User:Durova/Triple crown winner's circle/Nominations

• Please see the subpage. I did not move the nominations on your talk page for "The Great Triple Crown Race of 2008", because I wasn't exactly sure on the formatting/process of exactly how that is working, so probably best for that to stay on your talk page. (It'll be over soon anyways, and won't be a regular part of the process at any rate, at least, not perhaps til next year.) I also may have missed some requests from your talk page that I didn't catch. Cheers, Cirt (talk) 02:31, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

Another idea

• If you could create subpages in your userspace (perhaps User:Durova/Triple crown, User:Durova/Imperial triple crown, User:Durova/Imperial Napoleonic triple crown, etc.) of templates we could "subst" (with a spot for the username and perhaps a note as well) to actually award people the triple crowns, it would make the process much easier. Cirt (talk) 02:46, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

Update, modifed instructions slightly

• I modified it so that you will still be responsible for The great triple crown race of 2008, the Valiant return triple crown, and the Special edition WikiProject triple crowns - as they are all A) Much rarer than the others, and thus easier for you to keep track of and less work than the constant stream of the others, and B) These special situations mentioned above should be looked over extra carefully. Cirt (talk) 12:37, 27 January 2008 (UTC)
  • I'll wait for you to respond here to each of my above points before doing anything further, I think this is a good start and goes a bit towards standardizing things and making the process a little bit easier. No rush, so long as the current nominees don't bug you - but I'd say a rule of thumb for patience for them should be the average length of time (from my estimation) that something sits at WP:FAC - one month. Cirt (talk) 12:40, 27 January 2008 (UTC)
    • Great work so far, thanks. You're right; it's best if I keep doing all the direct work on the special edition triple crowns. After the triple crown race wraps up I plan to implement the steeplechase on a special/trial basis because it's not actually a triple crown. I'll still do regular reviews also (but it's a relief to have help!) and in the very rare event where there's a dispute I'll make the final determination. Regarding the suggested subpages, bear in mind that there's already a transclusion to Wikipedia:Did you know/Hall of Fame. How would you resolve that across multiple pages? Durova^Charge! 19:15, 27 January 2008 (UTC)
      • Everything transcludes back into the main User:Durova/Triple crown winner's circle. But especially if you create templates for the 3 or so more common awards, the redlinks above, it would make things easier. For example, if you like I could start clearing the backlog now at the nominations page - but I don't quite know exactly what message to give with the presentation of the award - and how to format it in a new subsection on a user's talk page. I mean, I could try doing one or two, but I'd rather they they look uniform to the way you do it. Cirt (talk) 19:22, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

Tell you what: for now let's keep the awards all on one page. You're welcome to write the award messages yourself or give me a report on reviews that pass and I'll write them - I plan to keep browsing the articles also, and to keep doing a share of the reviews. Let me know privately if some topic really isn't to your tastes and I'll do likewise, so we can both do justice to the nominees by concentrating on material we enjoy.

Nearly every message is unique in some way - I often throw in a compliment about the elements I enjoyed most. Triple crown winners are addressed "Your Majesty", "Your Imperial Majesty", or "Your Imperial Napoleonic Majesty" according to the award they've received. In the image caption I always include a link back to the awards page. Durova^Charge! 20:43, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

• Okay, we'll start doing it this way. I'll do my best to follow your lead, and clear a few entries when I get a chance. Cirt (talk) 22:46, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

Update

Only four left to recognize at User:Durova/Triple crown winner's circle/Nominations - and I will leave those up to you. Cirt (talk) 20:22, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for all your work

		The Photographer's Barnstar
		For making many excellent cleanups and rescues of old pictures that would never have otherwise been considered for FP. Keep up the good work! Clegs (talk) 15:48, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

Thank you! :) Durova^Charge! 19:32, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

Your comment requested

Can you please provide comment here? - Talk:Project_Chanology#Current_events_tag. Thanks, Cirt (talk) 21:52, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

Banned User" Paul Barresi - sock puppeting in with vulgarity and abuse

Dear Durova,

I see your comments on talk page for article Paul Barresi. A very abusive comment with vulgar words was put on my talk page from an IP who also put an abusive remark on the Paul Barresi article talk page in response to a remark I made about keeping the article within Wikipedia's guidelines. I also responded to this comment by putting a request/warning on the IP's talk page. A derogatory remark was made there as well by same IP.

If you look at the history of my talk page, Paul Barresi article talk page and the IP's talk page you may feel as I do that based on the word choice, abusive manner and bad spelling that this IP is indeed Paul Barresi!

Can you please take some action so myself and others will not have to put up with this vulgarity or be abused. Thank you!

Fuzzyred (talk) 05:15, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for coming to me. Unfortunately I can't address the problem directly because I'm not an administrator these days. Please post your request to WP:ANI and ping me when it's up. Best wishes, Durova^Charge! 05:24, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

Franco-Mongol controversy

"The most serious assertion at this RFAR is misrepresentation of sources. I have seen no actual evidence to substanitate this. " I have now provided one example to demonstrate an issue worth investigating. Please see my statement, at the bottom. Jehochman ^Talk 16:28, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

I still have not seen any evidence; I am unable to read deleted articles. Durova^Charge! 18:43, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

Priapus

Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Priapus statuette I'm not active on Commons, so you're free to do so. Spikebrennan (talk) 22:25, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

grin Durova^Charge! 22:28, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

WP:NOT#FORUM

Re: ongoing disruption of talkpage and ongoing AfD - please see my 2 diffs per WP:NOT#FORUM DIFF, DIFF and let me know what you think of this disruptive behavior by JustaHulk (talk · contribs) on these 2 pages. Cirt (talk) 22:55, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

Hm, deleting another editor's posts is problematic. If there's a problem try a noticeboard thread or a request for comment? Durova^Charge! 23:22, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

Oh, my mistake, that was me that deleted those posts - I had seen this done by an Admin in the past, citing WP:NOT#FORUM. Perhaps you can better explain the spirit and the application of WP:NOT#FORUM to me? Cirt (talk) 23:27, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

Seems fine up until the point where you tried to blank the thread. Better to just back off or call a halt to it, and wait for the page to archive. If the forum-style posting continues to be a problem you could seek assistance. Durova^Charge! 23:34, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

Okay, thanks, I will not do that again. Strange, for I have seen an Admin do this in the past, maybe the Admin was wrong in doing so... Oh well. Cirt (talk) 23:35, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

Borderline at best, and distinctly problematic at a dispute where you're an involved party. Durova^Charge! 23:36, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

Most intriguing - for in the other case the Admin was definitely an "involved party" as well. That doesn't make it right, I understand your logic, and it's probably wrong in both situations. At any rate, thanks for the advice, it's definitely duly noted. Cirt (talk) 23:39, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

• Nevermind, I left a note to El C (talk · contribs), and the link itself that I had given to WP:NOT#FORUM is sufficient. Cirt (talk) 03:50, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

Valley of death photographs

I am REALLY surprised by this issue. I did not bother to read the rest of the newspaper article (second half and second part) because the writer clearly lacked intelligence to count the cannon balls! It is clear that the cannon balls on the road in the FIRST photograph are simply gone. The balls in the ditch on the side of the road remain undisturbed. IF the balls were brought out onto the road, would not logic suggest they came from a location closes to the road? This is aside from the consideration that the suggestion is that Fenton and his assistant moved dozens of what look like at least 9 and 12 pound balls onto the road, not a task for the faint hearted (literally). It was common practice to harvest the balls since invention of artillery, and in any case, the dead and wounded could not be collected ( and the discarded equipment, saddles, etc.) until the road could be cleared. It is unlikely that pictures of this were taken because they were (until ACW) considered in bad taste, and because collection of cannon balls was so mundane a task for the time, it probably was not considered newsworthy. The landscape photograph was however considered an absolute necessity because it could be used to create lithographs for the printed publications. Consider for example the lithographic print of the Bay of Sebastapol (Vol.V, p.448) in Elisee Reclus's English printing of the Universal Geography (J.S.Virtue & Co.,London,1877?). Photographs existed of the Bay by this time, but the technique of including them in the printed books still did not exist. Much ado about nothing in my humble opinion :o)--mrg3105mrg3105 00:32, 28 January 2008 (UTC) PS. looking at the photographs again it is clear that some cannon balls were in fact either not fired on the day, or did not come from a cannon, but a howitzer because they are semi-embedded in the soil, even in the harder compacted road surface, suggesting this either happened earlier with the ball sinking in the soil softened by the rain, or that the trajectory was not the usual flat of the cannon (they bounced several times btw).--mrg3105mrg3105 00:44, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

Actually the most interesting part of the series is the third article where he hires a forensics specialist. Cannonball counts and shadow analysis turn out to be not very useful because of specific conditions, but an analysis of the surrounding rocks yields compelling evidence. Durova^Charge! 02:42, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

I seem to have missed the first part of this conversation (and can't find it anywhere). I found Wikipedia:Picture peer review/The Valley of the Shadow of Death and this (with the link to the newspaper article). From what I remember reading elsewhere about Fenton, he did 'set-up' pictures a lot (as our article says as well). See here for a picture of him posing as a Zouave. Carcharoth (talk) 02:58, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

The series won me over, reluctantly. I had been trying to study the shadows, but it turns out the films of his era weren't sensitive to blue so there's no way to tell the cloud cover by looking at the sky. From the highlights on the cannonballs themselves it's clear that one was shot while the sun was shining and the other was shot under a cloud, so the lengths of the shadows aren't telling. Too many cannonballs are in different positions to gain much information just by counting them. One thing is consistent, though: six separate rocks were in different positions and all six were further downhill in the "on" position. It's really unlikely that six random nudges would push rocks uphill. Durova^Charge! 03:05, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

Yes, but what about their other photos! :-) That is one of the famous ones, but the pathos of the other ones is just as good. For example, this one shows his assistant, Marcus Sparling sitting on the van they used to carry their cumbersome photographic equipment around with them. Imagine them wandering around the Crimea like that! Sad end to Sparling's story, by the way. He died of hepatitis four years later. [1] and [2] (two very different sources!) Carcharoth (talk) 03:11, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

Absolutely, there are other fine photos in that series. I particularly like the harbor. Go for it! Or if you'd rather bring attention to something that needs restoration, feel free to add material to the galleries at User:Durova/Landmark images. It's an open workshop. :) Durova^Charge! 03:15, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

Heh, I just looked - you've already been busy there. :) Durova^Charge! 03:24, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

I have? When? <looks confused> Carcharoth (talk) 03:31, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

Oh, I will, at some point! I want a successful FPC to be part of, ahem, a certain award. I have a FAC on the boil (give it a month or so), but if that fails I'll go down the corridor to GAC and go for FPC instead. I'm saying that because I've only just realised that GAC is part of the award. I know next to nothing about GAC - I'm sadly (or maybe goodly) of the opinion that if I can get something to GAC, I might as well go the whole way to FAC. I have a few DYKs hanging around (there is no time limit, is there?) Are there any of the awards where the same article counted for DYK, GA and FA? Carcharoth (talk) 03:31, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

Wow. I have 5 DYKs. That's several more than I had remembered. I'd better list them somewhere before I forget! If I line up a few FACs and FPC in one go, I could try and go straight for Emperor of France! :-) Carcharoth (talk) 03:42, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

Teehee...say, if you'd like to team up on something, I've noticed that Wikipedia has only 17 featured sounds. If you have .ogg conversion software I've had my eye on a couple of public domain files. And you added some source links to the image workshop on Jan. 17. Durova^Charge! 10:41, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the invite, but sounds might be trying to do too much. I'll stick to pictures for now, but do try and get people interested. I know Raul does stuff to do with sounds - see the Signpost article recently on that classical music museum (or something). Carcharoth (talk) 16:07, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/United States Capitol, 1846

Your Featured picture candidate has been promoted Your nomination for featured picture status, Image:Capitol1846.jpg, gained a consensus of support, and has been promoted. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates. MER-C 02:54, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

Thank you. :) Durova^Charge! 02:57, 28 January 2008 (UTC)