User talk:Durova/Archive 78

Bananas

Where did all the idle chatter go? I added a scales of justice image to my userspace. If I'm expected to credit in some way apart from what's on its file page please let me know. Oooh oooh ooh aah aaah aaah. :) ChildofMidnight (talk) 20:26, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Oh dear... Well, occasionally I do archive this page. :) Durova⁴⁰³ 20:31, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No worries.

I like the image design very much, although I've come to realize it can be interpreted in various ways depending on the assumptions and insights brought to it by the viewer. For example it can be seen as depicting Wikipedia as symbolically balancing out the world's bananas. But the meaning isn't clear and seems elusive to me with some of the many possible interpretations being negative. This makes the image even more intriguing if somewhat "dangerous".

I see it as a kind of dadaesque statement. But I guess it was created more as a political message.

Thanks very much for you answers to my questions on images. Are you familiar with the debate about peeling bananas? A lot of people were advocating that the most pragmatic way to peel them is from the side opposite the stem. I haven't heard much about it lately though, and my own findings were inconsistent with that theory. Anyway, I'm going to take my monkey business elsewhere. Have a good one. ChildofMidnight (talk) 21:17, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The original edit was the "thumb on the scales" design. The bananas came by chance inspiration from a tangential discussion. People often weigh bananas, though, in places where they're sold by the pound. So yes it's a bit dadaesque. "Going bananas" is an intentional analogy, but not the only possible one. :) Durova⁴⁰³ 21:30, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Restoration possibility

Do you think this photo would be worth spending my time on a restoration? Staxringold _talk^contribs 02:04, 26 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Although from this article it seems like the copyright claim is incorrect. Staxringold _talk^contribs 02:05, 26 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The Bain collection was donated to the public domain. Looks like a fine candidate for restoration if you don't mind beating yourself up on another glass plate job. :) Best, Durova⁴⁰³ 02:09, 26 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Mind updating the copyright tag if there's a better one? Staxringold _talk^contribs 02:50, 26 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The correct tag is PD-Bain. Have fixed that. I dislike that page altogether, frankly. The undocumented upload of radical edits to historic material is not a good practice. Durova⁴⁰³ 03:04, 26 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note

Hello Durova. MZMcBride has requested that you see his comment here as it directly involves you. Regards, Ryan Postlethwaite^{See the mess I've created or let's have banter} 21:05, 26 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the notification. I'll have a look at that. Durova⁴⁰³ 22:10, 26 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Durova, quite frankly this series of edits is unacceptable. Specifically, where you say; "He renews the obnoxious suggestion that the Arbitration Committee should hold a woman culpable because a sitebanned editor once sold underwear with her portrait on it." - Either add evidence where MZMcBride has specifically stated that women should be held accountable because of a sitebanned editors specific actions (and by evidence, I don't mean just speculation - I mean where he's actually stated what you're suggesting) or remove it immediately. Ryan Postlethwaite^{See the mess I've created or let's have banter} 23:54, 26 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Your post appears to demand evidence for an assertion I did not make. I am willing to provide diffs for the assertion I actually made. It would take a little while. Durova⁴⁰³ 00:01, 27 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You clearly did make an assertion in the quote which I gave you; specifically MZMcBride's "suggestion that the Arbitration Committee should hold a woman culpable because a sitebanned editor once sold underwear with her portrait on it." Please remove it until you are willing to provide diffs to back it up. If it's going to take a while, then take it down until that point. I think 30 minutes is a fair amount of time to decide what you're going to do, else I'll be forced to remove it myself. Ryan Postlethwaite^{See the mess I've created or let's have banter} 00:04, 27 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ryan, the decision is already made. I was always willing to provide diffs. The only unclarity was your demand "add evidence where MZMcBride has specifically stated that women [emphasis added] should be held accountable because of a sitebanned editors specific actions". He never made a general statement about women, nor did I claim that he did. Several posts that he made from January 12 onward do carry a disturbing tendency, and I have observed no post from him that is inconsistent with the tendency: the pattern is consistent in one instance and it is reasonable to inquire whether he would repeat it in others. I was gathering diffs while you posted and will return to that task as soon as this reply is complete. Due to their cumulative nature and the fact that both MZMcBride and I are prolific editors, a half hour deadline for the completion of this task is not feasible. Durova⁴⁰³ 00:15, 27 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Fair enough, I've had no other option but to refactor your comment myself. 30 minutes was a reasonable time frame for you to decide that you wouldn't have enough time to find diffs and remove it yourself. Ryan Postlethwaite^{See the mess I've created or let's have banter} 00:23, 27 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ryan, each time you post here consumes time away from actually fulfilling your demand. It is difficult to fulfill your request swiftly for reasons already explained. An additional challenge is that your statements appear to shift ground with each post. You stated, "I think 30 minutes is a fair amount of time to decide what you're going to do". I promptly replied that I had indeed decided. If you had instead demanded that whether or not it was feasible to actually carry out that intention within half an hour I must refactor promptly or you would do so, then I would have refactored. Instead a substantial portion of that half hour was consumed in parsing your demands, you have refactored (which gives the appearance that I have been uncooperative), and as a result of your action I see little alternative to entering something as evidence which I would have preferred to have resolved less formally. It is more than a little surprising to see this; in four years I have never had an interaction with an arbitration clerk unfold this way before. If you can see a way to turn the heat down on this, please advise. But if this is the sort of clerking you do then I hope that such stringency is evenhanded. Durova⁴⁰³ 00:37, 27 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

"a half hour deadline for the completion of this task is not feasible." - To me, that's stating that you are unwilling to comply. Perhaps I was a little quick in the actual refactoring, but I read your last comment to mean "I'm not going to be able to find diffs and I'm not willing to refactor" - Please accept my apologies if this was not the case (as you're stating now). I would suggest that if you have evidence of this, you send it directly to the committee by email - I'm not sure there is anyway that you could present such evidence on-wiki without heat being turned up to the max. Ryan Postlethwaite^{See the mess I've created or let's have banter} 00:42, 27 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

(unintdent) Not unwillingness; inability. It's a matter of collecting diffs across two prolific edit histories and multiple pages. I have half a dozen quotes in a text editor now and am beginning to craft a statement. We all have our strengths and our weaknesses; one of my weak points is multitasking. I am endeavoring to comply with your request as fast as possible. It's late afternoon in my time zone, though, and in a short while I will need to leave the computer to fix dinner. If all goes smoothly I may be able to post an early draft before then. Durova⁴⁰³ 00:49, 27 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

popping in

G'day D - we had a bit of a mini-interaction over at the request for comment about biographies a short while ago, and I thought I'd pop by to see if you could shed a wee bit more light on this comment? It came across to me as a bit grumpy (fair enough) - but I'm keen to learn more about how you're feeling, and what you've learned - I think it's a fair interpretation of that comment that you feel / know that I've bungled somehow in my 'freelance attempts' (did you intend that to sound pejorative? It sort of comes across that way) - I'm a big supporter of the powerhouse museum down here, though really haven't had much to do with them (sharing a nice lunch with User:Witty lama and the powerhouse folk is about it - I missed the 'backstage pass' sadly) - if your comment was more grump than substance than that's cool, otherwise I'm interested in what you meant..... Privatemusings (talk) 01:54, 27 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

My feelings needn't worry you. There is an old saying that people who live in glass houses shouldn't throw stones. Inappropriate accusations of misbehavior often originate from those whose consciences are not clear: a child who skips class accuses sick schoolmates of malingering, etc. It's good practice to make one's own disclosures proactively when suggesting that other editors may have withheld information. That only takes a few extra words and eliminates the risk of confusion. Durova⁴⁰³ 02:21, 27 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

hmmmm... I think I may have lost you? I just can't really make sense of your reply! I get the first bit (that I needn't worry about your feelings) but the rest, whilst I can generally sort of agree with you, I find hard to see how it applies to my post above? What I'm trying to ask is a) whether or not you intended to be a pejorative (grumpy / rude etc.) and (more importantly) b) what you meant by referring to my (meagre) contacts with the powerhouse folk - it sounded like you were aware of harm / confusion / damage that I'd been part of? You also mentioned 'accusation' above, and in the original post, and that's escaping me too, I'm afraid - because I'm occasionally quite slow at this sort of thing, would you mind filling in the blank 'I feel that you accused me of _____________' I'm sure we can clear this up :-) Privatemusings (talk) 02:40, 27 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment from MZMcBride

Dear Lise,

MZMcBride has left me a note requesting me as part of my duties as an Arbitration Committee clerk to draw your attention to this post so that you may reply there. Regards ---- Александр Дмитрий (Alexandr Dmitri) (talk) 05:02, 27 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The last time I responded to such a request it consumed half a day. I have not followed the link and am going to bed. Tomorrow I will probably follow it. But a good night's sleep seems like a very good idea. Durova⁴⁰³ 06:16, 27 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

fwiw, my impression is that this is actually a duplicate request - prolly MZ dropped notes in to a few clerks? either ways... I think this has been followed up rather amply already. Privatemusings (talk) 07:55, 27 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Scrolling up I see that Ryan had already left a note; as he is the full clerk on the case and I am the trainee on the case in question I suspect that MZMcBride contacted both of us. Thanks for pointing this out Privatemusings. Regards -- Александр Дмитрий (Alexandr Dmitri) (talk) 15:03, 27 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Whew, one less thing to worry about. :) Durova⁴⁰³ 16:51, 27 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Clearing up copyright before nom @ WP:FSC

Hey Durova, I know you are a picture person, but maybe you know enough about copyright to help clarify this. I ran across File:Ussrgymn.ogg. Then i talked to zscout370 (talk · contribs) who is a contributor over at http://www.hymn.ru and had a high quality recording of two versions of the anthem. Both are featured quality over on commons, and one could probably be featured over here. However, we are not sure how the licence tag Template:PD-RU-exempt fits in. It excludes the anthem from copyright, but it is a recording on a CD. We don't want to upload to commons if it in fact does not meet these criteria. What is your take? Best Regards, NativeForeigner ^Talk/_Contribs 06:33, 27 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This could be a tricky one. With recordings a separate copyright may apply to the performance even if the underlying music is in public domain. Russian copyright is a subject I rarely deal with (they recently changed their copyright law and it's very confusing). Your best bet might be to ask a Russian administrator. Durova⁴⁰³ 16:50, 27 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

What happened to sofix.com?

~~What happened to sofix.com, the off-wiki form and Casliber's request made to arbcom? What was the final conclusion?~~ Ikip 20:20, 27 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

That is a very interesting question. I am not in a position to answer it. Durova⁴⁰³ 00:21, 28 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I respect that. Roger Davies gave me an answer which satisfy my questions now.[1] Thank you for your efforts and your bravery. Ikip 03:26, 28 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion invitation

Click here to
automatically
add this project
to your
watchlist

Hi Durova/Archive 78, I would like to invite you and anyone watching who shares an interest in moving forward constructively to a discussion about Biographies of Living People

New editors' lack of understanding of Wikipedia processes has resulted in thousands of BLPs being created over the last few years that do not meet BLP requirements. We are currently seeking constructive proposals on how to help newcomers better understand what is expected, and how to improve some 48,000 articles about living people as created by those 17,500 editors, through our proper cleanup, expansion, and sourcing.

These constructive proposals might then be considered by the community as a whole at Wikipedia talk:Requests for comment/Biographies of living people.

Please help us:

>> User:Ikip/Discussion about creation of possible Wikiproject:New Users and BLPs <<

Ikip 05:06, 28 January 2010 (UTC) (refactored) Ikip 02:36, 29 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you very much for the invitation. Due to prior commitments in other areas it's unlikely I'll be very active there. Durova⁴⁰³ 05:11, 28 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Best wishes with the arbcom. Thanks. Ikip 02:36, 29 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

That is beautiful! : "A reliable measure of prejudice is how many mistakes a person gets forgiven." I will post it on my talk page. thanks.Ikip 02:48, 29 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. It's an observation I formulated quite a few years before joining Wikipedia. Durova⁴⁰³ 03:18, 29 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Arbitration motion regarding Eastern European mailing list

Per a motion at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Amendment:

Malik Shabazz, Xavexgoem, and Durova are authorized to act as proxies for Piotrus by editing, at his direction, the Lech Wałęsa article, its talk page, and any process pages directly related to its nomination for Good Article status.

On behalf of the Arbitration Committee, -- Александр Дмитрий (Alexandr Dmitri) (talk) 11:04, 28 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Successful featured picture nomination

Your Featured picture candidate has been promoted

Your nomination for featured picture status, File:SMS Moltke Hampton Roads 1912 FINAL.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. Maedin\^talk 13:01, 28 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Question

Do you think this has FP potential? It's very educational and useful, and quite sharp for its time, but it would need a lot of cleanup. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 05:30, 29 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It would be a tough call. 8MB is going to be within the size requirements, but panoramas that size occasionally get criticized because they aren't very tall. It ought to be promotable, but I'd go into a chore like that expecting a forty percent chance that a critical mass of reviewers who had never done a restoration and didn't know how hard it was would harp on a detail or make a sweeping assertion about raising FP standards, and cause it to fail. In your case take those odds down to twenty percent. People who don't already have a ton of credits tend to get easier reviews. If that's worth the risk then by all means go for it. Durova⁴⁰³ 05:42, 29 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I can understand that. I guess I'll go for it and see where it takes me. Thanks for the answer. :) –Juliancolton | ^Talk 15:37, 29 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Very glad to see you go for it. I'll be around if you have questions on the work. You're great, Julian. Durova⁴⁰³ 01:00, 30 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

OK, a few questions that came up:

Is it best to crop out the label at the top?
What's the best way to even out the varying tones in the sky?
Is there a way to clone out the creases without compromising the photo's factual accuracy?

Thanks in advance for the help. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 04:07, 30 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

For some odd reason I can't reopen that link. It shows up as an expired temp file. If I recall correctly from the last look it should be a very difficult undertaking. Basically the first thing you'll need to do is align the different parts of the panorama, then crop. Whenever you're uncertain about a crop, crop wide: if you change your mind it's much easier to take away later on than to readd. Do a routine spot and scratch removal on the easy parts, then reconstruct the damaged areas at the seams. Just worry about shapes first. Tone comes later. Infer the shapes you need to reconstruct from surrounding material. That will be the worst of it. Some people like to dodge and burn to take care of the sky. I prefer to do that with masked brightness/contrast adjustments. Masks can also take care of that vertical brown band near one of the seams. You've got your work cut out for you with this one. If you need a warmup, the 1927 Miami hurricane we talked about a few months back would be easier. Durova⁴⁰³ 05:35, 30 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ping

check your email..Casliber (talk · contribs) 19:33, 29 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, replied. Durova⁴⁰³ 01:01, 30 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Re: Thank you

I'll have to ask the devs about getting that Durova namespace enabled... Gurch (talk) 06:37, 31 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

:) Durova⁴⁰⁵ 06:45, 31 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

BB-16 FPC

Did you want to co-nom? I think I forgot to ask that. :/ —Ed (talk • majestic titan) 06:47, 31 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You're very kind to offer, but it was only a five minute edit. There's no need to share credit for minor work. It was your find. :) Durova⁴⁰⁵ 16:43, 31 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Well you were the one that did it though. :P I'm not going to take credit for it aside from listing it on my userpage under a "featured picture nominations" header (emphasis on "nominations"). —Ed (talk • majestic titan) 16:25, 1 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Your proposed RfC on ArbCom

Durova, I've had a quick look through it. My responses at this early stage are:

It would be better to launch it first as a discussion on the form and wording of an RfC rather than the RfC itself—it will have a greater chance of success, then.
Proposals 1, 2 and 3 should be conflated and trimmed.
It's impossible to judge behaviour without looking at the context (i.e., content) in which it occurs. This goes for both individual edits and overall behaviour. A simple black line drawn around scope, to exclude anything but the "behavioural", is thus unrealistic; on this matter I have changed my mind over the past few months. However, I think a more fine-grained paragraph emphasising ArbCom's role in resolving behavioural disputes, and in ruling on matters of content only where inextricably tied to the need to resolve such disputes, should be considered. It's not a simple binary. It's easier to propose that ArbCom shouldn't stray into general matters of governance and policy, except (I'd say), where the community's inability to come to consensus about how a policy should be interpreted is significantly impacting on the well-being of the project (requires careful wording).
Evidence: ArbCom's role in clearing up the constant rain of unstables and extreme anti-socials must go largely unnoticed; it is in everyone's interest that it not be dealt with in public. I think you understand what I mean. The wording of your proposal appears not to take this into consideration.
Dispute resolution and Urgent action: aren't they already the case? They appear to be unnecessary.

Thank you for raising these matters. I hope you will take into consideration the points I've made. Tony (talk) 07:32, 31 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the detailed comments, Tony. I'll prioritize the last numbered point because it is the easiest to answer. The urgent action portion relates to summary motions: ArbCom has caused problems by handling nonurgent issues by summary motion, but they do need the freedom to take provisional action in urgent situations.

A substantial number of proposed cases get filed with no attempt at dispute resolution at all. Noticeboard threads are not dispute resolution. In the interest of "preventing further drama" those requests do get accepted a fair share of the time, which makes sense in the short run but has the long term effect of providing an incentive to bypass dispute resolution. Things have gotten to the point where a substantial number of good faith Wikipedians no longer have a clear idea of which venues are dispute resolution or else think the formal venues don't work. The end result is increased drama.

That's already a lot to digest so pausing here. Durova⁴⁰⁵ 18:21, 31 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

(Noting I will be reading/pondering this with profound interest.) Proofreader77 ^(interact) 21:22, 31 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Feel free to discuss; we're a wiki. :) Durova⁴⁰⁵ 21:25, 3 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Many thanks for the invitation. My eyes are so fresh, I'm not quite sure what I'm looking at yet (hence reading/pondering:) ... And lots of thought to the possibility of logo change (serious smile) see ArbCom talk and my talk and, of course, your poll.

Note: My current trajectory for the logo is based on this tea ceremony at burning man (Smiling but not joking) ... The more abstract version is of course, simpler ... but bandana-masked ArbCom members on bicycles seems somehow just right. NOTE: I'm trying to get in touch with the photographer of the burning man image to post a small low-res Photoshop-filtered version with Creative Commons (with attribution) rights ... for purposes of discussion. :-) Proofreader77 ^(interact) 21:46, 3 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Well, the logo is for fun. This is serious. Durova⁴⁰⁵ 22:09, 3 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Coren was serious about the logo design change (apparently), and others believe the scales don't represent what ArbCom does ... and many (ahem) are displeased with the powers ArbCom is wielding ... And in that context, the design of the ArbCom logo can be a symbolic key to what ArbCom actually is. (smiling but not joking) ...

Note: I asked if the change in logo design was something to be seriously considered, or just a frivolous farting around. It appears to be a semi-serious matter. :-) And while playfulness is certainly not exhausted (see Jehochman's image suggestion) ... I do see design as a path to enlightment (pick your own designation of intent)?

And yes, I thought your poll was only for humor when I first saw it, but now see it as part of process design which clearly is a significant element of your role at Wikipedia. (Or so it seems to me.) Proofreader77 ^(interact) 22:28, 3 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

(Or rather)
The scales logo implies "Supreme Court of Wikipedia" ... A different logo might imply something different. Proofreader77 ^(interact) 22:33, 3 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Suggest a toilet with a plunger and possibly a mop.--Wehwalt (talk) 22:45, 3 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

At first I laughed, but you're quite right, Wehwalt — that does capture the essence of ArbCom (of course, I'm still figuring out what is) ... but perhaps without the inspirational aspects one would wish in a logo. :-) Proofreader77 ^(interact) 23:14, 3 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Every time it overflows ...--Wehwalt (talk) 23:34, 3 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Positive iterative refinement at its finest, Wehwalt. Hear hear!

Of course this sent me Googling "plunger" ... and the usual surprises ... like a 1909 (side-car?) sub

Now, what in hell has a small submarine got to do with ArbCom? Well, not to get distracted from the toilette/mop/overflowing theme ... but perhaps imagine there is something in the idea of a side-car submarine (which I conjured up by completely misinterpreting the word "outboard" in this photograph) ... but anyway. Nimitz signed it, so let us assume that is some kind of sign. :-) Proofreader77 ^(interact) 01:05, 4 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Oh gosh this is priceless. Thank you both very much for a much needed laugh. Yes, a plunger may be the perfect extension of the mop analogy. Durova⁴⁰⁵ 01:08, 4 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Bless you for your indulgent hospitality, dear Durova ... Your tempest teapot, of course, is the inspiration for all. :-) Proofreader77 ^(interact) 01:25, 4 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Simplicity is everything. I propose a plunger with ARBCOM inscribed upon the handle. They use it alternately to stop the overflow and to give people rectal splinters.--Wehwalt (talk) 06:03, 4 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

What about seeing if we can get in the April 1 Signpost that ArbCom has adopted it as its logo, as a logical extension of the mop. Complete with comments from arbs about how they only get called once things overflow, that the mess isn't worth the job and that the female arbs complain that the male arbs leave the seat up?--Wehwalt (talk) 02:01, 5 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

If they'd laugh along with the joke. There's a fine line to walk where it could be witty without seeming demeaning or crude. Durova⁴⁰⁸ 02:19, 5 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I will play with it in my sandbox when I get a chance. If they are willing to "print" it, I'll need you to do the actual logo...--Wehwalt (talk) 02:23, 5 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Judgment Day Has Come

IT IS SO ORDERED this, the 6th day of January, 2010, that all persons acting in concert with Defendant (WALTER MCGILL, d/b/a CREATION SEVENTH DAY ADVENTIST CHURCH, et al.,)… are hereby ENJOINED from using or enabling the use of such domain names and websites:

www.creationseventhdayadventistchurch.ca www.csdadventistchurch.co.cc www.csdachurch.co.cc/ www.csdachurch.0adz.com www.creationsdadventistrelief.to www.csda-adventistchurch.to www.creationsdadventistrelief.to www.adventistry.org www.creationseventhdayadventist.org.rw www.creationsdarelief.0adz.com www.seventhdayadventistsda-v-creation7thdayadventistcsda-uslawsuit.net www.seventhdayadventism.org www.7thdayadventism.org/ www.whypastorwaltermcgillisnotaffiliatedwithgcsdaadventistchurch.net www.csdachurch.wordpress.com www.csda-korea.org www.creationseventhdayadventistreliefprojectsint.ltd.ug www.seventhdayadventistchurchfoundwanting.us www.home.comcast.net/~7thdayadventist www.home.comcast.net/~csdachurch www.home.comcast.net/~creationsda www.home.comcast.net/~creation-adventist www.binaryangel.net www.thefourthangel.net www.home.comcast.net/~creation-sabbath www.home.comcast.net/~barbara_lim www.home.comcast.net/~crmin

s/ J. DANIEL BREEN, UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Hi, E.Shubee, please remember to sign your posts. Is there a particular reason you post to this page? I haven't followed up on your dispute in years. Durova⁴⁰⁵ 16:45, 31 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

POTD notification

Hi Lise,

Just to let you know that the Featured Picture File:George Washington Carver2.jpg is due to make an appearance as Picture of the Day on February 1, 2010. If you get a chance, you can check and improve the caption at Template:POTD/2010-02-01. howcheng {chat} 22:45, 31 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Reply

Here Raul654 (talk) 18:55, 1 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

POTD notification

Hi Lise,

Just to let you know that the Featured Picture File:The camel corps at Beersheba2.jpg is due to make an appearance as Picture of the Day on February 3, 2010. If you get a chance, you can check and improve the caption at Template:POTD/2010-02-03. howcheng {chat} 01:01, 2 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Request

Hi Durova. Thank you very much for your contribution. If possible (If you have time) please crop, clean up frame edges and clean noises of images: Ordnance QF 6 pounder 442nde Regimental Combat Team, Bernares and Delegation to the Conference Lausanne. Mer30.

P.S. I've seen USS Arizona (BB-39) in this page. But We haven't nominated it :) Takabeg (talk) 08:01, 2 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Whew, you'll keep me busy. Have downloaded the first of the images. Too bad it's a JPEG, but will have a look. Durova⁴⁰⁵ 22:10, 3 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Question

Hi Durova. I'm just here basically to take advantage of one of your FAQs; you were recommended by Staxringold. I've never done a featured picture nomination before, and I think I found a picture that would be a good candidate to become featured. I did a basic crop to remove excessive background space, and then I removed what I thought to be most if not all of the dust and scratches from the original image. I wanted to ask if you might help me figure out what else I can do to improve the picture before considering nominating it for featured picture. Some image information is below:

File:-Grover Cleveland Alexander, Philadelphia, NL (baseball)- (LOC) (2163449614).jpg is the original image.
File:GCAlexander.jpg is the cropped but unimproved version of the image. I haven't yet transferred all of the proper licensing information over to the cropped version from the original.
I haven't yet uploaded the improved version with dust and scratches removed, but I still wanted to check with you if you might be willing to teach me a thing or two.

Thanks! KV5 (Talk • Phils) 21:11, 2 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Glad to. :) That's a glass plate negative with moderate staining and scratching. His face looks good. Restoration on the sweater would be the hardest part. Recommendation: work from an uncompressed TIFF file at 200% resolution. Start with the healing brush in GIMP or Photoshop at a small pixels selection to clean up the background. After you have a feel for it then start on the harder areas.

I haven't restored any photograph of a sweater that had damage this extensive where the knit pattern was so clearly visible. It's probably going to be like certain weaves of suit jacket: will need a lot of painstaking clone stamping. The trick is to find undamaged fabric that matches the lighting, pattern, and fold of the damaged area. Mostly your project would be an easy restoration, except for that. I'd rate the sweater as more difficult than the two most similar jackets I've restored. Durova⁴⁰⁵ 22:22, 3 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

George Washington Carver
restored
Malcolm X
restored

POTD notification

Hi Lise,

Just to let you know that the Featured Picture File:Babe Ruth2.jpg is due to make an appearance as Picture of the Day on February 6, 2010. If you get a chance, you can check and improve the caption at Template:POTD/2010-02-06. howcheng {chat} 20:17, 3 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Don't you get tired of this (chuckle) Casliber (talk · contribs) 20:24, 3 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I've offered to take all my featured pictures out of the POTD queue if the community converts "Picture of the Day" into "Media of the Day" and starts running featured sounds on the main page. So far the community hasn't taken up that offer, but if they did it would have minimal impact on anyone else at the waiting list. Durova⁴⁰⁵ 21:24, 3 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Successful featured picture nomination

An image created by you has been promoted to featured picture status

Your image, File:Henry Clay Senate3.jpg, was nominated on Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates, gained a consensus of support, and has been promoted. If you would like to nominate an image, please do so at Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates. Thank you for your contribution! Maedin\^talk 13:39, 4 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Successful featured picture nomination

Your Featured picture candidate has been promoted

Your nomination for featured picture status, File:Balaklava sick 2.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. Maedin\^talk 13:40, 4 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Baseball images

My laptop battery is about to die, but I'll be back in my room and on Skype within an hour. Hope we can chat about this "culturual institution"! Staxringold _talk^contribs 18:19, 4 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Great, thanks. Cheers! Durova⁴⁰⁸ 18:19, 4 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You should write something for the upcoming issue of the signpost, news like this is really big! Thanks for sharing the info with us. At the moment I am not exactly sure where we may be able to use the images, but if they have anything related to WWI it would be welcome since the -year anniversary of that war is nearly upon us. Also, as a personal request, do you know if they have a higher resolution image for this picture File:BattleOfShanghaiBaby.gif? I've twice tried to get that to FP status, it failed both times, but I know in my heart it will receive a bronze star if I can get a higher resolution version and find someone to clean the image up a little. TomStar81 (Talk) 19:21, 4 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you very much. Signpost will have it when the time comes. Not quite ready to announce fully (can't name the institution yet onsite). Staxringold and I are in Skype right now selecting highlights from their baseball collection. If you can join us please email for my Skype ID and we'd be glad to add you. Cheers! Durova⁴⁰⁸ 19:28, 4 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Didn't find that particular image on a search for "Shanghai". Durova⁴⁰⁸ 19:35, 4 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the reply, and thanks for looking for the image. I'll refrain from asking about the organization; I have a big mouth and would rather not compromise anything until all is said and done, but I will start thinking about ways to put the new images to work for the task forces in question. The WWI collection in particular sounds promising since we are attempting to get more info in that field for the centennial anniversary. Thanks for all your efforts in outreach; I wish we had more members like you to carry the word off site. TomStar81 (Talk) 18:12, 5 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This could lead to very good things: the institution is receptive to the idea of coordinating content drives between its own website and Wikipedia. Every now and then their site highlights parts of their collection, which means if we plan ahead with them we could get access to top quality media and perhaps assistance with text references. The WMF Netherlands-Tropenmuseum partnership has been very successful with a similar model. Durova⁴⁰⁸ 18:21, 5 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Netherlands New Guinea

Hi Durova, I've been admiring the Tropenmuseum images you've restored and nominated. Since I recently submitted a thesis on foreign representations of West Papua (formerly Netherlands New Guinea, now Indonesian Papua and commonly known as "West Papua"), I'd like to take a go at an image of the territory. I still don't have access to a suitable computer for editing, but if you do see a suitable candidate, keep it aside for me! I've had a look through the category on Commons and see a few, but I'm not sure which can be accessed to in large format. Mostlyharmless (talk) 01:10, 5 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The Tropenmuseum has been releasing high resolution material about Suriname and Indonesia. Haven't discussed West Papua with them. Might be difficult to raise the subject right now because they're about to hold a major event for the museum's centennial. If this is urgent the simplest thing to do would be to select from the Library of Congress collection. Most of what they have of Papua and New Guinea is World War II military material. Did find this interesting shot from the Bain collection (don't worry about the lack of a date; the whole Bain collection is public domain by donation). Would that help you? Durova⁴⁰⁸ 01:42, 5 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Durova, no urgency at all! I'll take a look at that image, and at the LOC collection. Mostlyharmless (talk) 03:36, 5 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : XLVII (January 2010)

The January 2010 issue of the Military history WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you.
This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 03:25, 5 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Australian military encampment, 1918

Your Featured picture candidate has been promoted

Your nomination for featured picture status, File:Australian camps on slopes of Olivet & Mount Scopus3.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) 12:50, 5 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Your input would be appreciated

Hello, Durova, since your specialty is in image retouching and restoration, could you evaluate the images uploaded by Alohahell (talk · contribs)? I sense that most of his/her images are not his/her own. The user has been warned for possibly uploading copyviolated images by admin Rjanang, and I feel the same thing on the user. I left a note to the admin's page, but could you also independently review his uploading? Regards --Caspian blue 05:08, 6 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Commented at ANI. Now it looks like I'll have to pick up my Commons mop for cleanup. Durova⁴⁰⁹ 17:12, 6 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the action and input. The matter seems to be well taken care of by you and other admins. Hey, Durova, how's going these days? I've not seen your new FPC noms as much often as it used to be. --Caspian blue 18:11, 6 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Retired from the WikiCup in order to put more focus into relations with the cultural sector: opening doors with institutional donors to gain better free access to historic media. It's been a bit difficult managing that in terms of recent distractions. If you skim this page you'll get a hint of why. Good call on the copyvios, btw. Durova⁴⁰⁹ 18:24, 6 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It is good to hear that another institution is likely to offer their image archive to Wikipedia foundation. Good job, Durova. LoC has Korea-related images very little. As for the distractions, I assume you mean by this ArbCom case and some banned user's block evasion. The Workshop page seems to be going nowhere, and I understand your stress a bit.--Caspian blue 20:44, 6 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Commons deletions for Alohahell

I've posted (at WP:ANI#User:Alohahell repeatedly uploading copyvio, is a block in order?) the links to 5 more copyvio uploads that need to be deleted from commons. Thanks for your help, rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 21:31, 6 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

review an ani thread

Hey Durova, sorry to bother you but I opened an ANI thread about User:Caesarjbsquitti's soapboxing about 2 days ago. He's made an allegation of COI on my part. Could you review the situation. I'll be asking another couple of people too in the hope that the wider community might show a little interest. The thread is here--Cailil ^talk 22:37, 7 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hint!

You understand these matters better than I. Giano 10:01, 9 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Unreferenced BLP contest

RE: My carrot is better than the stick comments on the BLP RFC

Durova, I am interested in a BLP source contest. As the winner of the featured article contest, who do you think is the best person to contact about this, who would run with this idea?

Of course, your help would be ideal in this too. Okip (the new and improved Ikip) 13:45, 10 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for coming to me with this idea, which seems like a very well intentioned one and I hope it works out productively. Am not sure who to refer you to and due to previous commitments I won't be able to help run it. You might ask at the WikiCup talk pages. Quite a few people who are interested in contests watch that page. They won't fold your idea into the Cup, but they might offer ideas and assistance. Durova⁴⁰⁹ 20:20, 10 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry to intrude, but I also think this is a good idea as long as good ground rules are set so the refs added will be good refs and not just quickies. ···日本穣^? · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe 01:41, 11 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No need for apologies, and thank you very much, Nihonjoe, for the input. Kudos to Ikip for turning lemons into lemonade. Durova⁴⁰⁹ 18:22, 11 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you SO MUCH for your suggestions Durova and Nihonjoe, I will let you know what I find out. Okip (formerly Ikip) 16:37, 12 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Medical images

Hi Durova. I've just acquired 160 high quality MRI images of my shoulder. Do you understand the copyright status of such images? I paid for them, and obviously nobody is allowed to use or release them at all without my permission. Does that equate to me owning copyright as far as Wikipedia is concerned? Jehochman ^Brrr 14:38, 10 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, you own the copyright on your own medical images and can license them under copyleft for Wikimedian use if you choose. A medical student has gotten several featured picture credits that way. And I hope your shoulder has turned out all right! Best wishes for a speedy recovery. Durova⁴⁰⁹ 20:16, 10 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Butting in, it's not technically a work-for-hire because you don't have a contract with the MRI facility that transfers copyright to you. I'm far more inclined to believe the image is PD because it contains no human creativity in order to generate it. howcheng {chat} 18:10, 11 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the comment. I'm not certain about the applicability of the work for hire concept either. But it's pretty well established (at least under U.S. law) that the patient owns medical diagnostic images. File:Polydactyly 01 Lhand AP.jpg has been an FP for five years with no problems; its licensing is probably a good model for Jehochman's purposes. And Jehochman, thank you very much for thinking of Wikipedia in this context. Durova⁴⁰⁹ 18:28, 11 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

POTD notification

Hi Lise,

Just to let you know that the Featured Picture File:Queen of Hearts Mother Goose2.jpg is due to make an appearance as Picture of the Day on February 14, 2010. If you get a chance, you can check and improve the caption at Template:POTD/2010-02-14. howcheng {chat} 18:09, 11 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Looks fine, thank you. Are you saving the Valentine's card for next year? Durova⁴⁰⁹ 18:29, 11 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, since it's Commons POTD on V-Day this year, so I didn't want to duplicate it. howcheng {chat} 21:58, 11 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, thanks for mentioning. Hadn't noticed. :) Durova⁴⁰⁹ 17:57, 12 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/MZMcBride 2

This arbitration case has been closed and the final decision is available at the link above. The following remedies have been enacted:

As User:MZMcBride resigned his adminship while a request for arbitration was pending against him, he may regain adminship only through a new request for adminship or by application to this Committee. To the extent MZMcBride requests that he be allowed to regain adminship by simple request to a bureaucrat, his request is denied, in large measure because his conduct would likely have led to a significant sanction against him had he not resigned;

MZMcBride is admonished for failing to learn from the lessons of the past and for creating avoidable drama;

MZMcBride is admonished for facilitating vandalism by a banned user.

For the Arbitration Committee, -- Александр Дмитрий (Alexandr Dmitri) (talk) 21:55, 11 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

brush for the lead

Hi. You may want to peek at my new userpage, specifically during Friday (UTC±0), which begins in a few hours. If you view it prior to then, you should purge it. Some bluefish are scheduled for one day, next week. Cheers, Jack Merridew 22:08, 11 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Jack, it's really very flattering that you chose one of my images for your userpage. Not sure why you picked that one but thank you very much. May I be candid though? In general it's a good idea to use one's userspace to remind the community of positives. Am not sure what your intention is with regard to a username, but considering the history the less said the better. It would reflect better on you to demonstrate you've moved on and put that behind you. Warm regards, Durova⁴⁰⁹ 17:56, 12 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I picked the image because I like it, and it's winter. The bluefish one I like, too, and I used it because it has a nice pale sky to place legible text over The 'brush' image needs a box around it to ensure good contrast with the text. This new userpage is all about cycling content; at UTC±0, today, it will cycle to the next image, which is File:Skeleton-warrior.jpg; the page layout and colors will change, too, including the caption. There are currently 13 in that loop. I'm restricted to 'Jack Merridew' and would need to get permission to rename, I suppose. My sock accounts are there because I was initially placing 'Jack Merridew' somewhere on each layout and wanted that field to be dynamic, too; so, it now cycles through them all. There are 4 fields on the page and each works differently. The <ref> is the simplest; the text is static.

My overall intent with this page is to move on from the sockblock-style message box and to push the cyclic userpage mechanism along. It's a bunch of techniques all thrown together to sort out what works best. Some of the effects only work in the modern browsers. You've done a lot of images and I'll probably use more of them. I'm going to be swapping images and quotes in and out as I find them or think of them. A bunch that are in this first try are nods to users who have adapted previous versions of my user page for their own. User:Coren and User:Tiptoety, for example. Cheers, Jack Merridew 19:21, 12 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Image poll

hi Durova. Thanks again for your previous participation in these polls, so I invite you back for another round YellowMonkey (vote in the Southern Stars photo poll) 06:28, 12 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Skipped a few sections but did several edits for you. Best regards, Durova⁴⁰⁹ 18:50, 12 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Small request

Hey Durova! Your desire to only fix up HQ images is clear and sensible, wanting only to spend time preserving something truly worth preserving. However, Ted Williams is currently lacking any kind of reasonable quality portrait style image. I was wondering if you could give the image on the last page of this issue a shot. Baseball Digest has it's own special {{PD-US-not renewed, Baseball Digest pre-1964}} on Commons. Obviously the damage to the bottom left kills some of it, but even a quick job cropping, removing the tape, and the worst of the dust would exponentially help his article and related lists he's on. Staxringold _talk^contribs 02:07, 13 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It's possible. The only ways I can think of are (1) compositing a series of screen shots, or (2) obtaining a back issue of the magazine and scanning it. Nothing about that particular edit would be quick, though. Part of his foot is torn off and the tape marks intersect with his shoulder and knee. Which of my GAs will you be raising to FA in return? ;) Durova⁴⁰⁹ 02:36, 13 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't even mean trying to fix the entire image, I just meant cropping out the damaged bit as artistically as possible to at least have a reasonable quality image of just Teddy Ballgame. Staxringold _talk^contribs 02:53, 13 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The unavoidable problem is how that crop would eliminate his toe, shoulder, and knee. Unless it just cropped down to a headshot (which you could do yourself), there's no easy solution for that scan. Durova⁴⁰⁹ 03:00, 13 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Of course, actually buying and scanning a set of back issues for Baseball Digest might be an elegant solution. The images didn't appear to be halftoned so you might get good quality media that way. I have no idea what the price would be. Although possibly someone who inherited a collection of back issues might be persuaded to donate. Durova⁴⁰⁹ 03:05, 13 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You can buy the May 1949 issue here for $25 + shipping, and it's apparently in excellent condition. ···日本穣^? · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe 04:58, 13 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Way too much for what will still be a scan of a magazine printed photo with a caption over it. I'll take a shot at this a bit later. Staxringold _talk^contribs 05:06, 13 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
(ec) Thank you for the link. There's one option (although it would get pricey quickly). I kind of wonder whether word of mouth might do the trick; it seems like a whole shoebox of Baseball Digest would be sitting in somebody's attic. This is reminding me to check the copyright renewals for a set of old crochet instruction books that I bought at an estate sale. They're from the same period and odds are good their copyrights weren't renewed either. Durova⁴⁰⁹ 05:11, 13 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You may also keep an eye on eBay: http://shop.<REMOVETHIS>ebay.com/?_from=R40&_trksid=p3907.m38.l1313&_nkw=%22baseball+digest%22&_sacat=See-All-Categories (just remove the "<REMOVETHIS>" part as Wikipedia has blacklisted that domain apparently). Deals often pop up there. ···日本穣^? · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe 05:19, 13 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

(outdent) In keeping with the spirit of the project (and possibly with the reality of editor budgets), let's pursue the free-as-in-beer options. One thing we've been working to do is to build institutional relationships. If a historical society carries this (or something else as good), let's talk to them. Durova⁴⁰⁹ 05:26, 13 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Not so cool and the gang

I'm not sure you realize, but there is a pack of editors that have been after me for some time. I believe there are socks and sockmasters involved, but I really have no idea how to deal with it. If they can sock, I'm not sure much can be done about it anyway, so I try to go about my business as best I can. I just thought you might like to know some of the context. For instance this editor had no edits at all until I requested review of my block and then "popped up" almost immediately to comment [2]. There are many other editors who have similarly strange editing patterns where they don't edit much and then immediately pop up at certain articles or where there's a dispute where I'm involved. I have some suspicions, but I'm not much on playing cloak and dagger and I don't know that anything can be done about it all anyway. But it would be good if more editors saw the trolling for what it is. The smears take a toll after a while and you get comments like Ryan's that are not in line with my actual editing history. That's what happens when Tarc smears me at every single dispute where I'm involved. And I'm very active, so I do get around. :) Take care. I hope your photo stuff is going well. Thanks again for the Theatre shot. It's lovely! ChildofMidnight (talk) 06:04, 13 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]