User talk:Durova/Archive 65

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Statement to fellow Wikipedians[edit]

Archiving all existing threads on this page. Respectfully requesting the patience of fellow editors regarding unresolved existing issues. I tend to be the mouse who bells cats and there was a rather large tiger running around today. This is likely to take up a fair amount of energy for the near future.

In the meantime I will be doing my best to return to the content I was working on as today's events were brewing: a fourteenth century manuscript navigational chart of the Mediterranean Sea. Let's all remember please that Wikipedia is an encyclopedia; urging other editors to direct their energies into useful content. With respect toward all, DurovaCharge! 22:54, 13 January 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hi Durova, a while ago I unblocked Bus stop on the understanding that he'd be mentored by you. A cursory review of his contributions revealed no issues, but I wanted to check in with you and make sure he's doing ok.--Aervanath talks like a mover, but not a shaker 06:00, 14 January 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Seems to be. I'd been on the fence about leaving a touch-bases post at his user talk, and have done so now. Thank you for coming by. :) DurovaCharge! 17:01, 14 January 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
An image created by you has been promoted to featured picture status
Your image, File:Mount Rushmore2.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! Noodle snacks (talk) 11:11, 14 January 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Thank you. :) DurovaCharge! 17:01, 14 January 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

New photographer's guide[edit]

There is a new guide for professional photographer's to help them when they contribute images to wikipedia. You can check it out here Wikipedia:WikiProject Photography/Guide for Professionals. Since you seem to be an expert in everything (including photography), your input would be greatly appreciated. Remember (talk) 13:25, 14 January 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I had a brief correspondence with Jerry Avenaim when his portrait of Mark Harmon was up for FPC. There's a great untapped potential in this area. You seem to have a direction for this page already; what are you seeking to do? DurovaCharge! 17:30, 14 January 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Just trying to create a page so that those people that are professional photographers can have a page to turn to which discusses their unique situation in uploading pictures to wikipedia. I also think that having this page might be useful when trying to get in touch with a professional photographer because you can just point them to this page and it will show the basics of how it is done and who has done it in the past. Your thoughts? Remember (talk) 02:28, 15 January 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Brown Bible[edit]

I have a large bible "The Brown Bible" dated from 1878, each page is a bit bigger than A4 in size. There are many pictures in it, some in quite good condition. Any clues as to how to determine the author(s)? Noodle snacks (talk) 13:31, 14 January 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Whew, good question. Definitely would be PD-1923. Probably PD elsewhere at that age, but to document it a reference librarian would be the best place to start. Or possibly an antiquarian bookseller. DurovaCharge! 17:31, 14 January 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Solange[edit]

This has gone awful quiet and so has thisRealist2 17:27, 14 January 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The review went too long for a short article. If you are busy, please tell us or indicate at GAN that it needs to be rereviewed by someone. Thanks, Durova. --Efe (talk) 05:25, 27 January 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thanks When you reviewed Everything That Happens Will Happen Today, I was essentially the only editor to the article (I still am), and I was also taking a break from Wikipedia. Consequently, no one acted on the simple suggestions that you made for this article to pass a GA review. I have been working on it for the past several hours and will continue for the next day or two. If you want to take a look at it in a couple of days when I'm done, let me know. If not, I will go through the process of submitting it for review again. Please post on my talk if you'd like to respond. Thank you for your time. —Justin (koavf)TCM☯ 09:50, 15 January 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

There you have it I think I'm done. Here are my comments to your earlier GA review (which I can't get to display at Talk:Everything That Happens Will Happen Today for some reason), and here is the permanent link to the revision. Again, please post on my talk if you're interested in looking this one over again or if you think it would be wise to resubmit this to GA Review. Thanks. —Justin (koavf)TCM☯ 08:20, 17 January 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
One more bit I figured I should let you know that I made some pretty marginal changes to the article since that permalink above. Here is the new one. —Justin (koavf)TCM☯ 04:09, 20 January 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

A good phrase[edit]

I think your phrase "wondering how I had signed up for the right reasons and joined the wrong war" is very moving. DuncanHill (talk) 16:08, 15 January 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thank you. DurovaCharge! 16:20, 15 January 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hello beautiful[edit]

This is low-priority, but it's vexing me: I can't figure out why my photo of John Reed (novelist) isn't showing up in the info-box. Any ideas? --David Shankbone 19:08, 15 January 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Nevermind - it appears to have been something with categories that were put on that didn't belong there. I don't know the issue, but it's not worth your valuable time. --David Shankbone 19:12, 15 January 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Happy Durova's Day![edit]

Durova has been identified as an Awesome Wikipedian,
and therefore, I've officially declared today as Durova's day!
For your good work in both article and community space,
enjoy being the Star of the day, Durova!

Cheers,
bibliomaniac15
01:00, 16 January 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thank you very much. :) DurovaCharge! 01:01, 16 January 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Stuart Campbell[edit]

Hi Durova. Did anything come of Campbell's deletion request? Are you still in discussions with him regarding it? I ask because there's currently an AfD underway, which I figured was largely irrelevant until we figured out if discussions were still ongoing, which of course could end in you agreeing to delete the page, thus negating the need for an AfD in the first place.
For obvious confidentiality reasons I'm not looking for in-depth information. Really just whether the discussions are still ongoing, or if they are over and nothing came of them. Thanks. Dreaded Walrus t c 14:07, 16 January 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I'm also interested to hear what the outcome was of this. Thanks. Jumble Jumble (talk) 08:27, 19 January 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thought you would want to know about this[edit]

From today's scout report Pictures of Science: 700 Years of Scientific and Medical Illustration

http://digitalgallery.nypl.org/nypldigital/explore/?collection=SeeingIsBelieving700&col_id=197

Brought together originally in 1999 for an exhibition held at the New York Public Library's Gottesman Exhibition Hall, this set of intriguing images covers the fields of astronomy, chemistry, geology, medicine, and physics taken from different engravings, lithographs, and manuscript illuminations. The images here range from the 16th to the 19th centuries, and they are culled from works such as the 1798 volume "Elemens de la philosophie de Neuton" and the important 1830 volume "Principles of Geology" written by geologist Sir Charles Lyell. I thought maybe some of this images could be uploaded to wikipedia and fixed up, but I thought you would be a better judge of this. Remember (talk) 16:04, 16 January 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

POTD notification[edit]

POTD

Hi Durova,

Just to let you know that the Featured Picture File:Blanchardballoon3.jpg is due to make an appearance as Picture of the Day on January 19, 2009. If you get a chance, you can check and improve the caption at Template:POTD/2009-01-19. howcheng {chat} 17:19, 16 January 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thank you, and excellent caption as usual. I've tweaked the syntax a little for clarity. Best, DurovaCharge! 18:38, 16 January 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

RFAR on Biszilla??[edit]

Why? isn't Biszilla also Bishonen? GoodDay (talk) 19:07, 16 January 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Well, last time I checked that page the request wasn't likely to open. But to explain the reason for the name proposal she had used the Bishzilla account to implement the block. DurovaCharge! 19:50, 16 January 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Okie Dokie. PS- oops, I thought Bishonen was a male. GoodDay (talk) 22:09, 16 January 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Thank you for coming here to clear it up. DurovaCharge! 22:26, 16 January 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
No prob. PS- I remember you, from the Fidel Castro article (remember El Jigue?). It's been awhile. GoodDay (talk) 22:34, 16 January 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Lol! Yes, the fellow who supposed I was the last Communist in Eastern Europe. Penned a blog post on that last May: "The official Soviet red herring".[1] Brings back chuckles; much appreciated. :) DurovaCharge! 23:26, 16 January 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Jan. 2009[edit]

I think some moderation in your approach to promoting the importance of sensitivity and civility on Wikipedia might be a good thing. Accusations and implications of complicity and association with serious abuse and harassment is a very serious charge. I am redacting my quotation of the specific comment to which I am referring, but it is in this page's edit history. I'm not trying to create more drama or inflame the situation, I just wanted to offer my perspective. Cheers. ChildofMidnight (talk) 20:47, 16 January 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thank you very much for the refactor. I had written a reply and ec'd. Shortening the reply a bit, and your candor is welcome here. The other day regarding David Gerard's oversight of FT2's post, I observed that normal adults sometimes overreact when a hot button issue surprises them. Most of us have that kind of moment sometime or other.
Naturally Giano is not responsible for the extreme problems that sent me to the FBI and another woman to the police. The question I am raising is what tone does he set? What boundaries do other people test and tolerate, when the diffs I posted to the RFC and its talk page become inside the goalposts? The young woman I was helping at the time saw the connection immediately: one of the reasons she quit this site was because she despaired at getting any sensible assistance at all for her own problem, in light of what I was being told to put up with from Giano. She was very clear about her conclusion before she left.
I've done awareness raising, such as going public along with David Shankbone when we both opened FBI cases. Google our names and P2Pnet news to read the report. Maybe you've followed every word here and you differ with the conclusion. Reasonable people can disagree. I stepped forward expecting a few harsh reactions, and am willing to weather this out of respect for other women. DurovaCharge! 21:03, 16 January 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Thanks for your response. I have a few comments.
1) With regard to editors being driven away, I have seen some very disturbing resopnses on the notice boards to people who bring issues there. By the time someone is asking for help they are usually exasperated and frustrated. These are often relatively new users who don't understand the subtleties of how things work (for instance not asking for a block, or keeping their complaint short and allowing others ot look into it). They don't understand well the grand scheme of who is responding to them and how these things are handled (for instance anyone responding on a noticeboard is thought to be an Admin). They also don't have established relationships and friends who look out for them and weigh in on their behalf. They are treated as noobs and to use a hunting metaphor, noobs are always in season. The problem doesn't just happen to new editors though, more experienced editors who haven't dealt with disputes before can get a bit of a shock on how things work when they discover how their exaperation and frustration is dealt with. The response they get is frequently along the lines of a three stooges routine. Often their complaints are dismissed without any empathy (let alone sympathy or compassion) and the complainant is ridiculed and criticized.
Whether their complaint is right or wrong, people should be treated with dignity and respect and have their concerns taken seriously. I also take issue with the "you're in the wrong place" response. What difference? Answer their question, and point them to how those matters are handled. My point is that the level of arrogance and flippancy is a substantial and general problem, and gender insensitivity is, I think, one component of it.
2) Giano pushes the boundaries (crosses the boundaries?) of taste and civility. There's no question about it. But he has to be held responsible for his own actions and not those of other editors or more general atmospherics. A more general discussion of what constitutes civility may be appropriate in the appropriate forum, I have my own thoughts on that issue, but I think making any user the poster-boy (if you will) for incivility, or sexism, or harassment, is problematic in all sorts of ways.
3) The context of your comments was an RfC on Giano. When a target it put on someone and all sorts of people launch arrows and barbs and feel free to discuss them and their behavior, they should expect a strong reaction and a combative and/ or bunker mentality in return. I've seen a number of people comment that Giano is treated with a sort of immunity to the rules, but Giano is also a special case in the level of incoming fire and attention he receives. Giano strikes me as being an intelligent and reasonable person, and I think he needs to be shown a greater level of respect and tact in how people address their concens about the things he says and how he deals with other editors and the frustrations that arise in editing Wikipedia. There seems to me to be a self-perpetuating pattern of abuse on both sides. I highlighted your comment because it seems to me to play into the drama. Many of the complaints on both sides are based on things said and done in 2008. A month or two is a long time on here, it seems to me, and I think it's better to move forward rather than constantly reaggravate old grudges and to muck about in old disputes. What Giano did or didn't do in October or November of last year seems to me to be largely irrelevant.
4)Finally I would note that those of us who do not possess "a few extra buttons" experience Wikipedia in a very different capacity than those who do. If the cop tells you that he just has a few extra powers and is subject to all the same laws you are, that's not a great comfort when he's holding a gun to your head.
I am certainly not an expert on the issues involved and have only witnessed them in the most peripheral of capacities. But that's my two cents on the situation. Sorry for the rather long explanation. ChildofMidnight (talk) 22:41, 16 January 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Good points, articulately expressed. Two of the examples I cited came from last month, and in light of his temporary hiatus that's recent. Maybe different underlying wikiphilosophies play a role: the vested contributors issue? Not a principle I've bought into. Well, up to a point: anyone could have a bad day or a bad week, but if the overall if the problem becomes habitual? That's how Usenet went downhill. My take is it's the same rules for everyone. That's why I called out Charles Matthews for incivility while he was an arbirator--possibly tanked his reelection--and why I gave JzG a civility block warning while I was an administrator. Handed in those 'few extra buttons' at this project (but have them at three sister sites) and may be the last person who seriously believes they're no big deal. Giano is certainly intelligent, and it may be a quirk of the wiki that spun out the talk discussion on one of three examples in a manner that article space would call 'undue weight'. None of us are perfect: does he step back from his mistakes? It isn't easy, as we both know. We have; will he? DurovaCharge! 23:21, 16 January 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Brooklyn, 1879[edit]

Your Featured picture candidate has been promoted
Your nomination for featured picture status, File:Currier & Ives Brooklyn2.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. SpencerT♦C 23:41, 16 January 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Thank you very much! :) DurovaCharge! 23:46, 16 January 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Yet another FS[edit]

Your Featured sound candidate has been promoted
Your nomination for featured sound status, Image:LBJ Civil Rights signing 1964 edited.ogg, gained a consensus of support, and has been promoted. If you would like to nominate another sound, please do so at Wikipedia:Featured sound candidates. Xclamation point 23:34, 17 January 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Thank you very much. :) DurovaCharge! 17:48, 20 January 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Re:Portal Islam[edit]

Hey, Thanks for the info. I had seen the protest picture in the portal but was not quite sure who was in charge. Is the review process similar to that of FPC? --Muhammad(talk) 07:14, 18 January 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Well, featured portal candidates have their own review process. Usually when something is a featured picture already the only issues would be relevance to the topic and captioning, for the featured portal reviewers. Cirt is Wikipedia's most prolific featured portal contributor. On several drives in the past I've worked with him contributing images. Sometimes doing restorations to fill out the selections. I was thinking overnight about something you might help choose. The Library of Congress has several dozen Islamic manuscripts from Mali. Not fine calligraphy like the Ijazah, so the encyclopedic value would be more due to the content of the Mali manuscripts. I'm headed out the door for brunch right now, but wondered if you could review them and select the most important one? I'd restore. It'd be great to have more African FPs and another image for the portal drive. Think you could help there? DurovaCharge! 16:49, 18 January 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Yeah, I am willing to help. Just post a few of the pictures on my talk page and I'll try to select the most encyclopedic one. Good nomination at FPC, BTW --Muhammad(talk) 14:07, 19 January 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Triple Crown Question(s)[edit]

Hi Durova. I hope you don't mind me pestering you, but I have a question or two in relation to the Triple Crown awards and was hoping you would be able to provide me with some answers? First off, for one to become eligible for the Wikiproject Australia Triple Crown would one have to just get one each of DYK, GA, and FC on a topic related to Australia? And, if so, would one be eligible for both the Wikiproject Australia Triple Crown and the Standard Triple Crown, or would two different credits of each be required? My main motivation for asking is that I hold a Standard Triple Crown and each of the articles it is for are Australian topics—Australian Victoria Cross recipients to be exact. Also, do each of the DYK, GA and FC need to be different? As in, if an article had been up at DYK and had passed as GA, would it count one for each or just one or the other? Same with GA to FA? Thank you very much for taking your precious time up to read this, and hopefully reply. :) Cheers, Abraham, B.S. (talk) 11:58, 18 January 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Some more Darwin shots[edit]

Check this out. Do you think that Vanity Fair caricature has FP potential, and if so, how challenging a project would it be? I'd be willing to give it a shot.--ragesoss (talk) 19:55, 19 January 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

WikiCup Newsletter[edit]

pics[edit]

This is not a race, Durova. :) -- Samir 07:06, 20 January 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Not meaning to, just trying to finish up and get to bed. Late evening in California. :) DurovaCharge! 07:10, 20 January 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Took me a while to realize what was happening with the edit conflicts. Even later here in Toronto. Have a good night -- Samir 07:16, 20 January 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
You finish up then. I'll finish in the morning. Best wishes. :) DurovaCharge! 07:17, 20 January 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Layla and Majnun[edit]

Agh, you beat me to this one! Calliopejen1 (talk) 13:51, 20 January 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Jen, I had already downloaded the one you nommed. Restoring it would have been my next project. Cirt's working on a featured portal drive for Portal:Islam. Cheers! :) DurovaCharge! 17:46, 20 January 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

A favour for Milhist?[edit]

Hi Durova:

I was wondering whether I might ask a favour of you please (in your Commons admin capacity). If you are unable to, I shall entirely understand: I know how thinly you must sometimes find yourself spread :)

We have just overhauled the design of our existing A-Class medal and added three more variants. For information, the new designs are as follows:

File:Mil Hist A-Class Bronze Medal (variant).png File:Mil Hist A-Class Silver Medal.png File:Mil Hist A-Class Gold Medal.png File:Mil Hist A-Class Gold Medal - Gold Oak Leaves.png

The files have already been uploaded to Commons by Noclador but we would like their names changed. I gather that only sysops can move files on the Commons: hence, my bothering you :) The idea is also to overwrite the first existing file with a new image so we don't need to update the awards so far manually. Anyhow, here are the existing names and the preferred file names:

Image:Mil Hist A-Class Bronze Medal (variant).png > Image:WPMH ACR.PNG

Image:Mil Hist A-Class Silver Medal.png > Image:WPMH ACR (Oakleaves).PNG

Image:Mil Hist A-Class Gold Medal.png > Image:WPMH ACR (Swords).PNG

Image:Mil Hist A-Class Gold Medal - Gold Oak Leaves.png > Image:WPMH ACR (Diamonds).PNG

Many thanks in advance for any help you can provide, --ROGER DAVIES talk 14:41, 20 January 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Your Featured picture candidate has been promoted
Your nomination for featured picture status, File:Queen_Wilhelmina2.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. Wronkiew (talk) 17:29, 20 January 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Thank you. :) I was in chat with two Dutch Wikimedians when you posted this. They're delighted. :) Best regards, DurovaCharge! 17:47, 20 January 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

POTD notification[edit]

POTD

Hi Durova,

Just to let you know that the Featured Picture File:82northe.jpg is due to make an appearance as Picture of the Day on January 23, 2009. If you get a chance, you can check and improve the caption at Template:POTD/2009-01-23. howcheng {chat} 17:52, 20 January 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thank you very much. Did a little copyediting. DurovaCharge! 18:22, 20 January 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Officious[edit]

Durova, it's strange to me that you're suddenly, a week after the fact, officiously posting to me about filing the RFAR.[2] "To Bishonen, it's quite simple"—it sounds like I've been nagging you to explain your request for arbitration ever since! (Whereas I've actually never even mentioned it.) How are you involved? What's your role? How many people are you going to explain it to? [3]

Your notion that retiring the Bishzilla account is a "step forward" (from what?) is meddlesome, and your thanks offend me. Please refactor them. Bishonen | talk 19:39, 20 January 2009 (UTC).Reply[reply]

Bishonen, you referred to me by name in a late follow-up statement. I have been working on content and did not notice your post immediately, so addressed it as soon as I did see it. My opinion of Bishzilla has been no secret to you since the Tango arbitration request: it used to be a wonderful joke, then along the line something changed and it stopped being funny, and the tangible bitterness here in your words reinforces the opinion that it was a good decision to retire the account. I miss the Bishonen of two years ago--miss your warmth and humor and wonderful articles. Really, I do hope to see those sides of you again. Now it's time for content: I finished two restorations today and a .ogg conversion to upload, and have three featured content candidates to write. After that there are some promises that have been on hold that need to be kept. Perhaps in the interim you'll reconsider your post here. Today is a day of reconciliation. Nobody's perfect; let's put behind the past and move forward. DurovaCharge! 19:54, 20 January 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Obscure image question about a questionable obscure image[edit]

As the only person I can think of with experience in both the technicalities of working with old images, and the use of images between Commons and Wikipedia (I'm sure there are others, but I don't generally have many dealings with the Commons crowd), would you be able to have a look at this image and the storm-in-a-teacup that's ensued regarding its copyright status? A deletion request over on Commons has now spawned a sprawling thread there about its status. (FWIW: my personal opinion is that it's almost certainly a tinted black-and-white photograph and not a painting, given the black-and-white human figures and that trivial elements in the foreground such as gravel and power lines are shown in sharper focus than significant elements such as the station and buildings; that there's no reason to doubt that it dates from 1915 or earlier; that there's no reasonable way to identify the creator, and in any event the copyright would almost certainly have belonged to the publishing firm and not the photographer; and that uploading the back of the image as "proof" of the age is pointless – given that there's no way to demonstrate authenticity of the back, this requires just as much of a leap of AGF as "taking the uploader's word for it" does.) If you have any suggestions in breaking the logjam – even if it's "delete the image" – it would be useful; this relatively minor debate over this image – which isn't essential to either of the articles on which it's used – is potentially going to hold up FAC of one of said two articles, and I'd love to get it resolved sooner rather than later. – iridescent 20:38, 20 January 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The rationale should be better documented with direct links to the reference sources (not to the Wikipedia article) and a link to a non-copyvio hosting of the post-1923 platform for visual comparison. Once that is done this image should be transwikied to local hosting at English Wikipedia unless the artist can be identified. The pre-1923 rule applies to US law, not British law, so it would satisfy local English Wikipedia hosting rules (where US law applies) but not Commons hosting policy (which requires evidence of copyright compliance in all relevant countries). Makes sense? DurovaCharge! 20:46, 20 January 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Thank you! Yes, that's very helpful – reverse-transwiki-ing hadn't occurred to me. Assuming it's deleted at Commons, I'll get hold of the original uploader and se if the rationale can be tightened. – iridescent 20:59, 20 January 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
You're welcome. Technically it'd be a valid Commons deletion, but no need to rush on that since it looks like it can probably be verified as legit PD stateside. It's easier to transwiki this way. Best wishes, DurovaCharge! 21:05, 20 January 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Your Featured picture candidate has been promoted
Your nomination for featured picture status, File:Amsterdam photochrom2.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. Wronkiew (talk) 05:21, 21 January 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Thank you. DurovaCharge! 05:22, 21 January 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Your Featured picture candidate has been promoted
Your nomination for featured picture status, File:Darwin restored2.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. Noodle snacks (talk) 07:17, 21 January 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Thank you. :) DurovaCharge! 07:43, 21 January 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

RfAr Re : Bishzilla[edit]

The request for arbitration named above has been declined as superseded by motion :

  • Bishzilla (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) is strongly admonished for her conduct in this matter. She is advised not to block users to force further discussion or action on an issue, nor to increase the pace of an issue, and not to take administrator actions with respect to disputes in which she is involved. Bishzilla is warned that any further such incidents are likely to lead to the suspension or revocation of her administrator privileges.

For the Arbitration Committee,
Mailer Diablo 14:44, 21 January 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Offer[edit]

FYI diff, if you might find this useful I'd be glad to help, otherwise the best of luck. Tim Vickers (talk) 22:04, 22 January 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

What do you think?[edit]

Harassment or not? Here.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk 02:03, 23 January 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Stuart Campbell[edit]

Hi Durova, I've commented at Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Stuart_Campbell_(journalist)#Stuart_Campbell_.28journalist.29, operating on the assumption that the person who requested deletion of the article is indeed the subject. Should I have been mistaken in that, please let me know on my talk page and I may revise my comment (although based on what the article cites at present, notability seems pretty borderline anyway). Thanks, Jayen466 13:15, 23 January 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Tango[edit]

I hope you might wish to revisit your comment on the talk page of the Arbitration Enforcement RFC with respect to Tango's desysop. Tango was desysopped because he had made a series of questionable blocks, the last of which was a block which he attached to the 9/11 sanctions. The evidence was that almost every block Tango made on a "named" editor was questionable, with the exception of a 3RR block to a well-known edit warrior. It was his pattern of behaviour that resulted in his desysopping, not one single action. Risker (talk) 22:56, 23 January 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Yes of course. What triggered the RFAR though? He blocked Mongo, per the discretionary sanctions. Got that one right down to the letter, didn't he? The rest of Tango's actions are irrelevant to the point I was making. DurovaCharge! 23:02, 23 January 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Well, the contemporaneous discussion on ANI was very split on whether the block was appropriate; the RFC that was started after the RFAR was filed demonstrated certain behavioural issues, and evidence had already been provided to Arbcom about other problematic blocks. It was only after all of this transpired that the case was accepted. MONGO was blocked for saying "get lost...if you support conspiracy theorist misusing this website, then you should be deadminned" in response to a warning from Tango to be nicer to an editor who was, about six weeks later, topic-banned from 9/11 articles for conspiracy-theory POV-pushing. Problematic admin activity is problematic admin activity, regardless of whether the activity involves arbitration enforcement in whole or in part. Risker (talk) 03:15, 24 January 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I agree that his action was unwise. The point is, that unwise action was within the latitude ArbCom had authorized. If you'd like to discuss the other example I brought up in my first statement on the RFC itself, would be glad to do so via email. Not as a complaint regarding any particular editor--more as a second example of discretionary latitude backfiring. That one went to a clarification request. I believe there's also another example of a bad AE decision heading back to RFAR, although can't put my finger on it at the moment. In addition to the Scientology case, that is, which was more like AE clogging up and discretionary sanctions simply failing. Although you'll notice even there, one of the few administrators who did show up had quite a bit to conceal. Without enough eyes on the place, these broad powers are apt to go haywire from time to time. You can explain it away case by case if you like; I see a pattern. DurovaCharge! 04:04, 24 January 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Your Featured picture candidate has been promoted
Your nomination for featured picture status, Image:Gustave Doré - Dante Alighieri - Inferno - Plate 22 (Canto VII - Hoarders and Wasters).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. Fir0002 11:41, 24 January 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Thank you. :) DurovaCharge! 18:31, 24 January 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Email[edit]

Hi Durova! Just a note to let you know I've sent you an email. Thanks, ~Eliz81(C) 20:01, 24 January 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hi, haven't received it yet. DurovaCharge! 20:04, 24 January 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Re-sent! ~Eliz81(C) 02:02, 25 January 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Barnstar[edit]

this one's my favourite :)
The Excellent Userpage Award
Durova, your user page is amazing! Johnfos (talk) 20:39, 24 January 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Gee, thank you very much. :) What a pleasant surprise! DurovaCharge! 20:45, 24 January 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I totally agree. BTW, Durova, I just love your collection of sockpuppets :) It is certainly  Confirmed that you've been socking rather heavily. Keep up the good work :) - Alison 08:15, 25 January 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

WikiCup Newsletter[edit]

17:28, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

POTD notification[edit]

POTD

Hi Durova,

Just to let you know that the Featured Picture File:Fultondesign7.jpg is due to make an appearance as Picture of the Day on January 27, 2009. If you get a chance, you can check and improve the caption at Template:POTD/2009-01-27. howcheng {chat} 17:32, 26 January 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Looks great. Thank you! DurovaCharge! 17:46, 26 January 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
P.S. File:Bingham Canyon Mine 1942c.jpg follows on January 28. howcheng {chat} 17:52, 26 January 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Thanks again. Did a touch of copyediting. :) DurovaCharge! 18:31, 26 January 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

On-Hold GANs[edit]

Currently you have two articles at GAN that you have placed on hold- Defeated Sanity and Solange Knowles- which have been on hold for 43 days. Not sure if you forgot about them or what's going on, just letting you know! --PresN 21:52, 26 January 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Vandal detected[edit]

Durova, please take a look at this vandalism: [4]. I don't know where to report it.--Fahrenheit451 (talk) 04:14, 27 January 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Earrings[edit]

Well, they look like owls that the "grays" might have.  ;) •Jim62sch•dissera! 23:02, 27 January 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Wounded Knee FPC[edit]

I'm up for a different pic, and will co-nominate. Ceran//forge 00:12, 28 January 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Your Featured picture candidate has been promoted
Your nomination for featured picture status, File:Mediterranean chart fourteenth century2.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. Wronkiew (talk) 06:38, 28 January 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Thank you. :) DurovaCharge! 01:34, 1 February 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

POTD notification[edit]

POTD

Hi Durova,

Just to let you know that the Featured Picture File:Boston, 1775bsmall1.png is due to make an appearance as Picture of the Day on January 31, 2009. If you get a chance, you can check and improve the caption at Template:POTD/2009-01-31. howcheng {chat} 06:45, 28 January 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Your Featured picture candidate has been promoted
Your nomination for featured picture status, Image:Mirror writing2.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. Muhammad(talk) 17:26, 28 January 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Thank you. :) DurovaCharge! 01:34, 1 February 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Your Featured picture candidate has been promoted
Your nomination for featured picture status, File:Layla and Majnun2.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. Muhammad(talk) 17:55, 28 January 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Thank you very much. :) DurovaCharge! 02:01, 1 February 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Caption[edit]

Hello. Just a friendly heads-up that I think you forget to include a caption at Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Amsterdam Centraal railway station. Best wishes --Eustress (talk) 06:16, 29 January 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Image restoration[edit]

Hi Durova. Following a successful FPC nomination and my sticking around over there, I've seen a lot of your restoration work recently and have seen in a couple of places that you are willing to "teach"(?) your skill to anyone who is interested. I am interested but have practically no image manipulation software on my computer. I also can't really afford to buy any, meaning OpenSource software is my preferred (read only!) choice. Would this be possible? If so, can we take it in "baby steps"! Regards, Matthewedwards (talk contribs  email) 07:58, 29 January 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Certainly. :) DurovaCharge! 00:55, 1 February 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Wonderful. I guess the first step is to download the necessary software. Again, with my OpenSource/free requirement, do you have any suggestions? Matthewedwards (talk contribs  email) 08:55, 1 February 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
GIMP. :) Also Skype, which isn't open source but is free. It'll speed up our communication. DurovaCharge! 09:55, 1 February 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I'd also like to learn, if you're willing. Synergy 22:41, 22 February 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

LoC scans[edit]

Just a quick heads up on those LoC scans.

From what I can tell, the Library has access to two systems, one is Phase One kit and if it's the system I think it is, it's state-of-the art. I can't say which department uses it but suffice to say, it wasn't around when they scanned a lot of the maps and other images in the American Memory collection. They used an old Tangent Artisan 2000 scanner, donated by the manufacturers in the mid-90s, the firmware for which wouldn't have provided any way of correcting white balance on-the-fly, as modern systems do. I used to use something very similar base on the early Leaf platform and it was a wholly manual, post-processing task. The Tangent would have given very high quality, low-contrast result ideal for maps & plans but completely uncorrected as a raw file.

LoC archivists at the time appear to have routinely adjusted the files but only for brightness and contrast, basically due to time constraints resulting from the huge volume of work at hand. It's also much less likely that the workflow in place at this time was calibrated from device to display, although I can only infer this from the colour shift apparent on my (modern, calibrated) monitor. I figured it was worth contacting the library, as you suggested, to confirm that no colour correction, in particular white-balance corrections, were performed, ie that basically "raw" files, with only basic luminance correction, are placed in the public archives. The American Memory team referred me to the Prints and Photographs Division, who replied this morning:

Hello Mick Stephenson

I have consulted with our digital conversion coordinator to make sure that our practice matches what you describe as "raw" scans. He says it does.

For information on our digitization specifications for particular sets of images (which will have varied in resolution standards depending on how recently the scans have been made), check for digitization information accompanying the collection: From our collections listing page < http://lcweb2.loc.gov/pp/pphome.html >), select "More information" next to the collection you are interested in. Generally, if we have drafted specific digitization information, it will be called "Digitizing the ...." For example:

- Digitizing the FSA/OWI Color transparencies: <http://lcweb2.loc.gov/pp/fsacdig.html>

- Digitizing the Civil War negatives: <http://lcweb2.loc.gov/pp/cwphtml/cwpdig.html>

Best wishes.

Barbara Natanson
Reference Section
Prints and Photographs Division
Library of Congress

If you check the [http://memory.loc.gov/ammem/pmhtml/pandigit.html Panoramic Maps "Digitizing the..." page, for example, it confirms the use of the Tangent system and lack of white balance correction. Incidentally it's worth noting this doesn't necessarily mean more recent scans are unreliable from a colour fidelity point of view, as the Phase One scans (for example) will almost certainly perform a basic white point selection on the fly. Chances are, these would be very reliable indeed, given modern colour profiling and display calibration.

From our perspective as an encyclopedia, it means we have no reliable white point reference other than the possibility that there remains a small amount of white border from the scanner hood, or white backing paper. Where this is visible, it can be selected with an eye dropper tool in Pshops Levels or Curves dialogs as a start point, and tweaked from there. Where the scans were all made at roughly the same time, we can safely infer a similar white shift for all similar documents. I guess the only real confirmation would be in person, with a trip to the Library to view it first hand, although perhaps that would be a little bit too time consuming ;)

I'm sure you know the procedure I'm referring to well enough as I've noticed some impressive results, presumably using this approach, in the past. I only brought this up as it seemed there may have been an assumption that the archives at LoC are already corrected for colour and hence not corrected. I hope you can see that this in not the case. I also hope you can accept that I'm not interested in scoring points here, nor did I have any intention of upsetting you in bringing the issue up. I'm sorry if it came over that way. I should add that I'm in awe, frankly, of the time you dedicate to the project and the immense value your efforts provide. However is does seem to me that this correction should be a fundamental one in restoring artworks, if only from a historical accuracy point of view; maybe it's an under-addressed issue generally and should be discussed further elsewhere. I'd be interested to participate in that and who knows, maybe even get back into contributing some restoration work again soon. Real life just ain't backing off enough at the moment :/

Good luck with the nominations, anyway. mikaultalk 21:56, 29 January 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Image enhancement request[edit]

Are you able to improve this shipwreck image from the 70s? It has a texture all the way across it and some white flecks in the sky. - Shiftchange (talk) 11:43, 30 January 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

There isn't much that really could be done with the texture on that image. If you have the negative, suggest you contact Uncle Jerry's Photo Restoration Group on Flickr for assistance. DurovaCharge! 00:42, 1 February 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

rms on ANI[edit]

One trouble with the discussion on ANI is there is fear to express one's opinion. I have not researched the user's edits but if I were to come out in favor of unban, I could be indefinitely blocked accused of being a sock defending the master. The safe thing to do is to say nothing or advocate even harsher measures. There should be safeguards against false accusations. Perhaps there could be identity verification. If I am Mary then accused sock must prove he is not Mary, or he could be blocked. The chances that two different people falsely accused of being a sock but sharing the same first name is not that likely. Chergles (talk) 16:13, 30 January 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

You are not a sock of RMS. Feel free to join in the discussion there - Alison 16:19, 30 January 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Comment[edit]

I invite no action or comment; but I wonder if it might be worthwhile for you to examine what I have posted as a "comment" at User talk:Tznkai#Note on the topic bans (Caspain Blue and Sennen goroshi)? Plausibly useful? --Tenmei (talk) 20:08, 30 January 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Haven't really followed that dispute closely enough to have a good finger on the pulse. DurovaCharge! 00:42, 1 February 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

POTD notification[edit]

POTD

Hi Durova,

Just to let you know that the Featured Picture File:Dogcart3.jpg is due to make an appearance as Picture of the Day on February 1, 2009. If you get a chance, you can check and improve the caption at Template:POTD/2009-02-01. howcheng {chat} 00:14, 31 January 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

P.S. File:Dallas skyline 1912c.jpg follows on February 2, which purely coincidentally happens to the date of the city's incorporation. BTW, I dunno why the LOC has the date of the photo as August 1912, when it clearly says "April 1, 1913" right on the photo itself... howcheng {chat} 00:29, 31 January 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Thank you as always. :) DurovaCharge! 00:43, 1 February 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Overtagged text?[edit]

Saw that you removed the source template on Mae West. Your action in doing so has been appreciated by many readers. We'll hope it lasts that way. Two questions for you about that very important article:

  • Since practically every detail in the text there is covered by the biographies and other sources given as "Footnotes", aren't most or all of the many source tags that remain in parts of the text superfluous now, besides being what readers might find unsightly and/or confusing?
  • West was one of the few American entertainment pesonalities whose contributions to comedy, female courage and independent spirit have been universally appreciated, one of the most beloved of all in fact. In this article there is almost nothing appreciative about her international public reputation as one would expect to find (and which factual books such as Mae West, Empress of Sex by Maurice Leonard were about), and anything like that that has been put in seems to be removed quickly by the repeated actions of certain editors who have watched the article. Is this sort of intentional omission odd, or would you find it normal and acceptable, as well as becoming to enWP?

It seems that all the extended and extensive work on this particular article should lead to a reasonably complete text one of these years. There are a number of us Wikipedia users who hope that will happen in 2009. 217.209.96.57 (talk) 18:26, 31 January 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

You're welcome. It's silly to see tags like that on an article that's so well cited. As for specific sources, go ahead and ask at the reliable sources noticeboard. Perhaps dispute resolution would be good. Best wishes, DurovaCharge! 00:36, 1 February 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

advice on socks[edit]

I have strong reason to believe that an administrator is a sockpuppet. Factors to expose this person include Wikipedia's distaste of sockpuppets, the feeling that administrators shouldn't be sockpuppets. Factors to not do anything include that innocent people have been blocked indefinitely as sockpuppets (for example, Ryulong's block of me 2 years ago) and that the sockpuppet's edits are reasonable.

If the standard of guilt is "beyond a reasonable doubt" or "clear and convincing evidence", I will not proceed because my level of confidence in the evidence is not that good. I believe the "preponderance of the evidence" does support sockpuppetry. Chergles (talk) 22:29, 31 January 2009 (UTC) For the record (the second letter of the offending user's name is e)Reply[reply]

Well, it's rare but it's been known to happen. Suggest you confer with someone who has a good reputation in that area and ask for a reality check. The burden of evidence is on you. DurovaCharge! 00:38, 1 February 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I've decided to hold off because it's bad if one is falsely accused, especially if you are the accused (at least from my own personal experience). There is no damage to WP by not doing anything because the person does make constructive edits and hasn't double voted on anything that I saw. If this person is blocked, then there would be damage to WP (lost edits that never would occur) and the possibility of misidentification of socks. There would also be additional drama because many administrators do not want to sanction another administrator but are very happy to block those who question a fellow administrator. The answer seems clear to me. If the situation were to change, such as double voting, then I would have to rethink the matter. Chergles (talk) 22:13, 1 February 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
This is why it's sometimes a good thing to get a reality check privately. Feedback can either relieve your worries and help reorient the energies toward productive endeavors, or occasionally firm up your concerns. The one thing to be careful about is to avoid mistaking 'looks good' for real feedback. If they don't get down to brass tacks they may not have read it. Learn from my mistake there. Best wishes, DurovaCharge! 07:52, 2 February 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

thank you[edit]

My RFA passed today at 150/48/6. I wanted to thank you for weighing in, and I wanted to let you know I appreciated all of the comments, advice, criticism, and seriously took it all to heart this past week. I'll do my absolute best to not let any of you down with the incredible trust given me today. rootology (C)(T) 07:42, 1 February 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Cheers and pfft. It's no big deal. DurovaCharge! 08:25, 1 February 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Your Featured picture candidate has been promoted
Your nomination for featured picture status, File:Japanese archer 1878b.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 07:15, 2 February 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Thank you. :) DurovaCharge! 07:41, 2 February 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hey Durova[edit]

I know that you are "backlogged", but would you be able to restore this image? I must confess to I having no knowledge of how or what you do to images to 'restore' them, but I do know that they tend to look rather good when you are done with them. :) Thanks for your time! —Ed 17 (Talk / Contribs) 18:04, 2 February 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Well, fortunately there happens to be a 37MB uncompressed version of this file. Am downloading and will give it a look to see what potential it has. Is there a special reason for this request? An article you're working on? DurovaCharge! 18:15, 2 February 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Thanks! And yeah...Lexington-class battlecruiser. I'm hoping to nom it for FA sometime around the end of March-ish. I would have asked for the lead picture to be restored, but I really don't like that image all too much. :\ Thanks again! —Ed 17 (Talk / Contribs) 18:53, 2 February 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Well, the uncompressed file comes to 19 megabytes after rotation and cropping. There's enough data to work with. It's got damage; not sure how this will turn out in terms of featured picture potential. We'll see how this goes. DurovaCharge! 19:15, 2 February 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Not that I know exactly what "19 megabytes" means. :P Yeah, I know it has damage...that's why I came to you. It's not the biggest deal in the world, so don't lose sleep over it if it doesn't work out, but I just wanted to see what could happen with it, and even if it can't get to FP, at least there will be a better image there! Thanks so much for your time (and help!), —Ed 17 (Talk / Contribs) 20:09, 2 February 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Took three days, but it's done. Best wishes with your FAC drive. :) DurovaCharge! 02:27, 6 February 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thanks a bunch - that looks great! I may have already seen you replace the image in the article and comment on the FPC page... ;) —Ed 17 (Talk / Contribs) 02:32, 6 February 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The above-linked Arbitration case has been closed and the final decision published.

PHG's mentorship and sourcing arrangement is both revised and extended; the full list of new conditions are available by clicking this link. Furthermore, the original topic ban on editing articles related to medieval or ancient history has been rescinded. PHG is prohibited from editing articles relating to the Mongol Empire, the Crusades, intersections between Crusader states and the Mongol Empire, and Hellenistic India—all broadly defined. This topic ban will last for a period of one year. He is permitted to make suggestions on talk pages, provided that he interacts with other editors in a civil fashion.

Any particular article may be added or removed from PHG's editing restriction at the discretion of his mentor; publicly logged to prevent confusion of the restriction's coverage. The mentor is encouraged to be responsive to feedback from editors in making and reconsidering such actions. Furthermore, the Committee noted that PHG has complied with the Committee's restrictions over the past ten months, and that PHG is encouraged to continue contributing to Wikipedia and Wikimedia projects. PHG should be permitted and encouraged by other editors to write well-sourced suggestions on talkpages, to contribute free-content images to Wikimedia Commons, and to build trust with the community.

For the Arbitration Committee,
Daniel (talk) 22:32, 2 February 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Took ya guys enough tries. ;) DurovaCharge! 00:04, 3 February 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

POTD notification[edit]

POTD

Hi Durova,

Just to let you know that the Featured Picture File:Dutrieuc.jpg is due to make an appearance as Picture of the Day on February 5, 2009. If you get a chance, you can check and improve the caption at Template:POTD/2009-02-05. howcheng {chat} 00:54, 3 February 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

PS: File:Johannes Vermeer (1632-1675) - The Girl With The Pearl Earring (1665).jpg follows on February 6. howcheng {chat} 01:00, 3 February 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Thank you as always. Am running out the door atm; will give this a look a bit later. All the best, DurovaCharge! 01:27, 3 February 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Your Featured picture candidate has been promoted
Your nomination for featured picture status, File:Pulaski bird's eye2.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 04:02, 3 February 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Thank you. :) DurovaCharge! 04:06, 3 February 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Your Featured picture candidate has been promoted
Your nomination for featured picture status, File:The camel corps at Beersheba2.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 04:03, 3 February 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Thank you. :) DurovaCharge! 04:07, 3 February 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hi there Durova. I located the theater. I've left the details on the FPC page. Best regards. --Chasingsol(talk) 05:44, 3 February 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Wow, thank you very much! :) DurovaCharge! 05:45, 3 February 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hi again. Managed to find location information for this one too. See FPC page. Best regards. --Chasingsol(talk) 06:09, 3 February 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Okay, this earns you a barnstar. :) Thanks so much. DurovaCharge! 06:54, 3 February 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Wow, that was unexpected and truly appreciated. Thank you! More than happy to try and find location information for the amazing restorations that you do of historic images. I'll try and keep an eye out on FPC and add them when I can. Best regards. --Chasingsol(talk) 07:08, 3 February 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Your research is a really pleasant surprise. By all means continue. :) DurovaCharge! 07:12, 3 February 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

One more for the night! This one was a toughie, primarily because Tel-el-Sheria (various spellings) ceased to exist after the battle. I reviewed and triangulated based upon several different accounts of the battle and several different maps. The location should be accurate to within about a half mile. Best regards. --Chasingsol(talk) 08:05, 3 February 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thank you again. :) DurovaCharge! 18:19, 3 February 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Wikipedia Administrator's Award[edit]

I think that it is great that you are active on the admin's noticeboard, and you were very thorough with your intervention of the role account. So, here's this:

Wikipedia Administrator's Award
{{{1}}} {{{2}}}

Good going! -BlueCaper (talk) 13:40, 3 February 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thank you very much! But...(blush)...I'm not an administrator anymore. Resigned in disgrace. Best wishes though! DurovaCharge! 18:19, 3 February 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Since you were interested in the tif file of the image.

The copy of the original tif on my harddrive is lost (I deleted some intermediate tif files some days ago cause I needed space..., bad luck, it was in the list.) I suspect the original to be intact at my father place, but I can't access for now, since he lives 350km from me and since he is not so good in computing.

Now I still have the jpeg I shotted this day. I remade the hdr , corrected the perspective in gimp and saved it as a tif file again.

http://dl.free.fr/uPaimQcW8 —Preceding unsigned comment added by Esby (talkcontribs) 21:25, 3 February 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

About the licence issue, I don't really care, let it be PD-old100, that should be enough. Attribution don't really have a sense, since it's a moral right according to the french law, what ever it is mentionned or not, it is mandatory to at least mention Farsari as the original author.

The tiff file will be available at a dl.Free.fr location. (I'll update it when the upload will be complete). (31 mb size)

The same can be done for any image of the album, if you are interested in another tiff.

esby (talk) 20:57, 3 February 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Well, if you can get me a .tif that'd be great. With a good high resolution file 10MB or more this should be restorable. DurovaCharge! 15:35, 5 February 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The url I linked contains the tif file. If you need that I put it somewhere else, just ask. esby (talk) 15:30, 6 February 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Since it seems the licensing of the image is in order now, I'd like to make another nomination for featured picture of it. Is this tif-file something I may need to include? Mikael Häggström (talk) 17:28, 8 February 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Your Featured picture candidate has been promoted
Your nomination for featured picture status, File:Shoki2.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 04:35, 4 February 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Thank you. :) DurovaCharge! 04:58, 4 February 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Your Featured picture candidate has been promoted
Your nomination for featured picture status, File:Segregated cinema entrance3.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 04:35, 4 February 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Thank you. :) DurovaCharge! 04:59, 4 February 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Your Featured picture candidate has been promoted
Your nomination for featured picture status, File:Ase o fuku onna2.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 04:36, 4 February 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Thank you. :) DurovaCharge! 04:59, 4 February 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Nice work[edit]

Just glanced through this to understand what you meant by a request for cleanup. Nice work and kudos. I'm also a photographer (since '71, now on my 7th camera and 5th Nikon), though I do very little professionally.

I just found Wikipedia:WikiProject Photography/Guide for Professionals and added some info to it. One thing that bugs me is the no-derivative works issue. I've uploaded very few images to Wikipedia but I would probably never upload one with people in it for that reason. Any thoughts? RoyLeban (talk) 07:00, 4 February 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hi, thanks. Your point about the no derivative works issue is understandable. It can be a hurdle, and how you choose to manage it is up to you. One thing some photographers have chosen to do is to upload a relatively low resolution image and retain full copyright over the full quality file. That's what the Bundesarchiv (German national archive) recently did with 100,000 images from its collection. There isn't much that can be done with a 150KB image in terms of subsequent editing, but it's good enough resolution for a lot of encyclopedic purposes. Would you consider that? DurovaCharge! 17:47, 4 February 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
That's why I wrote two separate FAQ items for the page. For me, there are three classes of images:
  1. those that I don't care about or took for Wikipedia -- no problem
  2. those that I care about and may want to sell, etc. -- low-res upload generally solves the problem
  3. those with people or other content where I cannot allow them to be modified, for example, images of non-famous people where a model release was used -- I can not upload any image if derivative works are allowed
RoyLeban (talk) 21:26, 4 February 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Mark Harmon portrait by Jerry Avenaim.

Actually, one thing I'm hoping to bring to the attention of more professional photographers is the example at right. Jerry Avenaim happens to be a Wikipedia editor and had uploaded a low resolution version of one of his portraits. Someone admired it enough to nominate for featured picture consideration, where it nearly failed on size requirements until I contacted Mr. Avenaim. He was very flattered by the attention (imagine such a successful photographer being flattered :) ) and provided a file that met requirements. Featured picture status qualifies it to run on Wikipedia's main page, where it will receive an average of about 7 million page views as a main page feature and in the neighborhood of 25,000 direct clicks to the hosting page.

Professional photographers may find it advantageous to place a selection of portfolio shots under copyleft in proportions that qualify for featured picture consideration. It helps the encyclopedia gain access to high quality material, and the project is glad to return credit and a link back to the photographer's website from the hosting page. In a competitive field that may be something more photographers should consider seriously. DurovaCharge! 21:45, 4 February 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

That is cool! Perhaps the guidelines should discuss this issue specifically, including giving the minimum res for featured image. RoyLeban (talk) 21:50, 4 February 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]


There is a discussion on deleting Deceased Wikipedians. Since you've been involved in the page before, I hope you will consider commenting at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:Deceased Wikipedians (2nd nomination). Best,--SouthernNights (talk) 02:13, 5 February 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thanks for the heads up; will have a look. DurovaCharge! 03:04, 5 February 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
BTW, been a while since we've chatted. It's good to see you still going strong around here. Best,--SouthernNights (talk) 23:27, 7 February 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Wounded Knee[edit]

Just a note so you don't miss it in the flurry of everyone's posts at WT:MILHIST: I've responded at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Military history#A free-form comment. Maralia (talk) 22:40, 5 February 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thank you for the heads up. :) DurovaCharge! 22:48, 5 February 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I didn't mean to neglect the broader issue in my reply; surely we can do more...somehow. For starters, I discovered that our monthly newsletter has never listed new FPs along with other promoted content. I brought this to the attention of the other Coordinators, and began adding new FPs to the next newsletter. If you have more ideas, I'm all ears. Maralia (talk) 05:21, 9 February 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Just pinging in case you've missed my comment above. Maralia (talk) 21:09, 10 February 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Regarding misuse and abuse of CheckUser and Oversight[edit]

Have you seen User:Thatcher/Quis custodiet ipsos custodes and its related talk page? If not, please read it. I stand by every word I said. If that means you feel the desire to open a new RfC because of it, that's your decision to make. --MZMcBride (talk) 00:38, 6 February 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Done. With notice posted at ANI and the Community Bulletin Board. DurovaCharge! 01:43, 6 February 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

WKA question[edit]

Hmm... since doing an image on Wounded Knee was kind of my idea, I don't mean to... oh, nevermind. Sorry to bother. ;) Ceran//forge 02:45, 6 February 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

It was? I hadn't known. Was doing a LoC search for images of South Dakota (primarily for other reasons) and chanced upon that along the way. DurovaCharge! 02:47, 6 February 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Lol, I'm only kidding. I'm just being a 'conceded' person Ceran//forge 02:50, 6 February 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
:) DurovaCharge! 02:54, 6 February 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Your Featured picture candidate has been promoted
Your nomination for featured picture status, File:Amsterdam Centraal Station2.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 07:05, 6 February 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Thank you. :) DurovaCharge! 07:35, 6 February 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Your Featured picture candidate has been promoted
Your nomination for featured picture status, File:Wounded Knee aftermath3.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 07:06, 6 February 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Thank you. DurovaCharge! 07:36, 6 February 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Your Featured picture candidate has been promoted
Your nomination for featured picture status, File:Zaandam2.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 07:07, 6 February 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Thank you. :) DurovaCharge! 07:36, 6 February 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Query[edit]

This FPC that I just created is causing my trouble. Um, do you think that the current upload has been converted to a drawing format, it doesn't look like a typical photograph. Ceran//forge 21:35, 6 February 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Yes, it looks halftoned. I wouldn't nominate it that way at FPC. How does the original look at that resolution? DurovaCharge! 21:45, 6 February 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Uh, I gotta go somewhere, so I'll come back in say, two hours. Sorry for the inconvenience, Ceran//forge 21:47, 6 February 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
When you have time. :) DurovaCharge! 21:48, 6 February 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I can always just revert to the earlier version and nominate that, correct? Ceran//forge 03:11, 7 February 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The earlier version isn't high enough resolution. DurovaCharge! 03:29, 7 February 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Re:Mali manuscripts[edit]

Hey, thanks for the link. Unfortunately, I can't review the images now as my final exams start on Monday and will keep me occupied for around 2 weeks. I will check them out then. Regards --Muhammad(talk) 06:37, 7 February 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

:Could you check File:Baba stone.jpg out? The original version in the file history is a large res image. Would it be possible to get to FP status? --Muhammad(talk) 06:41, 7 February 2009 (UTC) Ignore that ;) --Muhammad(talk) 06:46, 7 February 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

No rush; best wishes on your exams. DurovaCharge! 06:58, 7 February 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

WP:BASEBALL triple crown[edit]

I'd like to ask you about a Triple Crown for the Baseball WikiProject. I'm sure there are users other than myself that qualify. I would be able to make the crown image myself, but I don't want to step on your toes. Let me know at my talk page if this is something that's feasible/possible/doable. KV5Squawk boxFight on! 21:45, 7 February 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Ticonderoga map[edit]

That's a really nice map you put on Fort Ticonderoga. I'm not any good at cleaning maps up; if you want to have a go at this map, I at least would appreciate it. (I also have another map-related idea for Arnold Expedition: if you or someone you know would be able to depict the actual geography of the area depicted by a portion of this map, since this one was, to Arnold's detriment, inaccurate.)

Cheers! Magic♪piano 22:02, 7 February 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I'll have a look at it. The format is JPEG2000, which tends to get compression artifacts. Will follow up after a closer look. DurovaCharge! 20:24, 8 February 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Well, the good news is that compression artifacts aren't the problem they might have been. Bad news is that the map itself is in considerably worse condition than the Ticonderoga map. I've put about an hour into it; it's restorable but it would be a big job. Is there a priority to this? An ongoing featured article drive? DurovaCharge! 23:15, 8 February 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I would eventually like to get Arnold Expedition to a feature level. It's not high on my list right now, but having a nice version of this map, as well a rendition of an accurate map showing some of Arnold's troop movements (as I mentioned above), will likely be needed for it. (I'm also tempted to inquire at the LoC if this is actually Arnold's map; that would be really neat.) If it doesn't turn up for a month or two, no big deal. Magic♪piano 01:21, 9 February 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Okay, I'll add this to the 'to-do' list. Am doing a few other maps currently, so may stretch this out a little. FPC reviewers tend to prefer variety. Please ping me if this becomes urgent. Best regards, DurovaCharge! 04:30, 9 February 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Skype[edit]

Hi there. I've downloaded Gimp and Skype as you suggested at #Image restoration. I would have got back to you sooner, but Wikipedia pissed me off so I decided to focus my attention on writing an article and steer clear of the politics. So yeah, I have them both (I actually had Gimp already), but I need a microphone for Skype. My name on it is mmm.matthewedwards (as in "mmm chocolate"!). I don't have a phone number for it.

So. What's next? :) Matthewedwards (talk contribs  email) 07:38, 8 February 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hi, I've friended you and sent a message. Reply when you have the chance. :) DurovaCharge! 20:16, 8 February 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Note[edit]

I've requested PR to rephrase a comment of his and I figure it might be worth mentioning to you. Cheers, JaakobouChalk Talk 15:59, 8 February 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thank you for mentioning it. DurovaCharge! 20:21, 8 February 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
There was no response so I'm open to suggestions/intervention. JaakobouChalk Talk 02:22, 12 February 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Well, you've asked politely. That's good. I hope the problem doesn't repeat itself, but in case it does you could try Wikipedia:Wikiquette alerts. Sometimes a fresh pair of eyes makes a difference. And sometimes people are more receptive to a few words from someone who isn't entrenched in a dispute. I'd hold off on further action for now, then try that route if the problem recurs. Best wishes, DurovaCharge! 03:04, 12 February 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

WikiCup Newsletter[edit]