User talk:Durova/Archive 79

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


Hello Lise. I noticed your great job in the past regarding restoration of many beautiful and important historical pictures from the USGov archives, and their subsequent nomination for FP. I would like to ask, what is the situation with historical portraits? Are there any special requirements for the FP? The question came to my mind when uploading photo of Mississippi Governor Theodore G. Bilbo File:Theodore Bilbo.jpg. Thanks in advance. - Darwinek (talk) 12:26, 13 February 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The 350 KB version is obviously too compressed to nominate. Glass plate photography can be fiendish to restore. Download one of the high resolution TIFF files from LoC and look it over at 200% resolution. It's a beautiful medium when it's done right, but photographic emulsions don't tend to adhere well to glass. Expect a lot of micro-scratches, specks, and other problems. If you're a real masochist go for the 159 MB version. But the 19 MB file is probably good enough. A tough choice for a first project, but doable. Durova409 00:04, 14 February 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Poor kitty![edit]

Sorry to hear that, Durova. I hope Samantha get better soon although diabetes is an illness for long term care. --Caspian blue 00:31, 14 February 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

At least it's something really treatable. Considering what else was consistent with her symptoms (liver failure, etc.) this is good news. Thank you very much for your concern. :) Durova409 00:54, 14 February 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Love the image collection. Tabby cat rules!. The lunar year (a.k.a Chinese new year) is coming. You can easily guess what animal year it will be after visiting the Chinese Wikipedia (sort of cat) :-) --Caspian blue 01:09, 14 February 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
"Some green parrot soup?"
(edit conflict)
I've heard even the hors d'oeuvres are concerned enough to make the ultimate sacrifice. :-) All our prayers (or other gestures of loving universal assistence you wish), dear Samantha. -- Proofreader77 (interact) 01:13, 14 February 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Samantha is a tiger! (I keep wanting to do a Chinese New Year restoration). The dear parrot hors d'oeuvre is safe for the present: Samantha is on a low feather diet. :) All the best, Durova409 03:41, 14 February 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I love it Durova, I should start doing the same thing. We sometimes forget that the other person on the otherside of the computer screen is human. These pictures help others connect with you, even those who may disagree with you. Sorry to hear about you kitty. I would be devastated if that happened to my little dog. Okip (formerly Ikip) 04:34, 14 February 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Known to cause rolling, pawing, and frisking among kitties worldwide
Managed to stare straight at all those cat pictures for a full 30 seconds without actually reading the text. Hope she gets better. In the mean time, here's some catnip:
Peter Isotalo 00:02, 17 February 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Are these facts correct?[edit]

Are these facts of the recently closed Arbcom correct?

I was just a horrified and disgusted spectator, whereas you were right in the middle of it all.

Okip (formerly Ikip) 04:31, 14 February 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Saw your lead-up discussion at Casliber's user talk. It would be hard to answer in a few words. Some of the details are a bit off base but the general thrust appears to be meritorious. I hate to answer on this level, but it isn't likely to go unnoticed: your strong history of inclusionism will likely color the way that other editors interpret that post. Site culture has become all too apt to disregard the merits of a statement if they suspect an ulterior wikipolitical motive is behind it.
The irony is that BLP is the area where I've leaned closest to deletionism, but the radical actions of recent weeks are very shortsighted. The metric which has driven most of the action is inherently flawed: there actually isn't much overlap between BLP violations and unreferenced BLP articles. Our more serious problem as a website includes subtle vandalism such as what I outlined in this offsite article. One of those examples actually made statewide news in South Dakota while passing entirely below the administrative radar here at Wikipedia. It wouldn't be realistic to delete congressional biographies, yet our site culture hasn't absorbed the idea that we represent an attractive nuisance for genuine political skullduggery. Or that individuals who pass our notability threshold are usually notable enough to merit the attention of celebrity stalkers, and a few of them actually have one. For more than two years now I've been addressing one long term problem of that type where, at times, malicious impersonations of the BLP subject were quoted and cited in the article as if they were self-published statements.
The recent actions have undermined our consensus model and turned off a substantial portion of the community without getting us any closer to solutions for the serious side of the BLP issue. Durova409 05:22, 15 February 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]


Your Featured picture candidate has been promoted
Your nomination for featured picture status, File:French mutilé with mask2.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. Abecedare (talk) 05:07, 14 February 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Your Featured picture candidate has been promoted
Your nomination for featured picture status, File:French mutilé without mask2.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. Abecedare (talk) 05:07, 14 February 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

BLP contest page began[edit]

The Unreferenced living persons contest
Please help us build this contest.
Your suggestions are warmly welcome.
>> Sign up now. <<

As I write this, this page is still a red link, but it is a beginning. Thank you for your help and guidance:

Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Unreferenced_Biographies_of Living Persons#Unreferenced_living_person contest

Okip (formerly Ikip) 08:21, 14 February 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Successful featured picture nomination[edit]

An image created by you has been promoted to featured picture status
Your image, File:Tropenmuseum Royal Tropical Institute Objectnumber 3444-7 Begrafenis bij plantageslaven2.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 17:59, 15 February 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Ever get secondary confirmation on the 24 members of the "secret mailing list"?[edit]


I would be interested if Scott Macdonald, Lar, Coffee, and Kevin were members. Okip BLP Contest 19:50, 15 February 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

This is quite delicate. The entire discussion has been removed by an arbitrator whom I wish to avoid.[1] A few brief comments, the secret mailing list phrasing is inapplicable; the concerns have surrounded a private web domain. I'm not in a position to comment upon the validity of those concerns other than to say that it would be a relief if its members stepped forward and discussed it openly. Also, considering that more than 90% of respondents supported Sandstein's opinion regarding the scope of ArbCom on policy issues, it would be better if arbitrators refrained from attempts to close and summarize a policy RfC or from the appearance of clerking its pages. There are plenty of non-arbitrators who could do those functions equally well (and this comment would be equally applicable no matter which arbitrator intervened). The Arbitration Committee is not Wikipedia's Steering Committee; clarity in that regard would foster community confidence. Durova412 20:17, 15 February 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Re: Picture Restoration[edit]

I am not sure if you have an interest in restoring pictures uploaded by other users, but I recently submitted a few cannabis images for picture peer review, and it looks like some restoration is required for any of the images to obtain valued picture or featured picture status. I am not familiar with restoration, but I saw your accomplishments during last year's Wikicup and thought you might enjoy working on an image or two and guiding them through the valued/featured image process. If you are not interested, no problem... keep up the great work! --Another Believer (Talk) 00:30, 16 February 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Well, considering that I was awarded a ribbon in the Navy for drug ops this would be somewhat of a stretch. The FAQ for this talk page is temporarily down to honor my ailing little buddy Samantha. I do ask a favor in return: which of my GAs would you like to improve for FAC? Durova412 00:39, 16 February 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
My apologies, but I am not familiar with any of the GA topics you have listed, and I am currently working on several articles and lists of my own. While I appreciate your willingness to swap favors, I was simply approaching you in case you had a particular interest in image restoration and were looking for images to work on. (And as a side note, the cannabis images are botanical and scientific in nature, not used to promote drug use). Thanks for your response, and (again) keep up the great work! I enjoyed browsing your submission for the Wikicup and your galleries on your profile page. Best wishes! --Another Believer (Talk) 00:50, 16 February 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Those images are quite interesting actually. Am backlogged at the moment with existing commitments. But willing to reprioritize for an editor who's willing to joust with the WP:MOS dragons at the WP:FAC forest. Cheers, Durova412 00:53, 16 February 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Will keep that in mind! --Another Believer (Talk) 00:56, 16 February 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Your comment on Transcendental Meditation movement[edit]

Hi Durova. Your comment made me think: what if a user edited articles related to Catholicism from an IP that belongs to the Vatican? Sole Soul (talk) 01:35, 16 February 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The conduct is what matters, not the religion. Not a problem if a Vatican editor were doing something innocuous such as correcting spelling at the biography of a Pope. But if a group of Vatican-based accounts and IP addresses tried to promote Catholicism in article space and refused to accept feedback about site standards, then yes our response would be the same. Wikipedia is neutral with regard to religions. Durova412 01:59, 16 February 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
"our response should be the same" or "my response would be the same" are more accurate. Thank you. Sole Soul (talk) 02:17, 16 February 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
A fair correction; let's hope it's functionally equivalent. :) Durova412 02:23, 16 February 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]


Bravo Raystorm (¿Sí?) 16:05, 16 February 2010 (UTC) And I hope Samantha is doing okayReply[reply]

Thank you very much. Durova412 16:47, 16 February 2010 (UTC) And the little darling isn't eating. Will be calling the V-E-T as soon as they open.Reply[reply]

Apostrophe Demons[edit]

Yes, nasty little beasts that seem to plague my computer. Very strange. In my defense I work in a profession with poor grammar and poorer handwriting. Thank you Tuckerj1976 (talk) 19:35, 16 February 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thank you very much for taking the little blue demon in good humor. :) Durova412 19:44, 16 February 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]


Hey Durova, can you do a picture restoration to File:PaulKrichell.jpg, I'm planning the triple crown on that article, and it needs a good cleaning. Thanks Secret account 20:27, 16 February 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I do ask a favor in return: which of my GAs would you be improving for FAC? Durova412 20:29, 16 February 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I could help you out with evaulating, can't really add much information for as it's not my specialty. I could try to help you I'm Just Wild About Harry, or collaborate an GA/FA of an entertainment article from the Kennedy Center Honors List of Presidential Medal of Freedom recipients or National Medal of Arts your choice. I'm surprised many of the articles of the subjects of these awards are just plain bad. Secret account 20:48, 16 February 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • We could work on Pamela Churchill, I have a biography of her, and the article about her is just plain bad. Secret account 20:52, 16 February 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    • "We"? You want two favors instead of one? Durova412 20:55, 16 February 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    • I meant we could work on a article together if you want, any interesting bio your choice (as long as I could get the sources together). I which I could work on your GAs, like expanding them, but they aren't my specialties (unless I get the proper book sources). Secret account 20:58, 16 February 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
      • Glass plate photography restoration is very laborious. You have asked me to do a twenty hour restoration as a favor to you. When I ask you to do me a favor in return, you ask me for more work. It isn't as if I'm twiddling my thumbs; pardon if this seems testy, but I do have existing editing commitments a very sick pet who's returning to the veterinarian today for the third time in less than a week. Durova412 21:05, 16 February 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Mary Rose at FAC[edit]

Mary Rose is up for FAC. Thought you'd might like to know.

Btw, I intend to get a grip on the appeal thing by the end of this week. I've been busy with job hunting and other stuff, but I've managed to find some rather interesting Haiti-related info and I've contacted the press secretary at the Ministry of Culture about the digital media initiative. However, there's not much happening from Swedish Wikimedia on the matter, but I hope I can recruit some help at the yearly meeting on the 27th.

Peter Isotalo 23:55, 16 February 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

That is absolutely wonderful! Best regards and please keep me updated. Durova412 00:02, 17 February 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Expert Opinion[edit]

We are starting a portal for battleships as a part of Operation Majestic Titan, but we are short on battleship/battlecruiser featured picture material. At the moment we have 10 FPs, with an additional two I can think of off the top of my head that failed FPCs and one that I wanted your opinion on as a potential FPC: File:Yamato battleship under construction.jpg. This particular image is one a precious few to have been taken by the Japanese to have survived WWII (special service officers of the IJN destroyed almost on or relating to the Yamato-class just prior to the allied occupation of Japan). It doesn't seem right to have no FP of at least on battleship of the Yamato-class battleships, so I was interested in hearing whether this one has a chance of passing FPC.

On an unrelated note, I am sorry to here about Samantha. I'll keep here in my prayers, and I wish you luck in adjusting to this new development. TomStar81 (Talk) 04:26, 17 February 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Rare exceptions to the 10 MB source file minimum usually have spectacular visual impact. This was restored from a 2 MB file of a photograph taken in the aftermath of the Galveston, Texas hurricane of 1900.
Wonderful encyclopedic value. As a nominee this would have two types of problems: it borderlines on too heavily compressed at 323 KB and those dimensions. Usually I work with a minimum 10 MB TIFF file. If you could obtain a larger version it would be a roll of the dice to restore this for FPC because it's framed too tightly and needs rotation. The horizon is tilted and the only way to fix that would be to lose data at the edges of the image. With this composition I would be unable to work around that the way I did for a recent candidate The ed 17 ran. So you'd need to persuade the featured picture reviewers of its rarity and historic value. In practical terms it may have a better chance of passing if someone else worked on it. When one does a lot of restorations reviewers sometimes expect more than the archives and software can deliver. Durova412 17:28, 17 February 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Hmmm I wonder if we could find a suitably large version of that in a book and scan it in as a tiff? AFAIK, it's not a rare print; it shouldn't be hard to find in a book (especially seeing as it is virtually the only photo of Yamato under construction, so there aren't a lot of choices). —Ed (talkmajestic titan) 19:42, 17 February 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Look for a good quality reproduction. A lot of book publishers save money by a process called halftoning. The result is perfectly encyclopedic by not feature-worthy. Durova412 21:08, 17 February 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
How does one tell if it is halftoned or not? —Ed (talkmajestic titan) 21:12, 17 February 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]


...first time me and you have agreed for a while [2] - may that be the first of many! (I should note that our philosophies do normally see eye to eye, it's only been very recently where we've had a couple of differences on opinion). Take care, Ryan PostlethwaiteSee the mess I've created or let's have banter 16:54, 17 February 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

When you're right you're right. :) Cheers, Durova412 16:57, 17 February 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

This is probably User:Drew R. Smith. You know this story? Key bits: faking a scan of a book page to support a statement he had made and making an RFAR request and then saying that he hadn't, as his account had been compromised. He was indef'd and then let off with a month. If I'm wrong, again, it's a troll feigning to now be Drew. Cheers, Jack Merridew 20:37, 17 February 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The name rings a bell; wasn't that the fellow who doctored a source at the Reference Desk? Durova412 21:01, 17 February 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The one and the same. It's all over his talk page and/or its history. His *Drew* tak page ;) Look at the recent contribs of both; after Red Hood was told to go edit article on ani, he went and did paintball, template, and image uploads that align well with Drew's recent stuff. For master class trolling this would be someone shifting to impersonating Drew. What threw me in the discussions yesterday was his referring to having known me in the 'past' and, to me, that means years, not months. Drew's shown this short-term definition of 'past' before; he was calling himself experienced after his first six weeks. Cheers, Jack Merridew 21:08, 17 February 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]


I think your assumptions of good faith do you great credit and are a most effective counter to those who harbour lingering grudges over past events. I also think you are a good judge of emotionally complex situations. Guy (Help!) 22:05, 17 February 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thank you very much. That's a wonderful compliment and I'll do my best to deserve it. An ideal worth aiming for, even if the reality sometimes falls short. Cheers and with gratitude, Durova412 22:21, 17 February 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Wow, just saw CoM's statement. Ouch. Not the situation where one relishes being proven right. Durova412 04:31, 18 February 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Please see my last reply in this thread- I didn't at all mean to imply that I felt you played unfairly in any way last year; I have no reason to believe any of the final 8 did (and I spent time sifting through contributions, as well as defending various people against accusations of unfair play). I'm sorry if it came across that way. J Milburn (talk) 22:14, 17 February 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Being reasonable[edit]

Yes Durova, I am willing to be reasonable, but it seems a bit late for that as you and Jack have already publicly outted me, and any contributions I make will be looked at with my past actions in mind. I made this account to get away from all of that. Thanks for nothing. Jack "Red Hood" Napier (talk) 00:30, 18 February 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

It would bring things closer to resolution if you expressed regret for violations of several policies and copyright. The privacy policy is not applicable to this situation. It may help to review Wikipedia:SOCK#Inappropriate uses of alternate accounts, in particular:
Avoiding scrutiny: Using alternate accounts that are not fully and openly disclosed to split your editing history means that other editors cannot detect patterns in your contributions. While this is permitted in certain circumstances (see legitimate uses), it is a violation of this policy to create alternate accounts to confuse or deceive editors who may have a legitimate interest in reviewing your contributions.
You were given a final indef warning at your siteban discussion for falsifying sources, and yesterday you falsified sources again. Do you have second thoughts about that? Durova412 00:52, 18 February 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
That was an honest mistake. When I ported over my article I slapped the citation on every paragraph. I'll try to find the source that mentions the dates.
As for the privacy policy, I said in many places that I would reveal the name of the account to any interested admin. Xeno is the only one who took me up on that offer, and apparently hasn't done anything with the info. People like Jack are the reason I wanted to keep the account name off wiki. Jack "Red Hood" Napier (talk) 01:05, 18 February 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Writing a quick note to acknowledge your post. Not necessarily in agreement with that explanation for your actions, though. Am heading afk to pick up a veterinary prescription. May be gone an hour or more. Durova412 01:14, 18 February 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Best wishes re your kucing, Samantha. I'd seen that and missed commenting. David 01:27, 18 February 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

(outdent) to Jack Napier: two things quickly. One is that the source for that article is Citizendium. Citizendium isn't a reliable source, but its license structure requires that the coauthors be attributed. That was a word for word cut and paste from the Citizendium text down to the irregular capitalization for Hawaiian bible. The second is that the socking policy doesn't allow scope for what you were trying to do; see WP:CLEANSTART. Durova412 02:31, 18 February 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Update: Could you explain the sourcing for File:Pompom.jpg which was uploaded after the ban warning? The upload at Wikipedia asserts "Disclaimer states images can be reused under cc by sa." and links only to the image itself, not to the license statement.[3] The top result on Google Images for this image states "Copyright © 2007-2010 All About Aquarium Fish. All Rights Reserved."[4] Durova412 02:54, 18 February 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Yeah, I pointed that one out earlier.
"Clean start under a new name: If you decide to make a fresh start and do not wish to be connected to a previous account, you can simply discontinue the old account(s) and create a new one that becomes the only account you use. Discontinuing the old account means it will not be used again; it should note on its user page that it is inactive—for example, with the {{retired}} tag—to prevent the switch being seen as an attempt to sock puppet. A clean start is permitted only if there are no bans, blocks or active sanctions in place against your old account, and so long as no active deception is involved, particularly on pages that the old account used to edit. That is, you should not turn up on a page you edited as User:A to continue the same editing pattern, this time as User:B—particularly while denying any connection to User:A, or if the edits or subject matter are contentious. You should also not, as User:B, engage in disputes you engaged in as User:A—whether they are disputes about articles, project-space issues, or other editors—without making clear that you are the same person."
Seems I didn't do anything wrong there.
"If you decide to make a fresh start and do not wish to be connected to a previous account, you can simply discontinue the old account(s) and create a new one that becomes the only account you use." Ok, no problems with this statement.
"Discontinuing the old account means it will not be used again; it should note on its user page that it is inactive—for example, with the {{retired}} tag—to prevent the switch being seen as an attempt to sock puppet." Ok, I forgot to tag the old page, but I haven't used it, so I see no major problem.
"A clean start is permitted only if there are no bans, blocks or active sanctions in place against your old account, and so long as no active deception is involved, particularly on pages that the old account used to edit." The key word here is active. My old account had no active bans, blocks, or sanctions, so thats all good. I did not intend to actively deceive anyone. My intent was to come back, set up a userpage, and quietly start editing paintball articles.
"That is, you should not turn up on a page you edited as User:A to continue the same editing pattern, this time as User:B—particularly while denying any connection to User:A, or if the edits or subject matter are contentious." Same as before.
"You should also not, as User:B, engage in disputes you engaged in as User:A—whether they are disputes about articles, project-space issues, or other editors—without making clear that you are the same person." This is the only thing you might be able to get me on. However, I did not actively seek out Jack. Quite the opposite, Jack came to me when my sig was disruptive.
So what part of WP:CLEANSTART did you want me too see? Jack "Red Hood" Napier (talk) 02:56, 18 February 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
You seem to have misread the paragraph there. The "active" only applies to "active sanctions" (i.e. you were on a topic ban or something). The wording is clear (to me, anyway) that there had to be " bans, blocks...". That means at all - regardless of their current status. –xenotalk 15:07, 18 February 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
He seems to have misread a few things. Fact is, Drew was and is problematic and Red Hood was an attempt evade all that. Bzzzt. If Drew had sought to do good and proper things over the last six months, folks would be having some other discussion. But see the bad and improper things Durova has listed in the next section… So, this mess needs a wrap-up of some sort. Cheers, Jack Merridew 20:34, 18 February 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Neither of these accounts is blocked at the moment. The SPI is largely moot as he has acknowledged both accounts. This needs to go to a notice board for a discussion. Since he's targeted me and sees me as not liking him, I'll let this go where others take it. I'll offer my views in any discussion. Frankly, I recommend a 6 month boot and wp:offer with a year of formal mentorship (and if no one is willing, too bad). This should be a fairly standard practice; there are a few others about that this needs to occur for. Cheers, Jack Merridew 20:34, 18 February 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Arbitrary break[edit]

Also noting for reference:

More may follow. Durova412 03:01, 18 February 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Haven't checked the text submissions yet. Is there a need to? Durova412 03:28, 18 February 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I'm not out to "get" you. But considering that you deliberately falsified a source last summer, you need to step up to the plate here. Please start with a link to a source page that states a cc-by-sa license for File:Pompom.jpg. The thing I've found asserts full copyright. Durova412 03:38, 18 February 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Working backward to undisclosed copyvios prior to the ban warning. Durova412 03:46, 18 February 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Are you having fun? Because you're wasting your time. You and Jack have assured that I will never contribute again under this username. The point of the new account was an anonymous clean start. I'm only still watching to see how far you take this. Jack "Red Hood" Napier (talk) 04:01, 18 February 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

No, this isn't fun. It's tiresome. But if that's your reaction it doesn't leave much choice. I was hoping you'd help with the cleanup and perhaps get a chance to remain editing under somebody's guidance. But you don't demonstrate recognition that misusing other people's intellectual property is a type of stealing. Durova412 04:17, 18 February 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Disruptive and problematic editors get sorted out, one way or another. It does get tiresome; one of the issues I've always had on this project is that it takes too damn long. Too much takes twice as many of the next larger unit of time. But things do eventually sort. When you said you knew me in the past, I thought you were someone from years back, not just last year. Who knows, maybe you really are; not that I care much. Jack Merridew 20:34, 18 February 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
WP:SO doesn't offer a preset six month ban. The clock starts to run from the moment a banned editor stops socking. They have the power to reset that clock at anytime. Hence, indef--but with a potential schedule. Durova412 20:36, 18 February 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I suppose it's arguable that Red Hood was not exactly a sock, but it is not passing the sniff test for legit alt accounts. I'm really not interested in keeping and eye on these accounts, watching for the next thing. A few times in the last six months I noticed things from the Drew account that I was unimpressed with but that I opted to not look too deeply into and did not raise a fuss over.
As I've said to you in other contexts, I see scalability issue with this project. There are many areas with too much toast that we've no one much interested in spreading their limited butter over. I see an ever eroding ratio of clueful peoples' time to serious issues and the time it takes to sort them out. The unsourced BLP backlog is just one example. This leaves two routes forward: reduce the issues, and increase the efficiency with which issues are addressed. There is no option to talk every issue through in exhaustive detail because for every case where that is done, a dozen other issues go by unaddressed. Problems are manifesting considerably faster than solutions. Cheers, Jack Merridew 21:12, 18 February 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Let's not make the discussion too diffuse. Drew was an editor who came within a final warning of a siteban for falsifying sources and copyvio. He continued copyright violations and then falsified sources again on a new account. His own statements pretty much admit that the restart was done with the intent to avoid scrutiny. He's not all of Wikipedia; he's one person. And unless he resumes copyvio or false sourcing we can wait for a checkuser to dot the is and cross the ts. If he has a change of heart between now and then I'll see what I can do about resolving this with less than a siteban, but volunteer time is limited and it's taken too much of that resource to correct the problems he's created. Durova412 21:32, 18 February 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Agreed. I'm fine with it drifting a bit. If he tries anything inappropriate, it will only move things along. And he's said he's done with these accounts and is now watching, so let him get bored watching. (Right, Drew? You're here for the reactions you get?) Cheers, Jack Merridew 21:51, 18 February 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

thank you[edit]

I notice you are working together with Jack above.

For around 3 years my views of editors were fairly simple, pretty undeveloped actually. But in the past 8 months I have seen how the confusing the changing nature of wikipedia can be, one moment you are strongly arguing with someone, and the next moment you are strongly supporting that editors viewpoint on something else. So many dozen examples come to mind, for example the three quotes on my talk page, including yours, are all by editors I once disagreed with about something. It gives me hope the editors who I disagree with the most, that in the future I can find some common ground that we can both work on.

Thank you again for the quote and your bravery.

The Defender of the Wiki Barnstar
The Defender of the Wiki may be awarded to those who have gone above and beyond to prevent Wikipedia from being used for fraudulent purposes.

This barnstar is awarded to Durova. For her valiant effort to prevent wikipedia from being used for fraudulent purposes. Never has the defender of wikipedia barnstar been more deserving. Thank you so much for your bravery and persistence. Okip BLP Contest 01:34, 18 February 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thank you very much. We all have our own views and wikiphilosophies, and when the site functions well the net result is pretty good. Best regards, Durova412 02:19, 18 February 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Consider this barnstar seconded! AGK 15:21, 18 February 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

POTD notification[edit]


Hi Lise,

Just to let you know that the Featured Picture File:The Journey2.jpg is due to make an appearance as Picture of the Day on February 20, 2010. If you get a chance, you can check and improve the caption at Template:POTD/2010-02-20. howcheng {chat} 17:26, 18 February 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I closed this nom. It had been in suspended noms for 2 months. You could probably re-nominate it immediately, if you'd like, with or without the further information we were hoping for. Makeemlighter (talk) 08:32, 19 February 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

just mebbe[edit]

It really is just too easy or too weird; any thoughts? Cheers, Jack Merridew 09:53, 19 February 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Let's go with the technical evidence. Better not to overreach. Durova412 16:07, 19 February 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I'm a patient guy ;) Jack Merridew 18:10, 19 February 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]


Although you've said "no" already, I write again to invite you to join others in becoming a co-mentor for me.

You may be unaware that the "Finding of facts" in the decision at Tang Dynasty explicitly encompasses a message on your talk page -- see User talk:Durova#Seeking help in presenting thoughts clearly

Your experience in mentoring will help remedy a deficit in the composition of a small group. The nascent status of a mentorship committee is clarified in the currently active thread at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Clarification/Tang Dynasty. Hopefully, this mentorship experiment will prove to be more effective and less burdensome than previous wiki-mentoring schemes.

This is a time for hortatory concepts. Do you know this one?

"I am only one, but I am one. I can not do everything, but I can do something.
I must not fail to do the something that I can do."

If Wikiquote:Helen Keller#Misattributed is to believed, then I am not alone in linking these words with Helen Keller. The salient question becomes this: Does precise attribution matter in the context of a teachable moment? No – not always, but often.

What can I say or do to convince you to agree tentatively?

Core policies are the tools at hand; and if you agree to help connect the dots, it could benefit more than me. In this search for a mentor deemed acceptable by ArbCom, I cite Wikipedia:Mentorship#Unintended consequences as a plausible context for discussing what I have in mind.

Your background causes me to share something already explained to another prospective mentor, "Among a prospective mentor's many burdens, the most difficult would involve (a) helping me discern why or when I should apologize or (b) helping me to explain why or when I will not apologize in a wiki-context" -- see diff. May I offer an on-topic writing sample? As you think about agreeing to join a mentorship committee, please review Patrick Lennox Tierney#Showa apology rebuffed.

Are you willing to look into this a bit further?

If you please, contact me by e-mail or on my talk page. --Tenmei (talk) 18:35, 19 February 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thank you very much for the invitation. A year ago I stopped accepting new mentorships and sought new mentors for the ones I was already doing. Best wishes to you finding good mentors. Durova412 18:55, 19 February 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Of course, "no" was the expected answer; but perhaps you might consider making yourself available in a somewhat different role -- as an advisor to the co-mentors whose questions are likely to be different than mine? --Tenmei (talk) 19:08, 19 February 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I'd be glad to talk to them and to you in an informal capacity. Durova412 19:11, 19 February 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Image restoration question[edit]

I'm still not very good at restoring bad images, so I wondered if you could look at this one and compare it to the original (the links to the original and an archive of it are on that page). If you feel like playing around a bit with it and fixing the image better than I could, that would be awesome, too. :) Thanks for any help. ···日本穣? · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe 23:51, 20 February 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I don't normally edit copyrighted works. Durova412 05:01, 21 February 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Okay...any thoughts or comments on it? Tips on things that may make it better? If you don't want to edit it, that's fine. ···日本穣? · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe 09:36, 22 February 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
With that particular image it might be best to leave unedited. First, do no harm. It's a perfectly good low resolution nonfree shot. Durova412 17:48, 22 February 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

ArbCom case[edit]

An Arbitration case in which you commented has been opened, and is located here. Please add any evidence you may wish the Arbitrators to consider to the evidence sub-page, Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/ChildofMidnight/Evidence. Please submit your evidence within one week, if possible. You may also contribute to the case on the workshop sub-page, Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/ChildofMidnight/Workshop.

On behalf of the Arbitration Committee, ~ Amory (utc) 04:36, 21 February 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

TM Workshop[edit]

Thank you for your comments. Have I thus posted this in the wrong section? My intent was to propose possible solutions that would end the case (or be produced as a result of the conclusion), not interim ones. Tuckerj1976 (talk) 19:47, 21 February 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Ah, these things can be confusing. :) Workshop proposals for the final decision would go farther down on the page, yes. If you move I'll blank my responses. Durova412 20:03, 21 February 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]


Have you any ideas how I can sharpen these diagrams up File:Blenheimpianonobile.jpg. If you look at User:Giano/Diagrams for Blenheim Palace - rewrite you can see that they are all fine without text. The probablem is the program that creates them, has no text facility in the 3D mode, so I have to take them to a picture editing program. where they imediatly become blurred - they are just about OK at low resoluton, but I want them big and clear. Any ideas gratefully received.  Giano  09:29, 22 February 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Without knowing which software you use that's a bit tough. I tried rotating one of your diagrams once and got strange results: the image looked fine on my computer but when it uploaded to WMF the aspect ratio changed and the tilt reappeared. Not sure what causes these glitches--a wild guess is that it might be unusual encoding from your software. So my normal suggestion would be to use the Photoshop Sharpen Edges filter on your diagram before adding the text. In this situation it might be better to run a Google search for known bugs and workarounds. Durova412 17:46, 22 February 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

POTD notification[edit]


Hi Lise,

Just to let you know that the Featured Picture File:John Quincy Adams drawing2.jpg is due to make an appearance as Picture of the Day on February 23, 2010. If you get a chance, you can check and improve the caption at Template:POTD/2010-02-23. howcheng {chat} 18:08, 22 February 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]