User talk:Durova/Archive 65

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

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, Durova^Charge! 22:54, 13 January 2009 (UTC)[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.--

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. :) Durova^Charge! 17:01, 14 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

An image created by you has been promoted to talk) 11:11, 14 January 2009 (UTC)[reply ]

Thank you. :) Durova^Charge! 17:01, 14 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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]

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? Durova^Charge! 17:30, 14 January 2009 (UTC)[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]

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)?

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. Durova^Charge! 17:31, 14 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This has gone awful quiet and so has this — Realist² 17:27, 14 January 2009 (UTC)[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]

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)❤T☮C☺M☯ 09:50, 15 January 2009 (UTC)[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)❤T☮C☺M☯ 08:20, 17 January 2009 (UTC)[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)❤T☮C☺M☯ 04:09, 20 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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]

Thank you. Durova^Charge! 16:20, 15 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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]

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]

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]

Thank you very much. :) Durova^Charge! 01:01, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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]

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

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]

Hi Durova,

Just to let you know that the Featured Picture

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

Why? isn't Biszilla also Bishonen? GoodDay (talk) 19:07, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[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. Durova^Charge! 19:50, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Okie Dokie. PS- oops, I thought Bishonen was a male. GoodDay (talk) 22:09, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for coming here to clear it up. Durova^Charge! 22:26, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[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]

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. :) Durova^Charge! 23:26, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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]

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. Durova^Charge! 21:03, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[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]

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? Durova^Charge! 23:21, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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]

Thank you very much! :) Durova^Charge! 23:46, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you very much. :) Durova^Charge! 17:48, 20 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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]

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? Durova^Charge! 16:49, 18 January 2009 (UTC)[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]

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]

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]

The WikiCup Newsletter

WikiCup Newsletter Round I, Issue II - January 18, 2009 Archive before | Archive after Content leaders As of this newsletter, the following is a list of participants with the most: Featured articles Gary King has had 2 successful featured article nominations. Featured lists Scorpion0422 has had 1 successful featured list nomination. Featured topics No participants have had a successful featured topic nomination. Featured pictures Durova has had 8 successful featured picture nominations. Featured sounds Shoemaker's Holiday, X!, and Durova have all had 1 successful featured sound nomination. Featured portals Sunderland06 Good topics No participants have had a successful good topic nomination. Good articles Catalan and Juliancolton have both had 4 successful good article nominations. Did you know? items Candlewicke has had 21 successful "Did you know?" nominations. In the news items Spencer has had 4 successful "In the news" nomination. Biggest Jumps This week, the players with the biggest difference between their points last week, and their points this week are: Rank User LW TW D 1 Durova 144 320 176 2 Candlewicke 60 194 134 3 Shoemaker's Holiday 1 112 111 4 Gary King 86 191 105 5 Juliancolton 133 230 97 6 Sasata 10 92 82 7 Theleftorium 121 197 76 8 Spencer 67 135 68 8 97198 11 79 68 10 Sunderland06 46 104 58 LW = Last Week's score, TW = This Week's score, D = Difference between last week and this week's scores A full list is located at User:Garden/WikiCup/Jumps From the Judges Wow, you guys are racking up the DYK's fast! Good articles are also coming in quite quickly, and we also have a few new Featured articles. This is coming along great so far; we're glad to see almost everyone working on something. Also, Thehelpfulone is our newest judge. He will, starting Monday, be helping maintain the WikiCup and help us ensure all runs smoothly. It's hard to gain consensus between two editors, so I guess "majority rules" (with three people) will start to apply while we make our decision. :-P Keep it up! talk, and The Helpful One 13:55, 11 January 2009 (UTC)[reply ] WikiCup At a Glance As of this newsletter, the WikiCup participants have collected a total of: 4 Featured articles 1 Featured lists 0 Featured topics 12 Featured pictures 3 Featured sounds 1 Featured portals 0 Good topics 24 Good articles 58 Did you know? items 4 In the news items Current leaders In this round of the WikiCup, the top three contestants from each pool will advance to the next round. As of this newsletter, the current pool leaders are: Pool A Catalan, Gary King (191) Spencer (127) Pool B Shoemaker's Holiday (112) Sceptre (34) Spittlespat (9) Pool C Candlewicke (182) Scorpion0422 (72) Steven Walling (16) Pool D 97198 (79) NapHit (29) ThinkBlue (25) Pool E Sasata (91) X! (69) Straight Edge PXK (6) Pool F Bedford (55) RyanCross (31) the_ed17 (24) Pool G Sunderland06 (104) Ceranthor (34) Skinny87 (17) Pool H Juliancolton (230) Tinucherian (64) Ottava Rima (28) Pool I Durova (319) Theleftorium (196) J Milburn (65) Pool J Climie.ca (101) Paxse (97) Useight (81) All scores are accurate as of the time the newsletter was sent out. If you don't wish to receive this newsletter in the future, remove your name from this list. If you are not a participant, but would still like to receive this newsletter, feel free to add your name to the list.

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

Not meaning to, just trying to finish up and get to bed. Late evening in California. :) Durova^Charge! 07:10, 20 January 2009 (UTC)[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]

You finish up then. I'll finish in the morning. Best wishes. :) Durova^Charge! 07:17, 20 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Agh, you beat me to this one! Calliopejen1 (talk) 13:51, 20 January 2009 (UTC)[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! :) Durova^Charge! 17:46, 20 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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]

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]

Thank you. :) I was in chat with two Dutch Wikimedians when you posted this. They're delighted. :) Best regards, Durova^Charge! 17:47, 20 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Durova,

Just to let you know that the Featured Picture

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

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]

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. Durova^Charge! 19:54, 20 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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? Durova^Charge! 20:46, 20 January 2009 (UTC)[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

]

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, Durova^Charge! 21:05, 20 January 2009 (UTC)[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]

Thank you. Durova^Charge! 05:22, 21 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Your talk) 07:17, 21 January 2009 (UTC)[reply ]

Thank you. :) Durova^Charge! 07:43, 21 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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,

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]

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

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]

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]

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. Durova^Charge! 23:02, 23 January 2009 (UTC)[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]

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. Durova^Charge! 04:04, 24 January 2009 (UTC)[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]

Thank you. :) Durova^Charge! 18:31, 24 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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]

Hi, haven't received it yet. Durova^Charge! 20:04, 24 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Re-sent! ~Eliz81^(C) 02:02, 25 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

		The Excellent Userpage Award
		Durova, your user page is amazing! Johnfos (talk) 20:39, 24 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Gee, thank you very much. :) What a pleasant surprise! Durova^Charge! 20:45, 24 January 2009 (UTC)[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]

The WikiCup Newsletter

WikiCup Newsletter Round I, Issue III - January 25, 2009 Archive before | Archive after Content leaders As of this newsletter, the following is a list of participants with the most: Featured articles Gary King and Juliancolton have both had 2 successful featured article nominations. Featured lists Scorpion0422 and Juliancolton have both had 1 successful featured list nomination. Featured topics Scorpion0422 has had 1 successful featured topic nomination, containing 6 articles. Featured pictures Durova has had 12 successful featured picture nominations. Featured sounds X! has had 2 successful featured sound nominations. Featured portals Sunderland06 has had 1 successful featured portal nomination. Good topics No participants have had a successful good topic nomination. Good articles Theleftorium and Juliancolton have both had 5 successful good article nominations. Did you know? items Candlewicke has had 24 successful "Did you know?" nominations. In the news items Spencer has had 6 successful "In the news" nominations. Biggest Jumps This week, the players with the biggest difference between their points last week, and their points this week are: Rank User LW TW D 1 Durova 320 462 142 2 Juliancolton 230 323 93 3 Shoemaker's Holiday 112 189 77 4 Theleftorium 197 262 65 5 Catalan 192 254 60 6 jj137 1 47 46 7 Sasata 92 134 42 8 Candlewicke 194 239 40 9 X! 69 105 36 10 Climie.ca 101 134 33 LW = Last Week's score, TW = This Week's score, D = Difference between last week and this week's scores A full list is located at User:Garden/WikiCup/Jumps From the Judges The content is continuing to pile in, it's great! Nothing significant this issue, but we currently have a talk, and The Helpful One If you don't wish to receive this newsletter in the future, remove your name from this list. If you are not a participant, but would still like to receive this newsletter, feel free to add your name to the list. WikiCup At a Glance As of this newsletter, the WikiCup participants have collected a total of: 6 Featured articles 2 Featured lists 1 Featured topics 18 Featured pictures 4 Featured sounds 1 Featured portals 0 Good topics 31 Good articles 86 Did you know? items 10 In the news items Current leaders In this round of the WikiCup, the top three contestants from each pool will advance to the next round. As of this newsletter, the current pool leaders are: Pool A Catalan (254) Gary King (215) Spencer (150) Pool B Shoemaker's Holiday (189) Sceptre (35) Spittlespat (10) Pool C Candlewicke (250) Scorpion0422 (146) Steven Walling (29) Pool D 97198 (89) ThinkBlue (37) NapHit (31) Pool E Sasata (140) X! (105) Straight Edge PXK (9) Pool F Bedford (101) the_ed17 (40) RyanCross (32) Pool G Sunderland06 (107) Ceranthor (67) jj137 (50) Pool H Juliancolton (355) Tinucherian (71) Ottava Rima (28) Pool I Durova (462) Theleftorium (264) J Milburn (88) Pool J Climie.ca (135) Paxse (134) Useight (116) All scores are accurate as of the time the newsletter was sent out.

17:28, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

Hi Durova,

Just to let you know that the Featured Picture

Looks great. Thank you! Durova^Charge! 17:46, 26 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

P.S.

chat} 17:52, 26 January 2009 (UTC)[reply

]

Thanks again. Did a touch of copyediting. :) Durova^Charge! 18:31, 26 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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]

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]

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

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

Thank you. :) Durova^Charge! 01:34, 1 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Durova,

Just to let you know that the Featured Picture

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]

Thank you. :) Durova^Charge! 01:34, 1 February 2009 (UTC)[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]

Thank you very much. :) Durova^Charge! 02:01, 1 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. Just a friendly heads-up that I think you forget to include a caption at

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]

Certainly. :) Durova^Charge! 00:55, 1 February 2009 (UTC)[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]

GIMP. :) Also Skype, which isn't open source but is free. It'll speed up our communication. Durova^Charge! 09:55, 1 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'd also like to learn, if you're willing. Synergy 22:41, 22 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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. mikaul^talk 21:56, 29 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]