This seems to be lagging; I'm nudging ideas about for the s:main page and would like to know if this is going anywhere. Cheers, Jack Merridew09:20, 14 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Good nudge. Perhaps the thing to do is downgrade to a weekly feature, at least for the time being. Have transcribed three more early Irving Berlin songs today, which helps a little. Thoughts? DurovaCharge!18:53, 14 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry to troll stuff up from your archives ;) but I missed replying. The main point of chat on this is at s:Talk:Main Page#Future directions. See Steve's comment about a music extension, which I don't know boo about. I'm thinking that the main page should have more diverse content and occasional mp:modules about Songs and other bits would rotate in periodically. This is pretty much what I think you're saying about a weekly feature. I'm nosing about for other featurable stuff and will get you new uploads on in some manner. (see also;) Cheers, Jack Merridew10:14, 16 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Howdy, what sort of context for Schutzenberger group are you looking for? The first sentence establishes that the article is about mathematics, specifically the theory of semigroups, and even more specifically the theory Green classes in the long tradition of Clifford with historical citations given. Would it help to say that this is part of abstract algebra? JackSchmidt (talk) 15:47, 16 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, it would help to say that it is part of abstract algebra. A bit more background, please, and if there's a practical application. Thanks for the query. DurovaCharge!15:53, 16 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Ah ok. Does this sound right: partly the problem is the jump from "mathematics" to "semigroup theory" in the opening sentence, but then partly the problem is the article is basically a stub with no examples, motivation, or history in the main article itself.
Do you mind if I switch in abstract algebra for mathematics, remove the {{context}}, and add some stub sections with {{expand}}? I think the main problem is the article is a stubby little dicdef, so the introduction does not have anything to summarize (or introduce really). There is some growing consensus at wp math that "everyone" recognizes abstract *algebra*, so that we should introduce articles as "abstract algebra", "geometry", or "mathematics" if neither of those two. This one was introduced in the old style, "mathematics" and then immediately the most restricted area of study covering it. I think the request for background and applications is better served in the main body of the article first, and then summarized back into the lead. I doubt there are any especially "practical" applications, but the article should at least describe how it is applied to semigroup theory. JackSchmidt (talk) 16:10, 16 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Sure, thanks. As a general rule it's good to write introductions for a nonspecialist audience. Isaac Asimov's nonfiction work was brilliant at that sort of thing. Was recently helping with an improvement drive for the optics article, and encouraged the main author to write the introduction for his inner fifteen-year-old: bright and interested, but lacking formal education. Sounds fair? DurovaCharge!16:15, 16 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Definitely. I make a point of improving the articles I understand in that direction, however the math articles, indeed *just* the algebra articles, with this problem are too numerous for our existing editors, so we try to focus on the more important articles (we actually managed to have group theory and group (mathematics) at least to GA status and maybe even FA, I forget). This article (schuetzenberger) I think is part of a single editor's drive to eliminate a huge bias in our algebra coverage, as this editor is approximately our sole source of semigroup material (which is classical, important, has applications to "practical" fields like differential equations, etc. but is not taught to young students of math at most universities). I suspect he will take the hint from my edits to this article and start polishing his others, preferably at the more important ones first.
The main reason I wrote instead of being bold is that I believe strongly that cleanup tags should only be used on articles that should expect to be improved in the short term; that is, they mark priorities not just problems. Hence I was inclined just to remove the context tag and add "stub", but I thought that would be rude, and so instead randomly made this article a priority for half an hour and did what I could. We take "context" very seriously and try very hard to get a reasonably uniform "at least this much context" on every math article, but this one already met that (low) standard. There are still hundreds that don't even meet that low standard (people come in, make a 2 line article with nothing but the definition and leave forever; some create 200 articles like this and then leave). Most of them are even uncategorised, so we cannot easily find them; indeed, I've found some that have not been edited in over 5 years. At any rate, time for that part of the lunch break where I actually eat lunch. JackSchmidt (talk) 16:46, 16 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
(outdent) Thanks very much for your effort there. Another sentence or two of background could be sufficient. It's tough to write general encyclopedia articles in a field like yours where most of the conversation occurs between specialists and a great deal of background is presumed. My hat goes off to you (and really wishing I were capable of assistance). Best, DurovaCharge!16:58, 16 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Your user page mentions "In part because of her example, Russia and the USSR had the highest participation of female wartime combatants of any Allied nation during World War I and World War II." Whereas the facts are true, most Russians would disagree with the link between them: The vast majority of women who fought in WWI and WWII did not have access to her book and hardly knew her existence (she is not famous in Russia. Most Russians would say that Durova "is the famous animal trainer"). The answer to this high participation is in the spirit of low- and mid-class Russian woman of that time. Materialscientist (talk) 07:12, 17 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
As the mentor for SA I thought you might be interested in this since SA is brought up in discussions about banned users editing articles they are banned from. Abd is referring to SA's spelling corrections while he was banned as a reason for Abd to assume he could ignore his ban from Cold fusion and the talk page. Abd made a reference correction on the article and then reverted himself. Abd got blocked for 24 hrs. for breaching the ban. Now Abd is stating that the SA situation gave him the reason to be able to edit the article but that he didn't breach the ban because he reverted himself thus no change to the article was done. To me I have to admit this is wikilawyering but since SA keeps being brought up in multiple locations, I thought maybe you should be aware of all of this. If no, please ignore. Thanks, --CrohnieGalTalk12:07, 18 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I am not making the claim Crohnie claims. I am not "able to edit" Cold fusion, nor am I seeking that right. I did believe that the ample precedent set in the SA case, with many editors opining that harmless spelling corrections do not, in themselves, violate a ban, allowed me to make a harmless correction to the article that I happened to notice, but I did not rely solely on that, because in the SA case I had raised the problem of complicating ban enforcement, hence, then, I suggested self-reversion as a very efficient way of "suggesting" a correction, such that any editor could implement it quickly, if willing to take responsibility for it. I had done this with SA's spelling correction to Cold fusion, after it was reverted as ban violation by Hipocrite, and, as an example of how the community viewed spelling corrections, see [1]. That opinion by WMC was not an isolated opinion.
Based on the prior sequence with SA, I strongly believed that the community did not consider harmless edits to violate bans, generally. And if the edit didn't violate a ban, self-reverting it, specifying the ban, would not increase an offense, it would remove it. It may depend on whose ox is being gored, because some of the same editors who supported SA's right to make harmless corrections argued strongly that I was a blatant ban violator for doing much less.
The continued discussion isn't about my case, and most comments seem to either ignore my case or make assumptions about it that are unwarranted. I'm not seeking to be able to make minor corrections to articles under ban. I DGAF, I would not knowingly risk the level of disruption that arose over a spelling correction, nor, in fact, would I go through the clumsy process that editors have suggested a banned editor should use. (SA rejected similar suggestions, for very good reasons. It was actually suggested that I bring up a typo correction to the current cold fusion mediation!) However, I am seeking to find ways that banned editors in general can make small and harmless contributions to the project, without complicating ban enforcement in any way that isn't worthwhile, given the benefit of the identification of errors. (Routinely, a promptly self-reverted edit, unless seriously disruptive in itself, should be considered moot for a ban, and if an editor should happen to be blocked by someone not seeing the reversion, the block should be lifted. I did specify, when I suggested self-reversion, that intention to revert per ban should be stated in the original edit summary, and I did this with the edit above. Self-reversion removes the necessity for an admin enforcing a ban to actually view the edit to determine that it's harmless, or not, and such review can wait for a complaint.)
The SA case is why I believed, when I made the edit, that it was indeed harmless and would cause no trouble. I was wrong, but I did not create the disruption over this, it was created by another editor who, quite in line with massive community opinion before, objected to my being blocked by WMC, and it was only later that I even realized the irony of this, given the opinion diff'd above. I didn't even put up an unblock template, even though I had very strong grounds to be unblocked (i.e, no intention of violation, and promise to not violate even under the more restrictive understanding).
Crohnie was involved in the conversion of my ban by WMC to a community ban, SA was not brought up in any way that added opprobrium to his situation. He was openly trying to disrupt ban enforcement, and he's paid the price for that, as he obviously was willing to do from the beginning, and I would still defend him if he made an IP edit with a harmless spelling correction, and someone tried to pin block evasion on him for that. He wasn't blocked for making spelling corrections, but for defiant intention. --Abd (talk) 14:20, 18 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I just brought this to Durova's attentions since she is SA's mentor. You were told that this method was not acceptable per this. I don't want to get into anything here about this, I just thought Durova should be aware of SA's name being used in this controversary. He is not able to state anything said about him himself, thus if Durova would like to say something in his behalf she should be aware of this. If there is nothing to do, then Durova will just say so or ignore my post. Nothing devious is intended by this notification, sorry if you feel I had other motives. Thanks, --CrohnieGalTalk14:39, 18 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Detail. The issue under discussion at Banning policy isn't about me, though some seem to think it is. I was told not to make these edits, by the community, post-facto, and the fact that the arguments are preposterous makes not a whit of difference, I won't repeat them. There was nothing in this that was said about SA that he hasn't really, said about himself, and my emphasis has been on what he properly did, not what he improperly did. Sorry to bother you, Durova, I hope this hasn't been a complete waste of your time, there is some interesting stuff around how to deal with banned editors that will ultimately require broader attention. But it's not about me, nor, really, about ScienceApologist. I hope you are leaving this off to do something better. --Abd (talk) 18:06, 18 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you both for coming to my user talk. There's something I haven't announced to the community generally. A few days ago I wrote to the Committee to announce phase-out from mentorships. Will continue assisting SA through the FA drive, but will be looking for someone else to assume responsibilities from there. DurovaCharge!16:27, 18 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. You've got a good point there. The last couple of days I've been patrolling the back end of the new articles list--things that were about to drop out of the system without getting any human eyes upon them. The calls are a bit tough sometimes. Looks much better already, glad to see the subject getting proper attention. Best, DurovaCharge!15:18, 18 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you so much. :) What do you recommend I do with this type of thing? For a while yesterday our buffer at the back end was down to seven hours, which means risking a Siegenthaler-like gaffe (helpful admins scrapped a few BLP howlers in a jiffy). Keeping up with the pace of article creation means I have enough time to add a category or two to articles who have none, and sometimes wikify a bit. Occasionally the things I've prodded look like there's an article waiting to be made about the subject (just not enough in the material on the page to work from). Suggestions? DurovaCharge!15:30, 18 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
This is a sourced image of the counterdemonstration in Iran. There are claims that it has been photoshopped to create a larger crowd such as this File:Iranian-rally-doctored-photograph.jpg suggests to prove. We could use the sourced image for a documentation about that in the 2009 Iranian election protests. We think, it's fair use to use the sourced image as a documentation of the demonstration and its possible manipulation. Thanks a lot and if you don't have time I would be grateful if you could help us find another image restorationist who could help us to get it into presentable standard. Greetings Wandalstouring (talk) 13:08, 19 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
How exactly would I help? It's an intriguing claim, yet WP:NOR is something we need to guard against. Could you link to the relevant discussion on the talk page? DurovaCharge!15:06, 19 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Here is the discussion. We have the original source. We have a blogger claiming something and we can check the verifiability of that claim (do we get the same results with a closer look?). We are just testing a myth that is rumouring in the web. I hope that's not considered OR. Wandalstouring (talk) 17:07, 19 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I'm despite the obvious logic not quite convinced that the photo shown by the newspaper must be the same as the version used to show the photoshopping. If we could have an enlarged version of the original image for comparison, the reader could verify the claims. See, revolutions are dirty affairs and people fight with all tricks. Wandalstouring (talk) 20:52, 19 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Well, what we happen to have are low resolution digitized scans. Without seeing a reliable digitization directly from the original newspaper, I can't rule out the possibility that the blogger him- or herself might have clone stamped in order to concoct a claim. It's also possible that higher resolution copies might reveal greater detail. In strict policy terms I am not a reliable source for this either. As an editor all I can really say is that it appears to have enough merit to explore further. DurovaCharge!21:11, 19 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Durova. In my travels I came across some images by a Commons editor Darz Mol. This particular image File:Carles Puyol 18abr2007.jpg drew my attention as it's also featured on this website. It got me looking at his whole collection of contribs, which looks like the collection of a pro sports photographer, yet strangely there is no metadata anywhere. Additionally his contribs are used on an awful lot of Wikis so it could be somewhat dodgy if his images are suspect. I'm not too au fait on procedures within Commons so I thought I'd bring it to your attention. Have fun with it :) --WebHamster14:20, 20 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Awarded to Durova for her exceptional singing on Skype! I don't know what you were singing, but it didn't sound to bad. – (iMatthew • talk) at 18:19, 20 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for the restoration of the caricature image. I believe my edit summary was sufficient communication of my opinion of your image of Priestley flipping the bird. You are welcome to revert my edit - I will not edit war. I just added a colon and made it an inline link to the flipping the bird image so that interested parties could still see it.
If you want to communicate seriously in this RfC, might I suggest you avoid edits and comments like this. I also fail to see the relevance of comments like this to serious communication about the image alignment, much as I respect your substantial work with images. I also do not understand how making an image of Priestley flipping the bird contributes to serious communication about left or right alignment in an RfC.
Actually I needed to rewrite the post. It would have solved the problem much more promptly without risking confusion (and getting overlooked) to have been notified instead. The intention was somewhat flippant, but not meant to offend. And I apologize for the tardy response to your review, which was quite helpful. :) DurovaCharge!03:27, 21 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I should have asked you first, and apologize for not doing so. I would be glad to look at Sprang again whenever you want - just ask (or list it at PR). I am a bit cranky for reasons offline, so I am calling it a night before I say anything else that is unkind - sorry. Ruhrfisch><>°°03:37, 21 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
No need; am a bit cranky myself this week. A good rest and a good meal tend to do wonders for one's personality, so am sticking to routine page patrol and Photoshop. Best wishes, DurovaCharge!03:40, 21 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Durova. I wish to nominate myself for the WikiProject Australia Triple Crown, and was hoping you would humbly review my request? The articles for the nomination are as follows:
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.
Hi Durova, I seem to remember that you're an admin on Commons, or at the least, very active there based on your strong image work and contributions? If so, can you please deal with this image over there? It's a image of Kristinia DeBarge's upcoming album, and the license it's listed under is likely false, as album covers are mainly non-free, and Commons is for free images. Thanks. Acalamari02:05, 25 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
As noted in the edit summary, you edit conflicted with me as I was composing a followup post which segued more closely upon the preceding discussion. You could not have realized that when you added the header. It hardly constitutes edit warring to correct the misunderstanding once with a descriptive edit summary. You don't seem quite yourself today; consider a little WP:TEA perhaps? DurovaCharge!16:51, 25 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I was told to hush by a complete stranger, who after I said I was done with the discussion followed me to my talk page and quite frankly seems to have lied. He said he wanted to talk; I asked a question and he ran off to QVA with the heading "KillerChihuahua vs. (Me)" which resulted in, of all things, someone else templating yet another party for making a few rhetorical comments on my page.
Regarding the 'future' page, I see your point on the potential for inherent selection, but fail to see how your "view" is helpful in addressing that. At the risk of ruffling your feathers again, your view reads to me like "I don't like where it is because it will be a skewed view of the community, (but rather than trying to suggest how to fix the skew) I say we dump this completely!" which is not very helpful IMO. Then you object to my phrasing, which is fine, but your high-handed insult of "It's very odd to come to this page and find KillerChihuahua ... demonstrating any type of respect at all--" Really? Now you are saying I'm not myself, but your opening line on my page says "Killerchihuahua habitually doesn't show respect". Read it a few times. I don't say that's what you meant, mind you, merely that is what the words you used say. Yes indeedy, I am having a crappy time of it today. KillerChihuahua?!?17:00, 25 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Actually the suggested solution is on the talk page: wait an appropriate span of time and restart on neutral ground. I was equally harsh on ArbCom for recently opening an RfC on content--which is explicitly outside their mandate. Participation in that RfC in any way other than to protest its premise would have risked the perception of validating the untenable premise. Which was sad, because I would gladly have considered the matter very seriously if Kirill Lokshin had opened it on his own authority as an editor rather than attempting to wrap a false mantle of authority around the initiative. Likewise, would have addressed Giano's initiative seriously if it had occurred on neutral territory. A weakness of our fluid wiki structures is that they're quite vulnerable to subtle modifications of far-reaching political importance, which tend toward aggregating power within a limited set of hands. Even if neither Kirill nor Giano intentionally subverted format, it remains a very salient concern to avoid precedents which enhance that vulnerability. View this as something akin to a hard line opposition against gerrymandered discussion. DurovaCharge!17:43, 25 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I was wondering how to become an administrator. I have a lot of spare time on my hands. I feel that I could help wikipedia more. I see that you were an ex-administrator. Any information could help Ft12 (talk) 21:21, 26 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
As per the section title, i'd like some input from you as to how I could have presented my complaint at AN/I better. Clearly, some of my intentions are being misunderstood. I am dismissing those misinterpretations, as some of them are arising from people who clearly have an ax to grind. - Arcayne(cast a spell)22:20, 26 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
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.
Hi, I noticed you have written material on and shown an interest in civility on wikipedia. I have created a poll page to gauge community feelings on how civility is managed in practice currently at Wikipedia:Civility/Poll, so input from as many people as possible is welcomed. Casliber (talk·contribs) 00:05, 30 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Not quite retired, (mainly dealing with a persistent banned user).. but she is RL-ing for several weeks. Good on her :) (Hey D, how's it going?) -- SirFozzie 128.222.37.53 (talk) 21:57, 30 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Doing ok. Been here and there, correcting a couple things, but not wanting to stick my head up at the various places where there's too much heartburn for too little results. -- SF 128.222.37.53 (talk) 22:07, 30 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Your request for evidence is reasonable, and I've provided some. But even if it was not your intention, the picture and caption you added seems to be making fun of someone trying to report harassment of another user, and you may want to remove it. --Floquenbeam (talk) 20:04, 30 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I've still been trying to figure out the logic of that decision, and I think I might have finally figured out the assumptions that RGD and his compatriots on the Committee are acting under. I think it might go something like the following:
* Editors who have a discernable pro-Scientology POV and editors who have a discernable anti-Scientology POV are always coming into conflict.
* We have previously blocked and banned multiple editors who have violated the rules in order to serve their pro-Scientology or anti-Scientology POV.
* These efforts have failed to eliminate all violations of the rules in order to serve pro- or anti-Scientology POVs.
* Therefore the problem is not editors who violate the rules in pursuit of a pro- or anti-Scientology POV, it is editors who possess such a POV.
* Therefore all editors in whom such a POV can be discerned are equally guilty of all Scientology-related disruption and equally deserving of the most drastic punishments.
What do you think? I think it explains a lot of the bizarre aspects of the case:
The frequent dismal failure of the evidence in the case to convincingly show a pattern of poor behavior -- it wasn't being looked at for behavior, but merely for evidence of possessing a POV.
The imposition of sanctions on multiple editors who had not edited on the topic, or on Wikipedia at all, in a year or more -- the real offense the ArbCom wanted to punish was simply possessing a POV, and while actively editing towards that POV would be an extra offense, an editor who had ceased editing would still be guilty of possessing a POV.
Certain statements RGD has made defending the ArbCom's decision: "The editors who have been topic-banned fit squarely either into the pro- or anti- factions, or walked in link-step with them. Least there be any doubt, there are the editors who, over the years, have got the topic into the toxic mess it is today. There is no evidence whatsoever that the passage of time has changed the deeply held beliefs of the topic-banned editors or influenced their ability to behave correctly." [4](emphasis added) -- the rehabilitation the ArbCom wants to see and believes it is entitled to compel is editors changing their deeply held beliefs. It is not enough to simply not edit in a way that violates policy, because as we have seen, it is provably not enough to stop editing altogether. Merely "fitting squarely ... into the pro- or anti- factions" is the offense.
The frequent insistence that the topic-bans were not "punitive" but "preventative" and "rehabilitative" -- obviously it makes no sense to say "we are topic-banning someone who hasn't edited in a year as a necessary step to prevent any rule-violating editing and rehabilitate the editor to one who no longer edits poorly." But if you convince yours that every editor with strongly-held beliefs on a subject is by essence a rulebreaker just waiting to happen, you can convince yourself that a topic-ban is necessary to "prevent" the inevitable expression of that POV in toxic editing, is necessary to cure them of their "strongly-held beliefs" to "rehabilitate" them.
It can be illuminating to look at matters from different perspectives. Here's the log of blocks from the arbitrator I've been debating, from the time when he first got sysopped until the end of 2008 when he got elected to the Committee.[5] A few things stand out. One is that he had less than a year of experience as an administrator and another is that of the few blocks he did make, he had blocked only nine registered accounts. Only two of those nine accounts had created a userpage, which suggests two conclusions:
He had offended almost no one.
He had hardly ever made a tough call.
These may be superb traits for a lead coordinator of the military history project, but they don't equip a person very well for suddenly plunging into a decision-making role at this website's toughest long term disputes. As you can see from our discussion, he didn't know there was a procedure for adding new parties to a case--so he probably didn't intentionally circumvent the normal opportunity for comment and feedback. Yet when provided with examples from past cases that demonstrate he did break with convention, he doesn't withdraw his earlier claims that my perceptions were flawed or discuss whether his divergence resulted in problems; he just changes the subject.
Part of this situation results from our site processes and culture for elections that favor this type of candidate: what we really need as arbitrators are folks who are more experienced in stubborn disputes. Yet people who play it very safe and offend no one are most likely to get elected, which means it's a roll of the dice how they actually turn out. It isn't very surprising that we wind up with some who find themselves in over their heads, and who would rather deflect criticism than learn from it.
The problem is how to remedy problems when we get a critical mass of people like that. A false meme spread through the Committee during the case that I'm a partisan in this dispute, which is really silly. Since it did take hold, I have half a mind to change course a bit. Had been prioritizing one instance in particular because it's the starkest, but really it's a nonpartisan problem that sanctions have been applied because of 1-2 year old behavior that never recurred, and of sanctioning upon the basis of poorly selected diffs where no visible evidence of policy violation exists. I can think of two ways of addressing that: one would be to outreach to editors on both sides of the fence who got swept up that way, and enter a bipartisan appeal; the other would be to amend site policy to prevent this from happening again. Your thoughts? Durova27317:57, 3 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
What you say about RGD makes perfect sense and actually fits in perfectly with some things I'd already suspected. When I found out about the arbitration, and discovered I'd been added to it with no previous attempts at dispute resolution, and saw RGD juggling edit counts to try and manufacture an appearance that I came to Wikipedia with pushing a POV on Scientology foremost on my mind, I said to myself "this is someone who is entirely overwhelmed by the thought of doing their job correctly, and has therefore dealt with the stress by mentally redefining their goal into something they find more manageable." The real shock was finding out that the ArbCom was now primarily made up of such people; you've provided a very convincing scenario of how the culture of Wikipedia elections produced such an ArbCom.
Both your suggestions, of the bipartisan appeal and of amending site policy, seem to be good ideas. What specific amendments to site policy would you envision, though? I'm finding it hard to formulate some that don't sound to my own ears just like restatements of the obvious -- the ArbCom should not be wasting its time formulating penalties against editors who haven't edited in years -- or of existing policy -- arbitrations are a last resort, to be used only after other methods of DR have failed. -- Antaeus Feldspar (talk) 22:54, 3 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Well, it's usually been standard that very old behavior isn't sanctionable unless it forms part of a continuing problem. I suppose there ought to be reasonable exceptions to that: a few things might be so serious that they'd be actionable long afterward (grave offsite harassment, for instance). Do you have ideas how to craft that with suitable flexibility? Durova27300:38, 6 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The more I think about it, the more it seems that it's useless to amend site policy until Wikipedia gets an ArbCom which is willing to abide by site policy. Considering that the current ArbCom was ready to punish ChrisO for not speedy-deleting an article which had survived not just one but four AfDs, one has to wonder just to what degree they even understand current policy, let alone can be trusted to abide by amended policy. -- Antaeus Feldspar (talk) 23:41, 6 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I added my own comment in Flameviper's unban discussion at AN. If he actually meets the terms of WP:Standard offer I'd support the unban, but I see that you wrote: Doesn't seem like we're quite there yet, but would be glad to support Flameviper's return a little way down the road if he goes along with that. Can you clarify why he still falls short, in your opinion? EdJohnston (talk) 00:27, 6 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Editors in the unban decision, including Jpgordon, now appear to believe he has not socked in the last six months. I updated the rationale for my own vote. While I still oppose unbanning, I admit that he would now meet the terms of your WP:Standard offer. EdJohnston (talk) 17:37, 6 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Some did well this week, but a lot of you didn't move much. Some are still hanging under the 200 mark. Our current top 8 are all over 200, so if you are below that line, get moving! There is a poll up at the talk page about the rest of this year's competition. If all of you could give your opinion there, it would be very much appreciated.
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.
Hey Durova, saw your reverts on AP's article... being as I've seen at least three IPs adding that fake steroids information on the article or talk (well, three IPs, maybe same user?), I was wondering if you'd be willing, if you weren't already, to help and keep the article on your watchlist for a while to help keep this garbage out (since it doesn't seem to be at a level for requesting semi-protection or anything yet). Thanks! umrguy4203:01, 6 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Considering that it's a BLP and the nature of the additions, semiprotection wouldn't be such a bad idea. Will try to keep an eye out in the meantime. Durova27303:05, 6 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you very much. Am looking for new mentors for a few people I'm phasing out from mentoring (not their fault; external factors). The one who is most in need of a mentor is Bluemarine. Right now his status is in limbo: he was community banned, then arbitration banned, then ArbCom modified his bans to allow limited editing, then the arbitration restriction expired. He's in good standing at Commons. It's openly acknowledged that his real name is Matt Sanchez: not an easy situation, but much less combustible than it used to be a year or two ago. Would like to structure a proposal that would basically be a topic ban, to allow him to edit on topics where he has a lot to offer (such as the war in Afghanistan) while keeping clear of the subjects where things ran into trouble before. Interested? Durova27316:22, 6 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Fortunately things have improved to where there are fairly long times when nothing needs to be done at all, with short bursts when action is necessary. With a bit of foresight most of the problems can be avoided. Mr. Sanchez travels often for work and doesn't have a lot of time to edit. The biggest part of the task would be getting up to speed at the beginning, to understand the background. Durova27316:30, 6 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Well, I'm primarily a media editor yet he and I found common ground on optics. It's more a matter of understanding site dynamics and giving friendly feedback in ways that minimize drama. If you don't carry baggage in the mainstream/fringe science disputes that could be an advantage. Would you like to have an introduction and see how it goes? Durova27300:26, 7 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think I do, but he would possibly remember such information better than me. I'd be willing to give it a try though, if he is. John Carter (talk) 00:31, 7 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I have seen you comment on Prem Rawat-related conflicts before, so you have at least a working knowledge of the games, attitudes, and problems we have dealing with this topic, and I felt you had something useful to say each time. I also noticed that you made a previous comment on this issue, and I have serious trouble accepting in good faith, TerryMacro's recent response to the situation, here. Specifically the following parts:
Firstly, does a former official of an entity have a COI when issues related to that entity arise in Wiki? My understanding is that a current official would probably invoke COI, but a former official, and from nine years ago? There was nothing in WP:COI that I could find to support this.
I have already twice quoted him the relevant passage from the COI page, originally on his talk page, only a couple of days ago[7], and then a second time on the COI discussion page
Secondly the claim I was a ‘high official’ of the ‘movement’ is WB’s claim.
Is this a denial or diversion? I have seen many of the DLM published newsletters that show Terry as the National Finance Director for the DLM (Australia) in the 70's, with a staff of people, giving interviews to reporters, and talking about international trips to discuss other international aspects of the organization (I don't have links to post here, but I can get them if needed). To describe himself as "at best a ‘functionary’" seems disingenuous at least.
Furthermore I find it hard to believe that my former role in an out of the way outpost of the movement in the 1970s could evoke a COI thirty years later.
Really? 30 years ago yes, but he already stated he still feels passionately about it, so certainly his enthusiasm hasn't waned for over 30 years. I'm not even sure what he's trying to get me to believe with the whole "out of the way outpost" description... I'm not sure Australia's been referred to that way since the British started shipping convicts there!
He completely ignores the fact that he removed all references on his userpage that linked him to Prem Rawat *3* minutes before he edited any of the articles on this subject. How is that not attempting to hide his COI? His userpage had been stable for a long time, it's coincidence??
I possibly did contravene COI by commenting on an affidavit involving my former employee.
According to the first section I quoted he says he cannot find why he has a COI from reading the page, but here he says he possibly did? How is that possible, it's the same infaction!
I would be interested in anything you have to say about these isssues, or the issue in general.
I must admit I do sometimes find editing here quite frustrating, I watch editors play amazing games with these articles, and when the rest of us play by the rules, we spend a lot of effort to absolutely no end it seems....Anyways, thanks for letting me vent a little here (ok, technically, you had no choice, but still ) -- Maelefique(talk)05:06, 7 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
When it comes right down to it, COI and COIN are advisory. The primary questions to ask, for internal wiki functions, are whether the editor is complying with other guidelines and policies. Durova27315:27, 7 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Sooo... it doesn't matter if he has an undisclosed COI or not? And yet it would be wrong if I had one?? Why have a policy on it then? -- Maelefique(talk)16:57, 7 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
It does matter in two ways. To speak in general terms, if an editor with COI makes a blockable policy violation, and other editors have attempted to discuss the COI issue, then the blocking administrator may weigh that in terms of the discretionary response. That's relatively minor compared to the potential off-wiki response, which hinges upon commonly accepted notions of an appearance of impropriety. It's a difficult situation when a new editor has ties to an organization that has gotten bad press in connection to COI and Wikipedia in the past: one hopes to find a gentle way of raising their awareness that the media isn't kind, and may follow up on the story--when usually they focus their attention on fellow editors and might even construe a veiled threat into any such reminder. In past situations things usually branch out very early into one of two directions: either the individual simply isn't very familiar with our site and responds to feedback, or else the individual games the system until it ends badly. In the latter scenario the individual usually responds defensively to attempts to communicate and steer conduct into better directions. Durova27317:24, 7 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, that's a very good answer and explanation of the situation. Interesting to see your breakdown of the usual two paths these take as well. Given the aggressively defensive response that Terry's had from day 1, I'll start bracing myself for the semi-inevitable (yet again, sadly) gaming of the articles. Thanks again for taking the time to answer. -- Maelefique(talk)05:27, 8 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Answering the call to help out in WP User Rehab. Let me know if you need assistance. I'll be monitoring the WPUR pages and have already added my name as a supporter of the project. --McDoobAU93 (talk) 04:12, 8 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
And it was never deleted. Very odd: when it first uploaded there was an error and the file data didn't show, then after adding file data manually the image appears to have disappeared. Been having odd things happen sometimes with large uploads. Might have to file a Bugzilla report if a clear pattern emerges. Durova27315:59, 9 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I award you this Barnstar of Good Humor for the five minutes of laughter I had over your ability to eloquently and easily simplify the paid editing debate in ten words or less :) Well Done! TomStar81 (Talk • Some say ¥€$, I say NO) 19:32, 9 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the laugh too, I haven't had a good one in nearly two months. On a more serious note though I do hoe that this paid editing thing gets blown out of the water before leaving the harbor. With all the other problems we have to deal with internally the last thing we need is a major external issue. TomStar81 (Talk • Some say ¥€$, I say NO) 19:32, 9 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Once again the iron fist inside the velvet glove eh Durova:) But I will agree with you that dredging up this old muck accomplishes nothing. Those highly regretable 2007 events occurred under what I refer to as The Fred Bauder Court. At that time its main goal was to Get Giano, for reasons both political and personal. They needed a causus and leakingclassified info (Talking about Fight Club:) provided them with as good a reason as any. You were simply collateral damage- An accptable casualty and an expendable cog. And thus an ill considered, 75 minute block perminately stains your otherwise commendable record of service. It is also a prime example of why Smoke-filled rooms, especially when they are off-wiki, are bad things. Until you learn the lesson that greater transparency is not the disease but the cure, I fear you will not find redemption.--R.D.H. (Ghost In The Machine) (talk) 22:45, 8 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Durova helped me with an issue when I had concerns of harassment. I had approached her in offsite communication; the matter could not have been handled onsite. I respect her decision to risk the outcome of her own appeal, in order to preserve this level of trust with others. Cirt (talk) 21:01, 9 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, that had to do with the abuses of Durova's one-time ally Jossi. A situation which, had it been handled better on-wiki, would not have been allowed to have gotten out of hand to the point where you needed help with harassment. Power-players and POV pushers like him thrive in enviorments where transparency and accoutability are lacking. If the harassment was that serious, why did you not go to OTRS? Surely they would be better equipped to help you.--R.D.H. (Ghost In The Machine) (talk) 00:36, 10 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oh sorry, I stand corrected, it was another cult- Scientology, you were concerned with. If they actually followed up on their threats, many prominent Wikipedians would be long dead by now. All bark, no bite...I'd be more worried about the StoneCutters if I were you;)--R.D.H. (Ghost In The Machine) (talk) 01:02, 10 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed. Now if you'll please un-redirect your user talk so that people can communicate without emailing ahem we can discuss Jossi's OTRS access, clear up this odd supposition that Jossi and I were allied, and straighten out other matters unrelated to the function of the Wikipedia talk:Arbitration Committee page. Durova27501:38, 10 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Why do you hate my lil hybrid User/Talkpage? It is far more fool efficient:) But, as I suggested, we could always use your talkpage Durova. First, however, let us discuss that link above, shall we. It's interesting. Seems you shepereded CIRT through the shoals of RFA. It also seems that CIRT used to edit here under a different name. So I will ask him, as I ask current RFA candidates: Would you please provide us with a list of all the account names you have ever used, or registered, on the English Wikipedia project, including any not in use currently? Thanks,--R.D.H. (Ghost In The Machine) (talk) 02:09, 10 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
(outdent) He disclosed that sufficiently on 14 December 2008.[8]
On Wikipedia I have edited exclusively as Cirt for over a year. At sister Wikimedia projects I used to edit under other usernames but have consolidated those accounts as Cirt. If you think there's some action pertinent to this case under a previous username, I'd be glad to confirm whether the account is me or not. It's been many months since I've edited as anything else. Cirt (talk) 04:35, 14 December 2008 (UTC)
Considering it's already in the evidence I've already shown you, there's nothing more really to say. This was already discussed in considerable depth between myself and Cirt before his RfA, and again at the Scientology RFAR. The arbitrators found no wrongdoing on Cirt's part other than the edit warring block history on his old account, which was no secret. The individuals who principally raised that issue were Jossi (subsequently indefinitely blocked for socking), Justallofthem (banned by ArbCom), and John254 (banned by the community for abusive socking). My advice to Cirt before the RfA began was to disclose the prior account proactively, since anything withheld--no matter how old and irrelevant--was likely to be played against him politically. He chose a different course of action and demonstrated empirically that my warning was correct. You are the first person in over half a year who still sees anything to that. Is there some reason you take an interest in a thing that seems wholly unrelated to the merit of Cirt's harassment concern? Durova27503:03, 10 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
So basically those tools and trolls at the review were right. If it is such an open secret that even they (not to mention a misinformed, out of touch old idiot like me) can so easily uncover it, then why all the need for secrecy? Last I checked WPISNOT:A Homeland Security database.--R.D.H. (Ghost In The Machine) (talk) 03:11, 10 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
At the time of his RFA there was an unresolved security issue in his old userspace. By the time the arbitration opened that security issue had been resolved. Durova27503:23, 10 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
And an issue which also could have tripped up his RFA at the time. Granted, 3 blocks for 3RR is a BS reason to deny an otherwise worthy candidate the mop, IMO. But some would doubtless have made it into a mountain. Your main justification, however, was to keep Cirt safe from the Stalking Scientologists. My point is, they could have found him out just as easily as the Reviewers and I did, if they had really wished to.--R.D.H. (Ghost In The Machine) (talk) 03:47, 10 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
(outdent) Actually it was seven total blocks for edit warring. You attribute a bit more to me about the motivations than I've ever said, some of which isn't worth correcting. In general, ethical decisions where good people disagree belong to the individuals who live with the consequences. Cirt made certain decisions regarding his own safety which I would not have preferred. But those were his choices to make. Durova27503:53, 10 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, for some reason the rename seemed to have affected that. Am not versed in that area (never did a rename). The rename occurred before he and I ever crossed paths. Durova27500:10, 12 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Moving on to a more recent example, there's something else worth raising. The first part is known to the community already, but not where it ended. About two months ago I was mentoring ScienceApologist and an arbitration enforcement thread accused him of socking. That was probably raised in good faith, and the evidence for it was quite strong--so strong that I contemplated resigning from the mentorship. It turned out, though, that he was not socking. And I was the person who found a way to demonstrate that he wasn't. Tensions were running very high in his disputes, so that research was performed and submitted offsite. To do otherwise could have exposed an innocent editor to retaliation: some people would have suspected meat/socking etc. I have no regrets about using backchannels to manage that because shortly afterward I was targeted for offsite harassment in connection to ScienceApologist: better that it was only myself targeted, than a third party who happened to be in the wrong place at the wrong time. Durova27504:14, 10 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
ScienceApologist has the capacity to be a hemmeroid first class. Myself and most others would not have blamed you one bit for dropping him. Of course there is still the ethical question of doing the right thing, but going about it in the wrong way. However that is a mainly academic issue and you, madame, are not on trial here: )--R.D.H. (Ghost In The Machine) (talk) 23:48, 11 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Here's hoping we can agree to disagree on whether it was the right call. As you can probably imagine, it was a difficult decision. Durova27500:10, 12 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
There were a few mistakes in last weeks' newsletter. Apologies about that. In regards to the competition, a few of you shot up in points this week. Very, very impressive. However, now that some have shot up to the top, others of you have to work even harder to catch up! There are about 3 weeks left in the round, so if you're behind, now is really the time to start nominating content, so that it can count for this round. If you wait too long, we won't be able to hold off the round while your content is being reviewed.
Per this tiny poll, the remainder of the competition has been altered.. sorry!! The changes being made are as follows: "We will be combining the last three rounds. Round 4 will now last from August through September, with 8 contestants. On September 1st, however, we will eliminate the bottom four contestants. The top four contestants will continue the round with the same score. Then, one person will win out of the remaining four on September 30th." You can also see this change to the main WikiCup page.
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.
Thanks for the heads up. Have been working on getting another mentor for Matt. His location on assignment is slowing that down a little. Would you object to something basically like what we proposed before? Would like to see him free to contribute about the war in Afghanistan, as long as things are structured in a way that avoids the old problems. Heading out for a bit so may be tardy with followup. Durova27520:38, 11 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
His unblock request statement was for the sole purpose of editing the article about him... which I think he should stay away from given the past. I have no doubt whatsoever that the moment he touches that article, we will see a repeat of last year. That's my only concern with him and being unblocked. I think the more appropriate thing to do would reduce the community ban to an article ban. Violation, by him or any of his socks, would result in reinstatement of the community ban. Thoughts? -ALLST✰R▼echowuz here20:54, 11 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Related topics would be fine with me as well. I was merely focusing on the main source of the drama from last year. I do recall there were some skirmishes with him and the Ann Coulter article and the Scott Beauchamp article but I didn't think they were as major as his own article. Additionally, if he feels so strongly about his article, he could request it be deleted via a 'crat, with the understanding that if recreated by anyone or himself, the same article ban applies. As a side note, it's already started again without Matt even touching the article. See the article's history and User_talk:Allstarecho#Matt_Sanchez and Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons/Noticeboard#Matt_Sanchez-ALLST✰R▼echowuz here03:51, 12 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Durova, I am stumped and my memory is failing - where was the question on scaling and consensus before? Can you link it to that section? I am offlie for much of the day here. Casliber (talk·contribs) 01:15, 12 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for the offer, but I'm not really in a good position to tell you what to restore, since I'm not quite certain what the restoration process involves.
Would it be worth cleaning up File:Siege of Florence.JPG? Or is the base image of too poor quality to bother? I've not been able to find a larger-resolution image of the fresco, unfortunately.
You might be the best qualified person to comment on this thread (or at least, be interested in it); anything provisionally agreed there is likely to affect you more than most, and you're also more familiar than most with the issues regarding archive photographs. – iridescent21:34, 12 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I've made a proposal on the talk page of the Advisory Council RFC in hopes of finding a constructive way forward. I'm shamelessly asking for input on it from you and others who have taken part in the discussion. Please see this section and contribute as you see fit. Thanks, alanyst/talk/18:24, 13 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : XL (June 2009)
The June 2009 issue of the Military history WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you. This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 21:58, 13 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Speaking from my personal point of view - I appreciate your open letter in the Signpost. I am very interested in the perspectives that have come out during the content partnership vs. liberation discussion. I guess I fall under a pragmatic idealist - diplomacy 1st category of perspective (if there was such a category). I appreciate your articulation of programs and volunteers that look first at what we can do to acheive what I also see as our shared mission with non-profit GLAMS to make free educational content available to the public. Jennifer Riggs (talk) 00:26, 14 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Durova. I just want to let you know that your opinions and comments in regards to "ageism" and whatnot were greatly appreciated on my rfa...especially this and this. Thanks for helping me out there! :)
Your Opinion is More Important than You Think Barnstar
For a moment I thought you were saying that a consensus existed that this newly constituted advisory board was not an appropriate way of making large scale decsions. Realized shortly after hitting save that it was time to brew another pot of coffee. ;) Durova27703:31, 14 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
No, not what I was saying, although I agree that advisory boards should not make decisions binding upon others. Enjoy that coffee. Kevin (talk) 03:36, 14 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Hello all, iMatthew here. I just wanted to let you know about "The Great Wikipedia Dramaout" which starts this Saturday. The goal of the Dramaout is to spend five days working on improving articles and abstaining from any of Wikipedia's drama. I don't think that any of you will have a problem focusing on articles for five days, because of course, any work you get done during the Dramaout will count towards your score in the WikiCup. Details are on the page; hope to see you all signing up! :) iMatthewtalk at 00:27, 17 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Durova is already off to a good start! I was actually stopping by to commend you on your restraint and civility in the face of some unseemly and unnecessary attacks. Kudos. I'm sorry for whatever stress the comments caused and I appreciate your good efforts to improve the encyclopedia. I'll be interested to get a look at this image I've been hearing about and the possibility of a new article collaboration with Giano. My fingers are crossed. :) But maybe that's too much to hope for just yet. Cheers. ChildofMidnight (talk) 05:11, 17 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks very much. The unrestored version is here.[10] Cropped it down to 337MB, and after JPEG conversion it should be a hair under the 100MB upload limit. Durova27905:37, 17 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
(ec) Francesco Muttoni was an eighteenth century Italian. Muttoni's most famous published work was an edition of Andrea Palladio's nine volume I Quattro Libri dell'Architettura. The Library of Congress has sketches and notes for Muttoni's unpublished tenth volume. Here is a page I restored. The thing I worked on yesterday was one of Paul Rudolph's early designs (circa 1980) for The Concourse, a prominent building in Singapore. Rudolph donated a portion of his papers to the public domain. It's a rare treat to get the architect's drawings from this period. Most of Rudolph's work is brutalist. The salient factor was availability of good digitized files. Durova27917:05, 17 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Brutalism takes a deft touch to pull off, but Rudolph was very good at it. Loved this place while visiting Singapore. His work in Hong Kong looks very impressive too irl. Durova27921:01, 17 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Durova, I don't believe we've interacted before. I've archived the thread. As the final debate seems to come down to some blanking requests (which anyone can do) exactly NO admin intervention is required now. Sorry, but that thread really has had it's day over there and is just causing misery to many. Pedro : Chat 22:11, 17 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
No, as I stated above blanking can be done by any editor. I'm not familiar enough with the full debate over there to start excising portions of it, nor would it be seemly for me to do so as I have now become involved. I am however simply familiar enough (sadly) with ANI to know when enough is enough on one thread, and I'm gald that you and Giano agree that the archive was a positive move. Apologies. Pedro : Chat 22:32, 17 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Well that's disconcerting. The only thing I've asked for from the beginning is to have that whole portion of thread removed. Now you have left it up, archived the request for refactor (which people agreed was valid), and left no legitimate venue of recourse. How is 'any editor' to be sought, if not through the very backchannels the accuser finds so objectionable? Please, be reasonable. Durova27923:26, 17 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Rock - hard - place. :) Okay. Look, I'm in a tricky situation here as I have a lot of time for both you and Giano and very little time for most admins on WP. Brokering a compromise on this is not likely to be easy - but then nothing worth doing ever is I guess. It's late, and I'm off to bed (sorry if that sounds like a cop out) but I will endeavour to give this attention over the weekend, and see if we can make a compromise of some kind. As a note, maybe Giano would like to consider that whilst his feelings are very strong on this issue, for the sake of the collegial atmosphere we'd all prefer he would re-consider some of his posts? (will notify Giano) Pedro : Chat 23:32, 17 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I've gone ahead and basically deleted that entire thread on the RfC talkpage. I don't hold out much hope that somebody won't come and revert me, but you never know. I've done this without, I hope, suggesting any particular support for any "side" in this matter, but rather to provide a clean(ish) slate. --jbmurray (talk • contribs) 23:36, 17 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
About two weeks left, now. To those of you in the back, don't give up. There is still enough time to get some more work done. To those of you in the front relaxing... don't. We've seen it happen before, where users in the back will jump ahead in the final weeks and make it though.
We'd also like to wave goodbye to Scorpion0422, and thank him for all of his hard work this round even though he knew he needed to withdraw at the end of it.
'weburiedoursecretsinthegarden, iMatthewtalk, and TheHelpfulOne
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.
Thanks for asking. :) Looks like a pretty good starter project. Would be glad to coach. Skype is an excellent client for this sort of work because it supports voice chat and is good at file transfers. So discussing in real time and trading screen shots speeds things up a lot. Email for my Skype ID. :) Durova27904:54, 19 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Durova, you are still mentoring Matt Sanchez/Bluemarine, yes? Some folks, including myself, suspect that an IP may be Matt evading his community ban. Would you please look at these contributions and evaluate? Also, note the tenor of the comments left on my page. (Another user removed them.)Thanks, LadyofShalott17:33, 19 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The IP geolocates to Kabul, Afghanistan. Quite likely it's him if he's still blogging from the area as he has done in the past. - ALLST✰R▼echowuz here18:31, 19 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Well, his status is in limbo. I've just returned from a trip out so haven't looked into it fully. And have been making plans to hand over the mentorship to another person. Durova27919:13, 19 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Dear Durova, I'm trying to upload the image of Morgan Henry Chrysler. Here is the link. This image is in the public domain in the US; it was first published prior to January 1, 1923.
Permitted file types are: png, gif, jpg, jpeg, xcf, pdf, mid, ogg, ogv, svg, djvu, oga. But, for Morgan Henry Chrysler, the file type is .bmp. Can I upload the image? AdjustShift (talk) 22:21, 19 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Open it in an image manipulation program and save it under a new format. If you need a free program for that purpose, GIMP can do it (overkill in a way because GIMP is much more powerful, but the price is right). Durova27901:00, 20 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
On July 19, 2009, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article The Awful German Language, which you created or substantially expanded. You are welcome to check how many hits your article got while on the front page (here's how) and add it to DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.
It's possible that my stepping in might have unintended consequences. This is a small matter, and thank you for the heads up. If it continues then by all means let me know. Durova28016:04, 21 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Durova. I think this comment [11] is a bit bitey and negative. My understanding is that the No Drama Days 2009 event is about refocusing on the most important and best parts of the encyclopedia for several days, for anyone who wants to participate. Many of us do get caught up in the drama boards, conflicts, and process, losing sight of the article creation and improvement work that is fairly essential and quite rewarding. Your comment struck me a bit as raining on someone else's parade. I've found the event helpful and have caught up on a bunch of articles that I had long put on the backburner in favor of what was immediately in front of me. It's also sparked some interesting discussions about priorities. Secondly, Doc T asked for your input on a sourcing issue on the Matt Sanchez talk page if you want to respond. Cheers. ChildofMidnight (talk) 17:31, 21 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I don't like at all the ways some people are playing it, and have no apologies for lodging a reasoned objection. On balance, that drive is fundamentally flawed. Since I'm currently pursuing an arbitration enforcement request on the article, will respectfully decline to participate in content discussions. The issue at hand is serious offsite harassment, which is on an entirely different plane. Too often, Wikipedian discussions conflate those issues of widely differing importance. Durova28017:41, 21 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Durova, I wasn't going to "bother" you by posting here directly, but I saw that CoM mentioned the Matt Sanchez discussion and you were essentially recusing yourself. I understand your reasons and respect your decision absolutely. However, the specific question I asked mostly relates to the use of primary sources and I'm hoping that you'd be willing to comment here if not there. I had explained my own interpretation, but in all honestly I'm not 100% certain and I utterly defer to you on these matters. If you still think it somehow inappropriate to comment, would you be willing to name another "authority figure" who might calrify this? Thanks D. Doc Tropics18:28, 21 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
There are noticeboards to settle such matters, and the opinions of people with zero history will hold weight uncontroversially. Despite having endorsed the article subject's siteban, and despite having subsequently raised copyright issues with his uploads that no one else had noticed, the fact that I subsequently mentored him has been recast into an accusation of bias. I have no intention of remaining in the trajectory of the mud until some of it sticks. Durova28018:36, 21 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Durova. I hope you are doing well. I am having some difficulties once again with your mentee Jaakobou. After taking a two-month long wiki break, on my first day back, I made a small edit to Land Day[12]. Shortly thereafter, after not touching the article for a whole year, he made this edit [13], reinstating it again [14] and again [15]. Please note that this false comparison he is trying to introduce between Jewish refugees and Palestinian ones has nothing to do with this subject. He tried to insert this material a year ago, but gave up afterr I asked him for sources and he did not find any. He has since cluttered up the talk page with a series of accusations and assumptions of bad faith, generally being his usual charming self as it relates to my editing, and that of his newest obsession Nableezy.
Could you please review the discussion at Talk:Land Day#Balance and speak to your mentee about a) trying to avoid the appearance that he is following/has an obsession with people like me and Nableezy; b) trying to stick to a discussion of article content and not contributors c) trying to avoid soapboxing about Arabs, their journalism, or anything else about them that is not related to article content. I siginificantly expanded the article using reputable scholarly works from Israeli authors, among others. I tried addressing some of his requests [16]. In reponse, I get this [17]. So I replied like this: [18] and got this [19]. Note he says "I wasn't aware that nothing that portrays Israelis in a reasonable light must be inserted by editors not named Tiamut," totally ignoring the 7,000 bytes of new material I added from high quality sources including those of Israeli authors.
I am very very tired of Jaakobou's hounding. I have brought it up to you and at WP:AE a number of times. He has gotten warnings about it before. What can be done to stop this from happening? I am busy trying to get Tawfiq Canaan promoted to FA status. I don't want to waste time on these silly schoolyard games. Your help would be appreciated. Tiamuttalk08:12, 22 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Tiamut, last month I resigned from all mentorships. Some of them remain in a phase-out period, but Jaakobou is on his own. Will still do my best to be a go-between if you'd like? Durova28014:20, 22 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Durova. Sorry I'm so out of the loop. Been away for a couple of months. To be honest, given his history of stalking and mocking me, the last thing I want is to spend my time engaging him, so a go-between is of little use. If you want to leave him a friendly note telling him to maintain a little distance given our stormy past/present, it's totally up to you. If not, no worries. I'm a big girl and can take care of myself if I have to. Thanks. Tiamuttalk18:10, 22 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. Have been fairly low key about the changeover because part of the reason for the change was serious offsite harassment that arose in relation to one of the other mentorships I was doing. None of the mentorees were themselves at fault in any way because of that; it's just a fact of life that most of them volunteer in contentious areas. Occasionally that takes on real world dimensions, and mentorship itself was getting politicized by senior Wikipedians in ways that made a serious incident more likely to happen. I'd been complaining for months; possibly should have walked away sooner. Durova28118:53, 22 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Hey Durova. I was just wondering whether you might be able to me a little advice, before I get in too deep. You see, I kinda had this idea for a UK petition - the details are in my signature. The thing is, I plonked a notice on commons about it (technically, speaking, two) and one on VPM, but I haven't been able to illicit a response on whether it is a good thing to be doing or not. So, you see, I thought I might find someone knowledgable and then directly ask them whether I was out of my mind or not, before I went to any great length to promote the petition itself. To the best of my knowledge, I don't think you are able to sign it yourself, and therefore ideally placed to offer this advice. So, am I a) Crazy "You'll end up doing more harm than good, y'know?" b) Wasting my time "What's the point? You're not going to achieve anything." c) At least having a go "Why not?" ? All advice appreciated, - Jarry1250[ In the UK? Sign the petition! ]14:33, 23 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you very much for asking; there are few compliments more satisfying to see one's opinion unexpectedly valued. It's also a serious and nuanced question; will endeavor to give it the thoughtful answer it deserves.
Petitioning can be a good way to address a public concern. Effective petitions usually take a simple and direct approach, with a request for a clear outcome. Such as a petition for someone's resignation. So as a Yank, relatively unfamiliar with the fine details of the British government, it looks odd to ask a non-judge to review a foreign legal case for its applicability to one's country. If the Prime Minister gave an opinion, would it carry weight within your system? If it did, would it be likely be the answer you desire? In practical terms, is a useful way to achieve your goal?
Last week I couathored an open letter for Signpost about a different approach. Some background to that: about a year ago I saw what NPG was doing. Instead of going Derrick's route and challenging that directly I chose a different path. When changing technology alters an economic structure, a certain type of person responds by putting their creative energies into defensive tactics such legal posturing rather than seeking ways to adapt to the new situation. It's usually a safe bet that once someone starts down that path they'll stay on it unless somebody else shows them, in a nonconfrontational way, how new and beneficial opportunities exist within the new situation. That's what I've been working on.
The Library of Congress already offers a very large collection of high resolution digitized images and asserts no proprietary rights or restrictions over their use. In some cases another copyright owner exists, but LoC makes no claims of its own. So in order to demonstrate benefits of openness I've mostly worked from their collection. This May, ten of my restorations from LoC files ran as Picture of the Day while Wikipedia's main page received a total of over 58 million page views. To put that in perspective, The New York Times has a circulation of 23 million a month. Cultural institutions want to be relevant; they want the public to be interested and involved in their collections. This is the kind of opportunity they ought to be lining up to take advantage of. Most of them don't realize it exists.
So my approach has been to demonstrate empirically that it does exist. This is inspiring more institutions to cooperate with us. Since that Signpost letter was published the Tropenmuseum of Amsterdam has committed to donating 100,000 images to Wikimedia Commons. Spaarnestad Museum of Haarlem has also made a commitment to donate images; we hope to announce the numbers soon. This is part of an ongoing effort to build partnering relationships; more is in the works with those two institutions and with others.
Part of NPG's argument is a claim that WMF is impossible to work with. Each time we partner with another cultural institution we demonstrate empirically how that assertion is mistaken. These other relationships are unquestionably beneficial--for the museums, for Commons and Wikipedia, and for the public. We're expanding these efforts and seeking to replicate the successes. That's worth doing for its own sake. I'd like to partner with NPG too, yet in the current situation am deferring to the legal professionals. Best not to step on their toes. Yet without getting into that area it could improve the overall to generate more examples of how openness can be a net positive for everybody including the museums. Eventually, there's reasonable hope, institutions that have been attempting creative legal claims will dismantle those barriers on their own in order to join the new collaborative environment. The ones who make this change soonest will see the greatest benefit.
So I'm not opposed to your petition. As an American it wouldn't be appropriate to attempt an opinion for or against it. Your intentions seem to be the highest. Along with intentions it's important to anticipate the consequences of our actions. If you'd like to join the synergistic response I'd be glad to have you. We're looking for people to join with outreach, and also looking for people to join with restoration. Durova28123:05, 23 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for getting back to me. I read your open letter before it came out in fact, and it struck me then that the possibilities of partnering with other collections are vast and wonderful, and I will be sure to look into restoring some photographs as well. I hope that, if the petition works (and it may well not, naturally), we maybe could reduce some of the posturing that large institutions are apt to do, but the priority, as you say, lies with not scaring useful institutions away. I'm going to go off now and try a few different things, but I'll be sure to let you know if anything good comes of them. Cheers, - Jarry1250[ In the UK? Sign the petition! ]09:24, 31 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The round is over in about four days from now. Sit back, watch your nominations being reviewed, and hope for the best. In these four days, you don't have much control over your score. It's what you did prior to now, that's going to pile up your points (or not). We're very, very pleased with this round's results so far, and of course hoping to see some more submitted before the round ends.
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.
Since you nominated the article while another user wrote it I notified that user as well, wasn't sure what else to do, since you probably don't have the sources. Hekerui (talk) 17:02, 26 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Hello! Please be advised that I have reviewed the unblock request for User:Bluemarine and that I have agreed to unblock that account. I have spelled out my reason for the unblock on Mr. Sanchez's talk page. However, I have also requested that Mr. Sanchez consult with you prior to any further editing until his murky status is resolved. As his mentor, you are responsible for providing assistance to Mr. Sanchez through this complicated period. Thank you. Pastor Theo (talk) 01:20, 27 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you. If you'd like to help craft a new editing restiction that's suitable for this situation your assistance would be very welcome. Ideally, he'd be free to edit the subjects where his knowledge would be helpful (Iraq, Afghanistan, uncontroversial cultural topics) while remaining restricted from the areas that got him into trouble before. Durova28501:23, 27 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, Durova! I would be glad to provide a consulting input, if you wish to seek out my opinion. In view of the murky status of Mr. Sanchez's participation on Wikipedia, I believe that we should take this to the "community" at your earliest convenience. Thank you very much. Pastor Theo (talk) 02:00, 27 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks very much. The appropriate thing would be a topic ban from his old areas of conflict: his biography, and related articles/topics (Allstareho has a good memory for what those would be). In order to keep a fair safety valve, he should remain free to use BLPN and RSN (and other related noticeboards) to address problems in his biography. Possibly the article talk page too, but not sure. Durova28502:25, 27 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Bluemarine's community ban is modified to a topic ban from the Matt Sanchez biography and its talk page, and from LGBT topics and related talk pages, broadly construed. He is limited to the use of one account:Bluemarine. He is not to upload any files of which he does not own. If Bluemarine violates the terms of this restriction, or makes any comment reasonably regarded as harassing or a personal attack, he will be blocked indefinitely by any uninvolved administrator.
People keep saying I am making this personal. I want it understood that I support the lifting of his community ban, providing the problems that got him there in the first place be nipped in the bud from the get-go. This is how I see that taking place. - ALLST✰R▼echowuz here02:58, 27 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
He has never had problems with uploads at en:wiki, and the proposed required remedy is nonstandard for community bans. Minus the last two sentences that looks fine, though. Durova28503:11, 27 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, he has uploaded copyvio images in the past. And you're saying no to the last sentence, If Bluemarine violates the terms of this restriction, or makes any comment reasonably regarded as harassing or a personal attack, he will be blocked indefinitely by any uninvolved administrator. ? Additionally, I think it's premature to "run it up the flag" while the Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Clarification#Request for clarification: Bluemarine discussion is going on. Shouldn't we wait for the outcome of that? Arbcom may just decide no restrictions are needed. - ALLST✰R▼echowuz here04:48, 27 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
He never had a problem at Wikipedia with that, and his (very early) mistakes at Commons were not deliberate: he mistook being given a copy of his own portrait by a photographer and permission to republish, with being given the intellectual property rights to the image. That's an understandable error if it is never repeated. There's probably not any really gracious way to say this, but it perhaps might not be the best point to insist upon: if Allstarecho were to make a single good faith error of that type in future, his own past history and block log on this project are such that he would probably seek good faith understanding too. Durova28505:06, 27 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
And yet he uploaded 2 copyvios to Commons just yesterday and the day before, one of which has been deleted. At least Allstarecho has enough common sense to know if it didn't work the first ten times, stop trying. At any rate, you didn't comment on my question regarding the last sentence and you didn't comment on waiting until the Arbcom discussion is done. - ALLST✰R▼echowuz here05:16, 27 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oh? Please show me? I have admin ops there and could see. This is news, and if it checks out that would make a difference. Durova28505:20, 27 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
(Outdent) Looks like we were checking the same files at the same time. One regards an old image discussed twice before and noted by the closing admin as probably resolvable via OTRS. The other is something you tagged for speedy while this discussion was ongoing, without any explanation. It's a photograph of himself. To sanction someone at a different project on that basis would be extraordinary. Allstarecho, when you were indeffed for copyvio I suggested leniency. It's best to measure others by the same standard one would want to be measured, oneself. Durova28505:40, 27 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
You really must do something (archive maybe?) about the size of your talk page, it takes forever to load. Anyway, indeed the closing admin noted it could probably be resolved via OTRS. But then again, so could any copyvio dispute. In this case, the image was published by Radar Magazine at least April 6, 2007 according to http://web.archive.org/web/*/http%3A//www.radaronline.com/features/2007/03/matt_sanchez_1.php. Radar never replied to a request for permission. Sanchez couldn't give permission because he didn't own the copyright. So what to do? Let the file stay? I think not. What does Sanchez do? Waits a year to upload it again, knowing full well the copyright was/has been under question. Is that something a smart person would do, really? And the second image.. just because it's a photo of himself, doesn't mean he owns the photo/copyright. I can't believe I'm even having to tell you this because as an image person, you already know this. As to the suggestion of leniency, I admitted my mistakes and even promised not to make them again. Sanchez ignores the rules, even after having been banned over a year now, and continues to break policy. So what's the next excuse? I mean seriously Durova, you honestly can't believe what you're saying, can you? Speaking of leniency, I think it's pure and utmost leniency to say "OK, you've done this in the past. Now please don't do it again or this will happen." But for some reason, you think otherwise. Then I guess we disagree. - ALLST✰R▼echowuz here06:59, 27 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
This would barely amount to an argument to sanction him at Commons. Matt has never been blocked for copyvio there. Two months ago when you raised this argument at the last en:wiki discussion about his status, I thought this was pushing the envelope too. With a lot of good faith I supposed your perspective, in light of certain external factors, might have influenced your judgment on that point--or perhaps you were just an unusual stickler for copyright issues. A few weeks afterward it came to light that this was very much not the case. It was only by a thin margin that your indefinite block for habitual copyvio and plagiarism was lifted, and the problem caused a big cleanup effort that was not simple because it had gone on for so long. I could have pointed out the discrepancy between your standard of conduct for yourself and the standard you attempted to set for Bluemarine, but I didn't. It was my hope that some kind of reconciliation was possible. So now, to see you push exactly as before (harder, even)--that prompts a question. Are you willing to have the same unforgiving standard applied to yourself with an indefinite block at the very next copyright violation you commit? Even an accidental error? A special provision for copyright isn't necessary here; if he ever makes a mistake on this project that can be dealt with via normal means. The most likely outcome of this line of discussion is that, if your own actions come under scrutiny in future, people will be inclined to judge you as you judged another; your faults in this regard have been far more serious than Bluemarine's ever were. Durova28515:46, 27 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, I'm already under such a restriction so if you want to be technical about fair, yes, this should apply to Matt too. Like I said, I learned my lesson, he hasn't - obviously. Additionally, you seem to be confused on what the request is. I'm not asking that if he upload copyvios to Commons, that he be blocked on Wikipedia. We all know what happens on a sister site isn't enforceable on another in terms of blocks and bans. I thought you would have known this but apparently I caused confusion somewhere along the line. - ALLST✰R▼echowuz here19:40, 27 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
He never needed to learn a lesson at en:wiki about copyright. There's no confusion about that at all. If you're confident about your position then let's put it to the community. The only question remaining is whether to do so before or after ArbCom finishes its deliberations. Durova28521:03, 27 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Saw this on a report about the new desktop backgrounds offered in Apple's new OS coming out in fall. Notice anything familiar? It's not exactly the same, but it definitely has more in common with the current FP than the delisted one. They obviously did their own work on it as well. Thought that was cool, though. wadester1614:22, 27 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Hard to tell with a print that's been reproduced so many times. Wired and Time have used my restorations uncredited, though. Durova28514:52, 27 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I expanded the page by 5.57x according to my character count. I believe that it is no longer a stub, and now creates an adequate page that goes along with your image. You can nominate it for DYK if you would like. Ottava Rima (talk) 19:10, 27 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
On July 28, 2009, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article A Vision of the Last Judgment, which you recently nominated. You are welcome to check how many hits your article got while on the front page (here's how) and add it to DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.
On July 28, 2009, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article The Mental Traveler, which you recently nominated. You are welcome to check how many hits your article got while on the front page (here's how) and add it to DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.
Hey there hows it going. As you probably noticed I have been having some trouble with finding a decent picture to submit, but there seem to be several that have what appear to be relatively minor problems (JPEG artifacting and noise) as in the James Stockdale image there now. I was wondering what software you use to do this type of cleanup. I downloaded GIMP but I am not sure if it has the tools necessary for that type of change. --Kumioko (talk) 02:48, 29 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
JPEG artifacting is extremely hard to address. Could you link me to the image you had in mind? The simplest thing would be to find an earlier generation JPEG or an uncompressed file. Will look into it; no guarantees. Durova28716:46, 30 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
G'day D - hope you're good :-) - Having not been around the wiki too much lately - although kept vaguely abreast of what's up, I finally found the time this morning to try and read up about the risker angle to the geogre situation - which has inspired me to pop in here.
Is it a fair summing of up your position that you feel 1) Risker knew that Utgard was a geogre controlled account, 2) that she should have done something that she didn't (tell someone, file a report, something or other?) - and 3) that she has benefited in some way from what you feel is geogre's inappropriate behaviour. - that's my understanding of your position, although I do find it a bit hard to distill!
I want to be honest with you, so I'll say that I do feel you need to work on actually engaging in open conversation with others a bit more (Risker specifically on this issue, at her talk page, or here) - in particular the section of your post where you described instigating a discussion as a bit of a 'honey pot' trap really isn't appropriate behaviour on wiki, in my view, and I'd ask you to stop that sort of thing, instead raise your concerns plainly and openly at appropriate talk pages - once folk of good faith get talking, there's usually a solution around the corner which doesn't involve formal 'arbitration' cases or the like, I reckon :-)
Here's hoping it all gets sorted out to everyone's satisfaction - perhaps it would help if you stated what you feel the next step, or desired outcome would be? cheers, Privatemusings (talk) 01:25, 30 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Yesterday WikiVoices recorded an episode where we wrote a new article. That article is a candidate for DYK now. Currently we're making early preparations to perhaps review a featured article candidate in our next episode. You ask that I raise concerns plainly and openly, so here goes: your last 50 article space edits stretch back to April 27.[21] It was my opinion a year ago that your efforts to address issues in Wikipedia and talk namespaces would be more successful if you wrote at least one good article; a share of heavy lifting in article namespace provides grounding in what our website's real purpose is. You accepted formal mentorship from me, but did not translate that guidance into real article building. WikiVoices remains open to you; many people there remain grateful for your early participation (although, increasingly, the newer members are unaware that you began it). So when you come to my user talk with the intention of giving advice about wiki-political issues in which you have no stake, the message you send is that you still don't get it. Durova28515:58, 30 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
ah D - thanks for the response, although you've kind of just gone on a bit about me, rather than responding to (or reading? or understanding?) what I was saying. Here's the very short version, which I'm giving a shot because I think you should hear this from someone, even if it's an idiot like me :-) - You have been rude to Risker - perhaps unintentionally, and perhaps with the best intentions of the wiki at heart, but rude none the less, and you should find someone you trust to talk that through with, and try and change that behaviour. Same goes for the 'offer' you made Geogre - that was clumsy and inappropriate in my view (again, most likely with good intentions).
I'd like to reiterate also my view that your 'honey pot' post is really not on - it would seem to undermine the 'good faith' in which others assume you're posting - if we were to go anywhere near 'assume that I'm fibbing / manipulating / being a bit deceptive for the good of the project' as a policy, that's a couple of stops further than crazy town!
I'm well up for talking about any of this, and, as you know, well up for talking about my own relationship to the wiki, but you may prefer to choose someone yourself to chat through this stuff with. I think you're unintentionally making difficult situations worse, and I'd like to see that get better :-) Privatemusings (talk) 21:47, 31 July 2009 (UTC)ps. trite though it is to say at this point, I really do look forward to popping back in to WikiVoices and saying 'g'day' - I haven't even had the chance to listen to some of the latest podcasts, but am tickled pink that they're rumbling on :-)[reply]
Interesting NYT article: [22] Quote: "Photographs are a glaring flaw in the Wikipedia model. Unlike the articles on the site, which in theory are improved, fact checked, footnoted and generally enhanced over time, photographs are static works created by individuals. A bad article can become a better article. A bad photograph simply stays bad." I think you could say a few words about that... :) --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk 03:51, 30 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
On July 30, 2009, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Hymn Before Sunrise, which you recently nominated. You are welcome to check how many hits your article got while on the front page (here's how) and add it to DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.
Right, last newsletter before the next round and it's a congratulations to eight of you lot. Unfortunately we say goodbye to a fair few users along the way but that is the competition. Next round, there will only be one pool which will see the lowest scoring users eliminated two months into the round. Should be good fun! Get your nominations in soon!
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.
Hi Durova. I made some tweaks to a couple articles I saw pop up on your user page. They look good. Interesting stuff. Feel free to revert anything that wasn't an improvement or that muddied the waters.
Also, I know it's a bit of a stretch from the article threads you usually work on, but I threw up (literally and figuratively) an article on wearable technology. Wikipedia's coverage of this type of subject and fashion generally, seems very bare. I was also wondering if you've come across any articles on clothing technology and its history? It came up on the wearable tech talk page and seems like an interesting and worthwhile subject. What would life be without polyester, nylon, vinyl and velcro? Cheers. ChildofMidnight (talk) 20:11, 1 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Well, it's at least somewhat related to Wikipedia:WikiProject Textile Arts. Not sure what would be appropriate or cross the NOR line. For athletics, Camelbak hydration systems come to mind. Also reflective and light-up night safety gear. Costuming also comes to mind: stage wires and imaginative party apparel (vests that light up, Halloween gear, etc.). Durova28820:20, 1 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Think for the info and ideas. I may try to do an article on clothing technology in coming days... I saw Braiding machine at AfD. Looks like it's going to survive, but I thought you might be interested. It seems to need some work. ChildofMidnight (talk) 22:39, 1 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I thought that you could use a cup of tea after reading your post. Though not the same, I had both my parents developed dementia within a few years of each other before they passed away. Shinerunner (talk) 17:52, 2 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I think you make a good point here and I also support your comment here. I disagree with Giano: I think your behaviour in that thread is admirable. With great respect, ☺Coppertwig (talk) 20:21, 2 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you very much. It's awkward to get dragged into something by seeing one's name, and immediately shooed away. Hardly knew what to make of that odd dynamic. Durova28820:24, 2 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Already done. To elaborate a bit more, this position has been an odd one. I rarely discuss politics onsite, but it's in the history in a few places that my personal views on LGBT issues are very similar to Allstarecho's. It's one thing to hold a belief, another to let it color one's editing. Allstarecho seems to view me as a partisan for Matt Sanchez, but I am only his mentor. Last year when Matt was sitebanned I supported the ban, and when Allstarecho was indeffed in June I argued for leniency. It was unsettling to see that he had resumed disruptive behavior in article space at several BLPs since his return. Given the history it would be best if more eyes evaluated the matter and decided how to respond. Durova29205:28, 4 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I am not disputing that eyes should be placed on the situation. My concern, and I am looking at things from afar, is that is looks like with you adding this and being a part of the Matt Sanchez situation, it looks like you are punishing ASE for being hard on and being apart of the conversation by bringing up this BLP/CopyVio thing. Not saying you are, but from my view in the back row, that is how is looks. I am all for bringing things to ANI, but I think it should have been someone else to bring to ANI since you are involved with other related situations is, I guess, what I am trying to get at here. Personally I don't see any BLP or copyvio problems....maybe some editwarring problems, but nothing that requires a block to be put back in place. - NeutralHomer • Talk • 05:38, 4 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Neutralhomer, this is beneath you. Wikipedia is the most popular reference source in the world. BLP issues are paramount; we do not handle them well. For a long time I have mentored a BLP subject who has been harassed onsite and offsite; his bank account has been hacked and someone runs a website to impersonate him. He is no boy scout, but no human being should have to go through that. Now it turns out that one editor who was nearly sitebanned two months ago has been disruptive at four other living people's biographies in addition to this one. The disruptive individual responded with a logical fallacy called poisoning the well, and you--who are supposed to recognize and ignore scurrilous fallacies when they arise--instead ignore the evidence and accept the fallacy uncritically. Show me the policy clause that redefines our site mission to be a soap opera called As the Wiki Turns before you continue in this vein. I have an image restoration to complete for one of WMF's new partnerships with a Dutch museum. Durova29214:24, 4 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Hey, I am just a radio station page creator/updater, I just poke my head into ANI or AN for as long as it doesn't give me a migraine....that last about 10 minutes. My main concern was that it should have been someone else to bring the issue to ANI. But if everyone is OK with it, I will go back to my little nook of Wikipedia and play with the radio station articles :) Take Care...NeutralHomer • Talk • 19:46, 4 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Apologies if that goes over too strong. It's been nearly two years that I've worked toward resolving this dispute. Overall the situation has gone from terrible to bad, which is some improvement, but a lot of mud has been slung and for months I've just wanted to regularize it and pass the mentorship torch to someone else. Best wishes, Durova29220:10, 4 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
No worries, I know things get heavy on ANI, that is why I spend as little time as I can there. No need for apologizes though, I understood what you were saying. Take Care...NeutralHomer • Talk • 20:30, 4 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps if it really were a "logical fallacy called poisoning the well", Homer would indeed recognize it. But since that's not what it is, but is instead fact, you can't expect anyone to want to recognize or call it something else. Just saying... - ALLST✰R▼echowuz here22:08, 4 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
A poisoned-well "argument" has the following form:
1. Unfavorable information (be it true or false) about person A (the target) is presented by another. ("Before you listen to my opponent, may I remind you that he has been in jail.")
2. Any claims person A then makes will be regarded as false, or taken less seriously.
How much more contradictory could that be? You specifically call it a "fallacy" and then you provide some definition that says "be it true or fals". You can't have both. - ALLST✰R▼echowuz here22:43, 4 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The point is the unfavourable information may have no bearing on whether the persons claims are false or less relevant. –xenotalk22:46, 4 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Very well put, Xeno. Whether or not the report was motivated by a desire for retaliation has nothing to do with whether Allstarecho violated policies at four BLP articles. Allstarecho can't read minds. The actual sequence was this: I found out about Bluemarine's block through the SPI report, which I found out about by reading the ANI thread. Trying to figure out how that had arisen and what other complaints Allstarecho may have filed, I clicked on his edit to Talk:Chip_Pickering by accident because it was next on the list from an edit to the Bluemarine talk page with the edit summary Ban: let's also remove the personal attack name calling please. The mouse slipped so I ended up at a BLP talk page where Allstarecho appeared to be on the losing side of a copyright/BLP debate against two administrators.[23] That's the kind of post that makes one sit up and pay attention when it comes from an editor who was nearly sitebanned for copyvio. If Allstarecho had told me about his incident with Matt, or hadn't followed up with an SPI report that turned out to be baseless, then I would never have stumbled upon Chip Pickering. It's like opening those wooden Russian dolls. Durova29223:14, 4 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Allstarecho, I'm no expert on human behavior. But usually when someone accuses me of something that I know I'm not doing, they're doing something along those lines themselves. This talk page isn't ANI. Is there something you ought to be saying? Durova29202:30, 5 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
If I said what I ought to be saying, as it relates to you, I'd probably be community banned for all eternity myself. But I shan't let you bait me into it. You've gotten what you wanted, gift wrapped. Is there anything else you desire? - ALLST✰R▼echowuz here02:40, 5 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Just because you attribute a motivation, doesn't mean my gears turn that way. In June I was on the fence about whether to finger you for exactly the double standard you were perpetrating regarding copyright. Want evidence of restraint? [this]. Akhilleus is his own man, but you might say we respect each others' opinions. He unblocked you without discussion. I never tried to talk him out of that. We've all been around this website a long time. You've seen conversations like this one before. Usually they take the same path: someone's been playing a little fast and loose with policies, and gotten away with it for a while, and someone else says 'no' and makes it stick. Declaring that boundaries exist and that they mean something isn't a political maneuver, but the editor who was skirting the edges has a taste for politics and supposes it is. So the more the whistleblower says 'Hey I don't hate you. It's just that there are rules that apply to everybody--you've brought a lot of good to the table and I value that too'...well the more the game player supposes that's just a subtler level of game. It's infuriating to look at it that way. But you know that I supported Matt's siteban and then mentored him to bring him back, and that I filed the complaint that got Benjiboi article banned and then initiated the appeal that got the restriction lifted after he had exhausted appeals of his own. Now you figure out whether you want to take the path of Benjiboi and Matt, or the path of Eleemosynary and Pwok. Two of them were eventually willing to suppose I was neutral and honest. Durova29203:05, 5 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
He unblocked me because he had enough common sense to see and understand that I abided by the terms set forth for me to be unblocked. Trying to make it out to be anything else, only further proves your agenda here. Incidentally, it doesn't surprise me that you failed to mention that on the 2 main "problem" articles, Mike Duke and Chip Pickering, I walked away from those and stopped editing them. Convenient for you there. Yet you presented it as if it all happened yesterday and was still ongoing. As for my taste in politics, I'd challenge you to view my edits that have absolutely nothing to do with gay rights, gay anything, politics anything. Don't paint me into a corner as someone you want to see me as. The fact is, you threatened, in so little words, to carry out the action which you have now done at ANI. It got you what you want. The motive is so obvious, it doesn't even take, as you said above, a mind reader. Ones actions speak loudly. In your case, they scream. - ALLST✰R▼echowuz here03:19, 5 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Nope, didn't threaten. And actually the Chip Pickering talk post did happen the day before. Shrug...usually in this type of situation reminding an editor of good faith examples just makes them angrier. So think whatever you want to, but what are you trying to accomplish? If I were Machiavelli reincarnated I'd never admit to what you're saying, and if you've read me wrong you're just giving me reasons to give up on you. Durova29304:33, 5 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
On August 5, 2009, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Bartolommeo Coriolano, which you recently nominated. You are welcome to check how many hits your article got while on the front page (here's how) and add it to DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.
I have an idea that might make everyone happy....I hope. FayssalF mentioned this on the RFAR ASE started and I think it is a good idea. Give ASE the power to report Bluemarine to AN/ANI/3RR/SOCK/RFC/AfD/COPYVIO/etc. if not admin or user has noticed a violation after 12 hours. FayssalF said 48, but I think that is too long a wait, 12 seems more reasonable....even 6 would be better, but I don't want to push my luck.
How does that sound to you? ASE still couldn't edit Bluemarine's talk or user pages and from the Matt Sanchez user and talk pages, which ASE has already agreed too, but it would give him the power to report only after a time limit. - NeutralHomer • Talk • 01:43, 6 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The problem is his aptitude for filing meritless reports and for timing those filings to interfere with necessary discussion. Bluemarine has been the target of an impersonation campaign across the Internet (including but not limited to Wikipedia) that has lasted more than two years. It's been serious enough that his home computer was hacked and his bank account was emptied. Allstarecho has been apt to blame any sock at the Matt Sanchez biography on Bluemarine, even when it was obviously unrelated or run by indeffed or sitebanned users. A 12 hour unscreened delay would result in the following:
Meritless complaints would continue.
Any actual inappropriate conduct by Bluemarine would be stale before Allstarecho could report it, and hence run into the preventative-not-punitive dilemma.
In other words that's a well intentioned idea that's likely to result in the worst of both worlds. Have you seen my counterproposal? Durova29401:55, 6 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
If it is on the RFAR, I kinda gave up after a few lines and with tl;dr. Not on your section, just the whole thing. Can you give me the short version? - NeutralHomer • Talk • 01:59, 6 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
A mentor/screener for Allstarecho to separate wheat from chaff. Preferably an administrator who's seasoned in management of long term disputes. Would be able to expedite genuine problems without burdening SPI (etc.) with meritless ones. Durova29402:02, 6 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
That is a good idea. I had a mentor after I came back from a block. We still check in with each other once in awhile. I would recommend User:Kubigula for the job. He was my mentor and did a great job with me and I think he would do a good job with ASE. If he isn't available, my next go-to person would be User:Acroterion....after that User:J.delanoy. I would recommend myself, but I am not an admin and don't really know what would be a good report and not. The three I mentioned would. - NeutralHomer • Talk • 02:16, 6 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Please take any suggestions to Allstarecho directly. Due to continued disruption I have withdrawn from efforts to find him a mentor (it was originally his idea). Durova29402:45, 6 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I copied the discussion to User talk:Ncmvocalist so that it can continue to a reasonable conclusion without disrupting the original page. If the other participants agree to delete the original, that's fine with me. JehochmanTalk16:18, 6 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Jehochman, I'm heading out to Starbucks to get a mocha frappuccino. It's a gorgeous summer day here in California. Seriously, a little fresh air and sunlight could be just the thing. Best wishes. Durova29416:22, 6 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I'm going ride my bike to lunch, and wash it down with a decaf cappuccino. This may make you roll your eyes, but I have given up caffeine. JehochmanTalk16:26, 6 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
On August 6, 2009, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article The Queen of Hearts (poem), which you created or substantially expanded. You are welcome to check how many hits your article got while on the front page (here's how) and add it to DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.
As an aside, would you mind naming the nomination pages by whatever the file name is of the FPC? (i.e. Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/File:Queen of Hearts Mother Goose2.jpg, rather than Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/The Queen of Hearts). It makes things a lot easier and limits how many times I (or any other closer) have to go back and forth between the nom page and image page, which is a lot to begin with. wadester1620:18, 6 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Durova! Your contributions really are massive (11% of all FPs? Yowza!) and fantastic. That's all by way of sucking up to ask you this. I see you have relatively recently restored a picture of Babe Ruth and got it to FP status/quality. Any chance that some time, when you're looking for a new project, you might give this image a try? King Kelly has several Wikicommons images, including an FP of one of his baseball cards, but it doesn't work as an intro infobox image for his main article. KK is on my long term work list, and it would be so fantastic to have a proper, HQ image to display Kelly's appearance (as opposed to the current, very low res File:Kingkellyphoto.jpg). Thanks! Staxringoldtalkcontribs04:08, 7 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Unfortunately that image is only available from the Library of Congress in thumbnail, unless you pay for a better scan. If only we had the sort of relationship with them where I could ask for something like that as a courtesy! (snaps fingers). Durova29704:12, 7 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, for a good restoration one of the things to look for is a file at least 10MB in an uncompressed format such as TIFF. Durova29704:16, 7 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Some of the nominations have been there since March; would it be possible for you to go through them, or should I see if someone else would be able too? Thanks! –Drilnoth (T • C • L) 17:43, 7 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I've just emailed you seeking your advice on an issue. Thanks for any assistance you might be able to provide. Cheers, Nja24718:42, 8 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the words and for the wonderful picture. I do hope it will be appreciated by them and that they can now sort the issue that's affecting two articles. Nja24709:09, 9 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : XLI (July 2009)
The July 2009 issue of the Military history WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you. This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 19:24, 9 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Well, he actually said your edit wasn't disruptive, he was just concerned. If the matter is apparently resolved, no harm no foul I would guess. John Carter (talk) 21:17, 10 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Photographers have had their own barnstar for a long time...It was time someone made one for those who restores old pictures :
The Curator Barnstar
For oustanding work in finding and restoring an unbelievable number of historical pictures, many of those becoming great additions to Wikipedia's Featured Pictures. Ksempac (talk) 12:47, 11 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I want to give basic image restoration a shot in the coming weeks, so I want to make sure I start things off on the right foot. Working on a Jackie Robinson image, would you suggest using this or this image as the starting point? The 2nd (heavily cropped, LQ) is the current lead image for his article. Which, if you were choosing one to work on, would you crop/restore? Staxringoldtalkcontribs00:51, 12 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Does this photo have similar issues, since it's too late for the pre-1923 public domain argument and the copyright page says "while the Library is not aware of any U.S. copyright protection (see Title 17, U.S.C.) or any other restrictions in the By Popular Demand: Portraits of the Presidents and First Ladies materials, there may be content protected by copyright or neighboring-rights laws of other nations."? Could that image be uploaded as free use, or does that weasel language make it a grey area/no-no? Staxringoldtalkcontribs03:30, 12 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
That one should be good. Here's the rights statement for the National Photo Company collection.[24] There's a bit of a compositional issue in the left foreground, with the barrier partially blocking the shot. But considering the historic value of the image it's the best we're likely to obtain of the scene. And regarding your other question, I'll be making a post tomorrow. It seems that taking a wikibreak to avoid conflict has its downside. Got an unpleasant surprise within half an hour of logging in. Durova30505:07, 19 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Have downloaded the file and opened at full scale. It looks like an interesting candidate for restoration, btw. Please send me the file as you're working on it, if you would like advice and suggestions. For starters, I'd suggest working on the faces last. Subtle changes can really alter an expression, so best to get practice with the stadium seats first. Durova30505:16, 19 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
You're welcome. Will be eagerly awaiting news of your progress. :) And after sleeping on it, am endeavoring to settle the disappointment quietly. Durova30521:29, 19 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Durova. First of all, thanks for wading in to the IRA discusion and for your comments.
I am going to follow your advice to look to see if Mediation will work for this issue. Reading the official mediation committee page, it seems like the best bet is to go for the Mediation Cabal. This is the first time I've done something like this, so I have a question I was hoping you might answer (or point me to the right person to ask). For the Mediation Cabal, do I put in the official request first, or do I first try to get everyone involved to agree to the mediation on the disputed article's talk page? Lot49atalk20:34, 12 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Apologies for the delays; anyone within MedCab should be fine to contact. They're the experts about mediation procedure. It seems that the editors on that page are dedicated and sincere, with two differing takes on a sensitive issue. It's natural for people in that type of situation to drift into a rut of binary thinking, when the best solution probably lies a little outside their current terms of discussion. A good mediator might help turn down the heat and shine more light on the discussion. It takes patience and talent--a combination of skills to be admired. Let's hope the outcome is good. Durova30505:13, 19 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for your help. I suggested mediation on the talk page and it didn't get support, so it looks like we won't be progressing down that path. Now I am reading up on RFCs. Lot49atalk15:23, 19 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Lise, I know that Jake Wartenberg is one of your proteges, (excuse the incorrectly spelled word, iMac doesn't let me use special characters) and, as such, I'd like to direct you to this. :) ceranthor16:10, 15 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Durova. I was wondering if you would be able and willing to provide me with some image advice? I have just come across File:EisenhowerChiefofStaffPortrait.jpg, which I think is a rather high quality portrait of Eisenhower as both a General of the Army and Chief of Staff of the United States Army that trumps several other portraits of the man. I think the image may meet the Featured Picture criteria, but as I have limited knowledge in the area of images and image restoration I thought I would seek advice from an experienced person in this area first. So, do you think it would be worthwhile taking the image to WP:FPC, or does it require some work? Thank you for your time, and (hopefully) assistance. :) Cheers, Abraham, B.S. (talk) 05:25, 16 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
In this round of the WikiCup, the bottom four contestants of the top eight will be eliminated on September 30th, while the top four will continue with the same score for an additional month. On October 31, a winner will be announced.
Top 4
Durova (370)
Ottava Rima (281)
Theleftorium (281)
Sasata (200)
Bottom 4
Candlewicke (88)
Shoemaker's Holiday (81)
Mitchazenia (73)
Juliancolton (21)
All scores are accurate as of 15:22, 16 August 2009 (UTC).
Content Leaders
As of this newsletter, the following is a list of participants in this round with the most:
The difference between each contestant's point total from last week, and their point total from this week are:
Rank
User
LF
TF
D
1
Durova
0
370
370
2
Ottava Rima
0
281
281
3
Theleftorium
0
281
281
4
Sasata
0
200
200
LF = Last Week's score, TF = This Week's score, D = Difference between last week and this week's scores
From the Judges
Apologies for not getting a newsletter out before this, but all of the judges happened to be away at the same time. Very impressive start of the round. Only sixteen days in, and our top four are already completely above 200 points. By the way, this is light red, not pink! :P
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.
Indeed - we discussed it over Skype in relation to your rewrite of the article. I felt that it was too good a story to miss putting in, even though I was fairly sure only you would get it :). Ironholds (talk) 23:41, 19 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Would you set up the RfC - at your convenience; MOS has been a nuisance for years, and a few more months won't hurt. If I do it, it will be immediately attacked on personal grounds - and your enemies have different Causes.
That's not why (although my position is against mandatory provisions unless necessary; I was against date-delinking, I would be equally against bot linking of dates; I would permit both forms of 19th-century). Since the AN issue arises out a discussion which can be made to appear personal, although I did not intend to be, if I do the RfC, it will be immediately swamped in personal issues. SeptentrionalisPMAnderson16:36, 20 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Block logs and shooting the dog with a bad name etc
Hi Durova. I don't know much about you except that you are famous! Block logs are a self-fulfilling prophecy. A "give-a-dog-a-bad-name" thingy. An abomination, frankly. We have blocks by warring Admins used by subsequent warring Admins to crush the little folk (aka me). How does one purge a block-log of the malicious blocks so that the next godawful Admin can't use it as an excuse to hound the target? I'm very serious - though this is a question I have asked many times without response. How the heck does a block so bad that the blocker resigns or is himself blocked remain as support for the next
cretinous blocker?
If I sound a tad cynical, put it down to Wiki-experience. (What is the '306' a reference to?) The '777' means absolutely nothing, bar it's easy to remember, in case you are curious :) Sarah777 (talk) 02:39, 22 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, thank you for your candor. Do you realize that the net result of that missive is the following message? "Administrators, don't make yourselves open to recall. And if you do, be certain not to set a low threshold to ensure fair accountability to the community. Because if you do and you make one bad block--even if you reverse it with apologies 75 minutes afterward--then years later people will call you "an abomination". And the fact that you've also become the Wikimedia Foundation's most prolific featured content contributor won't mitigate that at all." 306 is the number of my featured contributions. Durova30604:00, 22 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Need help with evaluating a scan of a source that might be a forgery
"When he shoots fish himself he has trouble with the autofocus selecting the wrong part of the image. File:Pregnant guppy.JPG And he runs into problems with glass reflection and composition. File:Jellyfish1.JPG "
Seriously, it's a problem that a lot of people have when they first get into photography. You can minimize the reflections several ways. The simplest is to try to bounce the flash off a 45 degree angle, although that doesn't always work. If you have a tripod or an image stabilization system you could just turn off your camera flash. Or (this didn't used to be a strictly high end camera thing in 35mm days) get a polarizing filter--if your camera can accept one. For the focus issue, try going to manual. Tanks of water confuse a lot of autofocus systems. That's why the rocks looked perfect but the guppy was fuzzy. These are perfectly normal issues for beginners, btw. Doesn't mean you're bad. Just that the photographers who shot for those books had more experience and better equipment. Practice makes perfect. :) Best of luck, Durova30603:15, 23 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Actually I did use alot of those techniques. They were all shot at a 45ish degree angle, used a tripod, and used manual focus. Unfortunatly my camera will still autofocus even if it is manually focused. To be honest I hate my camera and wish I still had my old 35mm. - DrewSmithWhat I've done03:19, 23 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Ouch, I'm so sorry to hear that. Used to be you could pick up a $200 camera, get a polarizing filter for under $20, and go to town. And all the controls would be manual. Of course, you'd also pay through the nose on film. Durova30603:51, 23 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Hehe, I remember back in the day (well, about ten years ago) my mom was into photography hardcore, so she set up her own darkroom and everything. She ended up dropping the actual photograhpy part, but continued to develop the families pictures herself since she was pretty good at it. I ended up inheriting an $800ish 35mm camera with several different lenses, filters, and flashes. The only thing I ever had to pay for was film, which back then wasn't so bad because I had an allowance (wish adults could have those). Unfortunately when I moved out I left it there because I didn't have room for it. A month later my mom gave me 50 bucks and said she sold it at a yard sale because she thought I didn't want it anymore. - DrewSmithWhat I've done04:07, 23 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you very much. Actually it's something that will probably be used for negotiations with cultural institutions. Makes you wonder how many other important portraits simply haven't been used in textbooks because the originals degraded in ways that weren't feasible to restore until the digital age. It's an honor to have the chance at working on these things. Best regards, Durova30601:03, 25 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I have looked at the File:Blowup.jpg more carfully, and now I am pretty convinced that the "clean areas" we see in the image are not the result of deliberate digital manipulation. Instead I suspect that they are an artifact of the 8*8 block coding in jpeg scheme. Whet seems to be happening is that some of those 8*8 blocks are (almost completely) monochrome and most of their DCT coefficients (besides the DC off-course) are thresholded to 0; as a result the compressed image block looks "clean". The reason I suspect this to be the case is that the clean parts of the image all seem to be (multiples) of 8*8 in size and furthermore seem to start at row, column number 8n+1, 8m+1 for integer values of m, n. I havene;t checked this pattern throughout the image, but noticed for example, that the clean block under "THIS" begins at row 17. Just thought you'd be interested in this information. Cheers. Abecedare (talk) 01:45, 25 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
It's consistent with someone using a tool at a given setting and starting left to right, top to bottom. With the exception of the location where existing puncutation was removed. The same effect as I generated with my own first noob effort to remove JPEG artifacting, long before joining Wikipedia. Durova30602:09, 25 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
It is not true that the clean blocks appear only near the top rows of the image. For example, notice the clean blocks under "grows it" in the third last text row, or under "soil. The form" in the second last row (except for the two blocks where the tittle above the "i" in "accompanying" interferes with the monochromatic-ness). I have now checked the whole image and the clean blocks appear if and only when the border or interline spacing is,§
a multiple of 8*8 pixels large , and
corresponds to rows 8n+1:8n+8 and column 8m+1:8m+8 respectively, for some m, n.
This is perfectly consistent with what one would expect from the JPEG compression scheme and achieving this manually would be well nigh impossible (except if one was deliberately going for exactly this effect). Hence I conclude that the clean blocks is not a result of deliberate image manipulation.
§: If you could email me your email address, I can attach an image overlaid with a 8*8 grid that shows this. I am reluctant to upload it on wiki servers since it does not have any encyclopedic use per se. Abecedare (talk) 02:49, 25 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Commons would be fine. This might be useful in future investigations in case something like this arises again. Am very interested in your feedback; thanks for raising this. Durova30603:07, 25 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I have uploaded the image file at commons. You'll have to see a zoomed version to observe the described effect. In case you wish to reproduce or improve the visualization, the grid was overlaid using GIMP and file saved as PNG. Cheers. Abecedare (talk) 04:13, 25 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Abecedare is right. This is an open and shut case. I mentioned this at User_talk:SteveBaker also (before noticing this thread). -- BenRG (talk) 14:01, 27 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I'm afraid I must disagree. The fact that one of the clear blocks falls in the "three space region" – where the asterisk was placed in the original text – strongly suggests that the clean blocks are the result of intentional modification, and that one goal of the modification was to remove the asterisk. – ClockworkSoul18:03, 27 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for putting this up. It's good to have an open discussion about it. When I analyzed this originally I wasn't aware of anything other than human intervention that would result in this pattern, and it was suspiciously similar to my own first attempt at JPEG removal years ago. Now am wavering; open discussion could help settle the matter. Which would be good to know in case another question like this ever arises. Durova30618:57, 27 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
To illustrate what I'm talking about I took a screen capture of a small part of this thread, added some noise (intensity 10 in Paint.NET), saved it as JPEG (quality 90, the same quality setting Drew used), reloaded it, and made a before-and-after animated GIF. You can see the effect I was talking about: a decrease of noise in blocks that don't contain a portion of a letter and an increase of noise in blocks that do. If you look at Drew's image you will see the same thing. It is unmistakable; there's no way it can be anything else.
Durova, not to be a killjoy or anything, but accusing someone of forgery on the basis of spurious evidence is a fairly serious thing. It's not just "good to know" how JPEG works "in case another question ever arises", it's kind of essential to know before you make your first accusation. People get unjustly imprisoned on the basis of false expert testimony out in the real world. It happens a lot. That's why I'm following up on this even though it no longer matters as pertains to Drew. Tread carefully, please. -- BenRG (talk) 15:39, 28 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you very much for the effort and the admonishment. It's well stated; a word to the wise is sufficient. One of the difficult things is that people appeal to me as if I were an in-house expert on everything vaguely related to images including fine points of copyright and trademark law. Very few people even understand all the capabilities of Photoshop. I happen to do specialized work in a particular area; it's advanced enough that a museum in a European capital has announced plans to display it. That does not make everything I say the equivalent of expert testimony. Sometimes it's a surprise to see posts regarded with that weight. Will have to bear in mind for the future and be more sparing with comments outside the realms of real confidence. Durova30615:55, 28 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Hey Durova, I'm getting close to done, I'd love any input. Here is a Rapidshare'd .rar file which includes the original TIFF, restored TIFF, and some crop ideas. I still have the issue at the bottom right to clean up, but that's a messy one. I'd love any opinions or help you have to offer. Also, what license template would you use, given the permissions? Staxringoldtalkcontribs03:30, 25 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. There was a problem with your compressed file. Could you register a Skype account and email me for my ID? It's much simpler transferring files via that client. Durova30603:52, 25 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oh good, thank you very much. Is the Salem witch scheduled for Halloween? Also Patrick Street, Cork is waiting for Saint Patrick's Day next year.Durova30615:05, 25 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Occasion restorations--choose what you think suits.
President William McKinley's last public address (5 September)
Salem Witch (Halloween)
El Día de los Muertos (2 November)
Patrick Street, Cork (St. Patrick's Day)
From the Easter egg roll at the White House lawn (Easter Monday)
Also, have been asking Iranian editors for assistance in learning the birthday of Neda Agha-Soltan. It appears to have been sometime in February. Would like to run File:Layla and Majnun2.jpg on that date in memorial. The restoration is an illustration from a love story by Nezami Ganjavi, who was one of the greatest poets in Persian literature. Durova30615:18, 27 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Great, thanks. I have scheduled all five of the above, but not written anything yet. The only one I picked for a different date than you suggested was the McKinley one, which I put on his assassination date instead. howcheng {chat}05:52, 28 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
What program do you use? I'm afraid to use GIMP, last time I downloaded it my computer lagged for a week. What do you suggest? ceranthor22:04, 26 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I use Photoshop (already knew how to use it, have a legal copy, path of least resistance). I own a GIMP book for consultation with people who prefer free software. One or the other is usually the best way to go, although Photoshop Elements may have enough toys for this purpose. Durova30622:47, 26 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
GIMP is the standard free software for this type of work. Perhaps try a different version of GIMP than the one you installed before? Durova30600:34, 27 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I resigned from mentorship a couple of months ago. Nothing against ScienceApologist; was getting harassed offsite by a banned user in retaliation for the efforts of mentoring. Durova30615:03, 25 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Dear Durova,
I have been attending to some nominations and noted at the top of the section now is Mitchazenia's mention of a Golden Steeplechase, but did not espy an image to use with the aforesaid award. Had you a particular image in mind or should I find one?
On another topic, I believe a food-and-drink-related triple crown is in order to promote content contribution in that area, sorely underrepresented at WP:FA and elsewhere. Carrots are always more fun than sticks. Would you have an image in mind? Cheers, Casliber (talk·contribs) 04:16, 27 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Dear Durova, I have a digital camera now and taking great pictures. I thought maybe I can share my photographs with Wikipedia but not sure about how to atribute the license. I am uploading the pictures to flick so maybe you can take a look. Not much yet but will build it up slowly flickr photos. I travel a lot so may be some good stuff. Also maybe be able to take special photos if needed. I am not volunteering to be Wikipedia's professional photographer, just my part! LOL Anyway, I have a new set that will upload soon of Kyushu. Before I will upload an image to a Wikipedia article I will consult you, being you have lots of experience in this. Thanks, Igor Berger (talk) 12:08, 28 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Wonderful! Enjoy your journey and shoot often. One of the secrets to becoming a good photographer is to carry a camera around and keep clicking; when a scene looks interesting try several different camera settings and angles. Afterward, when one really stands out, remember the decisions which led to that success. The digital era makes it much less expensive to experiment; buy extra memory cards and enjoy the luxury. You might enjoy reading Within the Frame by David DuChemin. Durova30615:42, 28 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the Thumbs up. I uploaded the Kyushu photos to flickr, which I think we can use on Wikipedia on some Japanese pages. I wanted to upload the real gem, which is Marc Chagall The Circus complete set, but hit monthly limits. I am thinking of something like this List_of_Chagall's_artwork for the whole set. The drawing are in frames, but still it is a rare find. I Googled for it and only fund a few here and there. I wouder if the compelete set has been pronted in some publication? I doubt it! Anyway, in a few days I will upload one and go through it with you to get the license correct. Maybe I will do a blog post on them with resized versions. I think there are like 40 drawings. Igor Berger (talk) 16:33, 28 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Here we get into copyright issues. Chagall's work is under copyright so you would need to upload locally with nonfree use rationales. For most other things you should be fine, although you should research local copyright law regarding photographs of buildings and public artwork. Some countries have a clause called "freedom of panorama" that allows photography of copyrighted works that are on open public display. The United States, for instance, has freedom of panorama only for buildings. So you could upload a photograph of a new US building to Commons without a worry, but not the equally new sculpture in the courtyard. It's confusing at first; mostly it's just a matter of doing the right reearch. Durova30616:47, 28 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
(Incidentally, Japan has similar rules to the US regards Freedom of Panorama. Most buildings, with the exception of those few deemed "artistic works", you can photograph to your heart's extent. HTH, - Jarry1250[ In the UK? Sign the petition! ]16:54, 28 August 2009 (UTC))[reply]
Here are the Marc Chagall pictures. I uploaded the resized versions to my blog Marc Chagall The Circus Would love to upload the original photographs to Wikipedia and create one page for them. Please advice me as to what needs to be done with respect to nonfree use rationale. Thank you, Igor Berger (talk) 21:11, 28 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
After a read of the biography it's unlikely I could get nonfree use rationales to stick: the biography is already well illustrated, and some of his material is already public domain under United States law. For the rest we'll have to wait until copyright expires in 2056. Durova30621:28, 28 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
If I can get a written email permission from the owner of the paintings of Marc Chagall museum in Yufuin Japan, will that be adequate nonfree use rational to stick? Igor Berger (talk) 22:02, 28 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Unfortunately, the traditional route of republication permission isn't compatible with Wikipedia's copyleft license structure. That's because our licenses don't control downstream uses including commercial uses. So a nonfree rationale would need to be equally compelling regardless of whether a copyright owner grants permission. Durova30622:44, 28 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I am a bit confused. That show how much I know about photographs for Wikipedia. ;-) Do you mean if a particular photo is needed for a particular article than getting the nonfree use rational would work? So first comes the article then the photos? Igor Berger (talk) 23:02, 28 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
As a Commons administrator I am not the best person to ask about the details of en:wiki nonfree use rationales. Commons simply doesn't accept that type of material, no matter what the rationale. Durova30623:13, 28 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, thanks. It does make sense if I was to make The Circus article then I could use a few pics for illustration. Not looking to build one now! Just trying to understand the logic. Igor Berger (talk) 23:25, 28 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Hóla, Durova. I recall offering to nominate you for adminship about 5 months ago; are you ready now? If you are, I'll get right to writing a nomination; it's about damn time you were rightfully given the mop back. Cheers, Dylan620 (contribs, logs)help us!23:28, 29 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you very much for the offer; it's flattering. Actually if you had a mop of your own I would invite you to salt the page. Durova30623:32, 29 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
– (iMatthew • talk) at 18:19, 20 June 2009 (UTC)
) -- Maelefique (talk) 05:06, 7 July 2009 (UTC)
Been having trouble uploading at full resolution, so these are compressed files. Will try to follow up with the full deal.
Restored.
Hello! Your submission of A Vision of the Last Judgment at the Did You Know nominations page has been reviewed, and there still are some issues that may need to be clarified. Please review the comment(s) underneath your nomination's entry and respond there as soon as possible. Thank you for contributing to Did You Know! Hekerui (talk) 16:49, 26 July 2009 (UTC)
President William McKinley's last public address (5 September)
Salem Witch (Halloween)
El Día de los Muertos (2 November)
Patrick Street, Cork (St. Patrick's Day)
From the Easter egg roll at the White House lawn (Easter Monday)
.png&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
