User talk:Durova/Archive 81

As you are an administrator on Commons
I believe the same editor has been active there, see here for details. Thank you. O Fenian (talk) 17:45, 3 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Thank you for bringing this to the noticeboards. Very good catch.  It's taken care of.  Durova  412 18:01, 3 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Thank you. Since Sansonic was kind enough to link to another talk page filled with copyright warnings in his unblock request, I am now busy tagging that editor's remaining uploads for deletion. 5 tagged out of 5 checked so far. O Fenian (talk) 18:45, 3 March 2010 (UTC)
 * We've probably found everything on the Commons side. Still a little housekeeping left on the en:wiki side. It's strange how long this sort of blatant problem is allowed to fester. 11 months since the first warning? That's not good.  Durova  412 18:47, 3 March 2010 (UTC)
 * There's still this on Commons. An exact copy was originally deleted here, then this post was made, then a couple of months later an editor on Commons (who I believe is Aayan1 here) uploaded the image there. O Fenian (talk) 19:29, 3 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Got it. Durova  412 19:31, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

Durova, I think I got all the copyvio images on en:wiki. I don't have a huge amount of image experience, but I think File:Best-one.JPG is fine. Am I correct? (The other two uploaded images appear to be taken by user in question.) -- Flyguy649 talk 19:24, 3 March 2010 (UTC)
 * It looks like a valid nonfree use rationale, yes. Thanks for checking. :)  Durova  412 19:25, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

ANI notice
Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there currently is a discussion at Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. Equazcion ( talk ) 05:01, 4 Mar 2010 (UTC)

Photo poll
I've uploaded the second half of the poll and need your input/expertise thanks  YellowMonkey  ( vote in the Southern Stars and White Ferns supermodel photo poll )  05:11, 4 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Did several, page loading very slowly tonight. Durova  412 06:40, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

Your comment at AN
Regarding "it appears to have had an opposite effect on Unitanode somehow. If something similar happens in future perhaps someone else could offer the olive branch?": Yes, having someone else do it in similar situations in the future would probably be a good idea. I seem to recall some ill will between the two of you. If my memory is correct, then in general, if someone who you know is annoyed with you is upset, coming in and trying to give them advice, however well intentioned, is guaranteed to come off as patronizing and passive aggressive, and will make things worse 99 times out of 100. --Floquenbeam (talk) 05:47, 4 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Actually the suggestion was directed at Ironholds, with a request that he withdraw an uncivil statement at Unitanode. Most people appreciate it when a third party speaks up to defend them.  Durova  412 06:08, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

The RfC on the Community de-Adminship proposal has begun
The RfC on the Community de-Adminship    proposal was  started  on the 22nd Feb, and it runs for 28 days. Please note that the  existing CDA proposal was (in the end) run as something of a working   compromise, so CDA is still largely being  floated as an idea.

Also note that, although the  RfC is in 'poll format' (Support, Oppose, and  Neutral, with Comments  underneath), this RfC is still essentially a  'Request for Comment'. Currently, similar comments on CDA's value are being made under all three polls.

Whatever you vote, your vote is welcome!

Regards, Matt Lewis (talk) 10:45, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

POTD notification
Hi Lise,

Just to let you know that the Featured Picture File:Coles Phillips2 Life.jpg is due to make an appearance as Picture of the Day on March 5, 2010. If you get a chance, you can check and improve the caption at Template:POTD/2010-03-05.  howcheng  {chat} 17:25, 4 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Thank you, did a minor copyedit. The summary looks great overall, as usual.  Durova  412 19:23, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : XLVIII (February 2010)
The February 2010 issue of the Military history WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you. This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 22:17, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

OTRS
I watch RFA, interesting reading. But I felt the desire to come out from my cave and speak on this. I understand the debates do get heated. I do assure you, that our most heaviest debaters, do not translate into respondents who don't give their best as implied here and here. He handles his tickets admirably. I would hate to not be able to argue a point vigorously just because I'm a respondent. Please consider the chilling effect of such implications. I understand that you have the best intentions when it comes to this project, and I respect all the work you have done here, and with our images. Just something to think about when debating. Very respectfully, NonvocalScream (talk) 06:10, 5 March 2010 (UTC)
 * There used to be a time at this website where editors didn't fear to post a straightforward and civil analysis when they had the facts to back it up. They could trust with reasonable confidence that it would be taken at face value.  Consider the chilling effect when a functionary replies first by tsk tsking the poster, then by likening the poster to a thief.  That has no place in polite discourse.  Of course one worries how such a person handles private matters, when they belittle someone who has never provoked them.  The more likely chilling effect is that people will fear to oppose an unqualified candidate for fear of badgering and abuse under color of authority.  I've just logged on; I will assume good faith and not check.  You have of course reminded that person of these considerations?  Durova  412 17:06, 5 March 2010 (UTC)
 * I had not even considered, those considerations. I have now.  Thank you, sometimes in the course of a thought, we don't see every person's perspective.  Very best, NonvocalScream (talk) 00:31, 6 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Thank you very much. Durova  412 01:13, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

In case you are interested - Photographs of the french newspaper "L'Illustration" from 1858
I got my hands of one exemplar of the french newspaper "L'Illustration" 1858 edition. This contains the collected press releases for the first part of 1858. Half of the pages are drawn images that should be Public Domain now, the rest are text pages. I started uploading the pages here commons:Category:L%27Illustration_1858 If you are interested into working on a few pages and having better versions, you should ask while I still have the book in my hands as I borrowed it from my neighbour. esby (talk) 13:09, 5 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Gorgeous! And uploaded in an uncompressed format; divine.  It's good enough for restoration already.  What do you think is the best or most important?  Thank you very much.  Durova  412 17:09, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

I don't really know, The book contains about 440 pages which means about 220 pages with illustration, there is some sort of poster near page 50 (3x2 pages poster) but it seems pretty much damaged as it was torned out in two, the rest looks ok exluding a few marks. I did the following processing on the page I uploaded: jpeg taken by the camera (4000x3000) -> level -> redress the border as much as I can -> crop -> save to png. For the text only page, I tried a more aggressive approach with retinex filter/level setting the white point in the gray part and saving as grayscale png. I guess I could upload all the original jpeg somewhere if you want to have a look on the overall available images. My camera can shoot in raw mode, but the jpeg usually looks better as they are postprocessed finely in the usual cases, I still have the book for now, so I can retake specific pages correctly if needed, including a panoramic approach for better details if this is really needed. esby (talk) 17:41, 5 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Wait a moment; you altered the levels before uploading? (facepalm) Could you please upload supplemental versions without that edit? It's a point of no return and really serious editing shouldn't be done afterward.  Durova  412 17:54, 5 March 2010 (UTC)
 * I'll do it, just give me a few hours, not at home yet esby (talk) 18:48, 5 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Thank you very much. This is wonderful. :)  Durova  412 19:06, 5 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Uploaded one original image here. File:L%27Illustration_-_1858_-_020.jpg. I can upload all the jpeg with images somewhere if you wish. If you wish that I retake a better picture using the raw mode, just ask for the page you'll want. esby (talk) 20:10, 5 March 2010 (UTC) . There are thumbs of the other images there http://esby.free.fr/perso/images/temp/durova/index.html esby (talk) 00:37, 6 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Shall I take your non-answer as the fact you are not interested anymore? If not, you can contact me on my commons talk page as I am not much active on this wiki. If you think the material is not good enough to work with, fine, that's a acceptable choice, but I'd rather appreciate to know it before planning to waste (more) time then. Thanks for the understanding and good continuation in your restoration works. esby (talk) 03:45, 7 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Oops, apologies for the slow reply. Durova  412 03:49, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

Here, as it veers off-topic
"The problems inherent to self-review predate this arbitration case."
 * I don't think that this is a problem intrinsic to self-review. Any party who feels that a decision they disliked from the committee could only have been the result of malice or corruption would simply extend that reasoning to any appellate body who affirmed it and simply seek yet another venue of appeal.  (And, most likely mirroring real life, the vast majority of appeals would likely end up rejected or affirming the previous decision).
 * My honest opinion? You'd have a damn hard time finding any judicial body in real-life that is anywhere as fair and even handed as ArbCom is.  We have lawyers and engineers, liberals and ultraconservatives, geeks and suits, inclusionists and deletionists, the deeply religious and  strongly atheist.  We are frank and direct with each other, and none of us hesitates to call each other to task if we step out of line.  That we manage to agree on anything is a testament to our common faith in Wikipedia and willingness to work for the project &mdash; the very idea that we are in collusion on any topic is patently ridiculous to anyone who has ever seen the sometimes explosive argumentation we can get into.  There simply is no room left for the petty vendettas and power trips that are so often ascribed to us.
 * What I'm getting at, I guess, is that even if you managed to construct an appeal committee of some sort&mdash; if it comes from Wikipedians that manage to get wide community support (as Arbs have), and they manage to work together despite (or, perhaps, because) of the inherent chaos and diversity of being a random sample of Wikipedians, I'd be genuinely flabbergasted if they ended up disagreeing in substance with the committee more very rarely. And then we'd be right where we started.  &mdash; Coren (talk) 00:08, 6 March 2010 (UTC)
 * There's a university professor I'd like you to see you tell that to. It would be very interesting to see his reply: in all likelihood it would end with either a serious error finally getting rectified or with the deep cynicism I feel getting communicated on a much higher social register than I could possibly manage.  If you don't remember who he is, please email.  Durova  412 01:21, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

Comment on appeal of block for user Joeperez69
Hi Durova, Joe Perez here. I understand that you've been doing research into my editing on Wikipedia! If I were in your shoes, knowing what you knew, I might very well have made the same call. I don't blame you in the least for highlighting the issues that you did in your block of my account, and hope you will comment or review my appeal of the block at this time. Thanks. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.35.121.164 (talk) 03:00, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

eh
I meant to come here and explain this earlier, but I'm in the middle of a bit of a tourney on pokerStars. When I said "attempted closure" I meant no offense to you; (and in fact pretty much endorsed the closure, and thought about re-wrapping it in the tan-colored box, but I think someone yelled at my last time I closed a civility-laden ANI thread) - I was merely trying to make it clear that the thread (unwrapped from the purple garb by another person) started prior to our comments which sat peculiarly at the top if it. –xenotalk 05:33, 7 March 2010 (UTC)


 * No offense taken. :) I've been gnoming 1970s pop song stubs lately and there's one song that makes a perfect soundtrack to tonight's kerkuffle.  If you want to settle into the right frame of mind atop the Great Mountain of Wiki Wisdom, fire up YouTube and play "Disco Inferno".  Cheers,  Durova  412 05:43, 7 March 2010 (UTC)


 * And now I've downloaded it from iTunes! Thanks for reminding me of that great disco hit. I think my iPod touch has over 6,000 songs now, plus lots of music videos, Podcasts, and some TV shows. It's a great little library to have along on long road trips. You can even download the first two episodes (101 & 102) of "Spartacus: Blood and Sand" from Starz Studios for free. I found them in the podcasts section. No matter what anyone says about you, remember you're simply the best, and don't you ever let anyone tell you different! Your fan. -- Brangifer (talk) 07:05, 7 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Teehee, glad you're entertained. :) Durova  412 17:38, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

Good Day in Hell
This is important enough of a band and an album to discuss at WP:AfD. Bearian (talk) 05:02, 8 March 2010 (UTC)
 * P.S. Luv teh kitteh. Bearian (talk) 05:03, 8 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Thank you. According to WP:MUSIC most songs should be incorporated into the album article unless the song merits separate notability through sufficient chart and third party attention for a reliably referenced article.  There is no question that the band and the album deserve articles, but I don't mind waiting longer to see whether sources emerge for that song.  Best regards,  Durova  412 05:20, 8 March 2010 (UTC) Thanks for the comment about Samantha; she's as spoiled and delightful as any cat can be.

Triple crown question
Hey Durova. I only recently learned about the Triple Crown, and if I'm understanding it correctly, I've done the nomination correct. However, I was hoping you could look at it and make sure I didn't do it wrong, if you wouldn't mind. Thanks! —  Hun ter   Ka  hn  03:41, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

Blocking of a user
Hi Durova,

I like your namesake by the way; I've seen the Soviet film about her.

If I eventually need to have a user officially warned, or blocked, as the case may be, what is the official procedure for making any request of that kind?

Thanks for advising me about the stewards. Much appreciated, Varlaam (talk) 20:30, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

Arbitration/Requests
I have asked the Arbcom to review your behaviour. Shoemaker's Holiday talk 21:33, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

Your comment to Jimbo
you said: ''On the level: the priorities you've put forward the last two months have been bass ackwards. I've never disagreed more.'' Good for you! Well said and powerful. Thanks! (discussion is here: Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive600 at 70.3--Mdukas (talk) 05:57, 10 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Thank you very much. I wish the need for those words had never existed.  Let's hope they're never needed again.  Durova  412 06:15, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

LOC Picture
Hi Durova, I know you love restoring old pictures. I just uploaded a from the Library of Congress for the Donner Party article Moni3 and others are working on. Unfortunately, the picture is not in very good shape and the uncompressed TIFF file they offer for downloading is only 2 megs. Do you think you can do anything with this picture? Thanks. Tex (talk) 17:08, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

Arbitration/Requests/Case/Transcendental Meditation movement/Evidence
Hello Durova. Your evidence on the above page stands at over 1300 words. The limit is 1000. Please refactor it within the next 24 hours or a clerk will do it for you. Regards,  Ryan Postlethwaite See the mess I've created or let's have banter 17:46, 10 March 2010 (UTC)