User talk:Durova/Archive 49

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

[edit] Scketches

Hi Durova. I've just seen your message. So you mean that scketched of photographs made my me are not my copyright? Thanks to confirm the info. PHG (talk) 11:30, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

In these instances, no you can't assert copyright. The photographs themselves are copyrighted and your sketches are derivative works of the photographs. Durova^Charge! 18:27, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Michael Lucas (porn star)

I am writing to you because you have had previous experience working with this article. The edits of David Shankbone on this article have been reported to COIN as seen here, [1].

--71.127.226.181 (talk) 15:14, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

Okay, replied at the noticeboard. Short answer: I think you'd fare better raising this at the biographies of living persons noticeboard. Durova^Charge! 18:37, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Alternative medicine and John Gohde

I do not remember we having so much infighting with Homeopathy and alternative medicine. Maybe we should bring John back he knew what he was doing! Igor Berger (talk) 18:52, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

Not my call. Durova^Charge! 18:53, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : Issue XXIII (January 2008)

The January 2008 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) 23:42, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] tendentious editing = WP:BOLD

If you look at ANI maybe 10 diffenret place they calling editors "tendentious editing". Is being WP:BOLD equal "tendentious editing" I am being blamed of this by VirtualSteve as well. here Igor Berger (talk) 04:04, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

Bold is good, as long as no one has a problem with it. Continuing on the same boldness after other editors object is tendentious. Durova^Charge! 04:06, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

In each case I know when to draw a line, and I never over step it! But what they are not happy about that I always come to the line every time I do things. Should I just be silent when someone says no? That is not consensus! Igor Berger (talk) 04:11, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

That's when you talk to them. Durova^Charge! 04:12, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

Well they need to talk to me not watch my actions partially and come up with some conclusions! Igor Berger (talk) 04:20, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Buffalo Soldiers

Your Featured picture candidate has been promoted Your nomination for featured picture status, Image:Buffalo soldiers1.jpg, gained a consensus of support, and has been promoted. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates. MER-C 04:36, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

Thank you. :) Durova^Charge! 04:49, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] removal of links to lyrics

Hi, could you enlighten me as to why you have removed the links to lyrics have been removed from many articles on Strawbs songs? Is this contrary to wiki policy? Regards Witchwooder (talk) 08:33, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

Yes, some time ago Wikipedia consensus agreed to stop linking to outside sites that violate copright on song lyrics. It's a matter of legal exposure to the Foundation, if I understand correctly. Durova^Charge! 08:38, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for such a swift response - is there a wiki article about this or a link to the discussion? (The only article I can find is WP:SONGS#LYRICS. I don't believe that the strawbs website is in violation of copyright. Best Witchwooder (talk) 09:22, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

From Wikipedia:Copyrights#Linking to copyrighted works:

However, if you know that an external Web site is carrying a work in violation of the creator's copyright, do not link to that copy of the work. Knowingly and intentionally directing others to a site that violates copyright has been considered a form of contributory infringement in the United States (Intellectual Reserve v. Utah Lighthouse Ministry [1]). Linking to a page that illegally distributes someone else's work sheds a bad light on Wikipedia and its editors.

Many people do not realize that song lyrics and music videos are copyrightable and link to sites whose claim to legitimacy is dubious at best. I trust sites such as vh1.com to go about these things letitimately, but fansites and YouTube and Blogspot, etc. have a lot of problems in this regard. It isn't worth the copyright owners' time to go after the individuals who perpetrate those infringements, but it might be worth their time to file a suit against the WikiMedia Foundation. Durova^Charge! 09:52, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

I appreciate the argument but the site linked to is the official website, endorsed and contributed to by the band, which states that the lyrics are printed with copyright holder's permission. How do we decide whom to trust? Best Witchwooder (talk) 13:24, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

Ah, that's different. Durova^Charge! 21:03, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

Okay, fixed. Please give me the heads up if I missed anything. Durova^Charge! 21:18, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

Thanks very much! Best Witchwooder (talk) 08:10, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Question for you.

I created a page in my userspace. User:Zenwhat/Hall of Shame

Now, I want to ask you a question. Let me first preface it by saying I don't know what happened and that's why I'm asking.

Basically, I'm just curious to hear your side about this. [2]

Keep in mind: I'm not like Cade Metz or Daniel Brandt. I'd just like to know what happened. Was it a mistake? If so, how did it happen?

Even if I list it there, that doesn't mean I don't respect you less. It's just an example of some of the theoretical problems that can emerge with the way "mop and bucket" is currently handed out.

Also, I'm sorry if bringing this up bothers you. ☯ Zenwhat (talk) 08:41, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

I made a bad block, and reversed the action with apologies 75 minutes later as soon as I could confirm the error. It was a legitimate second account, and it came to my attention that the editor wished to avoid attention. So I added a statement to the noticeboard thread I had started and asked all further attention to focus on my own actions, rather than the individual I had blocked. The particular edit you cite was another editor's attempt to honor that. We were both acting in good faith.

As to how I made the mistake in the first place, I had attempted an experimental report that was quite out of the norm for my usual work. You'll get part of the background if you look at Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Alkivar and Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Eyrian : two administrators involuntarily desysopped, one of them sitebanned indefinitely by the Committee, and two other accounts that had operated for over half a year banned for sock/meat activity. In the Alkivar case the banned vandal JB196 played a pivotal role. JB196 has created literally hundreds of sockpuppets and both Alkivar and Burntsauce were consistently proxy editing for him. I had been trying to root out serious long term problems like that, and had been quite successful at it - much to the chagrin of the people who had been trying to game our rules, and perhaps my own success buoyed my reputation enough that Wikipedians in good standing didn't look critically enough at my work afterward.

Also worth mentioning is that I was dealing with multiple problems of offsite harassment in the weeks immediately before I made the bad block. The harassment itself doesn't faze me much - I am nearly untrollable - but the cyberstalking list was filled with untrained amateurs who were making their newbie mistakes. By the luck of the draw, every single instance where I brought a problem of my own to the attention of that list, one or more people intervened against my wishes in ways that made the problem worse. In some of those instances the intervention went deeply against my principles because I believed it placed other women at risk of harassment. Trolling itself I can take, but not being able to trust the people who were near me - that was much harder. The particular editor I blocked was in no way to blame for that. Yet under those pressures my concentration and judgement slipped.

Normally a set of errors like the ones I made wouldn't be such a big deal, especially since I was self-correcting, accepted responsibility, and basically did all I could to atone for it and make changes so it wouldn't happen again. The stars must have been aligned; and I know some of the people who had been harassing me offsite did their utmost to fan the flames. The dispute resolution system broke. I had been attempting to take a short wikibreak on the advice of someone I respect very much, and expected RFC to last the usual term (three weeks or so) that would allow enough time for evidence, questions, and responses. Instead the RFC got certified on Thanksgiving Day and became obsolete within 12 hours when RFAR opened. Normally arbitration remains in the evidence phase for at least a week before progressing to voting. My case not only went to voting in under 24 hours, but when I saw that three arbitrators had already voted and I begged for time (my evidence was barely half prepared), my request went ignored and two more arbitrators voted within the next two hours. With one-third of the full Committee going on record that no defense was possible, and directing the outcome to an immediate RFA (I was open to recall), the only dignified option was to identify the irregularities and resign.

It didn't help that another editor violated my copyright and publish the report I had written onsite, two full days after I had reversed the block with apologies. When that person posted it his edit note was "for your entertainment". I have a stubborn streak that way. Talk to me, reason with me - that could change my mind. But I dig in my heels when someone tries to tread on my rights.

I did my best to reduce the drama. After the first day on the noticeboard, when it was clear that some incredibly off-target memes were gaining traction and most of what I posted was being ignored or misquoted, I withdrew from that discussion. I didn't lash out at anyone and I accepted more damage to my reputation than I actually deserved in order to let things cool down. Since then I've revived WikiProject Textile Arts from near-extinction, written a dozen new articles for "Did you know?", collected 11 featured picture credits, and founded an image restoration workshop for historic photographs. I've learned many lessons from the last couple of monts. I hope the community learns two lessons too. One of them I've worked toward actively: I don't want another editor to get railroaded through arbitration too quickly to present a defense. For that reason I've spoken up on behalf of both Adam Cuerden and Physchim62, even though Adam had been silent when my neck was on the block and Physchim had been one of my most active critics. The other part I've waited to express because the community didn't seem to be ready for it, but that would be a different conversation. Regards, Durova^Charge! 09:41, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

Ah, I see. Yeah, I don't think it's worth listing. I hate Wikipedia Review as much as I hate Wikipedia. I've been wanting to write an essay recently, titled, "Legitimate Criticism."

Because of human psychology, Wikipedia users have generally split into two factions:

Those who have a very poor quality definition of "encyclopedic content" and are very naive about Wikipedia failure, and turn a blind eye to trolling.
Those who have ridiculous expectations of admins, engage in conspiracy theorism, regarding the "illuminati cabal that REALLY controls Wikipedia", and tend to be too hasty in wanting troublesome users blocked.

The truth about Wikipedia is somewhere between the two. I'm not going to list it, because it appears you just made a mistake and apologized for it. With the amount of subtle trolling and the amount of harassment admins get, it's understandable why you might make mistakes like that. ☯ Zenwhat (talk) 21:03, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Maybe a problem

User:Zenwhat brought this to User:MKoltnow. The problem is old but there was an andmin involved in an edit war and purged a bot revert. There was an edit blanked out in this here. So you better look at it carefully. Only sysop can blank out an edit. Igor Berger (talk) 08:43, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

Why are you concerned about a month-old event? Durova^Charge! 09:56, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

I am conserned that User:Zenwhat brought it up. here Igor Berger (talk) 09:59, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

Seems to be mentioned in passing. The best thing you could do is make productive edits, so that everyone can see you're adjusting. A lot of Wikipedians made a few missteps when we were new. Durova^Charge! 10:02, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

Hi, Wakarimashta! Igor Berger (talk) 10:04, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] I am Sorry I linked to your conversation with Zenwhat

I am sorry I linked to your conversation with Zenwat as a case of social engineering on Wikipedia_talk:Social_engineering_Internet VirtualStve suggested that I get your permission or strike it out. Please forgive me for not asking you first. Igor Berger (talk) 11:41, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

Yes, sure. Go ahead and strike it. :) Durova^Charge! 11:42, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

Thank you Igor. :)--VS ^talk 11:44, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Franco-Mongol alliance

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

On behalf of the Arbitration Committee, — Rlevse • Talk • 22:15, 5 February 2008 (UTC), note User:Thatcher is the clerk, not me, I'm just opening for him. — Rlevse • Talk • 22:15, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Hey

Oh, Durova, you don't need to apologize to me. You're a great editor and I know you meant nothing by it. I had an insanely busy "real time" day and was a little short. No worries! --David Shankbone 02:59, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. Believe me, I don't think you were being short at all. That IP editor's behavior really was jaw-dropping. If an issue on a topic like this ever comes up in the future, you're very welcome to refer it to me. There are fewer ways to troll a woman about this topic. Durova^Charge! 03:08, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

Well, allow me a rant: Not once has this editor approached me about the edits I made. He raised no issues on the Michael Lucas Talk page after I made them. If you go to the Michael Lucas Talk page, I think you'll see responses to Lucas that are reasonable, indeed that the IP even agrees with and references. The edit that caused all that ire was that I changed male escort. If you click on that, it leads you to the male prostitute article. It's the same thing. Becksguy--for whatever reason--was dead on on with his analysis. The gay (not homosexual) world does not typically called gay men who are paid for sex prostitutes, but male escorts (rent boys in the UK). Hustler sometimes, although that is so 1970's. Next thing you know, that IP is all over the place. On Talk:Orthodox Judaism, COIN, ANI, BLP, my talk page...all saying the same things. I spoke to Michael Lucas on the phone, and I offered the male escort thing because I think it was merited. He told me that he had never heard of Bregman, and that the La Dolce Vita people who filed the court case say in the proceedings that they got the "Bregman" name from Wikipedia (because Lucas in court raised an objection that has never been his name). I checked the source that was in the infobox, and it did not say Bregman in the article. So, I don't know what the story is with his name, but I will find out. I mean, some of what the IP says and some of the evidence he raises is worth considering. The problem is that not once did he ever approach me or raise these issues in even rude terms, but in vile, filthy attempts to humiliate me because he thought I am friends with Lucas, or whatever. So, I'm thankful for the research this person did in their obsessive hatred of Lucas, because now I can go to the interview with some good questions that will get to the bottom of it. It's too bad the IP is more about humiliating me (and Lucas) than he is about why most of us spend a lot of time and money on building this project. Thanks for allowing the rant. --David Shankbone 03:31, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

Your editing work in general earns my great respect and your willingness to walk through coals over this raises that esteem. Best regards, Durova^Charge! 04:07, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

To the IP editor who posted here (and who no doubt will come peeking): you have passed the point of diminishing returns. Not only has your conduct discredited yourself, it is having the effect of raising David Shankbone's standing within the Wikipedia community. We already know he's a fine editor, now he's demonstrating that he's a patient and gracious one too. Your insults are directly responsible for that. Durova^Charge! 04:59, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Is this OR?

What's your opinion?

Vladimir Putin Putin is not included into the world list of billionaires compiled by Forbes[229] or the list of Russian billionaires compiled by the Finance magazine.[230]

^{[original research?]}Chergles (talk) 16:15, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Portal:Textile Arts/Selected picture

Do you get the idea of how to do it from the model at Portal:Textile Arts/Selected picture/1, or do you want me to do a couple more from the images you laid out at Portal talk:Textile Arts? Cirt (talk) 22:26, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

I thought you needed better image descriptions. Apologies for not putting those in sooner; I spent a long time restoring a particular image (it's doing well on FPC now). Please go ahead and put in a couple more; I kind of based the uploads on your recommendation of 10, and added a little more. Durova^Charge! 22:31, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

Okay, yea I could use a tad more text for image descriptions, ideally the blurb text should be geared towards a Wikipedia article, which would then be bolded within that blurb. I'll add a couple more. Cirt (talk) 22:33, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

Okay, now there are better descriptions for most of these images. Would it help with featured portal candidacy if a significant portion of the images get featured? We're weak on the article side and I wonder whether this would help balance things in voting. Durova^Charge! 23:53, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

Nah, really doesn't make a difference, so long as they are really good looking pictures, and they all are. Cirt (talk) 23:55, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

So what should we prioritize for portal candidacy? Is there any unaddressed problem that's likely to sink us? Durova^Charge! 23:57, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, mainly not having at least 10 selections of each subsection that is of "B" quality or higher that you can add for dynamism. Who knows, perhaps by the time I get around to randomizing all the other stuff and some other minor fixes, there will be more content to select/display, or you'll have just found more stuff you didn't know existed and that was of a high enough quality. Cirt (talk) 23:59, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

It shouldn't be hard to get that addressed for general articles. Biographies, though - ugh... The project is just beginning to revive from near dormancy. PKM is a trooper and WillowW is a powerhouse when she turns her attention to a subject. Le Grand Roi has been great about pitching in at drives and a couple of other new members have helped out. But revving 7 more biographies from zero to sixty isn't going to be easy. Durova^Charge! 00:06, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

Tell you what, I'll do what I can with what you've given me on the portal's talk page, content-wise and such, and then we'll go from there. Cirt (talk) 00:09, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

Thanks very much. I'm thinking where I could help. Debbie Stoller is one possibility because she's so prolific and has written some recent bestsellers. With some related material about third wave feminism and her legal disputes that might go from a stub to a B-class. I might be able to get something going for Therese de Dillmont since her Encyclopedia of Needlework remains in print after more than a century. Generally, though, it's difficult to do biographies on this subject. A lot of the major artists worked anonymously and those who didn't often get overlooked in critical appraisals. One book on craftsman design I read recently called craftsman textile work important, yet devoted less than a page to it and named none of the artists. Durova^Charge! 00:18, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

featured	At WP:FPC, unanimous support so far (restored).	Restored, at picture peer review.	Probably feature-worthy on historical grounds; no restoration needed.
Restored, possibly feature-worthy.	Restoration in progress, possibly feature-worthy.	Unrestored, possibly featurable after restoration.

[edit] Thanks

Thank you for pulling up that picture I put on PPR. You were right, it is my first and I am still unsure of how to do everything. I once again thank you for the help.

You're very welcome. If you have any questions don't hesitate to ask. It usually takes a few submissions before a new editor gets familiar with FPC standards. Things can seem intimidating at first, but once you get used to it PPR and FPC is a very fun place to be. Cheers, Durova^Charge! 00:23, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Oy.

Can you fill me in on the background here? I see your name mentioned on the talk page:

Talk:Maharishi_Mahesh_Yogi#For_reference_check_and_discussion_re:_John_Lennon_addition

Thanks. Nandesuka (talk) 02:00, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

Well, that's a quote by somebody invoking my name, with a link to another quote by somebody invoking my name, and the chain ends there. It might be possible that someone in my 25,000 edits I commented on that talk page. Right now it doesn't ring a bell. Durova^Charge! 04:36, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Various featured picture candidacies

Your Featured picture candidate has been promoted Your nomination for featured picture status, Image:Racistcampaignposter1.jpg, gained a consensus of support, and has been promoted. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates. MER-C 08:21, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

Your Featured picture candidate has been promoted Your nomination for featured picture status, Image:Tanks of WWI.ogg, gained a consensus of support, and has been promoted. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates. MER-C 08:21, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

Your Featured picture candidate has been promoted Your nomination for featured picture status, Image:Tacoma Narrows Bridge destruction.ogg, gained a consensus of support, and has been promoted. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates. MER-C 08:21, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

Thank you. :) Durova^Charge! 08:57, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Working Group login

Hi Durova, just letting you know I've sent an email (via the English Wikipedia email function) to you with details about your Working Group wiki login details. Be sure to change your password once you log in, for security reasons! If there's any problems with the login (passwords, username not working, or anything), fire me an email and I'll try and sort them out for you. Cheers, Daniel (talk) 04:01, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

Yes, thank you very much. :) Durova^Charge! 04:05, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Stonemason

Your Featured picture candidate has been promoted Your nomination for featured picture status, Image:Stonemasonry1.jpg, gained a consensus of support, and has been promoted. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates. MER-C 07:00, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

Thank you. :) Durova^Charge! 07:15, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Textiles of Oaxaca

On 8 February 2008, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Textiles of Oaxaca, which you created or substantially expanded. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

--BorgQueen (talk) 18:24, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

Thank you. :) Durova^Charge! 18:25, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] A photo project of mine...

I recently uploaded a photo from the LoC and worked on an edit of it, trying to restore it. There's a yellowish color cast in the lower corner I don't know how to remove. Any assistance you can provide is appreciated. I've added it to your workshop page. --Imzadi1979 (talk) 21:49, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, I'll have a look. Which software do you use? Durova^Charge! 22:02, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

The lower right corner, I take it? I'd select the area and create an adjustment layer, changing the color balance and brightness. Not too starkly, then repeat as needed until you've got the right effect. I had a similar issue getting from Image:Elderlyspinner.jpg to Image:Elderlyspinnera.jpg. Compare the shadows on the base of the spinning wheel legs and the area underneath her shoe. After about a dozen layer adjustments it looked visually correct. Or as an alternative, you might paste selections from a nearby area you think is correct and use the healing brush tool to blend the seams. Durova^Charge! 22:08, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

I use Photoshop CS2, but beyond simple cloning and color/contrast corrections, I'm not that proficient yet. I'm hoping that this photo has some merits as a possible FP, but that might be a little optimistic too. --Imzadi1979 (talk) 23:21, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

Would you like to play around with it a little bit? For the first approach, I suggest you use the polygonal lasso tool to select the area. Then go to the "Layer" menu and select "New adjustment layer". Then go for"Hue/Saturation" and make small changes to the hue. You'll want to remove that yellow cast so move the bar to the right a little bit and tap the preview box a few times before you save. Then what I'd do is select manually again, instead of creating a new layer copy, and make another new adjustment layer but this time go for "Brightness/Contrast". Wash, rinse, repeat until you've got a good result. The more I look at that the more I think it's you're best bet. And it runs up and down the full lenth of the right side of the photo. Best wishes. Durova^Charge! 05:12, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Mark Twain

Your Featured picture candidate has been promoted Your nomination for featured picture status, Image:Twain1909.jpg, gained a consensus of support, and has been promoted. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates. MER-C 04:55, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

Thank you. :) Durova^Charge! 07:40, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

Hidden category: All articles that may contain original research