User talk:Durova/Archive 51

In case you hadn't seen, the Matt Sanchez image for which you sought and obtained permission to use has been deleted. I thought I'd let you know, since it doesn't look like the deleter bothered to do so. I didn't see any evidence for discussion either, although I might not know where to look. Aleta (Sing) 20:56, 19 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No, the deleter hadn't informed me. Thanks. Durova^Charge! 20:58, 19 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You're welcome. I think that was poor form on the deleter's part. Aleta (Sing) 04:23, 20 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I wouldn't worry too much. It was an uphill battle. I did my best there. Durova^Charge! 06:11, 20 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Your Featured picture candidate has been promoted Your nomination for featured picture status, Image:Goa 1955 invasion.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 04:18, 20 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. :) Durova^Charge! 06:12, 20 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Durova,

Hello! I hear you are a whiz with old photos! Willow suggested that you might be able to help me with my old photos for the entry on Dixie Roberts, which Willow has helped me so much with.

I read your entries above. I am REALLY REALLY new at this, LOL, so I don’t exactly understand all of what you are talking about.

the photos are clearly promotional photos, and even when the photographers were still alive, she used them to give to newspapers etc, for promotional purposes. I am sure they are “work for hire” , but I will make sure.

None have the “c” copyright symbol on them, though some are stamped with the name of the agency/photographer. (But they are cute, one stamp says, “Please credit Bruno’s of Hollywood. Some day we may be able to return the favor.”

So is there a way I can have Dixie sign something to release the photos in a way that is compatible with printing a few of these on wikipedia? Also, some of the photos have other people in them, so I am not sure if I can use them or not …one is a photo of Dixie and Gene Kelly out to dinner, it’s really cute… And I have some cool ads, articles and columns from newspapers and the cover of a magazine, most from the early 40’s - all about Dixie – so I am also wondering what the deal is about posting a jpeg of a newspaper article or ad, do you know about that too? thanks SO SO MUCH for any advice! MimiBelle (talk) 10:21, 20 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well, there are several questions I need to ask here:

• Were the photographs all shot in the United States?
• Were they all published in the United States during the 1940s and 1950s?
• Please confirm that these were works for hire.

If the answer to all of those questions is yes, then did she renew copyright 26 years after publication? If not, then they're already public domain. What we'll need to do then is to get a written statement from her that she allowed the copyright to lapse, and I'll take you through the next steps from there.

Regarding old scrapbook material: the good news is that newspapers and magazines make excellent text citations if the clippings include enough information to cite (publication name, article title, date, etc.) Scanning isn't such a good idea. It would be very hard to prove any of it lapsed into the public domain, so just paraphrase and quote that material the same as you would for any other newspaper or magazine source. Best wishes, Durova^Charge! 10:44, 20 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Durova, Thanks you for your reply, I got confused, I didn't realize til today that I needed to come back to this page to get my answer, I'm new, I'm learning though, LOL. Gosh, there is alot to know! I hope i am replying in the right place, too! All the photos except 2 or 3 were shot in the US. (The ones that apparently weren't, have a stamp on them that says "Foto Fernandez, ARZ. MERINO NO 51, CIUDAD TRUJILLO") So I assume she was in Peru. (I know for sure that she did shows in Brazil, and other places in South America) She told me that the photos were all work for hire - she paid the photographers for photos to use to promote her career. yes they were published in the US during the 1940's and 50's. (these were photos she gave to the reporters) I am sure she did not renew copyright 26 years after publication,. but I will ask to confirm. Can you tell me what I need to include on the written statement? I will need to type it and send to her to sign.

Thank you so much. I hope I am replyiing the right way. --MimiBelle (talk) 07:36, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

		The Red Barnstar
		For working selflessly to improve Palestinian costumes and bring it up to GA status, as well as for your efforts to improve the general editing environment in I-P related articles, I hereby award you this very apt barnstar, and hope you forgive me for anything I might have ever said that may have offended you Tiamuttalk 14:13, 20 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you very much. :) Durova^Charge! 19:36, 20 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I was inspired by your wonderful work on writing articles since you gave up your tools, so went off and have been working on articles, and now have my very first DYK - Liasis olivaceus. Thanks for the inspiration. Viridae^Talk 20:29, 20 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Awesome! I love snakes (especially non-poisonous ones). :) Very encyclopedic. Durova^Charge! 20:35, 20 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Your Featured picture candidate has been promoted Your nomination for featured picture status, Image:Onchocerca volvulus emerging from a black fly.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 06:54, 21 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you! :) Durova^Charge! 06:56, 21 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Hi, a version of the picture of the Bedouin woman in Jerusalem in the late 1800s has been found, which you requested for a possible featured image, take a look, comes in two big sizes: [1]. Plese notify me if you need a vote! Funkynusayri (talk) 15:15, 21 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The link you provided is on the small side. 1000 pixels is normally the minimum for featured picture candidacy. The raw file is 760 x 1024, and needs cropping to remove the border and decayed area. The largest crop I could manage was 651 x 825. It's still a great shot; her eyes are fantastic. But I don't think it'd stand a chance. Durova^Charge! 20:35, 21 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• That's the JPG version. Did you download the 5451 x 7349, 38 MB TIFF version? I think it would be sufficient. Funkynusayri (talk) 21:56, 21 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Commons won't let you upload anything that big, and doesn't accept TIFF files. Would you e-mail it to me? Ping me via Wikipedia mail and I'll send you my addy. :) Durova^Charge! 22:08, 21 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Well, here's a direct link to it[2], it wouldn't be a problem to convert it to another format and downsize it. If you're unable to do it, I could do it in Photoshop. Funkynusayri (talk) 22:10, 21 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• I got it down to 2 mb and cropped it to 4,762 × 5,621 pixels, here's the example, uploaded on top of the old version. Funkynusayri (talk) 22:24, 21 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • That's great. Would you mind sending me the raw file? I like to work a bit larger than that and it's an advantage if I can avoid a .jpg generation along the way. Thanks very much for an awesome find. :) Durova^Charge! 22:27, 21 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• You mean the TIFF version? It's here: [3]

It also seems like another user made his own crop from that TIFF version.Funkynusayri (talk) 22:28, 21 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Downloading. :) Durova^Charge! 22:44, 21 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The biggest challenge to cropping this is the heavy damage to the upper portion of the image. There's no way to maintain the original photographer's composition; restoration work has to recreate a new composition. The simplest solution is to just crop out everything that's obviously damaged, but that changes the feel of the portrait: lose too much of that tree behind her and the airy open outdoors setting becomes limiting and oppressive. There's also some subtler issues with fading at the exteme bottom of the file. So I'm going to do something tough: I've chosen a crop that will force recreation of some of the foliage at upper right. Then of course it's the usual matter of getting in at 300%-700% to correct artifacts. Not sure how long this will take, but it won't be a 40 minute job. Thank you very much for retrieving a file that's worth the effort. :) Durova^Charge! 22:59, 21 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• You're very welcome, I find that image quite cool too. Funkynusayri (talk) 05:34, 23 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Got the big stuff taken care of. Going for the details now. Would you like to conominate when it's ready for FPC? Durova^Charge! 05:49, 23 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Yeah, didn't know that was possible though! Funkynusayri (talk) 05:57, 23 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Sure it is. When it's ready we'll ping each other and wait 'til we've both signed to take it live. Thanks very much for finding a high resolution file of this great image. :) Durova^Charge! 06:02, 23 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Done. Ping me when you're ready to conominate. Cheers, Durova^Charge! 23:09, 23 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• I'm ready, looks good! And by the way, what's "ping"? Funkynusayri (talk) 17:02, 24 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Just sign on here and I'll take it live. Might be a few hours; I'll be going out to the theater today. Cheers. Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Bedouin woman Durova^Charge! 20:05, 24 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Awright, I think I did the signing right, anyway, image looks beautiful! Inferior versions of the image is used on many pages, I'll try to replace them. Funkynusayri (talk) 20:15, 24 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Does this ring a bell, FYI only, re our previous conversations, which have been archived already? Newbyguesses - Talk 10:12, 22 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This certainly makes me glad I hadn't asserted my non-involvement in absolute terms. I'd forgotten about that occasion. Seemed like a routine block at the time: genuinely new editors don't come out of nowhere to template the user space of editors in good standing. Combine that with a dispute where someone had been banned and was known to be evading that ban. Does that answer your question? Durova^Charge! 10:42, 22 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, as you say. I guess it doesn't help in pursuing the other matter from last year you mentioned on talk:nbg. BTW, was that the big one, that you think needs re-opening, or another matter? I can only say that i think you got a raw deal, there, but it could have been worse (?) I have no problems, just you did mention it, so if i can help. Newbyguesses - Talk 10:57, 22 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, gosh. That other instance I wish I could reopen has no direct relation to this case. Just some parallels in the BLP and probable sockpuppetry areas. Durova^Charge! 11:09, 22 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Your Featured picture candidate has been promoted Your nomination for featured picture status, Image:Navajofamilya.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 12:15, 22 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Your Featured picture candidate has been promoted Your nomination for featured picture status, Image:Romea.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 12:15, 22 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you very much. :) Durova^Charge! 19:12, 22 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! Newbyguesses - Talk 13:52, 22 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Lol, I'd never seen WP:TWILIGHT before. It's brilliant. Yes, that captures it exactly. And yes, I'm very keen on "writing for the enemy" although I wish there were a better term for it. Have you seen User:Durova/Recusal? Generally speaking, I try to spend less time on talk pages and noticeboards these days. It's also important to...y'know...add content. By any chance, are you a football fan?[4] Durova^Charge! 19:10, 22 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, the reason you have not seen WP:TWILIGHT before is explained on the talk page. It originated quite recently as a compromise with a particularly difficult-to-deal with User, and since then I did a re-write. So it is very a new page which I have hopes can aid in the semi-policy and guideline debate area (WPspace) where I have gravitated.

Perhaps [Writing for the enemy] can be re-named, any ideas?

Yes, I would love to contribute more to article content, in addition to reverting nonsense in mainspace. But, I am restricted, in that, due to inadequate computer system, I am forced to avoid all the best parts of WP, Featured article, long articles, and those with images. I have contributed in a small way to Existence and Singular they, although there are still problems with these articles. I work mainly on stubs, tagged and other fairly crummy articles, it is a bit dis-heartening.

My intentions for TWILIGHT a) attract some thoughtful editors to the talk page debate. b) Use this talk-page to discuss this question, ie.

How far does one go with AGF before SPADE kicks in, and is it really helpful to label editors with titles such as troll, etc. For instance, GTBacchus is a stickler for the concept of "discuss the edit, not the editor", see [Wikipedia Talk:Ignore all rules/Archive10] or round about there in the archives, where GTB patiently engaged in dialogue with Zenwhat (now retired) long past the point when everyone else had given up. (I think that is one of the few recent archives that MiszaBot II has done there where my handle does not appear.

But I was tearing my hair out over Zenwhat on a number of other pages (which that user was attempting to hijack). Until my recent experience with that user, i had never thought that i would be forced to call anyone a troll, now i have lost that innocence. (You may find this odd, but I am not a fan of WP:DICK, which apparently many of the old-school treat as, um, gospel.)

So, I see myself as a bit of a maverick, well-meaning, and generally held in good regard by my peers. Not necessarily a great asset, in the eyes of some super-users, but, there ya go. Yes, I am a football fan.

I did appreciate User:Durova/Recusal. Back away from the ones where you can't be objective. Yes, absolutely. 9/11 is a big deal. I stayed awake on the couch, watching TV for fifty hours at that time (?), a big deal, yes: but every person's reactions and fears are different. I am just as scared today by the "war on terror" and the inadequate and corrupt way such things are conducted. And whether a terrorist, a fool or a so-called "gangsta", I detest bullies. Of course, my sympathies are with you as to your personal story, and your uncle's story. Thanks for sharing.

PS: May i ask a little advice? I prepared some stuff in my sandbox, as research. It consists of straight quotes from a published work. Obviously, such would definitely NOT be suitable in mainspace. But, in a sandbox, (and mine is always full of Lorem ipsum), such a page would not present any problems as to WP:COPY or whatever policy applies? Or, how else can one do research?

PPS: I could have scrunched this up into a DIFF, if that keeps your talk page less-cluttered, please let me know if that is a proper procedure, and if you have any good advice for me as to efficient talk page communication. Cheers, Newbyguesses - Talk 23:12, 22 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This user talk has 45 archives. It's not like people are terse here. I try to be very sparing with the word troll because it's just so hard to guess what's on the other end of that keyboard. If somebody's really up to no good it usually shows itself. Anyway, if it helps to put a perspective on the War on Terror, in my observation the thing was run and supported by people who were very insular and very out of touch. When I joined up I thought I'd met other people who had family in the Twin Towers; I didn't. The enlisted personnel usually put on a uniform because they needed a job after high school, or to get away from a community that didn't have many opportunities, and a lot of the officers had signed on for the free education. These people saw the whole world but still ate at the same restaurants and drank at the same bars with each other. To them, Terrorists were some unknowable Other who existed in finite quantities and had to be rooted out by any means. Sometimes I suggested that maybe our country wasn't taking the best approach about this; that if I were an Iraqi woman and I'd nearly lost an uncle to the Americans I might have joined up with whoever offered me a gun. When it's your own family you decide whether you're a pacifist or not, and if you aren't a pacifist then the price of not being one is usually an uncomfortable compromise.

Anyway, may I dangle a cross-stitched barnstar in front of you? The textile arts project is having a featured portal drive and we really need help with biographies. Some of these don't have any image. Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Textile_Arts#Biographies.2C_revisited Durova^Charge! 23:59, 22 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, I checked out Biographies, revisited I am surprised that, say, these two need work, they seem such famous names!

Betsy Ross = B-class, relevant free-use image in article. WP:LEAD could use expansion.

Joseph Marie Jacquard - stub class, needs expansion and referencing

I haven't looked at any articles yet; at the moment, with computer problems still, I take every opportunity when on-line to plough through the arbcom. case evidence. If i go wikiB, see ya back at talk:newbyg, when. Good luck with your evidence, it seems we do think along same lines, gotta go,

PS: Aw, soap!

Just as i typed that, computer system downed me again, so dratts! curses!!,

PPS:Wikipedia:TWILIGHT redirects to Wikipedia:The grey zone; there is no redirect from for instance Wikipedia:The gray zone to cater for international spelling (?), [DIFF xxxxxxxxx Identify the enemy, a mid re-write version, with sinister connotations, a kind of a who-dunnit], now there is Image:Janus cassini, which is public domain nasa [[smiley.20pix -->.

Might get another two minutes om line! Newbyguesses - Talk 04:03, 23 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

We need all the help we can get. It'd be great if you'd lend a hand, thanks. :) Durova^Charge! 11:17, 23 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This guy User_talk:128.220.181.222 with a preoccupation with gerbils has run through the vandalism warning levels. Thanks. -Jmh123 (talk) 23:48, 22 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The Habitrail leads to WP:ANI. Gerbils are illegal in California (and I don't have the tools to block). Durova^Charge! 00:01, 23 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, thought you did. Off to ANI. -Jmh123 (talk) 00:07, 23 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Used ta. Good luck. Durova^Charge! 00:08, 23 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sigh indeed. It's a wacky wiki world. I'm just passing through myself. -Jmh123 (talk) 00:11, 23 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This is the second time you have accused me of bad faith simply for disagreeing with you. It makes me wonder if you really do know what the term's intended meaning is. I'm not really sure what you're after, but I wonder if you and all the other editors on those arbitration pages would ever stop to consider that expending this amount of vitriol and harassment simply in an attempt to prove the kind of petty sockpuppetry and conflict of interest editing that is becoming commonplace here really isn't doing Wikipedia a favor. Dmcdevit·t 03:42, 23 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

So, following Wikipedia's rules and making sure the rules are applied evenly to both sides isn't doing Wikipedia a favor? Good to know. SirFozzie (talk) 03:44, 23 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That's a very novel interpretation of my words. I wonder where all the AGF has gone... Dmcdevit·t 03:46, 23 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It got beat out of me for daring to presume that there needed to be research to prove or disprove this whole thing. SirFozzie (talk) 03:48, 23 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Dmcdevit, how is it anything other than bad faith to accuse me of having prejudged the situation, when I actually haven't? I'm aware of the danger of asking someone to prove a negative, and endeavored at several junctures to articulate specific actions that would satisfy my concerns. I remain willing to withdraw every suspicion I've advanced, and provide public apologies. How much more can I do to prove that I approached this reluctantly, and with an open mind, and did my best to keep it fair and orderly? And that the weight of the scales tips in a certain direction, in my opinion? I'm not sure how far it tips; it does seem that enough opportunities have been extended and rejected that it isn't premature to assert a working conclusion, at least in some limited and open-ended sense. Durova^Charge! 03:57, 23 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see the specific comments in question, but I'll point out for good measure that accusing someone of bad faith is almost never helpful to any situation. Reminding them politely to assume good faith on your part might be (although, if they already aren't, asking them to won't help) but telling them that they are not is unlikely to improve the atmosphere. Avruch ^T 05:15, 23 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You've got a point. Okay, I'll tone it down. Durova^Charge! 05:19, 23 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Reply to User:Dmcdevit, I am sorry to see you were upset by the arbcom. proposal. I wish you had let it go, that proposal was never going to advance, you would have been completely exonerated, as I understand your actions were blameless. And none of this unpleasantness was ever necessary, all seem to hace acted in good faith, but there has been mis-understanding.

User:Dmcdevit, your contributions are valued, and you should not have been in a position to come under possible censure simply for attending to your duties. And that, I feel sure, will be the outcome of the arbcom, at least in respect of your good self, with utterly no stain on your reputation. That is my understanding, I wish I had been able to comment earler on the thread at arbcom, but I was off-line. Newbyguesses - Talk 11:36, 23 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Durova. Following your request I completed User:Ealdgyth/Crusades quotes testbed. I added French quotes, references, links to Google Book when possible etc... I also offered to send scans of pages if necessary. I don't see any significant issues with the material. Thanks to tell me if you think otherwise. Please bear in mind that in many cases I have been translating the French original into English, unknowingly of the English editions. I don't see significant differences though, and I am of course ready to shift to the "official" English translations, or provide both French and English when necessary. PHG (talk) 06:04, 23 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. I'm catching up with some other things atm. Will get to that soon. Durova^Charge! 06:25, 23 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there, your majesty, I must have more baubles, they seem to be strangely addictive.

DYK: Playhouse Theatre, Folly Theatre

GA: Her Majesty's Theatre, Music hall

FAC: East End of London (today's mainpage FA) and Her Majesty's Theatre

Thank you in anticipation, your Royal thingness ... Kbthompson (talk) 08:59, 23 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry i took so long to see this at the talk/Evidence. Yes, I have done so. I am getting very frustrated, every page i visit takes hours to load, and i have been off-line all day, except for two two minute periods!

That makes it so hard to keep up with developments. I was under the impression that talk page comments constituted evidence, especially if they include DIFFs, but it doesn't matter, that is up to the arbs. to sort out.

i do hope i haven't put my foot in it, however, one does one's best, that is all, and i am prepared to apologise if i am proven wrong. FYI Newbyguesses - Talk 11:10, 23 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. Newyorkbrad has asked for people to slow down there, and SirFozzie made a proposal for everyone to take a day off. I agreed, and then fudged to do a partial strikethrough on something I had written that was a little heated. No need to apologize toward me, although some judicious refactoring would be a very good idea. Durova^Charge! 11:15, 23 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Refactoring/ how so? You have seen my reply. If you have any suggestions, I will surely consider them, thanks. Meanwhile, note my note to clerk, drats!! computer hassles, wish i could afford a Mac and etc. Newbyguesses - Talk 11:24, 23 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well, he's on the spot right now, and even if he's wrong he's still a human being. Best not to kick a fellow when he's down. Durova^Charge! 19:42, 23 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, of course I should AGF, now i have seen your comment, do you suggest i make further re-factoring? I already struck the offending phrase. Thanks. Newbyguesses - Talk 20:11, 23 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Follow your conscience. Imagine if you were in his shoes. Do unto others... I've been there (or something like it). Wasn't easy. Durova^Charge! 20:13, 23 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I am following my conscience. However that does not prevent the tongue getting tied, the brain emptying of all English words, and sometimes the foot goes straight in the mouth after the shot goes into the foot. (I can be such a clumsy oaf, at times). Do you really think I have been inflammatory, i am sure i have read worse comments than mine.

Anyways, i could be just about done at Arbcom, i am tired, and still on pain-killers following my holiday not. Ouch, it hurts to move. I put up /Workshop#newbyg's proposals, wow, I am at my very first Arbcom. and it is exciting/scary/terrifying/all of the above. Now, did i say I was nearly done? Well, i know i should track down some really telling DIFF's before i shuffle off to Buffalo, see how it goes, anyway. Cheers, Newbyguesses - Talk 21:10, 23 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well, we each have to do our best to keep Wikipedia from becoming Usenet. Feel better! Durova^Charge! 21:19, 23 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

<-- Thanks, Durova, for your kind words. I am really a newby, i have heard of Usenet, but dont know anything about it. Thing is, i never go to blogs, or Instant message, or even bother much with emails. WP is practically the only site i go to on the web, although when ii get tired of the library, i guess i will have to start to follow up those pesky External Links, that always seem to crash my computer on me. (On-line can be very frustrating for an old fella). Now, your general comments are all very well, but have you noticed any of my questions that remain unanswered? Perhaps that is tact on your part, i dont know! Will be getting back to the slog now, before my system dies for the day in about half-an-hour.

Bummer; system died JUST AS I TYPED THOSE WORDS - AHHHHHH! < I am sure I said Soap! about here, it was in relation to the /wshop talk-page. Just as I saw the soap - crash! >- Cheers, Newbyguesses - Newbyguesses - Talk 00:36, 24 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yas, I have been off-line for {-----------------------------] this period of time, grr!

PS:Quick, newbyg, post now-------

Newbyguesses (talk · contribs) 09:27, 24 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

F. Y. I.

Just a friendly note on the article Quilting. I replaced the bit about the stab stitch, as this is a pretty common term (I don't hand quilt, and I knew exactly what the stitch was). I also added a ref. Hope that works for you -- if not, let me know. Cheers!--Fabrictramp (talk) 19:40, 23 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you very much. We get a lot of nonsense edits, so sorry if it put you out. The reference is much appreciated. Best regards, Durova^Charge! 19:41, 23 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No problem -- I've been in the same situation on other articles. I definitely can see how it would look like junior high school vandalism. :) --Fabrictramp (talk) 23:55, 23 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Guessing from your username, fabrics are an interest to you? You might check out Wikipedia:WikiProject Textile Arts. We team together to organize and improve the subject. Regards, Durova^Charge! 23:59, 23 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Your Featured picture candidate has been promoted Your nomination for featured picture status, Image:WTC-Fireman requests 10 more colleagues (original).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 07:46, 24 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. :) Durova^Charge! 07:47, 24 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, previously you expressed interest in participating in the Wikipedia:Admin coaching project. We are currently conducting a reconfirmation drive to give coaches the opportunity to update their information and capacity to participate in the project. Please visit Wikipedia:Admin coaching/Status to update your status. Also, please remember to update your capacity (5th table variable) in the form of a fraction (eg. 2/3 means you are currently coaching 2 students, and could accept 1 more student). Thank you. MBisanz ^talk 09:01, 24 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

DIFF. Am I re-inventing the wheel here? Has some other user entered into evidence some entries from User Talk:Wordbomb, such as these? Would that not be a reasonable line of evidence, if I choose to follow it up, do you think? In all fairness, wordbomb's words can be heard, it is all GFDL. And, most of the edits to talk:wordbomb, as is usual, are from other editors, ie. mantanmoreland, lastexit, samiharris and other interesting anon's, not to mention edit wars galore from my inspection. Would [you ie, to whom it may concern] care to comment, cheers Newbyguesses (talk · contribs) 12:56, 24 February 2008 (UTC) -->[reply]

Me and several other editors have been drafting an RfC on JzG here. We listed an effort by you to influence his behavior in the past but don't necessarily expect you to be one of the certifiers for the RfC. But, if you'd to look it over and tell us if you think anything that we listed is unfair or inaccurate before we post it, that would be very helpful. Thank you. Cla68 (talk) 01:26, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

13 months old, but accurate. I hate to see things come to this. Would you be willing to put that sandbox RFC on ice for a month and see how things go? It's clear and I hope it gets the message across. Durova^Charge! 03:02, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Unfortunately, this isn't the first time that an RfC was discussed and then put on the shelf. Several editors, including me, almost started one in December but then decided to put it off hoping that it wouldn't be necessary. Since then, several additional frequent contributors have told me that something really needs to be done. Hopefully nothing more than this RfC will be necessary. Cla68 (talk) 06:02, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well, if you've already delayed for two months then you've tried that option. He's an incredibly hardworking volunteer and he's put up with a lot, yet I've always had concerns about some of the ways he conducts himself. In some ways this reminds me of another recent situation. What's to be done? As a courtesy, since there seems to be enough other evidence, would you remove me from it? The textile arts project is coming back to life and we're running a featured portal drive. If something draws me into the RFC, then by all means go ahead and reintroduce it. Durova^Charge! 06:20, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

At AfAr/MM/talk/Evidence, see - Newbyguesses - Talk 09:23, 23 February 2008 (UTC) DIFF Am I going soft in the head, or has Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive371#User Crum meat puppeting at LAYOUT been deleted or archived/ I cannot find the thread anymore. Huh? Newbyguesses (talk · contribs) 02:34, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It's a tough situation with raw feelings on both sides. Do you think that post makes it better? Durova^Charge! 02:49, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I do, thanks. Leave it to the arbs, not some admin from the boondocks. User:Crum375 has not contributed, as is rightful, to Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Mantanmoreland but then began a long run of edits to the /Evidence page, which were opposed by a number of parties. What gives here? Newbyguesses (talk · contribs) 03:46, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'll try to archive. On the slow machine tonight. Sorry to be crashing yours. And apologies for not answering every one of your posts. I don't understand them sometimes. I agree that what happened on the evidence page wasn't a good idea. The main goal is to resolve this situation in as orderly and dignified a way as possible. As long as that problem doesn't happen again, let's let it pass and keep our eye on the ball. Durova^Charge! 03:52, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah. This was one of the questions i was interested in, maybe you missed it, or I am asking too much.

PS: May i ask a little advice? I prepared some stuff in my sandbox, as research. It consists of straight quotes from a published work. Obviously, such would definitely NOT be suitable in mainspace. But, in a sandbox, (and mine is always full of Lorem ipsum), such a page would not present any problems as to WP:COPY or whatever policy applies? Or, how else can one do research?

If you have a comment, you have been writing lots for a long time, but I am new, and want to work with excellent reliable sources, in a library! I even wrote up a dummy article about a dictionary! It would be frustrating not to know how to go about utilizing one's knowledge, but I cannot seem to get a balance between just quoting a "source" and OR'ing. Cheers Newbyguesses - Talk 08:53, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I really wasn't sure what to make of that. So apologies for not responding. Durova^Charge! 06:08, 26 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

OK, thanks. I think I understand, that you don't understand, what it is that I don't understand, I think. Cheers! 10:36, 27 February 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Newbyguesses (talk • contribs)

Your Featured picture candidate has been promoted Your nomination for featured picture status, Image:Japaneseweavera.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 09:09, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. :) Durova^Charge! 19:14, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Unfortunately, nothing comes to mind. You can look through Category:Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth historical images and commons:Category:Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth for old Polish images from that period (most images from the first cat need to be transferred to commons, btw). I am not familiar with good source of free imaginery; while there are both museum exhibits and reenactors in Poland, nobody I know has decided to share their images with Commons yet. I try to take all photos I can in museums, or when I can, but I am constantly failing to get my images to Quality status on Commons (rant...) so certainly my photos would not be considered for Features status. PS. Halibutt who is a much better photographer than I used to take good photos (most of them are on Commons), many of them from museums from that period, but than he was chased off wiki and stopped contributing, as you know :( --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 20:36, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks; I'll see what I can find there. Durova^Charge! 20:39, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Your Featured picture candidate has been promoted Your nomination for featured picture status, Image:Polish cavalry in Sochaczew(1939)a.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 06:04, 26 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. :) Durova^Charge! 06:06, 26 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, good image. I agree with you. Otolemur crassicaudatus (talk) 09:03, 27 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Cool. Want to nominate it yourself? Or if you prefer, I'll dress it up a little and we can nom. it together. Your choice. There's not a lot that can be done to improve it. Durova^Charge! 09:05, 27 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I will prefer the second option. Otolemur crassicaudatus (talk) 09:10, 27 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Know what? This was such a simple restore that I just can't take credit. Basically your idea. You go for it! :) Durova^Charge! 09:33, 27 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm kind of thinking we should write off the entire 19th century and pretend it never happened. Troublemakers the lot of them! Adam Bishop (talk) 10:30, 27 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I wasn't actually sure about the Runcorn case until I looked at the editing patterns and observed precisely the same thing we see here—use of open proxies, absolutely no collisions (none in 7+ accounts!), and very few interleaving edits. I don't want to draw the analogy too forcefully because some users think it's a dirty word, but I'm entirely convinced that the Runcorn ring was one operator, and the evidence here is exactly analogous. Cool Hand Luke 22:17, 27 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That wasn't the only thing we looked at during the Runcorn investigation, and there were several teams operating separately of which I was only part of one. But yes, that particular route of analysis happened to be my idea and it dovetailed with other significant evidence. That part of the evidence has the strongest similarities to this case, although in other areas there are significant departures. I don't claim to know the entire picture on Runcorn - only ArbCom does - but I'd wager I've seen or assembled a good share of it, and what I saw was enough to overcome natural skepticism: Poetlister? Poetlister's a respected editor. And Runcorn's an admin. There had better be a really good case here, because that'd be incredible. Durova^Charge! 22:30, 27 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Out of curiosity, what exactly does one do to get an article to be a DYK? Loggie (talk) 07:20, 28 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

See User:Durova/Did you know?. My DYK page is really written about new article DYKs. Yours is an expansion DYK, which needs to be 5x the size of the original article. Good work you're doing, btw. It's much appreciated. :) Durova^Charge! 14:44, 28 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Your Featured picture candidate has been promoted Your nomination for featured picture status, Image:Indian pigments.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 08:22, 28 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thats an awesome pic! Viridae^Talk 08:24, 28 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks very much. Been looking up material lately for WikiProject Textile Arts. It's a happy day to find a pic that doesn't need restoration. :) Durova^Charge! 11:45, 28 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The article Navajo rug you nominated as a good article has been placed on hold. It hasn't failed because it's basically a good article, but there are some minor changes or clarifications needed to be addressed. If these are fixed within seven days, the article will pass, otherwise it will fail. See Talk:Navajo rug for things needed to be addressed. Juliancolton ^{The storm still blows...} 14:09, 28 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, I'll get that. :) Durova^Charge! 14:10, 28 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No problem. :) As soon as that one minor issue is fixed, it will definantly pass. Juliancolton ^{The storm still blows...} 14:13, 28 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Congratulations on the soon to be pass.Geoff Plourde (talk) 18:39, 28 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You have a lot of pictures nominated and (congratulations on your excellent work). My question is can a photo that is medical be put up for nomination? Thanks, --CrohnieGal^Talk 15:01, 28 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sure, quality medical photos are scarce. If you show me a link I'll rate its chances, or you could try peer review. Durova^Charge! 15:14, 28 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Image:Crohnie_sores_4.JPG. This is in the Crohn's Disease I'd really appreciate your opinion. Thanks, --CrohnieGal^Talk 18:04, 28 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Very encyclopedic, but wouldn't pass as a featured picture candidate. Needs to be at least 1000 pixels on a side. Also needs to be photographically superior. The lighting and angle would come in for criticism. I'll post an example in a moment. Durova^Charge! 18:35, 28 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, I understand. I appreciate you explaining and showing me though. Taking a picture myself is hard! :) I just thought it might be useful for the feature pictures but it's ok that it helps the article. Thanks again, --CrohnieGal^Talk 14:22, 29 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Doctor's offices usually have really difficult lighting and backgrounds. If you do come across something that might be feature-worthy then please let me know. Best wishes, Durova^Charge! 22:48, 29 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oh definitely I will let you know and see it. This picture was taken by my son. It's actually part of the little extras Crohn's disease shares with some. I get picture all the time on CD's. I believe I have pictures right now of the brain. But the files on these are huge. I don't know enough to do anything with them to help here though. --CrohnieGal^Talk 13:50, 1 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry to bother you- I was just wondering why you added the "No more links" template to Units of textile measurement, as it doesn't have a spam problem, and it currently only has one external link. I'm not incredibly active on Wikipedia, but I'd never seen this template before and don't understand what it's purpose is. QuixoticKate (talk) 20:45, 28 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, glad you've asked. Over at the textile arts project we've got a fairly small crew of people and a serious spam problem. It's the kind of topic where a lot of people set up cottage industries and have the bright idea to link to their website from Wikipedia. So there's a constant trickle of links to different parts of the subject, but just not consistent enough for semiprotection or spam blacklisting. Routine reversions have been eating up time that would really be better spent on other things. We've had some entries at Did you know? this month, five images achieved featured picture status, one good article (and another on hold), plus a featured portal drive underway. Once the ball got rolling we realized how much this spam problem was really zapping energy and morale, so a couple of us have been adding that tag to a lot of articles. If it bothers you at that article, feel free to remove it. Hope that answers your question. Durova^Charge! 10:39, 29 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Here is a bonnet and dancing shoes to make your pig look more beautiful..:) Igor Berger (talk) 11:05, 29 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Heehee, thanks. Durova^Charge! 22:46, 29 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. I hope I'm not bothering you, but I wanted to ask you a question. Because you know so much about images, is there a way to tell if an image on Flickr can be uploaded to commons or to wikipedia? Thanks, Juliancolton ^{The storm still blows...} 13:14, 29 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yes. Check the licensing information at the right of the page and compare it against Commons:Commons:Licensing. Any public domain or GDFL material is fine. Creative commons licenses are a grab bag: we accept some but not all. Copyrighted material can only be uploaded to Wikipedia and needs to follow strict fair use guidelines. Best wishes, Durova^Charge! 22:46, 29 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, thanks. Just to clarify, this image from Flickr looks to me like I would be able to use it. Am I correct? Julian^{(Leap Day 2008)} 22:48, 29 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Copyrighted, all rights reserved, living people. Nope, sorry. Durova^Charge! 22:52, 29 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oh well. Thank you for your help. Juliancolton ^{The storm still blows...} 22:56, 29 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry about that. Image hunting can be frustrating. Keep looking. :) Durova^Charge! 23:05, 29 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

On 29 February, 2008, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Short draw (spinning), which you recently nominated. 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) 16:36, 29 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. :) Durova^Charge! 22:43, 29 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Double-heddle looms are used in West Africa, and also Ethiopia and Madagascar. What exactly does the source say for this? I'm very confused, because unless we are talking about rigid heddles, then I've not heard of double heddle looms- double harness, double shaft, but not double heddle. With rigid heddle looms, generally the loom is, in my experience, refered to a rigid heddle loom, with two heddles. (If it has two...) I'd like to redo and expand the article, and thus I'd very much like to know exactly what the book says so I can incorporate it, as currently I'm very confused. Is it possible that the book was only talking about rigid heddle looms? Loggie (talk) 22:31, 29 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I've returned that book to the library. But as I recall, it specifically talked about double heddle looms. Didn't include an illustration so the details are unclear. The passage in general discussed the different hand loom types used in different parts of Africa. Durova^Charge! 22:42, 29 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hmmm. From the weaving I've done, and stuff I've read about weaving, the avereage heddle is not that of a rigid heddle loom, and is rather a piece of wire with two loops at the end and a hole in the middle called the eye. The two loops at the end are to hold it on the shaft (or harness, which is the thing actually lifted up or down by the treadles), and the warp passes through the eye. Doing a google web search on "double headle loom" I appear to only get results about this african loom. Would you mind if I took what you wrote and put it in a special section where I mention rigid heddles and other such things, and make the main focus of the article on the other type of heddle? I think the other type is just much more prevelent- most looms use them- I don't know about modern weaving machinery, but the looms in the first mills used them, and all floor looms. (for given values of all...) Thoughts? Loggie (talk) 23:13, 29 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If that's consistent with your research then sure. I was originally drafting that article as a piece about African textiles, but it said so much about heddles that I turned it into a page about heddles. Durova^Charge! 23:17, 29 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well, then expect a newly refurbished article on heddles sometime tomorrow. Thanks for your help, Loggie (talk) 00:20, 1 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

He would point to the conduct of the other side take offense at questions.

Copy edit needed. Are you missing an and? I would like to see you expand this essay if you have the time. —Viriditas | Talk 23:49, 29 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, you're quite right. And feel free to leave comments or questions on the essay talk page. Durova^Charge! 23:51, 29 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Durova, myself and a few others are working to drastically revise this article. Anyway, because you managed to bring Joan of Arc in popular culture to featured status and this article also concerns a "woman warrior" in popular culture, I thought you may be able to help us out with your experience. Thanks! Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 01:05, 1 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm stretched a little thin now, but I'll see what I can do. The chick + beatdown factor is really tempting. Durova^Charge! 01:13, 1 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Any effort is always appreciated!  :) By the way, I am also working to improve the similar article of Buffy the Vampire Slayer in popular culture. Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 01:14, 1 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Just a few minor word changes. It's more than adequately referenced. Comes off with a little bit of don't delete me, I'm notable in the prose tone. Suggest fewer adjectives and longer quotes. Durova^Charge! 02:16, 1 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm confident sufficient secondary sources have been found for both articles. Personally, I also do not think the lists of references are really that bad of a thing as they demonstrate the significance and influence of these items beyond their own fictional universes, but I reckon these articles probably work best as a balance of prose with maybe a table of the major references in other works of fiction. Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 03:48, 1 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

From the looks of things, you've been a success at saving the article. Good work. Durova^Charge! 04:35, 1 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks!  :) Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 04:37, 3 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

		The Red Barnstar
		You deserve this for a million reasons, and it would be insulting to name a few at the expense of the others. David Shankbone 04:00, 1 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you very much. :) Durova^Charge! 04:02, 1 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Durova. You said you would come to my defense if I addressed Ealdgyth/Crusades quotes testbed [5]. I did [6]. Could you kindly keep you word? Thank you. PHG (talk) 04:03, 1 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I suggested an act of good faith, and thank you to the extent that you accommodated it, yet remain concerned. Several people who read the quotes in their full context affirmed that your particuar phrases and sentences were at odds with the authors' overall thrust. It is also worrisome that you quoted a Latin letter and asserted it as verification for something it doesn't say. Since you cannot read Latin yourself, it is your responsibility to confirm the document's accuracy with a capable Latinist in advance of entering it in article space, rather than waiting for two or three other editors to identify the error. My suggestion pointed to two fundamental ideas: that you accept proactive responsibility for the accuracy of your own citations and that you exercise good faith toward fellow editors. In light of the Latin letter, I am unable to support you in the former. Regarding the latter, I look to your statement today to Shell Kinney: Dear Shell. Unfortunately, you are lying again. How much productive editorial discussion ever follows an introduction like that? Durova^Charge! 04:34, 1 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Durova. It is just a fact that Shell has been lying on several counts. If she doesn't want this kind of accusation, she just has to stop with false statements. Regarding the Latin letter: it is not me saying what the letter contains, it is a historian named Laurent Dailliez. Dailliez made various comments on the letter ("Treaty" etc...), which I used as reference, and quoted the letter (from one of his books), so that anybody can see it. I have no personal take on the letter, as I cannot read Medieval Latin anyway. I only rely on secondary sources for this kind of stuff. And, as far as I know, that's only what we should do on Wikipedia. Regards. PHG (talk) 04:56, 1 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Your Featured picture candidate has been promoted Your nomination for featured picture status, Image:Da Vinci Studies of Embryos Luc Viatour.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 09:23, 1 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. :) Durova^Charge! 09:24, 1 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]