User talk:Durova/Archive 76

		The Barnstar of Good Humor
		For this bit of good cheer and for making Mountain Dew shoot out of my nose during a laughter-induced seizure. Well done. Jayron32 19:18, 24 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Endorsed indeed. bibliomaniac15 19:33, 24 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Hear hear (Singing it now :-) Proofreader77 (talk) 22:00, 24 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Aw, thank you. :) Cheers! Durova³⁸⁶ 22:40, 24 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Season's Greetings, Happy Holidays and may the New Year be a good one! Bus stop (talk) 22:01, 24 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, and you too! Durova³⁸⁶ 22:40, 24 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  Set Sail For The Seven Seas  26° 43' 30" NET   01:46, 25 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Wow, that's an amazing greeting. Thank you and happy holidays! Durova³⁸⁶ 04:30, 25 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No problem! Have a great new year!   Set Sail For The Seven Seas  288° 24' 15" NET   19:13, 31 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, apologies for my silence on that call, I'm away for Xmas and my hostesses PC has great speakers but no mike. So I could hear you all whilst I used some of the sources you were using for the wikinews article to write Michael Francis Tompsett. ϢereSpielChequers 19:02, 26 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No need for apologies; we had a great episode. Have a wonderful time, and glad you were able to put the sources to good use. Durova³⁸⁶ 19:42, 26 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Lise,

Just to let you know that the Featured Picture File:Montreal from Mount Royal4.jpg is due to make an appearance as Picture of the Day on December 27, 2009. If you get a chance, you can check and improve the caption at Template:POTD/2009-12-27. howcheng {chat} 20:58, 26 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! I hope you had a Merry Christmas! Anyway, I would like to bring two articles concerning notable female warriors from fiction to DYK status and am curious, given your interest in women as warriors, if you would like to help out? Here are the articles and my rationale concerning them:

• Jennifer Mui gets nearly two thousand page views a month and several times that in Google Hits. She has been listed as one of the "10 Video Game Women Who Don’t Use Sex to Sell". She is a playable main character who appears in two multi-platform games (and in an upcoming one) as well as in a Graphic Novel and in at least two published strategy guides. She is the ONLY playable female main character in the series. Another editor has merged information from her article to another as noted at Talk:Mercenaries_2:_World_in_Flames, but I still think we have room for additional expansion.
• Manon Batiste is based on Hélène Deschamps Adams from the French Resistance (I actually managed to get a DYK on Adams's article after I merged content from Batiste's article some months ago). Batiste appears on the cover of the game for which she is a playable character, on the cover of its soundtrack, and on the cover of its strategy guide. She is voiced by a notable actress named Olivia d'Abo in at least one of the games (she appears in several and is the star and main playable character in one that was re-released on a compilation disc and more recently appears on the PlayStation Network as well, i.e. she appears on globally released multi-platform games and is familiar to literally millions of people worldwide, as evidence by the thousands of Google Hits and nearly 2,000 monthly page views. There are few women who appear as playable characters in First-person shooter games, especially World War II based simulations. Critics have accordingly called it "a refreshing change of pace because you played Manon Batiste," a woman. See William Abner, Gamer's Tome of Ultimate Wisdom: An Almanac of Pimps, Orcs, and Lightsabers (Que, 2005), 105.

Without any doubt, the above are among the most significant characters in video games for the above listed reasons, certainly not as significant as say Lara Croft, but definitely up there, whether it be in the case of Manon as her basis from a real figure of note who served as a consultant on the game and being one of the few playable females in a first-person shooter or Mui's significance going beyond her game onto the pages of a graphic novel. Anyway, if you would like to and are able to help bring in the New Year by bringing these up to DYK status, that would be a nice way to end the year on a proactive colloboration that benefits our site and readership alike! Thank you for your time and consideration! Sincerely, --A Nobody^{My talk} 21:07, 26 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Those are wonderful ideas. Thank you very much for thinking of me. Unfortunately existing commitments make it impossible to take that on anytime in the near future. Durova³⁸⁶ 22:02, 26 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hmmm?

Lol, caught a typo two days late. Sharp eye you have. Durova³⁸⁶ 23:10, 26 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Huh? — Kralizec! (talk) 00:37, 27 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I probably got the formatting wrong. Basically requesting unprotection for Ottava Rima's user talk. Durova³⁸⁶ 01:04, 27 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I acted upon your request for unprotection - but according to these comments and those on Ottava's talkpage it is his block conditions that disallow him from editing the page - and that it appears some undertakings by OR need to be given before those conditions can be agreed to be changed. Since this appears to be ArbCom decision related limitations I think they rather than WP:RPP is the appropriate venue to pursue this matter further.LessHeard vanU (talk) 12:23, 27 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

From what I understand, he wanted to be able to receive messages. Durova³⁸⁶ 16:47, 27 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I see CoM does not understand why you posted this (or asked what you asked?) on her talk.

But I knew instantly that I needed to add a theatre image to my user page. Nice rough sketch of The Globe worked nicely. :-) So, thank you ... accidentally. lol Proofreader77 ^(interact) 10:41, 27 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

User_talk:Durova/Archive_75#quick_.28har.29_photo_cleanup Durova³⁸⁶ 16:48, 27 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Durova. That photo looks great. Thank you very much for fixing it up. I don't have much experience with GA and FA type activities, but I'm happy to muck about in an attempt to be helpful on anything that you think might be of interest to me. Vaya con Dios. ChildofMidnight (talk) 19:19, 27 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: I am interested in learning the GA/FA process ... Have been tied up in other matters, but looks like mind-space is freeing up a bit. If there is some essay that someone has written about this that strikes you as worth reading for someone who's getting ready to wade in, please post below. Proofreader77 ^(interact) 22:08, 27 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

(chiming in) It is fairly easy to pick up as you go, what are you interested in writing or reviewing (or both)? Casliber (talk · contribs) 22:15, 27 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

(smile) You have to understand, I had to (fairly recently) look up what FA even stands for. lol And I have only the foggiest notion that it must mean "good" — in some way. ;-) Perhaps what I need to have clear ... is what "good" means from the perspective of Wikipedia. I know that sounds relatively stupid from someone who's been around a bit. But I've been dealing with "controversial" articles mostly ("current events wrangling") and quality is not something that comes up much in discussions there. :-)

Now, as for your question ... to write I'd want to have a good grasp of the subject beforehand ... but to review seems that being ignorant of the subject is a good thing.

Have I said anything useful? lol Proofreader77 ^(interact) 22:26, 27 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Reviewing. (Let's start there.) Proofreader77 ^(interact) 22:33, 27 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

There should be basic criteria listed at WP:GAN. Durova³⁹⁰ 00:03, 28 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. Wrapping my mind around this now ... at holiday speed, of course. :-) Proofreader77 ^(interact) 02:39, 28 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your help on the Logicus RfCs and AN. It's now been closed. --SteveMcCluskey (talk) 21:27, 27 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I found File:KoreanWarRefugeeWithBaby.jpg and it looks to be be a potential FP candidate, but I think it could stand for some touching up before any such nom. What do you think? Does the image stand a chance? TomStar81 (Talk) 23:35, 27 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Bad scanner streaks. Someone made a crude attempt at erasing: notice the smudge marks at the lower part of the girl's garment. Very difficult to fix those properly during editing. It's a heavily compressed file anyway. Although you're right that the underlying image has merit. If it's possible to acquire a clean scan of 10MB or larger in uncompressed TIFF format, it could have the makings of an FP. Durova³⁹⁰ 00:01, 28 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Something else from the same era (different war) that could make a good FP, though.[1] Public domain due to a gift by US News & World Report. I don't know what the Marines were doing in Beirut in 1958, though. Durova³⁹⁰ 00:06, 28 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Could be peacekeepers; the United Nations Emergency Force was deployed to the region to babysit the suez during the mid 1950s. Marines in Beirut could have a been a part of that. I'll see about digging up a better image of the kids and tank, but its going to have to wait until I get back. TomStar81 (Talk) 01:09, 28 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Not sure why, but LoC searches for Korean War material turn up dry. I check every few months; must be a part of their collection they haven't scanned at high resolution yet. Durova³⁹⁰ 01:13, 28 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Your attention is requested at WP:VPP#Commons/enwiki policy interaction as one or more of your uploads is in use at Photochrom. Thank you. OrangeDog (τ • ε) 17:03, 29 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Replied at original thread. Durova³⁹⁰ 00:43, 30 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You are one of the twelve editors advancing into the second round of the Henry Allingham World War I Contest. The second round started at 00:00, 29 December and ends 23:59, 31 January. The top six ranked players at the end of this stage will advance into the final round of the contest so keep up the good work! --Eurocopter (talk) 00:43, 30 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. :) Durova³⁹⁰ 00:44, 30 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Since you're famous for your image restoring talents I thought you'd be a good person to ask. I recently restored my first image, File:Giles Corey restored.jpg, and found it to be an entertaining challenge. I'm sure my work isn't as good as yours, but I wanted to know, should I want to try my hand at this some more, if there's a list somewhere of candidate images awaiting restoration...? Or do you just browse around historical topics hoping to find them?

I also wanted to know if it's acceptable to just copy the copyright status from the original (which is what I did), and if not what should I be doing? Thanks in advance for your help. Equazcion ^(talk) 00:53, 30 Dec 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for your interest in digital restoration. :) That's an excellent first effort. If this is PD-1923 not renewed then it ought to be hosted at Commons. As a default, going with the original copyright status is always safe. In some situations it's possible to argue a new copyright for a restoration depending on your location and depending on whether significant creative effort went into the work. I never assert a new copyright, but have been advised that it would be possible in quite a few instances.

Would be glad to give you a hand with other projects. There's a page at Commons, and the Tropenmuseum is due to release a new set of high resolution images soon, or I could scout for a good novice project within your areas of interest. It's your choice. Durova³⁹⁰ 01:25, 30 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks -- a couple follow-up questions: I've never moved a picture from here to commons; Do I upload it there and request deletion here somehow? Also, when you say "there's a page at commons," do you mean a page for restorations? If so could you link me to it? Thanks, sorry for all the questions. And thanks for your offer regarding future projects, I may take you up on it. Equazcion ^(talk) 01:57, 30 Dec 2009 (UTC)

Commons:Commons:Potential restorations. Although for something more interactive I prefer Skype. Email me for my Skype ID. Durova³⁹⁰ 02:25, 30 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

...in this discussion over at WT:SHIPS. :) —Ed (talk • majestic titan) 20:11, 30 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Ed. Replied at the main discussion. There's another panorama that would be of interest. Durova³⁹⁰ 22:32, 30 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I am pretty sure that is the GWF, I have responded there. -MBK₀₀₄ 23:31, 30 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hope this helps. Took me an hour-an-a-half—had to read wayyyy too many DANFS articles. :) —Ed (talk • majestic titan) 08:07, 31 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, that may be enough for the LoC research librarians. Will write it up. Interrupted other things today in order to work on an exceptional featured picture candidate at Commons: one of the Commons FP contributors was present at the Berlin Wall 20 years ago when it came down, and copylefted several photographs of the event. I've done a restoration on one of them. :) Also threw in a quick restoration on a political cartoon from the end of the Great White Fleet voyage. Best regards, Durova³⁹⁰ 20:13, 31 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Durova, This might be a silly question, but do any of the US Government's historical archives have large, online and searchable collections of World War II-era photos? I've looked at the LoC and NARA websites, but not much of their collections appears to be online. To provide context, I'm hoping to find something which is an equivalent to the Australian War Memorial's outstanding online database - does anything approximating an American equivalent of this exist? Thanks, Nick-D (talk) 00:48, 31 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Not quite so centralized, that I know of. You've already raided my two best sources for material. Durova³⁹⁰ 00:57, 31 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

OK, thanks for that. Another advantage of living in a small country! (though I visited both the LoC and National Archives when I was in Washington recently, and was very impressed by both). Nick-D (talk) 04:57, 31 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps you could help with something. Several months ago I attempted to do a restoration from Gallipoli. The only image I could find of it was dreadful. It wasn't very important to the States because we weren't in the war yet. Would there be a chance of getting something better from an Australian source? If it helps to have a related example, here's a restoration of an Australian military encampment near Jerusalem during World War I. Durova³⁹⁰ 20:19, 31 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Are you absolutely sure you're out this year? We'll never get nearly as many FP's as we did last year without you! :( iMatthew ^talk at 02:44, 31 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks very much for the invite, but I'm retired. Shifting focus to chapter and museum relations. In the long run it's better for WMF. Warmest regards, Durova³⁹⁰ 03:01, 31 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Okay :) iMatthew ^talk at 03:14, 31 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Drive-by noting: "chapter and museum relations" - Proofreader77 ^(interact) 20:10, 31 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

A noiseless patient spider, I mark'd where on a little promontory it stood isolated, Mark'd how to explore the vacant vast surrounding, It launch'd forth filament, filament, filament, out of itself, Ever unreeling them, ever tirelessly speeding them. And you O my soul where you stand, Surrounded, detached, in measureless oceans of space, Ceaselessly musing, venturing, throwing, seeking the spheres to connect them, Till the bridge you will need be form'd, till the ductile anchor hold, Till the gossamer thread you fling catch somewhere, O my soul." —"A Noiseless Patient Spider" by Walt Whitman Happy New Year Awadewit (talk) 05:53, 31 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks very much, and likewise. :) Durova³⁹⁰ 20:06, 31 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Your Featured picture candidate has been promoted Your nomination for featured picture status, File:Descripción histórica y cronológica de las dos piedras que con ocasión del nuevo empedrado que se está formando en la plaza principal de México, se hallaron en ella el año de 1790-1b.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. Noodle snacks (talk) 09:15, 1 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I might be interested in your offer. What are the names of the artists? :) Theleftorium 12:11, 1 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you very much for your interest. One of them is William Allen Rogers, who was a political cartoonist for the New York Herald a century ago.

Another is Vojtěch Preissig, a Czech typographer and graphic artist. There's already a good start on a biography at User:Durova/Vojtěch Preissig: a lot of it has been written about him. Very little of it is available online in English, but it's been possible to patch together a basic biography from reliable sources. Needs a little more rounding out; I was using Google Translate to fill in the gaps from the Czech Wikipedia. If you'd like to finish it and share credit I'd be very grateful. (NuclearWarfare deserves shared credit too; he formatted the citations).

For this Japanese print it appears the Library of Congress misspelled the artist's name, or perhaps used a nonstandard transliteration. It should be Yashima Gogaku according to the editors at WikiProject Japan. There's a long discussion about this image at WikiProject Japan talk. He worked within the surimono subgenre of Ukiyo-e. There might be two DYKs for this image; the article on surimono is barely one paragraph.

Please let me know what catches your interest, and best wishes in the 2010 cup. :) Durova³⁹⁰ 16:59, 1 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

William Allen Rogers sounds interesting. Where should I start the page? Theleftorium 18:25, 1 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I created the article at User:Durova/William Allen Rogers. It needs more work, but I think it's a good start. :) I'll work some more on it tomorrow. Theleftorium 19:49, 1 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you; it looks wonderful. Good enough to move into article space; all it needs is categories. Would you mind, or do you want to keep in user space a little longer? Durova³⁹⁰ 19:56, 1 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It needs another 350 bytes of prose, so I'd like to keep it in userspace until it's ready for DYK. Theleftorium 19:59, 1 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, if you prefer. :) Durova³⁹¹ 21:23, 1 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I've completed the article now: William Allen Rogers. What do you think of this hook: "... that American artist William Allen Rogers worked with Harper's Weekly as a political cartoonist for 25 years, and with the New York Herald (sample pictured) for an additional 20 years?" Theleftorium 23:22, 1 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sounds great, thanks very much. I'll nominate FPC now. Best regards, Durova³⁹¹ 23:24, 1 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No problem. I'm glad I was able to help out! :) Theleftorium 23:25, 1 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Durova,

I've been looking at some of your images (and those of others as well) and find that -- to the eyes of a historian -- their descriptions seem lacking in detail. Standard academic practice is to cite the full provenance (the source and date, the current location and descriptors for images of unique objects (e.g. library shelf marks), and the original creator) of the physical image; electronic practice suggests citing the agency that produced the scan and the editor who modified the image. Here are three samples that show (imperfectly) what I have in mind:

• File:Angelic movers.jpg
• File:Oresme Spheres crop.jpg
• File:Kepler Celestial Spheres.jpg

I know you've been active in creating some remarkable Wikimedia images. What do you think of my suggestions? Do you have any ideas of where I could post them to have some influence on Wikimedia description practice?

Thanks, SteveMcCluskey (talk) 16:44, 1 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Interesting difference of perspective. The thing I most want to see become standard practice is to upload the raw scans for historic media and cross link between restored and unrestored versions under separate filenames. Your edit notes are brief, but probably sufficient for simple edits. That kind of documentation has made a difference with institutional negotiations; curators are justifiably concerned to avoid misrepresentation of the material in their care. For an example of the problem, look at the file history of this image from February through November 2008. As far as your request, I think I already do most of that. Is it unclear? Are there areas where we need improvement? The Library of Congress uses a digital ID number in place of a shelf number for its digital collection, which I haven't usually added because it's seemed redundant with a link to the file hosting page. But I could add that in future if you think it's a good idea. Durova³⁹⁰ 17:17, 1 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I really like the Painting Information box used in the Botticelli image; I didn't even know it existed. It has all the details commonly used in academic citations and seems like the kind of thing that could easily be extended to handle manuscript illuminations; printed figures, and other kinds of images. Wikipedia can be confusing to people who only upload images occasionally; my concern is with providing some user-friendly guidance in a place where it's likely to be read. SteveMcCluskey (talk) 17:33, 1 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Our eyes go to different things. This is a serious problem. Someone did a radical edit to Botticelli's self-portrait and uploaded the alteration over the original filename. Durova³⁹⁰ 18:00, 1 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

See my user page with me and Skip hangin' with Cell Phone Sanata! — Dog The Teddy Bear • ^Bully! • 18:35, 1 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You must have had great fun setting up those photos. They look adorable. Happy New Year, Durova³⁹⁰ 19:53, 1 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Lise,

Just to let you know that the Featured Picture File:Mary Coriolano2.jpg is due to make an appearance as Picture of the Day on January 6, 2010. If you get a chance, you can check and improve the caption at Template:POTD/2010-01-06. howcheng {chat} 22:08, 1 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Balinese dancers and Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/delist/Bison skull pile have been sitting down in the suspended nominations section for a while. Can you update us on either situation? Thanks. Makeemlighter (talk) 05:12, 2 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Haven't heard back from either institution, probably because of the holidays. Sent a followup email to the Detroit Public Library shortly before Christmas, and reminded the Tropenmuseum contact. They both seemed willing to help but haven't responded since mid-December. Planning to follow up with both places when the weekend ends. Durova³⁹¹ 07:22, 2 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sounds good. Thanks for the update. Makeemlighter (talk) 07:32, 2 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The December 2009 issue of the Military history WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you.
This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 03:04, 3 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Lise,

Just to let you know that the Featured Picture File:Gaucho1868b.jpg is due to make an appearance as Picture of the Day on January 8, 2010. If you get a chance, you can check and improve the caption at Template:POTD/2010-01-08. howcheng {chat} 20:24, 3 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Durova, another one of those problem BLPs: Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/John_Rosatti_(2nd_nomination)#John_Rosatti. Apparently, the subject has asked for it to be salted. Could do with another pair of eyes. --JN466 23:44, 3 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

As you've been more than a bit oblique with your messages on my talkpage, I've sent you an email. If you'd prefer to keep the discussions on-wiki, that's fine with me, I just thought you might be able to be more candid about what other account you think I've used that I'm not disclosing on my userpage. UnitAnode 18:14, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I've managed to string together a fairly coherent narrative about the creation of the 1759 Ticonderoga map. It's missing some things that I hope to be able to fill in fairly soon; you can see the fruits of my most recent poking at Talk:Battle of Ticonderoga (1759). Cheers! Magic♪piano 21:41, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Very interesting. Have you considered contacting the staff of the historic site? Have been thinking we ought to get in touch with them. Thanks for your hard work! : Durova³⁹¹ 19:17, 5 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

My next act, in the next week or so, is to visit the Massachusetts Historical Society, which has the Amherst journal, copies of the Bulletin of the Fort Ticonderoga Museum (which contains the Brehm journal), and some other publications of potential interest. I'm anticipating that these should fill, to the extent the record allows, the remaining gaps. If that fails, questions to the research folks at the fort may well be in order. Magic♪piano 14:25, 6 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

		The Real Life Barnstar
		For all the helpful advice, networking and tireless image improvement without which the Mary Rose Trust donation would never have been as successful as it was. Peter Isotalo 18:30, 5 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you very much. :) Glad to help and very happy we got in touch. Looking forward to more successes. Durova³⁹¹ 19:15, 5 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Your Featured picture candidate has been promoted Your nomination for featured picture status, File:Stockholm photochrom2.jpg, gained a consensus of support, and has been promoted. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates. Staxringold talkcontribs 18:48, 6 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I've written something that you should read. MW talk contribs 00:04, 8 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Durova/Archive 76! I noticed you display a service award, and would like to invite you to join the discussion over a proposed revamping of the awards. If you have any opinions on the proposal, please participate in the discussion. Thanks! — the Man in Question (in question) 04:47, 8 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

		2009 "Military historian of the Year"
		By order of the Members of the Military History WikiProject, for "added to this project's Featured Pictures...and importantly offering to share her skills with others and teach them how to touch up images", I award you this Bronze Wiki. -- TomStar81 (Talk) 09:28, 8 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hello: I saw your request on the DCMeetup talk page; I work at LC; I would be happy to be a liasion for you. Is there an email address I can contact you at?--FeanorStar7 (talk) 12:51, 8 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Are the photos from here (two pages) [2] public domain? How can you tell? ChildofMidnight (talk) 02:35, 9 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You'd need to go one by one and check. The first of them is public domain under the PD-1923 rule.[3] It was published in 1900. Nearly everything that was published before 1923 is public domain in the United States. Durova³⁹⁷ 21:36, 12 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, well let's start getting them! How do I assign the task to the appropriate parties? ChildofMidnight (talk) 05:53, 14 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The initial screening is easy enough to do yourself. Just go to each hosting page and check the publication date. If it's prior to 1923 and they were all first published in the United States then upload to Commons. Get back to me about anything you think you'll really use that doesn't meet that initial screening. Durova⁴⁰¹ 05:58, 14 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Chabad movement/Evidence. Please submit your evidence within one week, if possible. You may also contribute to the case on the workshop sub-page, Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Chabad movement/Workshop.

On behalf of the Arbitration Committee, Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 07:26, 9 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

An image created by you has been promoted to featured picture status Your image, File:Great White Fleet return2.jpg, was nominated on Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates, gained a consensus of support, and has been promoted. If you would like to nominate an image, please do so at Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates. Thank you for your contribution! Maedin\talk 11:24, 9 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

An image created by you has been promoted to featured picture status Your image, File:Roald Amundsen2.jpg, was nominated on Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates, gained a consensus of support, and has been promoted. If you would like to nominate an image, please do so at Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates. Thank you for your contribution! Maedin\talk 11:28, 9 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, Durova, I accidentally closed this nomination before I realised that I voted. I posted about it at the fpc talk page. I didn't want to make this messy by undoing the promotion edits I'd already made, so I carried on. Hopefully there are no complaints, :-/ My apologies. Maedin\^talk 11:28, 9 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It's xav on my cell. You are the first to know the extent of my wiki-addiction! Damn typing is hard... Cya! 209.183.32.20 (talk) 10:54, 10 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Would you be willing to remove the watermark from this? Thanks. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 17:41, 10 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• That's pretty clearly a copyrighted photo, I'm not sure removing the watermark is ok. Staxringold _talk^contribs 18:02, 10 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I only uploaded it because it was larger, but I have also seen the watermark for LIFE on another independent site. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 16:49, 12 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Normally simple edits such as watermark removal would get done by request to Wikipedia's graphics lab. Since that one is up with a nonfree use rationale it's unlikely that editors would touch it. Durova³⁹⁷ 21:23, 12 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

FYI, it was replaced in Mary (Mother of Jesus). You may want to argue for it (or not). howcheng {chat} 01:16, 11 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there. Do you still maintain the triple crowns? I was going to put up my hand at some point, but i had a query. What do you mean by "at least ten line citations to an article" when it comes to assessing whether someone's contribution warrants inclusion? I wasn't sure if this referred to the edit history, or something about the article (at least 10 references?). By way of example, I wondered whether this kind of revision of an article would be in or out? Cheers. hamiltonstone (talk) 01:51, 11 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Doesn't need to be ten different sources, just ten citations. That's a benchmark for measuring the difference between major and minor contributions. Mainly it's to prevent people from collecting awards for hanging out at FAC and GAN doing minor copyedits. Durova³⁹⁷ 21:25, 12 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Do you know anything about the copyright on DR government images? I ask because the Yankees recently sent a contingent of players and the 09 WS trophy to meet with the DR president ([4], [5]), and as you can see that official government story comes with a couple images. I'd love to include one of them to make an interesting pairing with an eventual image like this, but I don't know if the DR freely releases gov't images as the US does. Staxringold _talk^contribs 16:55, 11 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Commons maintains a list of copyright information by country, which really needs the attention of good translators to fill in the gaps. There's a big shortage of information on Latin America. On occasion I've delved into the untranslated portions. The net result was confirmation that my Spanish is good enough to translate the lyrics of a tango, but not up to the task of determining whether a photograph of the Panama Canal during construction by a photographer who lived in Panama City falls under Panamanian or United States copyright jurisdiction. It'd be best to seek out a native speaker. Durova³⁹⁷ 21:31, 12 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Can you help out with this?

User:Tom Butler#A perfect quote.

It refers directly to me and I would like it taken down. Tom Butler does not like me, and so I'd like to get an outside, uninvolved user to advocate for its removal. Would you be willing?

Thanks,

ScienceApologist (talk) 19:28, 12 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This part looks problematic. "Be very clear that we are not able to ignore misinformation in Wikipedia just because some editor like ScienceApologist said it was going to be that way here." Your objection is reasonable. How would you like to approach this. Durova³⁹⁷ 20:34, 12 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I would like to be as non-confrontational as possible, but as long as the writing is removed from Wikipedia I'm not upset how it gets done. Perhaps you could message him? ScienceApologist (talk) 21:29, 12 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sounds good; will do. Durova⁴⁰¹ 15:43, 13 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

His reply amounts to no. Durova⁴⁰¹ 22:08, 13 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

So what now? Should I file a request an WP:AN? ScienceApologist (talk) 03:50, 14 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Does it bother you enough to take the risk that others who dislike you would come to the thread, bait you, and the whole thing would be chalked up by half the community as "ScienceApologist drama"? That's your call. Durova⁴⁰¹ 05:34, 14 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Excellent point. What about MfD? ScienceApologist (talk) 17:50, 14 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Not a WP:TPW here but I did a quick wikistalk of ScienceApologist for a totally unrelated reason, saw this, and attempted to deal with it. Hipocrite (talk) 18:01, 14 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you very much for that; I hope it resolves things. Durova⁴⁰¹ 18:09, 14 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]