Congrats on yet another milestone, D. Well done, well done indeed! (applauds) SirFozzie ( talk) 22:25, 12 January 2010 (UTC) reply

Aw, thank you. :) Durova ⁴⁰¹ 23:05, 12 January 2010 (UTC) reply

Durova, I saw your section in the Military History page and was wondering how I can help with restoring images with you? I have access to Adobe Photoshop CS4 and would like to help. Could you point me in the right direction to fin Public Domain images that will be useful for Wikipedia? Marine79 ( talk) 10:09, 14 January 2010 (UTC) reply

That sounds great. Would you consider communicating via Skype? It's a free service that's very good for file transfers and collaborative media editing (text and voice chats). There's plenty of milhist-related material; which areas interest you? Durova ⁴⁰¹ 16:14, 14 January 2010 (UTC) reply

I am currently deployed to Afghanistan in the Marine Corps. I can't get on to skype at work but there is a morale center i can try to go to and set up an account. I think the best way for me to chat due to time zone differences will be my talk page or personal emails. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Marine79 ( talk • contribs) 10:34, 15 January 2010 (UTC) reply

All of those options are welcome. I'm on California time over here. In Skype we do have an administrator who's based near your time zone and a couple of editors in Europe who do media restoration. So if that can work for you it'll probably be best. Otherwise whatever means are available. Would you like me to select a beginner project? Two suggestions would be World War II and the Crimean War. There's plenty of high quality beginner material ready for restorations about those wars. Durova ⁴⁰¹ 16:06, 15 January 2010 (UTC) reply

If you pick something for me and let me know how to get to the stock of images that would help me get started. My e-mail address out here is [redacted] —Preceding unsigned comment added by Marine79 ( talk • contribs) 08:13, 16 January 2010 (UTC) reply

Not sure if you've been monitoring this delist nom. It looks like the result will be delist and replace with the alternate edit. But I'd appreciate it if you'd respond to the oppose vote by trialsanderrors before I close it. It's not vital, I'd just like to address his concern. Thanks. Makeemlighter ( talk) 17:58, 15 January 2010 (UTC) reply

Thanks for the heads up; will look into it. Durova ⁴⁰¹ 18:07, 15 January 2010 (UTC) reply

Doesn't look like there's anything new there. The oppose expresses disagreements with points that had already been made, so responding to it would essentially just repeat those points regarding crop, midtone contrast, facial expression, and thumbnail v. full resolution. My most recent comment there was about an hour after that oppose was written. Durova ⁴⁰¹ 18:10, 15 January 2010 (UTC) reply

Fair enough. Thanks for taking a look. I'll close that some time today depending on how long or if I sleep. Cheers. Makeemlighter ( talk) 06:36, 17 January 2010 (UTC) reply

I love it! I see you made it more visible.— Finell 18:55, 16 January 2010 (UTC) reply

Glad you like it. Thank you very much for the feedback. :) Durova ⁴⁰¹ 19:39, 16 January 2010 (UTC) reply

Hi Lise,

Just to let you know that the Featured Picture File:Snake charmers2.jpg is due to make an appearance as Picture of the Day on January 20, 2010. If you get a chance, you can check and improve the caption at Template:POTD/2010-01-20. howcheng { chat} 21:52, 16 January 2010 (UTC) reply

Wonderful caption, as usual. Did a minor copyedit. Durova ⁴⁰¹ 22:32, 16 January 2010 (UTC) reply

Heya Durova, with full recognition that I'm being pedantic here, and that the only reason that I even came across this is because I've been browsing through discussions while I wait for a job that I'm running to finish (read: bored), I just wanted to point out something that you may want to clarify here. In your first post, in the quote which has the diff provided afterwords, the quote ends with a user name. The user name in question though is a common word in normal contexts, but what makes it noticable is that it's a word which is often inflammatory. Since the quote is given out of context you may want to somehow clarify immediately after the quote that the name is actually a User name. regards,
— V = I * R ( talk to Ohms law) 06:36, 17 January 2010 (UTC) reply

Good advice; have done so. Durova ⁴⁰¹ 17:10, 17 January 2010 (UTC) reply

I actually was referring to the mention of this person, being addressed within the quote itself. I should preface what I'm about to say by observing that there hasn't actually been a response from the other named party yet, but this doesn't seem to have been noticed at all by anyone else, let alone criticized (and the meaning is apparent if you look at the provided diff), so it's likely not really an issue at all. It's just something that I happened to notice in passing.
— V = I * R ( talk to Ohms law) 17:24, 17 January 2010 (UTC) reply

Yes, the second time reading that came through. Made another edit shortly before your followup. If that's not good enough I'll be out for several hours; feel free to modify as needed. Durova ⁴⁰³ 17:26, 17 January 2010 (UTC) reply

You got it. My apologies for being so obtuse about this but I wanted to try to help, if only a little bit, without appearing to become involved or criticize, you know? Regards
— V = I * R ( talk to Ohms law) 19:16, 17 January 2010 (UTC) reply

Your Featured picture candidate has been promoted Your nomination for featured picture status, File:Schiller edit1.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. jjron ( talk) 11:17, 17 January 2010 (UTC) reply

So the 1923 public domain rule goes by if it was published prior to then, not when it was taken? How do you know when or if a photo was "published"? ChildofMidnight ( talk) 17:43, 17 January 2010 (UTC) Good question. Sometimes that takes research. Depends on the situation. Durova ⁴⁰³ 22:06, 17 January 2010 (UTC) reply

A minor point, Jennavecia wasn't desysopped, she voluntarily resigned the tools. ceran thor 18:59, 17 January 2010 (UTC) reply

Are you sure? Would you get a diff for that, please? Durova ⁴⁰³ 22:07, 17 January 2010 (UTC) reply

Yes. It was one of the motions for that incident, see [1]. Jamie S93 22:11, 17 January 2010 (UTC) reply

Gotta wonder whether this is a distinction worth making... ⇌ Jake Wartenberg 04:39, 18 January 2010 (UTC) reply

I just think that you give the guy a chance to answer before making a decision, it was basically signed and sealed in the first two hours, although a few Arbs waited. I don't understand the rush. I have no idea if he has a justification or not, and have no axe to grind.

Incidentally, my, Commons does seem to be taking a long time over those two images for deletion that I contested, doesn't it? What is it, three months.-- Wehwalt ( talk) 01:46, 18 January 2010 (UTC) reply

You can tell from his talk page that several people were talking to him for days. It wasn't getting anywhere, and before the filing he actually declared that straight answers wouldn't be forthcoming. I have no control over whether the arbitrators take the case--let along over how fast they do.

Regarding Commons, yes the site has a lot of backlogs. En:wiki has 1700 admins to look after 3 million articles; Commons has 275 administrators to handle 5 million images. We really started off on the wrong foot over this, but perhaps the gist makes a little more sense in this context: a standard Wikipedian answer to "how should I..." is "look at featured articles and imitate what they do." When a C-class article runs images with iffy licensing that's something which ought to be addressed, of course, but it isn't likely to have a ripple effect the way an FA does. By the way, there was one of your articles where the Library of Congress had several high resolution alternates. Am backlogged like nobody's business right now, but would like to iron things out between us and perhaps do a restoration for one of them. Durova ⁴⁰³ 02:20, 18 January 2010 (UTC) reply

Nothing to iron out. I'm sorry for any offense i gave then. Which article? Voorhis or Franklin Knight Lane? Figuring one or the other, right era.-- Wehwalt ( talk) 04:21, 18 January 2010 (UTC) reply

Either would be viable. A cabinet secretary seems more important. Am downloading the largest version of his portrait right now. Can't make any promises until seeing it at full resolution. Durova ⁴⁰³ 04:31, 18 January 2010 (UTC) reply

I would rather you do Lane. I have an attachment to him. He is just about forgotten, and yet he was quite the man in his day. He gave up a job he loved when Wilson called on him to enter the Cabinet, even though he really did not have the money to do the social rounds expected of Cabinet officers, and died without a cent. Voorhis' veneer of sanctity cracked under the pressure of 38 years of being "the man Nixon beat". Lane never did.-- Wehwalt ( talk) 04:35, 18 January 2010 (UTC) reply

This is fascinating. At 159 MB it looks like somebody tried to do a crude retouching job on Lane's chin. :) Probably an attempt to make him look slimmer. This should be fun. Can't promise as to time frame, but I'll add it for the 'to do' list. Durova ⁴⁰³ 04:47, 18 January 2010 (UTC) reply

Wow. Who would bother? Thanks.-- Wehwalt ( talk) 04:51, 18 January 2010 (UTC) reply

After tolling up the votes in the revision proposals, it emerged that 5.4 had the most support, but elements of that support remained unclear, and various comments throughout the polls needed consideration.

A finalisation poll (intended, if possible, to be one last poll before finalising the CDA proposal) has been run to;

• gather opinion on the 'consensus margin' (what percentages, if any, have the most support) and

• ascertain whether there is support for a 'two-phase' poll at the eventual RfC (not far off now), where CDA will finally be put to the community. Matt Lewis ( talk) 01:03, 18 January 2010 (UTC) reply

Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#Tom_Butler.27s_maintenance_of_an_attack_page_against_me

Thanks for your help.

ScienceApologist ( talk) 23:05, 18 January 2010 (UTC) reply

As I was skimming around the wiki, I saw you voted in the RFA Review Boycott. Based upon your opinons there, I would like to ask you to put a review, however small, into my editor review, which currently has none. Wikipedia:Editor review/Buggie111

Thank You, Buggie111 ( talk) 01:59, 19 January 2010 (UTC) reply

Thank you for the invitation. Usually I like to form an opinion about an editor from firsthand interaction. It's very flattering that you'd seek my opinion. Yet it doesn't seem that we've really crossed paths very much? Durova ⁴⁰³ 02:19, 19 January 2010 (UTC) reply

I've just seen you around, but enough with that. All I am trying to do is get an opinion from someone who, from posts that I have seen, wants editors to be prepared. I also asked another signer of that RFA Review Boycott thing. If you can't really judge an editor without interaction, than fine. Buggie111 ( talk) 02:33, 19 January 2010 (UTC) reply

Well, maybe as we come across each other more I'll form a better opinion. First impression is good. :) Best wishes, Durova ⁴⁰³ 02:34, 19 January 2010 (UTC) reply

Heyo! I've renominated this image we worked on together to try and get a full group of reviews this time! Staxringold _talk ^contribs 05:41, 19 January 2010 (UTC) reply

An Arbitration case involving you 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/MZMcBride 2/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/MZMcBride 2/Workshop.

On behalf of the Arbitration Committee, Ryan Postlethwaite^{See the mess I've created or let's have banter} 22:57, 19 January 2010 (UTC) reply

Hi there. I am not sure it will get as far as you but a couple of editors, one an admin, were asking themselves if I might be a sockpuppet or puppeteer and suggested to each other that asking you to check might be worthwhile. They were basing the idea on my contribution record and the fact that I seemed quite familiar with Wikipedia. I would like to assure that if I seemed familiar it was purely from interest. I honestly have no idea if you can quickly check for multiple user names from one ip and I doubt you even have the time nor inclination to do so on my request, however I would welcome such a check if it were possible, if only to prevent speculation. Everyone in my area speaks a foreign language and no-one has access to my computer so I am confident the record will show no impropriety. Thanks for reading in any case! Weakopedia ( talk) 03:09, 20 January 2010 (UTC) reply

Due to previous commitments I am unable to assist in this endavor. Durova ⁴⁰³ 03:15, 20 January 2010 (UTC) reply

Please look again at what you are re-instating: http://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Mitochondrial_Eve&diff=next&oldid=338987248 -- Andrew Lancaster ( talk) 19:26, 20 January 2010 (UTC) reply

That's odd; the edit it should have restored to was the one where he had blanked that paragraph but where his edits to the other section would still be in place. Might've been a glitch to the software. Thanks for the catch.

Hello. I was referred to you by users involved in the Ted Bundy bio page for assisstance regarding a photograph. I posted some time ago in the article a photograph from 1975 of Ted Bundy's murder kit--the bag of masks, handcuffs and weapons found in his car when he was arrested for a traffic violation in 1975. The bag led directly to his implication as a mass murderer. I posted this photo under a fair use license as obviously relevant and useful for the article and irreplaceable by a free alternative, as the murder bag is plainly not on public display. A user tagged the image as suitable for deletion. Discussion on the image discussion page by users involved with the article showed a consensus that the photo should not be deleted. The deletion tag was removed from the photo after a week with the result "keep". Despite this, the photo was removed anyway, possibly by a bot. You were recommended to me here as someone who could help with this image. The discussion page for the image is here. Vidor ( talk) 15:30, 21 January 2010 (UTC) reply

Due to previous commitments I won't be able to help with this. I don't have administrator ops on this project; it seems like you need an administrator's attention. Best of luck resolving the situation. Durova ⁴⁰³ 15:57, 21 January 2010 (UTC) reply

The Arbcom request is gone; I sought withdrawal per the advice of others. You may well now wish to drop this, but I'd rather not leave us in such bad stead; yours is a name I have long-known and respected. I maintain that by commenting on an unblock you implied I said something I did not; that somewhat weakened my position by shooting down something I never wanted and thus created a strawman. I did not view pointing this out as particuarly uncivil. What concerns me more, though, is the mini-drama we are both creating out of it. Ultimatly, I think we have a minor disagreement over a relatively minor point. Can we shake virtual hands, smile and move on? Blood Red Sandman ^{(Talk) (Contribs)} 21:53, 21 January 2010 (UTC) reply

I apologize if it inadvertently seemed to imply something you definitely hadn't intended. Over at Commons much of the community is far less welcoming of cross-wiki cooperation than I am; our deletion requests are badly backlogged and we occasionally get en:wiki administrators quoting local en:wiki policy to try to delete material as "not encyclopedic". The matter you're discussing first came to my attention earlier this month when someone tried to cite a local en:wiki policy to demand that a Commons administrator reverse a Commons administrative action. From the Commons perspective that gets tiresome and there's a resentment. Mainly I didn't want to see that escalate into a backlash. Durova ⁴⁰³ 22:13, 21 January 2010 (UTC) reply

No worries :) Blood Red Sandman ^{(Talk) (Contribs)} 22:16, 21 January 2010 (UTC) reply

I ran into your editorial, and have recently been doing work for Operation Majestic Titan. As you have probably noted at the proposed featured picture page, there are many photos of battleships that have been restored etc. As of now I am going to work with the ed17 ( talk · contribs) to bring USS Washington (BB-56) to FA status. I know that there are certain limitations with restoration, etc, but I have noted that some images on the page need ot be restored. The field has always interested me, and although I have little to no experience in the field would like to start now. I've been looking at File:NavalGuadalcanalWashington.jpg, File:USS_Washington_(BB-56)_at_sea_in_mid-Atlantic,_circa_April_1942.jpg, and File:USS_Washington_BB-56.jpg but the last three don't have very good resolution, and the first one isn't 'that excellent. Any help would be appreciated. Best Regards, NativeForeigner ^Talk/ _Contribs 03:54, 22 January 2010 (UTC) reply

It would be a better bet to search for Library of Congress material. Ed might have a good idea or two up his sleeve. Try to find a good scan at least 10MB in uncompressed TIFF format. Durova ⁴⁰³ 04:12, 22 January 2010 (UTC) reply

http://www.navsource.org/archives/01/015620.jpg http://www.navsource.org/archives/01/015671.jpg These are the best (largest) images that we could find, and they aren't anywhere near specifications. I'm obviously new to the LoC, and can't find a suitable restorable image. Is there anything you recommend? NativeForeigner ^Talk/ _Contribs 01:12, 24 January 2010 (UTC) reply

The military sources tend to have problems for this type of purpose. Have you asked Ed? He showed me a couple of files yesterday that I didn't have time to work on. Durova ⁴⁰³ 01:13, 24 January 2010 (UTC) reply

I talked to ed on irc, and he could only find JPEGs. Just found http://memory.loc.gov/master/pnp/ggbain/09900/09947u.tif NativeForeigner ^Talk/ _Contribs 01:22, 24 January 2010 (UTC) reply

That would be a touch first project: unsharp, and a thumbprint amidships. Durova ⁴⁰³ 01:34, 24 January 2010 (UTC) reply

Touchy? Difficult? I really have no idea, so I'll take your word for it. The search continues. NativeForeigner ^Talk/ _Contribs 01:40, 24 January 2010 (UTC) reply

Meant to write "tough". Apologies for the typo. :) Durova ⁴⁰³ 01:52, 24 January 2010 (UTC) reply

Any Suggestions for things that would be good/fairly easy to restore/easy to find originals of that I could restore? I"m not limited to ships and the like, but just started there. NativeForeigner ^Talk/ _Contribs 01:57, 24 January 2010 (UTC) Found: reply

• http://memory.loc.gov/master/pnp/cph/3c10000/3c15000/3c15000/3c15011u.tif
• http://memory.loc.gov/master/pnp/cph/3c30000/3c34000/3c34200/3c34202u.tif
• http://memory.loc.gov/master/pnp/npcc/32700/32702u.tif
• http://memory.loc.gov/master/pnp/cph/3g00000/3g09000/3g09100/3g09117u.tif
• http://memory.loc.gov/master/pnp/cph/3g00000/3g09000/3g09300/3g09341u.tif
• http://memory.loc.gov/master/pnp/cph/3g00000/3g09000/3g09200/3g09218u.tif

Having a look. Durova ⁴⁰³ 03:48, 24 January 2010 (UTC) reply

It looks like those are scans of rephotographed material Roger Fenton's salt paper prints of the Crimean War? There is a very well preserved lithograph set from that war that makes for good beginner restoration projects. Try this for example. [2] Cheers, Durova ⁴⁰³ 04:00, 24 January 2010 (UTC) reply

Thanks. What'd you think of the boat/battlecruiser? I'm downloading that print with my slowtastic DSL And the indian thing. Out of curiosity :P NativeForeigner ^Talk/ _Contribs 04:19, 24 January 2010 (UTC) reply

Could you provide stable links to the image reference pages instead of direct downloads? Durova ⁴⁰³ 04:26, 24 January 2010 (UTC) reply

Sorry, makes sense. How do you retrieve the stable links? NativeForeigner ^Talk/ _Contribs 05:41, 24 January 2010 (UTC) reply

Hi Durova, happy new year. Hope you're keeping well. I just wanted to ask for a spot of advice. Could you take a look at Wikipedia:An#Advice_about_a_potential_RFC.2FU and if you've got any thoughts at all just leave a note. It's a difficult situation because the user who is the subject of RFC/U has disappeared but the issue is quite important - so we wont know if it's fair to go ahead in his absence?-- Cailil ^talk 21:17, 22 January 2010 (UTC) reply

If this weren't such a long term SPA I'd say give it time, but three years? Go ahead with the RFC. Durova ⁴⁰³ 21:47, 22 January 2010 (UTC) reply

Hi, there is a question being asked here that perhaps you can answer. Many thanks.-- Wehwalt ( talk) 04:02, 24 January 2010 (UTC) reply

Replied there, although it seems to have resolved itself before I got there. That type of situation really makes me think we should petition the United States Government to recognize the rule of the shorter term in its copyright law. Durova ⁴⁰³ 17:08, 24 January 2010 (UTC) reply

As always, any change to the copyright laws will be judged by whether it makes Mickey Mouse vulnerable.-- Wehwalt ( talk) 18:19, 24 January 2010 (UTC) reply

The public doesn't have to be passive about that anymore, you know? The PD-1923 holding pattern is scheduled to expire in 2020. Expect a new (quiet) Disney lobbying campaign to start up in the next couple years. As long as the public is clueful and vocal we can keep Ye Olde Mouse from getting yet another new lease on copyright. :) Durova ⁴⁰³ 19:42, 24 January 2010 (UTC) reply

Have you seen this? Think you can get some material for FPC? -- Muhammad (talk) 12:25, 24 January 2010 (UTC) reply

It certainly looks interesting. Right now I'm facing the pleasant dilemma of a backlog of institutionally donated restoration work. :) So no promises. Although it seems to be in Leipzig and there's a German editor who might take a real interest in it. Thanks very much for the heads up. Durova ⁴⁰³ 17:06, 24 January 2010 (UTC) reply

That's a non-starter. He even refuses to acknowledge that he's under any restriction despite this ANI thread. Pcap ping 12:48, 24 January 2010 (UTC) reply

Without any statements about the merits of such a restriction if it had been proposed to the community for conensus discussion, I'm no fan of that type of attempt at a sanction either. Arbitrators can't impose restrictions unilaterially; why would a single administrator have more power than an arbitrator? That particular administrator has sparked several arbitration cases by stepping into difficult situations that way. Really, the traditional route of formal dispute resolution is better than trying to cut corners. Durova ⁴⁰³ 17:04, 24 January 2010 (UTC) reply

Hi Durova, I've just voted oppose on the pair of mutile images (regretfully). Notwithstanding this, if they are promoted I think that May 8th, International Red Cross and Red Crescent day could be an appropriate day to have them displayed as POTD. And as always, the restorations are appreciated. Cheers, Mostlyharmless ( talk) 05:45, 25 January 2010 (UTC) reply

Good suggestion. And your reason for opposing is very understandable. I was more worried about the cut off elbow, actually. Wish it weren't so hard to find candid images of the seriously wounded. Durova ⁴⁰³ 06:04, 25 January 2010 (UTC) reply