File:LindsayLohanMachete.jpg looks pretty suspicious: looks to me like the OTRS tag was added to avoid deletion of the image. I think you have OTRS privileges, so I'd appreciate it if you could check it out.— Kww( talk) 20:10, 23 February 2010 (UTC)
- Deleted and
Johnny0929 (
talk ·
contribs ·
deleted contribs ·
logs ·
filter log ·
block user ·
block log) warned. If one of you has chance, could you go through his other uploads? He seems to be having a few issues.
Ryan PostlethwaiteSee
the mess I've created or
let's have banter 20:15, 23 February 2010 (UTC)
- Wouldn't it be more efficient to ask someone who has local admin ops? If they find copyvio files that have been transferred to Commons then give me a ping. Durova 412 21:14, 23 February 2010 (UTC)
Replied on my talkpage.-- Cube lurker ( talk) 20:17, 23 February 2010 (UTC)
- Replied again.-- Cube lurker ( talk) 21:35, 23 February 2010 (UTC)
Final discussion for Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Biographies of living people
Hello, I note that you have commented on the first phase of Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Biographies of living people
As this RFC closes, there are two proposals being considered:
- Proposal to Close This RfC
- Alternate proposal to close this RFC: we don't need a whole new layer of bureaucracy
Your opinion on this is welcome. Okip 02:16, 24 February 2010 (UTC)
- thanks again for all of your hard with this project Wikipedia:WikiProject Unreferenced Biographies of Living Persons/Contest is being completely changed, which is probably for the better... ;) J04n has really taken over the contest, which is great. Okip 03:01, 24 February 2010 (UTC)
What scurrilous attack? You may not believe this, but I do have a lot of respect for you & your contributions -- even if we don't agree on issues. Even if we never do again. -- llywrch ( talk) 04:18, 24 February 2010 (UTC)
Leadup:
- Some of the posters assert that they don't see what harm could come of her inclusion here. For the last two and a half years I have been working with an editor who also has a stalker (the real kind) and who has been unable to get his biography deleted. I would not wish his wiki-problems onto anyone, and per WP:BEANS will not state onsite what they are. Any administrator who wants to ask is welcome to email me... Durova412 19:26, 23 February 2010 (UTC)
- BLP has clear relevance here. Anyone who wants to know specifics about the actual BLP/stalking problem needs to inquire by email; those details will not be forthcoming onsite for obvious reasons. Durova412 19:39, 23 February 2010 (UTC)
- Three times is the charm: if you don't already see the problem, email and ask. It's about real stalking; it's sensitive and can't be discussed onsite... Durova412 19:52, 23 February 2010 (UTC)
Without any attempt to inquire what I was talking about:
- What Durova is not considering by using the BLP argument is, at best, she is creating another divisive issue for Wikipedians which will lead to the frustration & WikiDrama that attended the Free Image/Fair Use conflict not so long ago; at worst, BLP is being strengthened into a tool which will be wielded by public relations flacks to sanitize articles about unethical, if not criminal, individuals. If people continue to cut-&-paste slabs from the "BLP" policy to force edits they advcate, I will start replying with "But think of the children! We must remove all of that bad material from Wikiepdia!" -- llywrch (talk) 00:25, 24 February 2010 (UTC)
You have no idea what facts I was or wasn't considering nor what my motives are. These are scurrilous assertions of the lowest sort. I put up with a lot of potshots at the admin boards and usually ignore them, but this could have derailed the appropriate response to an actual real world stalking victim. It is beyond the pale. Durova 412 04:28, 24 February 2010 (UTC)
- Your response makes absolutely no sense to me. "Scurrilous", according to my dictionary, is an adjective referring to the coarse or vulgar quality of a thing, & I see nothing coarse or vulgar in my statements. I was/am not interested in whether one of the persons was being stalked, but instead how the article -- & only the article -- could rationally be used to help a stalker. I stand by my assertion: had someone early on in this discussion pointed out that this was an event in the future, there would have been no need to drag in whether WP:BLP applies, or whether it truly pre-empts all other concerns here. All I see in your response is an undeserved vitriol over my disagreement with you over its relevance here, & thus my lack of interest in contacting you over its details. If you cannot understand my concerns about WP:BLP & how it is increasingly used as a nuclear option to destroy articles -- or, to repeat my words which you quote above, "the BLP argument is, at best, she is creating another divisive issue for Wikipedians which will lead to the frustration & WikiDrama that attended the Free Image/Fair Use conflict not so long ago; at worst, BLP is being strengthened into a tool which will be wielded by public relations flacks to sanitize articles about unethical, if not criminal, individuals" -- then I don't see how we can have a reasonable discussion about this or any other matter. Which I sincerely regret. No matter how virtuous the reasons for invoking WP:BLP in any case -- & I in no way endorse stalking or sexual harassment -- calling my sincere concerns that this policy will end up causing more harm than good to Wikipedia "scurrilous" stops communication, & only succeeds in making me doubt the quality of your judgment. And when see it leading to the same kinds of conflicts as BetaCommand's tone-deaf & brutish efforts to enforce the Fee Image/Fair Use policy drove away numerous editors of all opinions on the matter (or be abused by public relations flacks), I won't hesitate to state "I told you so" -- even if doing so would be correctly considered "scurrilous". -- llywrch ( talk) 04:48, 25 February 2010 (UTC)
This is very simple. Think of the phrase stalking victim. Now think of its full real world meaning, especially the legal one. This is that situation. Of course there are things that can't be said onsite. The Wikipedia page had a direct effect on the victim's life. You've disregarded invitations to substantiate how that transpired; the rest of your words only communicate a profound lack of perspective. If you trivialize something this important again you're going to get conduct RfC'd. Durova 412 15:29, 25 February 2010 (UTC)
Prior to this event, I never really gave much thought to WP:BLP and if fact, I veered more towards the mindset that if it is encyclopedic than of course it should be included here. But this ordeal has been massively eye opening because I saw first hand how seemingly innocent edits can have far reaching and devastating impact on the lives of real, living people. The original editors to the curling articles had absolutely no malice intent and probably couldn't even conceive of what ill intent could have possibly came from their edits. But that is the rub, no one is omniscience. No one can possibly anticipate the response to any edit that we do here. However, while we can't be faulted for not knowing the impact of our edits, what matters most is how we respond to the concerns of the living subjects who those edits do impact. That, in my opinion, is the wisdom of WP:BLP and what I see Durova advocating. When something comes up, you act. This is not a game nor a "Think of the children" moment. We're not talking about vulgar lyrics or lewd pictures, we're talking about living, breathing people who through the power of the internet (particularly via our prominence on Google), we can have dramatic impacts on. We simply can not play with people's lives in such a flippant matter. Just because you can't wrap your head around how these edits impacted someone, doesn't make that real impact on their life go away. WP:BLP should have a "No questions ask" response because our need to be a responsible encyclopedia should trump all. An irresponsible encyclopedia is ultimately not a credible one and while, yes, we may have to sacrifice minutely "encyclopedic" details, the balance of value for those minute details is far less than the value of simply being decent human beings and doing the right thing. Agne Cheese/ Wine 05:48, 26 February 2010 (UTC)
Hi, Durova. I was very confused when I first went to the Workshop page, not having been involved in Arbcom before. I saw that people were adding proposals, including Tucker, a party to the case. I thought that I could do so. And of course I screwed up by adding something in the wrong place. Now I wonder if, as a party to the case, it was weird for me to add a section to the Workshop. Was it? Should I delete or abandon? Thanks. TimidGuy ( talk) 12:25, 24 February 2010 (UTC)
- Just ask the case clerk for assistance with the placement and formatting. Best wishes. Durova 412 15:14, 24 February 2010 (UTC)
|
On February 25, 2010, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Bloom Energy, which you created or substantially expanded. You are welcome to check how many hits your article got while on the front page ( here's how, quick check ) and add it to DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page. |
Materialscientist ( talk) 00:12, 25 February 2010 (UTC)
- Thanks very much! :)
Durova
412 00:14, 25 February 2010 (UTC)
- "Durova" and "content editing" do not go together. ;) Congrats and nice work. — Ed (talk • majestic titan) 05:15, 25 February 2010 (UTC)
Works better on slower ISO, I should have read the manual...Thanks again (And more photos added to the poll) YellowMonkey ( vote in the Southern Stars and White Ferns supermodel photo poll) 05:12, 25 February 2010 (UTC)
As my idea is heavily based on your ideas and work, your thoughts on my proposal would be appreciated. J Milburn ( talk) 12:24, 25 February 2010 (UTC)
Hi. Could you please take a peek at this:
and let me know your view on this pair of images? Thanks. Jack Merridew 22:06, 25 February 2010 (UTC)
- That restoration contains zero documentation on the edits performed. It doesn't even state that it's an edited version. It misses dozens of scratches and spots; it's sloppy work. The original is a fine portrait. Yes, a restoration would be nice. But with historic photography we also have an obligation to inform the reader of instances where images have been altered and what has been done with them. These issues matter to special collections librarians and museum curators; we depend upon their goodwill for access to material. In short, I wish policy allowed deletion of that "restoration". It's a discredit to WMF. Durova 412 22:23, 25 February 2010 (UTC)
- I did note that it was too dark. I had not noticed the lack of attribution. It appears that those two editors went back and forth re-uploading and that the original was then uploaded as a different file. Certainly a better restoration could be done. Me, I'd rotate it and crop it and then do stuff like clone the minor blemishes such as the damage next to her mouth. I just saved the true original (the oldest rev of the now-restored one) and will take a look. The upload log does give very basic descriptions of what was done to the image. You have a much higher expectation, right? An example? Cheers, Jack Merridew 22:43, 25 February 2010 (UTC)
Browse the "other versions" notes of my featured pictures for samples. :) We do already have a featured picture of Mary Pickford, though. Durova 412 02:59, 26 February 2010 (UTC)
Hi Durova, I noticed your comment at Talk:Mary Pickford and it occurred to me that we have a tag on the Carl Van Vechten images that says basically not to crop or enhance the images as the donator wished their integrity to be maintained. I thought that would be a good example to refer to, and went to this picture of Laurence Olivier to provide an example of one such image, and was shocked to see this has been cropped several times, despite the clear message not to. Can you please tell me how I would go about having the cropped versions deleted and just the original image retained. I know how to do it here for images that have been reduced etc, but I'm not so sure how to nominate it on Commons. If you could please point me in the right direction, I'll go through the rest of the collection and see if any others have been cropped. Thank you. Rossrs ( talk) 06:51, 26 February 2010 (UTC)
- Actually I have a confession to make: a couple of years ago I restored a couple of the van Vechten images myself. Made an effort to do so conservatively. The big problem is radical undocumented edits. What we ought to do is write up a Commons guideline for editing practices on historic material. Durova 412 16:42, 26 February 2010 (UTC)
Message added 03:52, 1 March 2010 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.
Hell In A Bucket ( talk) 03:52, 1 March 2010 (UTC)
First of all, I really resent people proposing stuff for deletion as "sub-notable" who obviously know nothing about the subject. You are probably one of our teen-or-20-aged people who think that any song from before they were born is automatically not notable. WP:N states, "Songs that have been ranked on national or significant music charts, that have won significant awards or honors or that have been performed independently by several notable artists, bands or groups are probably notable." The song was a #18 charted hit, as was stated already in the article before you flagged it. Besides Perry Como, whose version was the one which reached that chart position, the song was also recorded by Benny Goodman, Tommy Dorsey, and other "notable artists, bands or groups." Before you conclude that some song is not notable, it might behoove you to read that quote again.
In any case, it's also unfortunate that people are now flagging things as "unreferenced" and forcing editors to go back and waste time tracking sources. Back in 2005, when I originally created the article, it was not the normal practice to put in references. Instead of flagging things as "unreferenced" it would be a more useful employment of your effort just to do a Google search and find a source.
Frankly, I admit to being an unashamed inclusionist. Moreover, in the interest of progress, I think that it is the deletionists who are killing Wikipedia, by discouraging people from editing articles because they are afraid their work will simply fall victim to some deletionist who finds it easier to simply propose something for deletion than to add whatever they think an article is missing. -- BRG ( talk) 20:12, 1 March 2010 (UTC)
- From
WP:MUSIC:
- In order to meet Wikipedia's standards for verifiability and notability, the article in question must actually document that the criterion is true. It is not enough to make vague claims in the article or assert a band's importance on a talk page or AfD page – the article itself must document notability.
- Most songs do not rise to notability for an independent article and should redirect to another relevant article, such as for the songwriter, a prominent album or for the artist who prominently performed the song. Songs that have been ranked on national or significant music charts, that have won significant awards or honors or that have been performed independently by several notable artists, bands or groups are probably notable. Notability aside, a separate article on a song is only appropriate when there is enough verifiable material to warrant a reasonably detailed article; articles unlikely ever to grow beyond stubs should be merged to articles about an artist or album.
- So it is fair and appropriate to PROD wholly unreferenced articles that have been tagged for lack of references for a long time, and which do not assert that a song ever charted anywhere.
- Editor age has nothing to do with this, but I'm over forty. Also have written DYKs and good articles about music by Eubie Blake and Irving Berlin and James Scott. Admittedly those were a little bit before my time. Perhaps a couple of examples would help as models? Durova 412 21:13, 1 March 2010 (UTC)
The
Military history WikiProject coordinator selection process has started; to elect the coordinators to serve for the next six months. If you are interested in running, please sign up
here by 23:59 (UTC) on 8 March 2010! More information on coordinatorship may be found on the
coordinator academy course and in the
responsibilities section on the coordinator page.
This has been an automated delivery by
BrownBot (
talk) 21:24, 1 March 2010 (UTC)
Sorry for the late reply as I was in the hospital for two weeks, and just came out. I didn't know it takes 20 hours to restore a picture, that's heavy work. I hope your pets feel better. Thanks Secret account 16:25, 2 March 2010 (UTC)
- No need for apologies, but I really hope you're okay. The particular format of that photograph would be very laborious. Best wishes for a full recovery. Durova 412 18:27, 2 March 2010 (UTC)
- Yea I'm fine. Also do you know any good photoshop restoration software, I got lucky that my college professor this guy, Paul George is also the official historian of the city of Miami, and I'm planning to talk to him and the museum about donating a ton of historical images to Wikipedia, he was impressed about me writing the History of Miami (which I need to update to current FA standards), and the project in general. Also I saw your post to the baseball project about which pictures to restore. File:Cobbstealing3rd.jpg by Charles Conlon is arguably one of the most famous sport pictures of all-time, and needs a good restoration. Thanks Secret account 18:44, 2 March 2010 (UTC)
- That Ty Cobb image is only 19 KB digitally. We approached the Baseball Hall of Fame a few months ago and their answer wasn't quite so much no as not yet; ask us again in a year. This sounds wonderful with your professor. Are you available for contact via gchat or Skype? I'd like to put you in touch with the fellow who organized the Tropenmuseum-WMF Netherlands show. That exhibit made national news in The Netherlands and received a head of state visit from President Ronald Venetiaan of Suriname. Would love to duplicate that success. Perhaps we could join up with Wikipedia's meteorology project and do a pilot project on the Miami Hurricane of 1926? Durova 412 18:57, 2 March 2010 (UTC)
- Do you have Yahoo chat or AIM? I forgot my Gmail password. I don't use Gmail and I have no clue how to use Skype. Also I likely won't be avaliable for the rest of the week (busy after missing two weeks of work and such, plus therapy). I'm likely going to his office today at 4 ET to speak with him about the images, I know he's donating images with Mickey Mantle and a few other baseball players, if I could convince him (which he likely will say Yea) to donate all these images, I'll let you know and I'll give you his email address to communicate with him. I know it will be great and will clearly make local news and set an example of other cities donating their stuff to Wikipedia (The Miami Herald profiles and interviews him all the time). The only problem is I know much of the stuff is from the Miami Herald, which likely won't release anything after 1923 to public domain. The Miami News (Miami's former newspaper) I think it's in Public Domain though. The 1926 Hurricane pictures are the first I'm going to ask for permission. Thanks Secret account 19:15, 2 March 2010 (UTC)
- Baseball Hall of Fame can be stupid at time, I asked for permission from them several times, while they allowed me to go to New York to research (which I'm thinking about doing it for the summer), they are very guarded with images. Secret account 19:23, 2 March 2010 (UTC)
- I thought it was only video chat, I'm going to check Skype out, downloading it now, but I need to go in a bit though.
Secret
account 19:29, 2 March 2010 (UTC)
- Great; I've got the headset on if you've got a moment before you run. Durova 412 19:32, 2 March 2010 (UTC)
- Now I'm having problems with it, I don't have an headset, I need to get one. I'll email you my skype ID (remember I have a flattering ED article about me, the last thing I need is them harrasing me via skype. I need to go though Secret account 19:39, 2 March 2010 (UTC)
Thoughts ? Abecedare ( talk) 19:07, 2 March 2010 (UTC)
File:LindsayLohanMachete.jpg looks pretty suspicious: looks to me like the OTRS tag was added to avoid deletion of the image. I think you have OTRS privileges, so I'd appreciate it if you could check it out.— Kww( talk) 20:10, 23 February 2010 (UTC)
- Deleted and
Johnny0929 (
talk ·
contribs ·
deleted contribs ·
logs ·
filter log ·
block user ·
block log) warned. If one of you has chance, could you go through his other uploads? He seems to be having a few issues.
Ryan PostlethwaiteSee
the mess I've created or
let's have banter 20:15, 23 February 2010 (UTC)
- Wouldn't it be more efficient to ask someone who has local admin ops? If they find copyvio files that have been transferred to Commons then give me a ping. Durova 412 21:14, 23 February 2010 (UTC)
Replied on my talkpage.-- Cube lurker ( talk) 20:17, 23 February 2010 (UTC)
- Replied again.-- Cube lurker ( talk) 21:35, 23 February 2010 (UTC)
Final discussion for Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Biographies of living people
Hello, I note that you have commented on the first phase of Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Biographies of living people
As this RFC closes, there are two proposals being considered:
- Proposal to Close This RfC
- Alternate proposal to close this RFC: we don't need a whole new layer of bureaucracy
Your opinion on this is welcome. Okip 02:16, 24 February 2010 (UTC)
- thanks again for all of your hard with this project Wikipedia:WikiProject Unreferenced Biographies of Living Persons/Contest is being completely changed, which is probably for the better... ;) J04n has really taken over the contest, which is great. Okip 03:01, 24 February 2010 (UTC)
What scurrilous attack? You may not believe this, but I do have a lot of respect for you & your contributions -- even if we don't agree on issues. Even if we never do again. -- llywrch ( talk) 04:18, 24 February 2010 (UTC)
Leadup:
- Some of the posters assert that they don't see what harm could come of her inclusion here. For the last two and a half years I have been working with an editor who also has a stalker (the real kind) and who has been unable to get his biography deleted. I would not wish his wiki-problems onto anyone, and per WP:BEANS will not state onsite what they are. Any administrator who wants to ask is welcome to email me... Durova412 19:26, 23 February 2010 (UTC)
- BLP has clear relevance here. Anyone who wants to know specifics about the actual BLP/stalking problem needs to inquire by email; those details will not be forthcoming onsite for obvious reasons. Durova412 19:39, 23 February 2010 (UTC)
- Three times is the charm: if you don't already see the problem, email and ask. It's about real stalking; it's sensitive and can't be discussed onsite... Durova412 19:52, 23 February 2010 (UTC)
Without any attempt to inquire what I was talking about:
- What Durova is not considering by using the BLP argument is, at best, she is creating another divisive issue for Wikipedians which will lead to the frustration & WikiDrama that attended the Free Image/Fair Use conflict not so long ago; at worst, BLP is being strengthened into a tool which will be wielded by public relations flacks to sanitize articles about unethical, if not criminal, individuals. If people continue to cut-&-paste slabs from the "BLP" policy to force edits they advcate, I will start replying with "But think of the children! We must remove all of that bad material from Wikiepdia!" -- llywrch (talk) 00:25, 24 February 2010 (UTC)
You have no idea what facts I was or wasn't considering nor what my motives are. These are scurrilous assertions of the lowest sort. I put up with a lot of potshots at the admin boards and usually ignore them, but this could have derailed the appropriate response to an actual real world stalking victim. It is beyond the pale. Durova 412 04:28, 24 February 2010 (UTC)
- Your response makes absolutely no sense to me. "Scurrilous", according to my dictionary, is an adjective referring to the coarse or vulgar quality of a thing, & I see nothing coarse or vulgar in my statements. I was/am not interested in whether one of the persons was being stalked, but instead how the article -- & only the article -- could rationally be used to help a stalker. I stand by my assertion: had someone early on in this discussion pointed out that this was an event in the future, there would have been no need to drag in whether WP:BLP applies, or whether it truly pre-empts all other concerns here. All I see in your response is an undeserved vitriol over my disagreement with you over its relevance here, & thus my lack of interest in contacting you over its details. If you cannot understand my concerns about WP:BLP & how it is increasingly used as a nuclear option to destroy articles -- or, to repeat my words which you quote above, "the BLP argument is, at best, she is creating another divisive issue for Wikipedians which will lead to the frustration & WikiDrama that attended the Free Image/Fair Use conflict not so long ago; at worst, BLP is being strengthened into a tool which will be wielded by public relations flacks to sanitize articles about unethical, if not criminal, individuals" -- then I don't see how we can have a reasonable discussion about this or any other matter. Which I sincerely regret. No matter how virtuous the reasons for invoking WP:BLP in any case -- & I in no way endorse stalking or sexual harassment -- calling my sincere concerns that this policy will end up causing more harm than good to Wikipedia "scurrilous" stops communication, & only succeeds in making me doubt the quality of your judgment. And when see it leading to the same kinds of conflicts as BetaCommand's tone-deaf & brutish efforts to enforce the Fee Image/Fair Use policy drove away numerous editors of all opinions on the matter (or be abused by public relations flacks), I won't hesitate to state "I told you so" -- even if doing so would be correctly considered "scurrilous". -- llywrch ( talk) 04:48, 25 February 2010 (UTC)
This is very simple. Think of the phrase stalking victim. Now think of its full real world meaning, especially the legal one. This is that situation. Of course there are things that can't be said onsite. The Wikipedia page had a direct effect on the victim's life. You've disregarded invitations to substantiate how that transpired; the rest of your words only communicate a profound lack of perspective. If you trivialize something this important again you're going to get conduct RfC'd. Durova 412 15:29, 25 February 2010 (UTC)
Prior to this event, I never really gave much thought to WP:BLP and if fact, I veered more towards the mindset that if it is encyclopedic than of course it should be included here. But this ordeal has been massively eye opening because I saw first hand how seemingly innocent edits can have far reaching and devastating impact on the lives of real, living people. The original editors to the curling articles had absolutely no malice intent and probably couldn't even conceive of what ill intent could have possibly came from their edits. But that is the rub, no one is omniscience. No one can possibly anticipate the response to any edit that we do here. However, while we can't be faulted for not knowing the impact of our edits, what matters most is how we respond to the concerns of the living subjects who those edits do impact. That, in my opinion, is the wisdom of WP:BLP and what I see Durova advocating. When something comes up, you act. This is not a game nor a "Think of the children" moment. We're not talking about vulgar lyrics or lewd pictures, we're talking about living, breathing people who through the power of the internet (particularly via our prominence on Google), we can have dramatic impacts on. We simply can not play with people's lives in such a flippant matter. Just because you can't wrap your head around how these edits impacted someone, doesn't make that real impact on their life go away. WP:BLP should have a "No questions ask" response because our need to be a responsible encyclopedia should trump all. An irresponsible encyclopedia is ultimately not a credible one and while, yes, we may have to sacrifice minutely "encyclopedic" details, the balance of value for those minute details is far less than the value of simply being decent human beings and doing the right thing. Agne Cheese/ Wine 05:48, 26 February 2010 (UTC)
Hi, Durova. I was very confused when I first went to the Workshop page, not having been involved in Arbcom before. I saw that people were adding proposals, including Tucker, a party to the case. I thought that I could do so. And of course I screwed up by adding something in the wrong place. Now I wonder if, as a party to the case, it was weird for me to add a section to the Workshop. Was it? Should I delete or abandon? Thanks. TimidGuy ( talk) 12:25, 24 February 2010 (UTC)
- Just ask the case clerk for assistance with the placement and formatting. Best wishes. Durova 412 15:14, 24 February 2010 (UTC)
|
|
On February 25, 2010, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Bloom Energy, which you created or substantially expanded. You are welcome to check how many hits your article got while on the front page ( here's how, quick check ) and add it to DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page. |
Materialscientist ( talk) 00:12, 25 February 2010 (UTC)
- Thanks very much! :)
Durova
412 00:14, 25 February 2010 (UTC)
- "Durova" and "content editing" do not go together. ;) Congrats and nice work. — Ed (talk • majestic titan) 05:15, 25 February 2010 (UTC)
Works better on slower ISO, I should have read the manual...Thanks again (And more photos added to the poll) YellowMonkey ( vote in the Southern Stars and White Ferns supermodel photo poll) 05:12, 25 February 2010 (UTC)
As my idea is heavily based on your ideas and work, your thoughts on my proposal would be appreciated. J Milburn ( talk) 12:24, 25 February 2010 (UTC)
Hi. Could you please take a peek at this:
and let me know your view on this pair of images? Thanks. Jack Merridew 22:06, 25 February 2010 (UTC)
- That restoration contains zero documentation on the edits performed. It doesn't even state that it's an edited version. It misses dozens of scratches and spots; it's sloppy work. The original is a fine portrait. Yes, a restoration would be nice. But with historic photography we also have an obligation to inform the reader of instances where images have been altered and what has been done with them. These issues matter to special collections librarians and museum curators; we depend upon their goodwill for access to material. In short, I wish policy allowed deletion of that "restoration". It's a discredit to WMF. Durova 412 22:23, 25 February 2010 (UTC)
- I did note that it was too dark. I had not noticed the lack of attribution. It appears that those two editors went back and forth re-uploading and that the original was then uploaded as a different file. Certainly a better restoration could be done. Me, I'd rotate it and crop it and then do stuff like clone the minor blemishes such as the damage next to her mouth. I just saved the true original (the oldest rev of the now-restored one) and will take a look. The upload log does give very basic descriptions of what was done to the image. You have a much higher expectation, right? An example? Cheers, Jack Merridew 22:43, 25 February 2010 (UTC)
Browse the "other versions" notes of my featured pictures for samples. :) We do already have a featured picture of Mary Pickford, though. Durova 412 02:59, 26 February 2010 (UTC)
Hi Durova, I noticed your comment at Talk:Mary Pickford and it occurred to me that we have a tag on the Carl Van Vechten images that says basically not to crop or enhance the images as the donator wished their integrity to be maintained. I thought that would be a good example to refer to, and went to this picture of Laurence Olivier to provide an example of one such image, and was shocked to see this has been cropped several times, despite the clear message not to. Can you please tell me how I would go about having the cropped versions deleted and just the original image retained. I know how to do it here for images that have been reduced etc, but I'm not so sure how to nominate it on Commons. If you could please point me in the right direction, I'll go through the rest of the collection and see if any others have been cropped. Thank you. Rossrs ( talk) 06:51, 26 February 2010 (UTC)
- Actually I have a confession to make: a couple of years ago I restored a couple of the van Vechten images myself. Made an effort to do so conservatively. The big problem is radical undocumented edits. What we ought to do is write up a Commons guideline for editing practices on historic material. Durova 412 16:42, 26 February 2010 (UTC)
Message added 03:52, 1 March 2010 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.
Hell In A Bucket ( talk) 03:52, 1 March 2010 (UTC)
First of all, I really resent people proposing stuff for deletion as "sub-notable" who obviously know nothing about the subject. You are probably one of our teen-or-20-aged people who think that any song from before they were born is automatically not notable. WP:N states, "Songs that have been ranked on national or significant music charts, that have won significant awards or honors or that have been performed independently by several notable artists, bands or groups are probably notable." The song was a #18 charted hit, as was stated already in the article before you flagged it. Besides Perry Como, whose version was the one which reached that chart position, the song was also recorded by Benny Goodman, Tommy Dorsey, and other "notable artists, bands or groups." Before you conclude that some song is not notable, it might behoove you to read that quote again.
In any case, it's also unfortunate that people are now flagging things as "unreferenced" and forcing editors to go back and waste time tracking sources. Back in 2005, when I originally created the article, it was not the normal practice to put in references. Instead of flagging things as "unreferenced" it would be a more useful employment of your effort just to do a Google search and find a source.
Frankly, I admit to being an unashamed inclusionist. Moreover, in the interest of progress, I think that it is the deletionists who are killing Wikipedia, by discouraging people from editing articles because they are afraid their work will simply fall victim to some deletionist who finds it easier to simply propose something for deletion than to add whatever they think an article is missing. -- BRG ( talk) 20:12, 1 March 2010 (UTC)
- From
WP:MUSIC:
- In order to meet Wikipedia's standards for verifiability and notability, the article in question must actually document that the criterion is true. It is not enough to make vague claims in the article or assert a band's importance on a talk page or AfD page – the article itself must document notability.
- Most songs do not rise to notability for an independent article and should redirect to another relevant article, such as for the songwriter, a prominent album or for the artist who prominently performed the song. Songs that have been ranked on national or significant music charts, that have won significant awards or honors or that have been performed independently by several notable artists, bands or groups are probably notable. Notability aside, a separate article on a song is only appropriate when there is enough verifiable material to warrant a reasonably detailed article; articles unlikely ever to grow beyond stubs should be merged to articles about an artist or album.
- So it is fair and appropriate to PROD wholly unreferenced articles that have been tagged for lack of references for a long time, and which do not assert that a song ever charted anywhere.
- Editor age has nothing to do with this, but I'm over forty. Also have written DYKs and good articles about music by Eubie Blake and Irving Berlin and James Scott. Admittedly those were a little bit before my time. Perhaps a couple of examples would help as models? Durova 412 21:13, 1 March 2010 (UTC)
The
Military history WikiProject coordinator selection process has started; to elect the coordinators to serve for the next six months. If you are interested in running, please sign up
here by 23:59 (UTC) on 8 March 2010! More information on coordinatorship may be found on the
coordinator academy course and in the
responsibilities section on the coordinator page.
This has been an automated delivery by
BrownBot (
talk) 21:24, 1 March 2010 (UTC)
Sorry for the late reply as I was in the hospital for two weeks, and just came out. I didn't know it takes 20 hours to restore a picture, that's heavy work. I hope your pets feel better. Thanks Secret account 16:25, 2 March 2010 (UTC)
- No need for apologies, but I really hope you're okay. The particular format of that photograph would be very laborious. Best wishes for a full recovery. Durova 412 18:27, 2 March 2010 (UTC)
- Yea I'm fine. Also do you know any good photoshop restoration software, I got lucky that my college professor this guy, Paul George is also the official historian of the city of Miami, and I'm planning to talk to him and the museum about donating a ton of historical images to Wikipedia, he was impressed about me writing the History of Miami (which I need to update to current FA standards), and the project in general. Also I saw your post to the baseball project about which pictures to restore. File:Cobbstealing3rd.jpg by Charles Conlon is arguably one of the most famous sport pictures of all-time, and needs a good restoration. Thanks Secret account 18:44, 2 March 2010 (UTC)
- That Ty Cobb image is only 19 KB digitally. We approached the Baseball Hall of Fame a few months ago and their answer wasn't quite so much no as not yet; ask us again in a year. This sounds wonderful with your professor. Are you available for contact via gchat or Skype? I'd like to put you in touch with the fellow who organized the Tropenmuseum-WMF Netherlands show. That exhibit made national news in The Netherlands and received a head of state visit from President Ronald Venetiaan of Suriname. Would love to duplicate that success. Perhaps we could join up with Wikipedia's meteorology project and do a pilot project on the Miami Hurricane of 1926? Durova 412 18:57, 2 March 2010 (UTC)
- Do you have Yahoo chat or AIM? I forgot my Gmail password. I don't use Gmail and I have no clue how to use Skype. Also I likely won't be avaliable for the rest of the week (busy after missing two weeks of work and such, plus therapy). I'm likely going to his office today at 4 ET to speak with him about the images, I know he's donating images with Mickey Mantle and a few other baseball players, if I could convince him (which he likely will say Yea) to donate all these images, I'll let you know and I'll give you his email address to communicate with him. I know it will be great and will clearly make local news and set an example of other cities donating their stuff to Wikipedia (The Miami Herald profiles and interviews him all the time). The only problem is I know much of the stuff is from the Miami Herald, which likely won't release anything after 1923 to public domain. The Miami News (Miami's former newspaper) I think it's in Public Domain though. The 1926 Hurricane pictures are the first I'm going to ask for permission. Thanks Secret account 19:15, 2 March 2010 (UTC)
- Baseball Hall of Fame can be stupid at time, I asked for permission from them several times, while they allowed me to go to New York to research (which I'm thinking about doing it for the summer), they are very guarded with images. Secret account 19:23, 2 March 2010 (UTC)
- I thought it was only video chat, I'm going to check Skype out, downloading it now, but I need to go in a bit though.
Secret
account 19:29, 2 March 2010 (UTC)
- Great; I've got the headset on if you've got a moment before you run. Durova 412 19:32, 2 March 2010 (UTC)
- Now I'm having problems with it, I don't have an headset, I need to get one. I'll email you my skype ID (remember I have a flattering ED article about me, the last thing I need is them harrasing me via skype. I need to go though Secret account 19:39, 2 March 2010 (UTC)
Thoughts ? Abecedare ( talk) 19:07, 2 March 2010 (UTC)