User talk:Durova

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
The WikiCup.


Archived talk 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 65 66 67 68 69 70 71 72 73 74 75 76 77 78 79 80 81 82 83

Contents

[edit] The Bugle: Issue LXV, July 2011

The Bugle.png
To receive this newsletter on your talk page, join the project or sign up here. If you are a member who does not want delivery, please go to this page. BrownBot (talk) 21:54, 14 August 2011 (UTC)

[edit] Request for Information

Hi Durova,

in my phD project I am currently analysing the Muhammad depiction case (see also my contribution in the cpov reader). I would like to ask you some details about the history of the mediation. It would not be a formal interview to use directly in my thesis, rather it is more about getting some backround information about the mediation in order to analyse the Muhammad images talk page: E.g. on the first images talk page it is said to you were invited for mediation, on this mediation cabal site other are named as mediators and on this mediation site one user says that there is no "active mediator". Hence I am a little confused. I would be happy if you solved my current confusion. For infos about my dissertation see my user page or ask me directly. I would be happy to hear from you. I am best available on my uni account: johanna.niesyto[@]uni-siegen.de Thank you very much in advance! --Jojoona (talk) 14:40, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

[edit] The Bugle: Issue LXVI, August 2011

The Bugle.png

To receive this newsletter on your talk page, join the project or sign up here. If you are a member who does not want delivery, please go to this page. EdwardsBot (talk) 17:50, 11 September 2011 (UTC)

[edit] MfD nomination of Wikipedia:Keep it down to earth

Wikipedia:Keep it down to earth, a page you substantially contributed to, has been nominated for deletion. Your opinions on the matter are welcome; please participate in the discussion by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:Keep it down to earth and please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~). You are free to edit the content of Wikipedia:Keep it down to earth during the discussion but should not remove the miscellany for deletion template from the top of the page; such a removal will not end the deletion discussion. Thank you. Ten Pound Hammer • (What did I screw up now?) 01:25, 14 October 2011 (UTC)

[edit] Since you're an active member of this project

Hopefully you will know who can help the editor mentioned here. thanks in advance! KillerChihuahua?!? 14:40, 21 October 2011 (UTC)

"Active?" Surely you post in jest. Thank you for the chuckle. Durova412 01:51, 23 October 2011 (UTC)

[edit] The Bugle: Issue LXVII, September 2011

The Bugle.png

To receive this newsletter on your talk page, join the project or sign up here. If you are a member who does not want delivery, please go to this page. EdwardsBot (talk) 02:05, 27 October 2011 (UTC)

[edit] Wikimedia SoCal updates

Thought you might be interested in this recent event at the Reagan Library: Wikipedia:Meetup/NARA 3. Also, there has been ongoing GLAM discussion with the Balboa Park folks. I hope you've been enjoying your overly-sunny weather!--Pharos (talk) 05:17, 22 November 2011 (UTC)

[edit] Wikipedia:WikiProject Dispute Resolution

You may be interested in this. Peter jackson (talk) 11:26, 25 November 2011 (UTC)

[edit] The Bugle: Issue LXVIII, October 2011

The Bugle.png

To receive this newsletter on your talk page, join the project or sign up here. If you are a member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from this page. EdwardsBot (talk) 08:04, 28 November 2011 (UTC)

[edit] The Bugle: Issue LXIX, November 2011

Full front page of The Bugle
Your Military History Newsletter

The Bugle is published by the Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please join the project or sign here.
If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from this page. Ian Rose (talk) and Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 20:25, 27 December 2011 (UTC)

[edit] Military Historian of the Year

Nominations for the "Military Historian of the Year" for 2011 are now open. If you would like to nominate an editor for this award, please do so here. Voting will open on 22 January and run for seven days. Thanks! On behalf of the coordinators, Nick-D (talk) and Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 23:00, 15 January 2012 (UTC) You were sent this message because you are a listed as a member of the Military history WikiProject.

[edit] The Bugle: Issue LXX, January 2012

Full front page of The Bugle
Your Military History Newsletter

The Bugle is published by the Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please join the project or sign up here.
If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from this page. Your editors, Ian Rose (talk) and Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 23:56, 22 January 2012 (UTC)


[edit] Wikipedia:Peer review for Pope John Paul II

Hi Durova, I was wondering whether you'd be interested in this? -- Marek.69 talk 01:45, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

[edit] Apologies

Apologies, but I have stolen the generalized redirect to User:Durova/Requests for comment/Arbitration Committee 3 and created an Arbitration Committee RfC over a different matter (still a work in progress) at Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Arbitration Committee 3. Sorry for stealing your redirect. SilverserenC 23:36, 28 January 2012 (UTC)

[edit] May you have a day full of WikiLove

Loves Messenger Stillman DAM.jpg Happy Valentine's Day
All the best for one of Wikipedia's best!

(Feel free to send this to your other Valentines)
Smallbones (talk) 23:25, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

[edit] The Bugle: Issue LXXI, February 2012

Full front page of The Bugle
Your Military History Newsletter

The Bugle is published by the Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please join the project or sign up here.
If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from this page. Your editors, Ian Rose (talk) and Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 09:45, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

[edit] Possibly unfree File:Vote number 1.jpg

A file that you uploaded or altered, File:Vote number 1.jpg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Possibly unfree files because its copyright status is unclear or disputed. If the file's copyright status cannot be verified, it may be deleted. You may find more information on the file description page. You are welcome to add comments to its entry at the discussion if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. Kelly hi! 19:44, 22 February 2012 (UTC)

It would really be more appropriate to discuss your questons about the copyright status of featured pictures before initiating formal processes. File:Vote number 1.jpg is the unrestored version of File:Vote number 1b.jpg which ran as Picture of the Day on the English Wikipedia for April 30, 2010. You have listed both images as possibly unfree files, but you have templated only the unrestored non-featured version. Your summary at the unfree files discussion fails to mention that one of these images is a featured picture. This is not the first time you have singled out locally hosted historic featured pictures and put them on the road to deletion without first discussing your concerns with either the uploader or with the featured picture community. It would certainly be worthy of discussion in a more prominent space if the English Wikipedia were running unfree files on its main page. To the best of my knowledge none of these nominations have gone anywhere. To do that once might be an honest mistake, but a reasonable person could really wonder whether you avoided templating this featured picture (which is probably watched by several editors) in a deliberate attempt to fly under the radar.

These files are hosted locally at English Wikipedia and cannot be moved to Wikimedia Commons due to a United States court ruling which deemed that Nazi artwork seized by the United States during World War II had forfeited copyright. See Price v. United States. Specifically from the appellate court decision, "The United States may dispose of items that were seized during the allied occupation of Germany as it sees fit; indeed, it has done so." Also for reference, the featured picture discussion Wikipedia:Featured_picture_candidates/Nazi_campaign_poster. Durova412 00:56, 23 February 2012 (UTC)

Would it be possible to centralize the discussion at the WP:PUF page? Kelly hi! 01:08, 23 February 2012 (UTC)
This discussion ought to have been initiated here. Your nomination was premature. Durova412 01:31, 23 February 2012 (UTC)
I don't believe so, but this should be discussed by the community rather than on a user talk page. Kelly hi! 01:37, 23 February 2012 (UTC)
Indeed it should be, and if you start this nonsense again I may open a user conduct request for comment on you. Your persistent disregard for featured pictures is astonishing. Durova412 05:55, 23 February 2012 (UTC)
I think you're overreacting a bit - really my only concern is that the copyright bases are covered. About the worst that can happen here is that someone will need to add a non-free use rationale to the image. But if you think you need to open an RFC on me, feel free. I plan to continue doing what I have been. Kelly hi! 15:43, 23 February 2012 (UTC)

Well if we're going to speculate about each other's motives that goes both ways: this looks like deliberate deception on your part. If you wanted the community to have a discussion you could have gone to the Featured Picture project. You could have gone to the copyright policy page. You could have chosen any number of venues. What did you actually do? You put featured content on an assembly line route to deletion without templating the featured picture, without linking to it from the uploader's user talk page, and without even stating in your nomination that it was featured content. You've been around this website long enough to know which pages are likely to be watchlisted and you made certain that none of those pages alerted the community to what you were doing. Eventually another editor templated the featured picture for you.

If you wanted to have a real policy discussion about how Price v. United States applies to Wikipedia, that would be fine. I would have no quarrel with that conversation or any consensus outcome. But you went about this in all the ways that minimized the chances of that discussion taking place--or of the need for it even being noticed. This isn't the first time you've done that sort of thing and I'm not the only featured content contributor you've done it to. When you did it before the community rejected your proposals as they realized what you had set in motion.

Whenever possible, historic featured picture editors use material that is public domain internationally and upload it to Commons. Occasionally on important subjects the only high quality material available is public domain in the United States but not public domain overseas; it doesn't happen often. The early history of the Nazi Party is a highly encyclopedic general interest topic. It's worth taking extra effort to illustrate it with the best material available because it is one thing for encyclopedia readers to see a block of text about how the Nazis were skilled propagandists, another thing entirely to see the propaganda--and to see it restored in high resolution. The original TIFF file for this image is 414 MB. That's megabytes, not kilobytes.[1] A lot of people mistakenly think featured restorations are done in ten minutes with Photoshop filters. What it actually entailed was going through every pixel at 200% resolution and restoring it manually. Your approach is worrisome not because because this restoration happened to be my work, but because of the loss to the encyclopedia if it got lost in the shuffle and deleted without an informed discussion. Durova412 17:36, 23 February 2012 (UTC)

Actually, I was the one who tagged the FP.[2] Kelly hi! 17:50, 23 February 2012 (UTC)
In that case I stand corrected. Saw StefanP's later edit; should have double checked. Both edits occurred after this discussion began here. That meets the bare minimum threshold for community notification, remains far short of best practices. Historic featured pictures hosted at en:wiki are inherently reliant on the lesser known aspects of copyright law (in this case copyright caselaw).
Mike Godwin used to say I erred on the side of caution regarding copyrights. For instance, the pair of featured pictures here are public domain under Canadian law, but are also derivative works of a French photograph of unknown status. After considerable research it was possible to determine only part of the name of the original author; French copyright status under the life +70 years rule could not be established so these went up locally here at en:wiki with a detailed description in the copyright section.[3] Returning to these files today, it is interesting to see them now at Commons with a different license rationale. An administrator later nominated for transfer to Commons,[4] withdrew the nomination,[5] and then a different editor uploaded it to Commons four months later.[6] The image remains at Commons now with US and Canadian copyright templates. Although the likelihood is slim to none of an heir to the photographic copyright stepping forward to contest this, Commons policy is to establish positive confirmation of free license in all relevant jurisdictions. De minimus really isn't arguable.
So I apologize for the error; you are correct that some previous comments are overreaction. It is also worth demonstrating that although there may are editors who take a cavalier approach to copyright, I am not among them. The response I gave to Mike Godwin was that it was worth erring on the side of caution and following practices that would hold up under strict scrutiny, because that was the best safeguard to keep encyclopedic content onsite. Your time and effort would be better spent tracking what happened after I left the project: for a while Wikipedia's illustration of the Mona Lisa was a strange file that had green plumes growing out of her hair, and the site currently runs a bright yellow-orange illustration of the Boston Massacre (the result of an injudicious use of auto-levels). Durova412 19:25, 23 February 2012 (UTC)
Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Durova&oldid=478473291"
Personal tools
Namespaces

Variants
Actions
Navigation
Interaction
Toolbox
Print/export