User talk:Durova/Archive 4

From Wikimedia Commons, the free media repository
Jump to: navigation, search

FP promotion[edit]

Currier & Ives Brooklyn2.jpg
This image has been promoted to Featured picture!

The image File:Currier & Ives Brooklyn2.jpg, that you nominated on Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Currier & Ives Brooklyn2.jpg has been promoted. Thank you for your contribution. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so.

Cscr-featured.svg
Thank you very much. :) Durova (talk) 23:14, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

Hola[edit]

Hola senriotia toda bien ? was checking out the pics.. they're pretty cool. I have no luck in finding books etc... the snobbish family not giving them... IDangerMouse (talk) 10:13, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

Muy bien, gracias. Maybe you know a professor who has a book collection that would be of use? Durova (talk) 16:35, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

FP thoughts[edit]

I given some thoughts to the problems at FP I'd appreciate your opinion before I take to the wider community, please look at User:Gnangarra/Sandbox/FP thoughts and make any suggestions Gnangarra 00:19, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

Francesco Muttoni - notebook[edit]

I left a message on w:it:Utente:Marcok. He should be able to help. I met him when I was in Veneto taking pictures of Palladio-buildings in 2007. Haros (talk) 21:46, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

Wonderful, thank you very much. :) Durova (talk) 23:06, 22 January 2009 (UTC)
Et voila. Haros took remarkable pictures of almost all villas by Palladio, which I used later in Wikiproject Palladio of it.wiki, obtaining texts and drawings from CISA (from their website only for now, so low-res drawings). I live in Vicenza, a former architect, and I'd like to support your efforts (for what I can). Sorry but I don't speak german ;) --Marcok (talk) 10:42, 25 January 2009 (UTC)
Thank you! It's a pleasure. The full manuscript is digitized in high resolution here.[1] About half the pages are notes, so perhaps you could identify them from that? I keep wondering how many of these structures have been altered over time. Was afraid of getting attempted identifications wrong, but if you double checked it would be a huge relief. Also, a significant number of these sketches have marginal notes. Been wondering how important it is to retain those margins for restoration purposes. Warmest regards, Durova (talk) 19:39, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

Still waiting...[edit]

See my talk page. Your source appears to be quite weak. 68.213.169.171 19:00, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

The discussions were closed several days ago. A courtesy link was provided to clear up a point which you had misunderstood; that's not the same thing as a continuation of debate. Durova (talk) 19:31, 25 January 2009 (UTC)
I ask you about a point I don't understand. You say "Look here." I look there and it still doesn't clear things up. So I ask you to clarify. Your response is, "this discussion is over." I'm not trying to debate anything. Obviously I don't understand something that you understand "clearly". Why won't you explain it to me? 68.213.169.171 23:53, 28 January 2009 (UTC)
Well, you join an ongoing discussion that is achieving unanimous consensus and expound at length upon an unrelated principle, apparently because you neither read the upload notes nor the linked bibliographic data. Then someone had the courtesy to visit your user talk afterward, and again you demonstrated aggressive misunderstanding of a second concept: work for hire. Now you raise a third set of objections. It is rather easy to read references that are already provided and to look up terms on Wikipedia. When you refuse to help yourself, other people become reluctant to help you. Currently I am restoring an eighteenth century Japanese woodcut, which is 186MB in uncompressed TIFF format. That seems to be a better use of my time, and more help to the project. If you wish to seek a mentor suggest you ask for one at the site's messageboards. Durova (talk) 00:22, 29 January 2009 (UTC)
I'm sorry, but are we talking about the same thing? I nominated some pictures for deletion because they were copyvios. I didn't join any discussion "close to unanimous consensus", I started a discussion.I don't have "a third set of objections", I have questions about a page that you say explains it all. It doesn't. I read and understand completely the concept of "work for hire", but the concept doesn't apply to the situation in question (the person/people who worked on these paintings weren't employees of the government at the time they created these works and the page you wanted me to read agrees with me). I quoted directly from that page and showed you what I understood them to mean. You indeed did give me the courtesy of responding on my talk page, but then you belittled me when I showed that you appeared to be wrong, accused me of not reading what was there (if I didn't read it, then how did I copy several sentences from it?), belittled/insulted me, and refused to discuss it. You call this "help"? Please stop being so condescending.
If you don't want to discuss it or help at all, fine. Why didn't you just point me toward a message board I should go to? Which one? 68.213.169.171 00:45, 29 January 2009 (UTC)
Are you saying you are Dantadd then? Durova (talk) 00:53, 29 January 2009 (UTC)
??? uh, no. Near as I can tell, we've never interacted. My identity is irrelevant. If you don't want to help, just say so. I'll go ask someone else. 68.213.169.171 02:18, 29 January 2009 (UTC)
I first found you when you commented on the deletion nomination of an image I restored, which had been nominated by Dantadd. Your participation there was vigorous, and interaction since has not been positive. Wishing you the best; hoping your encounters with other Commons editors are better. Durova (talk) 03:06, 29 January 2009 (UTC)
??? Sorry, but you have me confused with someone else. 68.213.169.171 05:53, 29 January 2009 (UTC)
Not at all.[2][3][4][5] You attempted to put forward a freedom of panorama rationale, neglecting to note that it was the artist's study for a mural that was under discussion--not the mural itself. Wikimedia Commons is an image repository, not a debate club, yet on the basis of this you are liable to reporting for disruption and possible sockpuppetry. The discussion has been closed for a week. You happen to be talking to a site administrator, and I will ask my colleagues to review your conduct if you carry this any farther. Durova (talk) 06:06, 29 January 2009 (UTC)
Oh, THAT was the image you were talking about. I thought you were talking about the deletion discussion I started. My participation may have been vigorous, but I still believe it to be a correct analysis, though a misunderstanding of the work of art. The discussion was closed after I put in my input, not before. By adding my own opinion, I was contributing to the discussion. In any case, I'll abide by the decision
"You attempted to put forward a freedom of panorama rationale, neglecting to note that it was the artist's study for a mural that was under discussion--not the mural itself." I didn't neglect anything. I guess I misunderstood "It is a mural in the Library of Congress" to mean it was a mural on the wall in the Library of Congress, not part of the LoC collections. Why don't you assume good faith on this and just admit I could have misunderstood?
Let's take this one step further. I would have vehemently opposed more had I understood that this work was never a PD image (it isn't!). Just because someone did something for the Federal Government, it doesn't make the person/entity lose their ability to claim copyright. I simply made an argument that didn't apply in this instance. A mistake is not disruption.
The discussion may have been closed for a week, but that doesn't mean I understand where I'm missing the point you, and others, have made (obviously successfully). I asked for assistance from the closing admin and his rationale was, essentially, "I found the arguments of those who said keep most compelling". My followup was, "so, where am I misunderstanding this policy?" Your response to that on my talk page was "read this". I read it and found only the same thing that is apparently puzzling me. I asked you for clarification and you accuse me of being a sockpuppet and threaten action against me. All I want is a explanation as to where I am misreading policy. Near as I can tell:
  1. Simply fulfilling a contract for the U.S. Government does not mean your work is automatically PD.
  2. The same does not hold true for employees of the Federal Government and their work is PD.
  3. Policy/guidelines on this do not back up the assertion that "#1 is false and all contracted works are PD"
  4. Where am I wrong in this assessment?
  5. What policy contradicts me?
Please don't lecture me on what Wikimedia Commons is and isn't. I've been using Wikipedia for years and am well aware of its policies and guidelines and associations with other "Wiki"s. I am a veteran user. Don't beat me over the head with pointless accusations either. I am not "liable for disruption". If disagreement is disruption, then there is no hope for any Wiki out there as admins would simply create edicts and anyone who disagreed with them would be blocked/banned.
Lastly, don't threaten me with "don't disagree or question anything I do. I'm a site administrator! I'll block you!" Seriously, that's the best threat you could come up with? If you are an admin, you should know better than to threaten other users. You are little more than a glorified user with a few extra tools. Now if you have anything to prove sockpuppetry, I welcome you to try, but since you don't have anything other than my disagreement, you will absolutely fail. I am not who you apparently think I am.
In short, I was asking for assistance/clarification from an admin about a concept. The only "explanation" I've received is "you lost, now just shut up." Quite frankly, that kind of attitude doesn't cut the mustard and doesn't help me understand anything. If you don't want to answer anything, fine, just point me in the right direction and I'll be on my merry way. 68.213.169.171 00:47, 30 January 2009 (UTC)
Oh, and one last thing. The fact that I'm editing from an IP address is completely irrelevant. I can do so if I wish to and I choose to do so. 68.213.169.171 00:55, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

Sock puppet image[edit]

Did you actually make a troll sock puppet just to take the picture?

--65.127.188.10 23:25, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

Yes. Durova (talk) 23:39, 28 January 2009 (UTC)
Should nominate it for FPC on Wikipedia. --Uncle.Bungle
lol, thank you. :) Let's hope it never needs to become encyclopedic enough. Btw there's a (partially completed) module at Wikiversity about how to make troll sockpuppets. The kind you'd make with glue and scissors. All the best, Durova (talk) 02:17, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

Heads up[edit]

Based on User_talk:Durova/Archive_4#Still_waiting..., in addition to other recent disruptive behavior, I have blocked both 69.153.70.180 (talk · contribs) and 68.213.169.171 (talk · contribs) for disruptive socking. Cirt (talk) 01:15, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

That's a relief. I'll unprotect the page now. Durova (talk) 01:36, 30 January 2009 (UTC)