User talk:Durova/Archive 5

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


Featured picture promotion[edit]

Layla and Majnun2.jpg
This image has been promoted to Featured picture!

The image File:Layla and Majnun2.jpg, that you nominated on Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Layla and Majnun2.jpg has been promoted. Thank you for your contribution. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so.

Thank you very much. :) Durova (talk) 18:05, 30 January 2009 (UTC)


Please see Commons:Administrators'_noticeboard/User_problems#Inappropriate_redirect_of_an_IP_address_page_to_userspace.2C_and_inappropriate_username. Cirt (talk) 17:53, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for the heads up. I wish to disengage from interaction with that person. But (cite this if you want), IP addresses do change hands and this individual has already used more than one. So I share your doubts about the username. Although, of course, I'll recuse from taking action. Best regards, Durova (talk) 18:08, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

FP promotion[edit]

The camel corps at Beersheba2.jpg
This image has been promoted to Featured picture!

The image File:The camel corps at Beersheba2.jpg, that you nominated on Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:The camel corps at Beersheba2.jpg has been promoted. Thank you for your contribution. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so.


--D-Kuru (talk) 20:50, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

Thank you. :) Durova (talk) 22:09, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

FP promotion[edit]

Ase o fuku onna2.jpg
This image has been promoted to Featured picture!

The image File:Ase o fuku onna2.jpg, that you nominated on Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Ase o fuku onna2.jpg has been promoted. Thank you for your contribution. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so.


Best regards.--Mywood (talk) 22:04, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

Thank you very much. :) Durova (talk) 22:19, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

A potencial FP[edit]


This file in high resolution here at, where there are hosted some 120.00 masters files from Nara. Hope this is helpfull. Tm (talk) 02:51, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

It's a wonderful moving shot that we really need to get in a technically better version. Durova (talk) 18:15, 17 February 2009 (UTC)


Hi! I've uploaded the original image here, but MediaWiki is refusing to create the thumbnail of the image - do you think I should reduce the size of the uploaded image, or convert it to a different format? The same problem will probabally apply to the cleaned up version, so I'd like to know what to do before I upload the cleaned up version. Thanks, Stwalkerstertalk ] 12:20, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

MediaWiki software doesn't thumbnail .png files that are over 12.5MB. So convert to .jpg for comparison purposes. Thanks! Durova (talk) 18:16, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

Greetings from Dupont[edit]

Hi Durova. I was told you were the person to contact in regards to getting someone's opinion on this image. I've never submitted a photo to COM:QIC, so I'm not sure if the image qualifies. It's one of the few color photos I can find of that historic and demolished neighborhood. Sorry for the newbie-type inquiry, but until recently I've never been very involved with Commons. If you can take a look at it, that would be great. If not, no problemo. Cheers.

P.S. I'm loving this image. I came across it while uploading something similar.

AgnosticPreachersKid (talk) 17:43, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

I love that photo of D.C. Looked it over a few times too, but didn't know what encyclopedic value it had. Thanks for the information about the neighborhood. Yes, it should definitely qualify as a historic shot of the neighborhood. Your added background even tempts me to restore it for featured picture consideration. Or would you rather? I'd be glad to coach in image editing if you're interested. Good find! Durova (talk) 18:20, 17 February 2009 (UTC)
Thanks for the offer and I'm definitely interested in improving my image editing skills. I've been using Picasa, so I don't know if that makes a difference (in case you only use Photoshop). If you want to restore the image to featured status, that's no problem. It would probably turn out better. ;-) It's up to you. Once I get back into article-writing mode, I plan on expanding the SWDC-related articles and that image will come in handy. During my recent WikiBreak I purchased several books about DC's neighborhoods and researched the SW quadrant's history. I find it very fascinating that an entire area of the city was bulldozed and for most people, forgotten. AgnosticPreachersKid (talk) 19:59, 17 February 2009 (UTC)
Oh yeah, did you notice the posters hanging in Shulman's windows? They're pictures of Hitler, Mussolini, and Hirohito. AgnosticPreachersKid (talk) 20:15, 17 February 2009 (UTC)
Well, GIMP is a very good free image editor. If you'd like to take this on email me and I'll give you my Skype ID. We've got a group of restorationists and you'd get plenty of coaching/assistance. Otherwise leave word and I'll add it to my workpile. All the best, Durova (talk) 21:19, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

Requesting mentorship[edit]

Hi. Since you're an admin here on Commons, you have ∞ featured pictures (and media's what Commons is about), and you've served as a mentor for many a sanctioned user via ENWP arbitration, could you please by my mentor here? Thanks. Signed, Commons newbie, Dylan620 | The village idiot babbles on 23:24, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

Hi, what exactly are you seeking in terms of mentorship? Durova (talk) 23:47, 17 February 2009 (UTC)
In general, important processes, copyrights, policies, and how to help. I suppose this was a good start for me. Signed, Commons newbie, Dylan620 | The village idiot babbles on 00:12, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

Well, I'm glad to answer questions as you have them. If you're interested in image restoration I'd be thrilled with that. :) Durova (talk) 00:14, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

I guess you can consider yourself thrilled then! But, how do you restore images? Is there any specific place where I can find images in need of restoration? --Dylan620 | The village idiot babbles on 00:21, 18 February 2009 (UTC)
I'd be glad to pass you a few. If you don't have Photoshop you could download GIMP, which is free. Email me for my Skype ID and I'll bring you on board. We do most of our restoration collaboration via that client; it's pretty good for it (and also free). Best, Durova (talk) 00:59, 18 February 2009 (UTC)
Ah, OK! Is there any way I could retouch this? No offense to the uploader, but it looks very off-color and blurry. --Dylan620 | The village idiot babbles on 02:11, 18 February 2009 (UTC)
You could try. Bear in mind that it's blown up from an extremely low quality thumbnail. Probably not much can be done from that file. Durova (talk) 02:16, 18 February 2009 (UTC)
Either way, I'm hoping to have Photoshop/GIMP set up by the weekend. But how do I e-mail you for your "Skype ID?" --Dylan620 | The village idiot babbles on 02:58, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

Click the 'Email this user' link in the toolbox at the left edge of my user page. If your email is enabled, you can use it to contact me. Durova (talk) 06:25, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

FP Promotion[edit]

Biograph poster2.jpg
This image has been promoted to Featured picture!

The image File:Biograph poster2.jpg, that you nominated on Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Biograph poster2.jpg has been promoted. Thank you for your contribution. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so.


Best regards.--Mywood (talk) 12:05, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

Thank you! :) Durova (talk) 21:08, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

File:The Journey2.jpg[edit]

Hallo Durova,

ich halte Deine Bearbeitung von File:The Journey.jpg für unangebracht. Das Resultat ist immer noch zu dunkel und zu blau. Schade, dass Du das nicht siehst!

Mit freundlichen Grüßen

ArtMechanic (talk) 23:10, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

Ja, zuerst hatte ich auch eine ähnliche Idee. Hier sind die Farbenbalance und Histogramm aber typisch für Künstler aus der USA im Jugendstil. Zum beispiel, Louis Comfort Tiffany.

Auch hier. Nicht wahr? Durova (talk) 03:15, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

Glasmalerei, Lampenschirme usw. sind keineswegs mit anderen Kunstwerken vergleichbar. Farben, Kontrast und sonstige Merkmale sind völlig anders. -- ArtMechanic (talk) 00:05, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

Re: Moving forward.[edit]

I'm ready. I just added the file to the biography page. However, I'm not sure it's in the best possible place. Do you think Water Babies might be a notable topic? If so, I'll create an article on it when I get a chance (most likely tomorrow night). ErikTheBikeMan (talk) 19:19, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

Nevermind that, I just found the article. I've added the image there instead. I just downloaded another image from the article to restore. That should hopefully be done by the end of the weekend. ErikTheBikeMan (talk) 19:23, 26 February 2009 (UTC)
Wonderful. Want to write up the featured picture candidacy? You can do two, actually. COM:FPC here and en:WP:FPC at the sister site. Durova (talk) 19:39, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

Hi Luc (answer)[edit]

Thank you your compliment, but there is another photo that has more to vote here It is not yet won this year ;) --Luc Viatour (talk) 06:14, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

Category:Illustrations of the Iraq War[edit]

Category:Illustrations of the Iraq War[edit]

Commons-emblem-issue.svg Category:Illustrations of the Iraq War has been listed at Commons:Deletion requests so that the community can discuss whether it should be kept or not. We would appreciate it if you could go to voice your opinion about this at its entry.

If you created this category, please note that the fact that it has been proposed for deletion does not necessarily mean that we do not value your kind contribution. It simply means that one person believes that there is some specific problem with it, such as a copyright issue.
Please remember to respond to and – if appropriate – contradict the arguments supporting deletion. Arguments which focus on the nominator will not affect the result of the nomination. Thank you!

Afrikaans | العربية | বাংলা | Беларуская (тарашкевіца)‎ | Català | Čeština | Dansk | Deutsch | Deutsch (Sie-Form)‎ | Zazaki | Ελληνικά | English | Esperanto | Español | Eesti | فارسی | Suomi | Français | Galego | עברית | Magyar | Bahasa Indonesia | Íslenska | Italiano | 日本語 | 한국어 | Македонски | മലയാളം | Plattdüütsch | Nederlands | Norsk nynorsk | Norsk bokmål | Occitan | Polski | Português | Português do Brasil | Română | Русский | Slovenčina | Slovenščina | Српски / srpski | Svenska | Türkçe | українська | Tiếng Việt | 中文 | 中文(简体)‎ | 中文(繁體)‎ | +/−

--Drork (talk) 19:51, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

DYK image protection[edit]

I've heard there's a template that non-admins can use to request that certain images be protected on Commons. Is that true? There are quite a few Commons DYK images that will be appearing on En's main page soon: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5. Shubinator (talk) 01:14, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

I'm not actually aware of DYK images being protected. Has someone been handling that? Durova (talk) 01:16, 7 March 2009 (UTC)
Not really. We're confused too. There was a short discussion here, and some here. I think we agreed that there was a bot, but it's not reliable. Shubinator (talk) 01:18, 7 March 2009 (UTC)
Plus a bot just does an upload to would probably be best for the servers if the image was already protected here, so no moving around happened. Hopefully the bot would detect if it's already protected here though. Shubinator (talk) 01:21, 7 March 2009 (UTC)
Is there something specific you want me to do? Durova (talk) 01:43, 7 March 2009 (UTC)
It would be great if you could protect the images I've listed above. If we could get a Commons admin to check the DYK queue occasionally (maybe once a day) to protect pictures, that would also be good. Shubinator (talk) 02:03, 7 March 2009 (UTC)
Scratch 2 and 3, those have already been protected. Shubinator (talk) 04:17, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

File promotion[edit]

Currier and Ives Liberty2.jpg
This image has been promoted to Featured picture!

The image File:Currier and Ives Liberty2.jpg, that you nominated on Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Currier and Ives Liberty2.jpg has been promoted. Thank you for your contribution. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so.


--Karel (talk) 19:47, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

Thank you. Durova (talk) 20:56, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

Join the Navy![edit]

Were you really in the American Navy? Maybe we met when I was in the Naval Postgraduate School, in Monterey, CA, a loong time ago... When did you leave? -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 09:03, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

Nope, wasn't there. I was a Navy Photographer's Mate. :) Durova (talk) 21:25, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

Clear the air[edit]

Thanks for your explanations about the project. I believe the air is clear enough now, but that is not enough to solve the problem, hélas! Please don't count me among the agressively hostile users. As I said several times by now, I sympathize with the idea of creating a MOR page. Still, I don't agree that should be done under the umbrella of the present FPC page. I think the ball is in your side now to propose a viable solution for evaluating and promoting restoration jobs. -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 23:28, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

Oh, by all means you don't seem to be either aggressive or hostile. I'm very sorry if that appeared to be the implication of my words. The restorationists have been discussing your excellent work these last few days, by the way. Occasionally we look for quality illustrations that aren't used at English Wikipedia yet and add them to articles there. Your name keeps coming up as one of the best photographers. Cheers! Durova (talk) 00:47, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

Help for image restoration[edit]


I see that you have been doing image restoration, so I ask you if you could help restoring the images below, and more importantly, explain me how to do it. I was told on QIC candidates than they have "too much noise." Thanks, Yann (talk) 16:03, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

What you've actually got there is JPEG artifacting. These are interesting photos; would it be possible to either get better versions of these particular files or to get newer photography? We don't usually depend on historic material unless it carries unique value in a scene that has changed. So for landscapes--a cliffside before a mudslide, or a mountain glacier decades ago before the glacier retreated. Best regards, Durova (talk) 22:45, 16 March 2009 (UTC)
These were digitalized from slides made 20 years ago. I've mentioned this in the description. It was done by a professional, not by me. I am not doing mountainering any more, so I won't be able to make these again. Yann (talk) 17:17, 17 March 2009 (UTC)
Well, they seem to be quite good images as they are. Probably fine for most encylopedic uses. Durova (talk) 02:59, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

FP promotion[edit]

Democratic presidential ticket 1864b.jpg
This image has been promoted to Featured picture!

The image File:Democratic presidential ticket 1864b.jpg, that you nominated on Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Democratic presidential ticket 1864b.jpg has been promoted. Thank you for your contribution. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so.


Republican presidential ticket 1864b.jpg
This image has been promoted to Featured picture!

The image File:Republican presidential ticket 1864b.jpg, that you nominated on Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Republican presidential ticket 1864b.jpg has been promoted. Thank you for your contribution. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so.

Thank you very much. :) Durova (talk) 03:00, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

TIFF File format[edit]

Hi, Please upload your image File:Couple_under_umbrella_in_snow.tif with compatible formats. Thanks for your contribution. -- Meisam (talk) 18:15, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

Hi, as the notes on the 'other versions' line state, the TIFF format is deliberate. Brion Vibber recently enabled TIFF uploads for the restoration project, although they don't thumbnail yet. See Commons:Potential_restorations for more information. Follow up here if any questions remain. Best regards, Durova (talk) 18:25, 22 March 2009 (UTC)
Sorry I didn't see the other versions section. Thanks again. -- Meisam (talk) 19:07, 22 March 2009 (UTC)
Thank you for your diligence. :) All the best, Durova (talk) 19:11, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

Your Wikiversity restoration howto[edit]

I don't know how often you log onto Wikiversity, so I'll copy the suggestion I made here:

The example image shows a color scale in the uncropped original. I propose to perform the color adjustment on the uncropped version to have the color scale as an objective measure. You'd need to move point 6. to the top. Suggesting auto adjustment seems a bit inappropriate if you are striving for accuracy. --Dschwen (talk) 17:22, 24 March 2009 (UTC)
Replied at Wikiversity, thanks for the comments. Durova (talk) 18:17, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

FP promotion[edit]

Currier and Ives Brooklyn Bridge2.jpg
This image has been promoted to Featured picture!

The image File:Currier and Ives Brooklyn Bridge2.jpg, that you nominated on Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Currier and Ives Brooklyn Bridge2.jpg has been promoted. Thank you for your contribution. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so.

Thank you very much. :) Durova (talk) 21:49, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

Princess Maria Pia of Braganza[edit]

Hello Durova. Could you please transfer the Princess Maria Pia of Saxe-Coburg and Gotha Braganza picture to Commons? It will help to illustrate their articles in other languages. Thank you! 22:43, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

Restoration How to[edit]

Hey Durova.

I was chatting on IRC about image restoration and your name came out as the person to talk to. I have uploaded multiple images to commons from the library of congress. They can be found at User:Diaa_abdelmoneim/gallery . I usually just cropped the image, clicked on auto level than added the sharpen filter, using photoshop cs3. Would this be the conduct to go on from? I work with the tiff files from the Library of congress and learned now that images have to be of 2mp quality to qualify for featured status. The library has only images of lower resolution but with the tiff files upscaled the images look clearer on jpeg.

Would u please take a look at

and give me your opinion on my work?

I heared you created a how to guide like Help:Scanning is this true? And if not would u create one?

I'd really like to be a restortionist because this is the history of the world that could get lost in case of fires or whatever. Having images online means having them forever even if anything happens.

Awaiting your reply.--Diaa abdelmoneim (talk) 23:25, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

FP promotion[edit]

Barnum & Bailey clowns and geese2.jpg
This image has been promoted to Featured picture!

The image File:Barnum & Bailey clowns and geese2.jpg, that you nominated on Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Barnum & Bailey clowns and geese2.jpg has been promoted. Thank you for your contribution. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so.


Commons:Featured picture candidates/Image:B'nai B'rith membership certificate 1876.jpg[edit]

It's ready. I haven't added it to the list of candidates yet, I'll leave that to you once it's prepared to your satisfaction =) Adam Cuerden (talk) 17:40, 17 April 2009 (UTC)


One other thing: you use TIFFs and I don'tm so could you check whether this seems accurate to you, and if I missed anything important. I agree we should allow TIFFs, and can understand you wanting to prime the pump a bit, but am not sure we should be advocating TIFFs too generally, as they're not particularly well-supported, particularly by browsers. Adam Cuerden (talk) 17:54, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

Important proposal[edit]

I wrote a proposal for equalizing the different picture formats on FPC Please have a look. Best regards --Richard Bartz (talk) 20:37, 17 April 2009 (UTC)


I hope you don't mind, but I've tweaked thee description page a little. No comment on the FP noms until I have a chance to review it properly, but my initial impression is that it looks great. Adam Cuerden (talk) 04:57, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

I'm really not a fan of that template. Thanks for the spelling correction. Durova (talk) 22:53, 26 April 2009 (UTC)
I think the template's a good idea, though: If the LoC ever changes their site architecture, the template can (probably) be updated to fix everything that uses it (or at least to do a search for the digital ID), but links cannot be. Adam Cuerden (talk) 14:41, 28 April 2009 (UTC)


*sigh* This is getting to be a habit of co-nominators being skipped. I know you co-nominate with a lot of new restorationists: I'd suggest making sure their name is first, or double-checking they're credited. Anyway, from my talk page... Adam Cuerden (talk) 14:41, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

B'nai B'rith membership certificate 1876.jpg
This image has been promoted to Featured picture!

The image Image:B'nai B'rith membership certificate 1876.jpg, that you nominated on Commons:Featured picture candidates/Image:B'nai B'rith membership certificate 1876.jpg has been promoted. Thank you for your contribution. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so.

Thank you. Durova (talk) 20:56, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

FP promotion[edit]

Midsummer Night's Dream Henry Fuseli2.jpg
This image has been promoted to Featured picture!

The image File:Midsummer Night's Dream Henry Fuseli2.jpg, that you nominated on Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Midsummer Night's Dream Henry Fuseli2.jpg has been promoted. Thank you for your contribution. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so.

Thank you. Durova (talk) 20:57, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

I see things :-)[edit]

Hi Durova. There is no question about the precious time you spend in restoring and this is nothing personal. My brother in law was working at the Federal Archive of Germany as a restorer. I dont know all the rules and techniques but a few by narrations - mostly when strange things happened. And here I have the feeling that you have made arbitrary decisions. --Richard Bartz (talk) 22:52, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

Some criticisms and opposes are right on target: they point to issues I'd had concerns about or raise new ones I hadn't previously noticed. Shoemaker's Holiday usually provides very insightful feedback, particularly on engravings and lithographs. After about 300 nominations across projects I've come to expect a constant rate of about 20% nomination failures over spurious rationales. There's a little offsite file I keep of the most memorable ones. One opposed because he doubted the Petrograd Women's Regiment of World War I was composed of women, another insisted the most famous ballroom dance couple of the early twentieth century was doing the tango wrong, and a third criticized an artificial color process for producing (you guessed it) artifical color. And after a really difficult file I spent three days doing gets sunk over something like that, a little job I turned out in an hour gets praised as superlative restoration. By turns, it's hilarious or depressing. The thing is, very few people actually do restorations themselves. Three days ago a European museum reviewed one of my restorations of an image which, through separate means, they happened to also hold a separate copy of in their own collection. They had paid someone to restore their image and compared the two. I hadn't known anything about that until someone got back to me with a query about restoration credit, because the museum had decided they preferred my work and wanted to host it. If it goes live online I'll be sure to give you a link. Best regards, Durova (talk) 04:32, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

Checking out some material on a deleted image[edit]

Hey durova, I was hoping you could do me a favor. File:Brown rat distribution.png was created using the image originally located at Image:Leefgebied bruine rat.jpg. This caused the latter to be deleted as a dupe, but i was wondering if there was any referenced material which got deleted, showing where the original uploader got their information. If there is anything useful on the deleted image's description page, would you kindly move it to the exisitng page at File:Brown rat distribution.png? Thanks! Zappernapper (talk) 07:26, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

FP promotion[edit]

Under the horse chestnut tree2.jpg
This image has been promoted to Featured picture!

The image File:Under the horse chestnut tree2.jpg, that you nominated on Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Under the horse chestnut tree2.jpg has been promoted. Thank you for your contribution. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so.

Thank you. :) Durova (talk) 17:21, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

FP promotion[edit]

Stocking factory2.jpg
This image has been promoted to Featured picture!

The image File:Stocking factory2.jpg, that you nominated on Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Stocking factory2.jpg has been promoted. Thank you for your contribution. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so.

Thank you. :) Durova (talk) 17:21, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

Film trailer images[edit]

Hi Durova, Last year you raised a comment here about the use of screenshots from old film trailers - Commons talk:Licensing/Archive 13#Film trailers. In it you mention running it by Mike Godwin to see what he thinks from a legal point of view. I've thought of a couple of questions, but I don't even know where to ask them. Do you know if there was anything further from this discussion and specifically, if Mike Godwin was consulted? Thanks Rossrs (talk) 09:01, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the reminder. What are your questions? I should follow up on that. Durova (talk) 14:59, 11 May 2009 (UTC)
Well, I'm prompted by this File:Bette Davis in That Certain Woman trailer.jpg being listed as a copyright violation. So my questions are -
If the trailer says "Warner Bros proudly presents That Certain Woman copyright 1941" (or something similar) is this a copyright notice for the film because that is what is referred to, or the trailer because that is where it appears?
If the latter, does this mean that the tag ({{PD-US-no notice}}) is wrong, but assuming that the trailer copyright was not renewed, a different copyright tag should be used? It's the "assuming" part that I see as a problem. Does "industry standard" really follow that trailers are assumed to be out of copyright if produced before 1964, or is it a fact, and is "industry standard" enough for us? "Industry standard" seems to be applied in documentaries, for example, where old trailers, retaining text and subtitles to indicate that they are from the trailer rather than the film, are used. Example - File:Ruth Hussey in Flight Command trailer 2.jpg
If the trailer does not display anything resembling a copyright notice, is it then correct that it was released without a copyright notice and can be used accordingly?
Is there any authoritative site that could be used as a reference one way or the other? Admittedly a lot of the images link to the Sabu Cat site as justification, and they're "Mom and Pop", as you said. Not authoritative by any stretch of the imagination.
I'd appreciate anything you can find out. I'm a bit concerned, as I have uploaded a lot of images, and I'd be sorry to see them go, but if they don't meet the right criteria, they need to go. Sorry for throwing so many unexpected questions your way, but it's not an easy issue. Thanks. Rossrs (talk) 22:25, 11 May 2009 (UTC)
Basically it needs a better knowledge of copyright law than I have in order to make a firm determination. The rationale seems to be this: the trailers were published under an older version of US copyright law, and published prior to publication of the film itself, and the trailers weren't registered for copyright separately. So the argument is that specific film frames used in trailers have lapsed into public domain from motion pictures released during a certain era of US copyright law. A handful of businesses sell still frames from old trailers under that rationale, yet as far as I could tell those all seemed to be mom and pop outfits on the fringes of the industry. I'm unaware whether that argument has ever been tested in court, or whether the big players just don't see those mom-and-pops as worth the trouble of going after. Durova (talk) 05:05, 12 May 2009 (UTC)
Thanks. Well, your take on it, seems to be pretty similar to mine at least in regards to the rationale you mention. I don't know if it's ever been tested in court either I've tried to find some record, but I haven't been able to. I guess the issue will continue to resurface here from time to time until it's resolved one way or another. Rossrs (talk) 13:01, 12 May 2009 (UTC)


I'm not sure what you want us to do with this ticket, it confirms nothing more than is already on the image page. BJTalk 00:05, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

What do you need? Durova (talk) 02:14, 7 June 2009 (UTC)
Self-taken and uploaded images are normally reviewed on Commons for copyright status. The ticket contains nothing but a email address that isn't tied to a flirk account, photographer or anything else, it has no more info that is on Commons. What do you want me to confirm? BJTalk 11:12, 7 June 2009 (UTC)
It's a new user who doesn't understand the procedure. I gave him some boilerplate text. Apparently he didn't use it? Will follow up at his talk page. Durova (talk) 03:03, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

We have an email from the user with proper permissions. There is no doubt in my mind they are the same person. However, the email is not associated with anything like a flickr account, company, or photographer. The ticket contains no more information that is already on commons. I'm not seeing what OTRS is supposed to be confirming here. BJTalk 04:46, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

Please advise[edit]

Hi Durova. I uploaded an image from the Sense About Science website and it got deleted. I probably did something wrong, maybe chose the wrong category. See:

What can be done? BullRangifer (talk) 01:34, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

You could ask the owner of the site to relicense it, or else you could upload to en:wiki and attempt a nonfree image use rationale. Durova (talk) 03:10, 11 June 2009 (UTC)
OK, I have uploaded it to en:wiki, but didn't see any "nonfree image" use possibility to choose from:
Will this survive, or can you tweak it for me? BullRangifer (talk) 04:46, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

Please see discussion here. BullRangifer (talk) 05:50, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

New Star for You[edit]

Random Acts of Kindness Barnstar.png The Random Acts of Kindness Barnstar
I hereby award you the Kindness Barnstar for your for you kind support in my quest for the open and public truth.Smile Thank you very much.!--Mbz1 (talk) 11:30, 30 June 2009 (UTC)
Thank you, and here's hoping it turns out well for everyone. :) Durova (talk) 23:22, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

FP promotion[edit]

Connecticut Yankee4.jpg
This image has been promoted to Featured picture!

The image File:Connecticut Yankee4.jpg, that you nominated on Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Connecticut Yankee4.jpg has been promoted. Thank you for your contribution. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so.

Thank you. :) Durova (talk) 15:45, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

FP promotion[edit]

California island Vinckeboons5.jpg
This image has been promoted to Featured picture!

The image File:California island Vinckeboons5.jpg, that you nominated on Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:California island Vinckeboons5.jpg has been promoted. Thank you for your contribution. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so.


Featured picture promotion on commons[edit]

William Berryman Plantain Walk2.jpg
This image has been promoted to Featured picture!

The image File:William Berryman Plantain Walk2.jpg, that you nominated on Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:William Berryman Plantain Walk2.jpg has been promoted. Thank you for your contribution. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so.

Thank you (and above). :) Durova (talk) 03:28, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

Question re old postcards[edit]

Hello Durova:

I have several albums of colored b/w postcards dating from c. 1912-1920, of sight in New Jersey, Chicago, Havana, Washington DC (including the LOC!). Most have been in albums all these years and are in perfect condition, and I can restore the ones that are not. Some have handwriting on the back with a postmark and stamp. A couple are really nice. Some say "copyright" on them. 1. Are these all legal to upload? 2. Fronts only? 3. Would it make sense to make a 'collection' (say, of the DC sights), and if so, how would I organize them - or would it be better to just create a category like "Major buildings in Washington DC c. 1912"? Or not make a collection and just put each one in the category of the sight in the picture, if it exists? 4. What do you think the appropriate size/resolution should be? Would it be different for those not in perfect condition? 5. Do you think there's value in uploading all of them? I have quite a few, probably about 80.

Thanks a lot, Downtowngal (talk) 14:20, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

If these were published in the United States before 1923 then they would all be in public domain by now. The presence of a copyright mark is not relevant: those copyrights have all expired. And yes, you may scan both sides. My preference is the higher resolution the better. Consider perhaps an uncompressed format such as PNG and if possible 10MB files or larger, which would be high enough resolution for serious restoration. Help:Scanning is a good guide. Thanks very much for your interest. :) Durova (talk) 15:35, 21 July 2009 (UTC)
Hi Durova: Thanks - I've been scanning photochrom postcards on a little HP three-in-one scanner, and not always pleased with the results. At first I did 600 dpi but those were way too big considering that the images were never sharp to begin with, so after a few I used 300 dpi. The problem I'm most concerned with is that in some large dark areas I see purple, green and yellow banding in close-up, or color noise as in the boardwalk at File:Boardwalk_and_Hotel_Traymore,_Atlantic_City,_New_Jersey.png
that was not present in the original. I'm concerned that by providing too much detail I'm actually degrading the final version. The screen displays are larger and considerably noisier than the postcards. Any suggestions? Should I just save the final image as a smaller size before uploading? (I don't do a complete restoration, so if anyone really cares they will usually want the larger file)
Also, what method (briefly) do you recommend to get rid of long lines on the image from a folded corner? Healing brush makes a blur and clone stamp takes a long time.
You can see more scans in my gallery.
BTW, I have a folder with superb photochroms of NYC from c. 1915 that are in perfect condition, and I can't wait to get them up.
Thanks. Downtowngal (talk) 23:46, 5 August 2009 (UTC)
Interesting problem. This is often found with a scanner that's slightly out of alignment between the three colour bands. Scanners attempt to correct themselves, so it's possible that another scan will fix it, particularly if you were holding it steady yourself the first time - a tiny movement when the scanner's aligning itself might've been enough to cause it.
In black and white works, there are ways to deal with it easily, but I shouldn't care to try these with a colour work: Basically, you use (in GIMP; I presume that Photoshop has similar) the Hue-Saturation tool, and drop all colours but yellow and red to fully unsaturated, since a black and white image is extremely unlikely to have any other colours in its paper. This isn't a perfect result, but it's a lot easier to work around the problems of than the original problems. You *might* get away with a selective green and purple desaturation with this image, but you'd need to very carefully consider the result.
If all else fails, try a different resolution: A problematic image at a 400dpi scan can clear up at 500dpi on occasion. Adam Cuerden (talk) 04:22, 6 August 2009 (UTC)
Thanks, Adam. I have scanned another set of color postcards at 450 dpi and the problem isn't there. At 450 and 600 the scanner prints each colored dot of the lithograph/photochrom. At 300 the scanner melds them and the individual dots aren't visible. That may be problem: the scanner can't resolve the dots and prints the striped bands as an alternative. (The postcards were stationary on the scanner and the problem appeared only on some of them, in large areas of a single color). I'll rescan the problem ones and see if this fixes them. Downtowngal (talk) 20:11, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

File:Storming the bastille 4.jpg[edit]

...seems to have become corrupted. Could you look into reuploading this? Thanks. howcheng {chat} 17:48, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

FP promotion[edit]

Hispaniola Vinckeboons4.jpg
This image has been promoted to Featured picture!

The image File:Hispaniola Vinckeboons4.jpg, that you nominated on Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Hispaniola Vinckeboons4.jpg has been promoted. Thank you for your contribution. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so.


FP promotion[edit]

US Capitol 1814c.jpg
This image has been promoted to Featured picture!

The image File:US Capitol 1814c.jpg, that you nominated on Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:US Capitol 1814c.jpg has been promoted. Thank you for your contribution. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so.


Exposition universelle de 1900[edit]

Hello Durova,

Can you help me to restore this picture? Thank in advance!--Paris 16 (talk) 15:15, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

And this one. Thank you again!--Paris 16 (talk) 15:21, 2 August 2009 (UTC)
Those are temp files which don't display. Durova (talk) 05:04, 6 August 2009 (UTC)
This one and this one. Sorry!--Paris 16 (talk) 14:33, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

FP promotion[edit]

Can't please everyone2.jpg
This image has been promoted to Featured picture!

The image File:Can't please everyone2.jpg, that you nominated on Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Can't please everyone2.jpg has been promoted. Thank you for your contribution. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so.


FP promotion[edit]

Latrobe White House cropa2.jpg
This image has been promoted to Featured picture!

The image File:Latrobe White House cropa2.jpg, which was nominated by JovanCormac at Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Latrobe White House cropa2.jpg has been promoted. Thank you for your contribution. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so.


FP promotion[edit]

Mandarin duck woodcut3.jpg
This image has been promoted to Featured picture!

The image File:Mandarin duck woodcut3.jpg, that you nominated on Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Mandarin duck woodcut3.jpg has been promoted. Thank you for your contribution. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so.

Good as usual ;-) ZooFari 22:52, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

File:Havana 1639b.jpg[edit]

... also is not thumbnailing. Would you mind re-uploading this too? Thanks. howcheng {chat} 23:00, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

FP Promotion[edit]

Wicked Witch2.jpg
This image has been promoted to Featured picture!

The image File:Wicked Witch2.jpg, that you nominated on Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Wicked Witch2.jpg has been promoted. Thank you for your contribution. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so.


/FPCBot (talk) 09:57, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

FP Promotion[edit]

Gran calavera eléctrica2.jpg
This image has been promoted to Featured picture!

The image File:Gran calavera eléctrica2.jpg, that you nominated on Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Gran calavera eléctrica2.jpg has been promoted. Thank you for your contribution. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so.


/FPCBot (talk) 00:17, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

Jerusalem pano[edit]

According to the MediaWiki software, File:Jerusalem panorama early twentieth century.jpg and File:Jerusalem panorama early twentieth century2.jpg are identical. I think perhaps you uploaded the restored version over the unrestored version? howcheng {chat} 05:18, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

Right you are; good catch. Reverted. Durova (talk) 15:08, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

FP Promotion[edit]

Grant of arms2.jpg
This image has been promoted to Featured picture!

The image File:Grant of arms2.jpg, that you nominated on Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Grant of arms2.jpg has been promoted. Thank you for your contribution. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so.


/FPCBot (talk) 00:18, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

Tip: Categorizing images[edit]

Afrikaans | العربية | беларуская (тарашкевіца)‎ | català | čeština | dansk | Deutsch | Deutsch (Sie-Form)‎ | Ελληνικά | English | Esperanto | español | فارسی | suomi | français | galego | עברית | magyar | íslenska | italiano | 日本語 | ქართული | 한국어 | македонски | മലയാളം | Plattdüütsch | Nederlands | norsk bokmål | polski | português | português do Brasil | română | русский | slovenčina | slovenščina | српски / srpski | svenska | українська | Tiếng Việt | 中文 | 中文(简体)‎ | 中文(繁體)‎ | +/−

Hello, Durova!

Tip: Add categories to your images

Thanks a lot for contributing to the Wikimedia Commons! Here's a tip to make your uploads more useful: Why not add some categories to describe them? This will help more people to find and use them.

Here's how:

1) If you're using the UploadWizard, you can add categories to each file when you describe it. Just click "more options" for the file and add the categories which make sense:


2) You can also pick the file from your list of uploads, edit the file description page, and manually add the category code at the end of the page.

[[Category:Category name]]

For example, if you are uploading a diagram showing the orbits of comets, you add the following code:

[[Category:Astronomical diagrams]]

This will make the diagram show up in the categories "Astronomical diagrams" and "Comets".

When picking categories, try to choose a specific category ("Astronomical diagrams") over a generic one ("Illustrations"). Pro-tip: The CommonSense tool can help you find the best category for your image.

Thanks again for your uploads! More information about categorization can be found in Commons:Categories, and don't hesitate to leave a note on the help desk.

BotMultichillT 11:47, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

File:Washington 1b.djvu[edit]

Hi Durova, The file File:Washington 1b.djvu has a source url, that is a temporary url and no longer works. I tried to find the material, but perhaps you still know where you found this material in the databases of the Library of Congress ? TheDJ (talk) 16:07, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

Actually that was also my weak first attempt at creating a .djvu file. Shortly afterward John Vandenberg converted the entire document properly (it was about eight pages). The files I uploaded for that project might as well be deleted procedurally; I was mainly working on other things at the time. The background is this: Wikisource had featured George Washington's first State of the Union address. John asked whether I could help locate a better image than the yellowed newspaper clipping. So those are Washington's handwritten notes. Trouble is, Wikisource would need to verify whether this was word-for-word what got printed in the newspapers. So it probably isn't in use. Durova (talk) 18:05, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

FP Promotion[edit]

This image has been promoted to Featured picture!

The image File:Coleridge2.jpg, that you nominated on Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Coleridge2.jpg has been promoted. Thank you for your contribution. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so.


/FPCBot (talk) 07:04, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

Photo on ebay[edit]

Hi, I accidentally found this item on ebay. I wonder if it is your version. --Jarekt (talk) 18:35, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

Checking into things further. No definite word yet, but unsettling. Thank you very much for your notification. Durova (talk) 20:01, 15 September 2009 (UTC)
Good catch, and thank you very much. The same vendor is selling a dozen of my other restorations, and possibly other WMF volunteers' featured pictures. Durova (talk) 22:07, 15 September 2009 (UTC)
The thing is that as far as I understand he has right to do so with PD images or with CC images if they are properly attributed. --Jarekt (talk) 02:13, 16 September 2009 (UTC)
Correct. The best thing to "counter" such problems is to set up an integrated "order print" service into Commons. Much like the Books functionality we have atm. Then perhaps the foundation can benefit a bit on the donations received from the company, and we would be sure the attribution is handled nicely (even for PD images). But all in all, our FP collection is great for Poster resellers. High quality material that will sell, and no cost for the image (which traditionally is huge !!!). TheDJ (talk) 12:18, 16 September 2009 (UTC)
Wikimedia France has/had a collaboration with a poster printing service. It was discussed about a year ago if I recall correctly. Their approach seemed appropriate (along with the poster the customer is/was given a printout of the image description page, and full texts of the licenses. It might be worth talking about similar collaborations for commons. --Dschwen (talk) 03:04, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

I have compiled a list at User:John Vandenberg/source4docs of items sold in the last 90 days (ebay doesnt provide access to older sales), with dups removed (current total: 140 items). I can also build a list of listed items (i.e. currently available for sale), however it would be better to have this list of sold items inspected/manipulated by humans first. John Vandenberg (chat) 01:15, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

Regarding Dschwen's comment, I have a standing offer to several chapters to prioritize restorations for chapter fundraising purposes. We've discussed posters and wall calendars; so far it's all been very preliminary. Regarding the eBay situation one of the disturbing aspects is failure to disclose the source and genesis of these files misleads the public about history. The restored files are creative works that attempt to reconstruct scenes. When that goes undisclosed the recipient supposes they obtained a print from a superior original. Durova (talk) 15:27, 18 September 2009 (UTC)
Speaking of E-Bay ;-) check this out. Btw. were these actually your restorations? Did you get any further with the phonecalls you made? --Dschwen (talk) 17:03, 18 September 2009 (UTC)
Wow, that's blatant. Looks like a violation of your license. I kind of wonder whether you even agree with the party platform, but that's none of my business. If you wanted to make a stink you could contact the press before the election (or is that a historic poster of a previous September's election)? And regarding the eBay thing, the seller also violates copyrights that are enforced with vigilence. If there's one thing scarier than Uncle Walt and his mouse, it's their lawyers. ;) Durova (talk) 02:52, 20 September 2009 (UTC)
They actually did contact me. And I reiterated the need for attribution. That stuff on e-bay doesn't seem to be the final version. They posted this one all over Germany. --Dschwen (talk) 03:07, 20 September 2009 (UTC)
It's good that they contacted you. I don't see a credit on that poster, though. BTW great choice for a political poster; the cow looks indignant in that crop. Durova (talk) 17:22, 22 September 2009 (UTC)
The credit is on the version that is hanging all over Germany, as you can see in the image I linked. Right edge of the frame. --Dschwen (talk) 19:31, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

Morally, they should credit the source of images, including restored versions. Legally, though, if the original image is public domain, they do have the right to reuse and resell it. It would be hypocritical of Wikipedians if, after insisting that the National Portrait Gallery has no recourse against Wikipedia reusing their photographed images of paintings not under copyright, we demand that others follow our own terms in using restorations of public domain material we did. Dtobias (talk) 00:02, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

If you've been following the wikipedia-en-i mailing list, Dan, you'll have noticed that I raised the National Portrait Gallery example myself. The context is different in subtle but significant ways: they assert copyright via the British "sweat of the brow" concept for faithful reproductions with no creative input. It is untested whether that clause actually extends as far as they wish to apply it. Knowledgeable people have been advising me for a long time that my restorations are sufficiently creative to justify a new copyright under United States law. For altruistic reasons I have chosen not to do so: this is a developing area where the signal to noise ratio is dismally low, institutions that are otherwise reputable and respected are asserting a variety of untested claims to withhold material from open circulation, and few individuals within the free culture movement have followed the subject closely enough to conduct meaningful discussion.
If I were to assert CC-by-sa 3.0 it might hold up, but the likely result would also be attempts to shoehorn it as a precedent into situations where it doesn't actually apply. There is money at stake for other parties: cultural institutions have traditionally relied upon reproduction sales for part of their operating income. I am part of a network of volunteers who are working to gain greater public access to media collections. In the long run the interests of the free culture movement are best served when provenance is attributed: institutions have backed away from negotiations when they feared that undocumented edits would accumulate willy-nilly, which would mislead the public about its heritage. The haste with which some volunteers bandy accusations of hypocrisy does not help matters. If you want to do something really helpful to improve matters, Dan, one place to start would be to write Time magazine and request source credit for this image. They credit the source for other images from the same group, but mention nothing about the portrait even though it also repeats as an icon through that part of the site. I spent twenty hours' labor restoring it. The original was badly damaged. Durova (talk) 02:52, 20 September 2009 (UTC)
And, as also came up in the list discussion (which I'm still catching up on, so I haven't read anything posted within the last couple of days), it would help if the Commons image description pages gave a clear statement of who restored the image and what sort of credit was being requested as a courtesy (even if not legally mandated). This is hardly clear at present. Dtobias (talk) 23:33, 20 September 2009 (UTC)
That's a really good idea, Dan. Thanks. :) Durova (talk) 17:19, 22 September 2009 (UTC)
BTW it might take a little while to follow up on some of this discussion. Am pushing to complete other projects that were underway for weeks before this topic arose. So thanks much for coming to share this, and will get on this once existing commitments are in hand. Durova (talk) 17:28, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

Commons:Graphics village pump#Converting images to two colors black and white[edit]

Could you please take a look? Thank you. --EugeneZelenko (talk) 14:35, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

Hi, the simplest way to do that would be to adjust the saturation. Your version of Photoshop probably has a "desaturate" option and/or a "saturation" slider. If Elements is set up similar to the full version, those would be under the "adjustments" menu of the "image" slider. "Desaturate" is a one step conversion to grayscale (black and white). Durova (talk) 22:14, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

FP Promotion[edit]

Connie Mack3.jpg
This image has been promoted to Featured picture!

The image File:Connie Mack3.jpg, that you nominated on Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Connie Mack3.jpg has been promoted. Thank you for your contribution. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so.


/FPCBot (talk) 15:10, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

Thank you[edit]

File:Dead horse 2.jpg That was a pleasant surprise on the watchlist to see so many things selected for featured picture at the Turkish Wikipedia. Recently did another restoration that may be of particular interest to Turkish Wikimedians. Thank you and best wishes. Durova (talk) 20:09, 12 October 2009 (UTC) File:Men dancing with swordsj.jpg Here's another. It didn't get promoted at en:wiki but I've always loved it. Cheers, Durova (talk) 20:31, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

First of all, your message has been a good reason for me to say how much I appreciate your work of restoring such important images. You are fantastic (along with a few more guys like Adam Cuerden Face-smile.svg). Both files you have sent me are of high value for Turkish wikipedia. I will try to place them in proper articles and then nominate. Such recommendations are always welcome. Thank you... İyivikiler... ho? ni! 17:14, 13 October 2009 (UTC)
See tr:Vikipedi:Seçkin resim adayları/Dead horse 2.jpg & tr:Vikipedi:Seçkin resim adayları/Charge of the Light Brigade2.jpg. For File:Men dancing with swordsj.jpg I think we need more info (What are they celebrating? Who exactly are they? Exactly where and when? etc.) We will try to find some more info before nominating. İyivikiler... ho? ni! 18:51, 13 October 2009 (UTC)
Often the librarians don't know very much about the images. If someone from the Turkish Wikipedia discovers more, then please do let me know. The Library of Congress is usually glad to update its data. Durova (talk) 00:09, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

My mistake[edit]

I see where some of the talking at cross-purposes has come from, my comment about FP uniqueness (23:12, 12 October 2009) was indented to the next level directly after your reply about the en:FP replacement procedure, when it wasn't really a reply to your comment. I placed the reply after re-reading the whole thread and it was a more general reply that encompassed several things. Sorry again for the on-going confusion. I will try and clarify things there :-) --Tony Wills (talk) 01:57, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

Ah, thanks for the clarification. Durova (talk) 02:12, 15 October 2009 (UTC)
That is not to say I wasn't taking into account other comments of yours :-). I have being re-reading the thread and came across the following comment, although I don't remember whether I noticed it 2 weeks ago:
"For what it's worth, better camera technology would not be the only factor in replacing some of the images. Plenty of good source material about the San Francisco Earthquake of 1906 is available, for instance, and a better resolution image could be found (although not necessarily the same shot and it would go to the end of my queue unless someone else takes the initiative)" (emphasis mine)
Which seems to be suggesting that promoting a 'better' alternatve image of the same subject provides grounds to de-list an existing FP. --Tony Wills (talk) 06:18, 15 October 2009 (UTC)
Have endeavored to explain this three different ways. Am at a loss for a fourth way to do so diplomatically, so at the risk of giving offense please see en:affirming the consequent. Durova (talk) 21:45, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

File talk:Stonemasonry1.jpg[edit]

Hi there Durova. I found your message on the stonemasonry file.I don't quite understand what you mean, is it that with uploading under a new name, all the old links wouldn't work anymore? I see no significant file history, other than the mentioning that it is a featured picture. Greetings,--Satrughna (talk) 09:28, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

Commons doesn't have a direct file renaming feature. So what you suggest would require downloading and re-uploading, with a consequent loss of .jpg generation. Durova (talk) 21:41, 15 October 2009 (UTC)


It doesn't get said often enough, but you and restorationist brethren are quite simply amazing. I could not believe the wonderful job you did on the classic Ophelia, I nearly wept at seeing such beauty so faithfully restored. It often gets lost in the rush to congratulate our many photographers on their latest masterpiece, but it is people like yourself, the people who hunt down these images and spend hours in front of a computer, painstakingly restoring them to their former brilliance, for such little recognition, who (to me at least) are the real artists. I stand in awe of you, and your work, and hope you will not mind if I nominate this brilliant piece for Featured Picture Status.

Yours, Sarcastic ShockwaveLover (talk) 14:28, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

Thank you very much. It's been a surprise how well received that one was. Glad you enjoy it. Durova (talk) 20:21, 22 October 2009 (UTC)