I have tried to restore this file and have managed to remove most of the dust and dirt but there are several white patches and I wondered if there was any way to remove them.
Do you have an uncompressed version of that file? If so, please upload. TIFFs don't thumbnail but Commons does host them. Probably the best solution is to crop the sides slightly, then do a series of mask adjustments to take care of those lower corners. First it definitely needs a few more passes for dust and scratch removal. Durova37916:14, 12 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The problem is progressive JPEG compression. Always best to work in an uncompressed format and convert to JPEG as the very last edit. Durova37919:36, 12 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
So I just remembered to contact the webmaster of the Camp Edwards page, but I get an error message every time I click on the link. I noticed this "All news content on this site is public domain and may be used freely. This is an official DoD entity. Please note that the use of information or any email address on this site for other than its intended purpose is forbidden by Federal Law." when I looked on the bottom of the page, so that is probably the rationale I used when I uploaded those images. Do you think that you would be able to contact the webmaster, which is linked at the bottom of this page? Thanks. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 15:43, 12 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
While I'm here, would you be interested in stitching a map together of Lowell, Massachusetts. The map was made in 1924 and is only viewable in many broken up into about 15 images. If you would be interested, let me know and I'll send you the link. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 15:49, 12 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the followup. The Tropenmuseum is waiting for me to stitch a tapestry. Perhaps the volunteer graphics lab would stitch it? They do stitching jobs sometimes. Durova37916:10, 12 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Durova there has been a rumour that you are giving a course on image restoration after Amsterdam. If something like this is going to happen I'd like to join. Btw. I don't think you can have such an exhibition in Germany, the public opinion among many academics is very much against recognizing wikipedia as a quality source. Wandalstouring (talk) 18:24, 12 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Is there a rumor to that effect? Please put me in touch with the source of the rumor; would absolutely love a trip to Amsterdam. ;) Durova37918:30, 12 December 2009 (UTC) Please believe all the rumors; my life is far more interesting in them. Will have to ask for leave from my FBI job before I can commit to the seminar, though.[reply]
Lise Broer Have made 379 total featured contributions ...
Or is it a team?
Ruby Slippers Lise Broer Have made 379 total featured contributions ...
If there's a prize for telling you, lol, let me have it. And if I've been really stupid somehow, let me have it. :-)
In any case, while I'm here, I hope you'll excuse the lightness of my comments at AN about "community" (arising from experiences at ANI, which could never happen to you. :-) -- Proofreader77 (talk) 06:09, 14 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I got that :-), just wondering if you are treating "Ruby Slippers" and "Lise broer" as two blog participants ... justifying that "have" (instead of "has" - because if there's just one of you, it looks like it ought to be "has") ^^ Proofreader77 (talk) 18:59, 14 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
It's a tough situation. Would you consider a post to the admin boards to request a volunteer mentor? Someone might step forward. Durova38000:25, 15 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Would you have a way of determining if the photos here are public domain [1]? If you have a chance to check on those of for others it would be very cool. The architect is quite an interesting guy (I think) and did some interesting projects. Supposedly one of his buildings was the tallest west of the Mississippi when it was built (National Realty Building). Cheers. No worries if you're busy with other projects. Just thought I'd ask. I hope you're well and enjoying winter and all that the end of one year and the start of a new one has to offer. :) ChildofMidnight (talk) 03:13, 16 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for checking for me. Architecture and architect articles are much better when there are buildings to look at. I was pleased to find some pictures for the last few I've worked on. How do I attribute and use that photo? ChildofMidnight (talk) 05:54, 18 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I've left a quick note for Awadewit and Coffee because I think I've gotten to the bottom of yesterday's bungle - probably worth a quick look :-) - I'm also trying to get to the bottom of the 'copyright' question, because, whilst I support a quick deletion of the personal banter inadvertently published at the end of the audio, I'm not sure this wasn't a sledgehammer used to crack a nut - in fact, I'm not sure that the copyright interpretation stated is unambiguously correct - maybe this doesn't really matter though? :-) - anyways, I have an edited version of the file which is a really good listen, and I'm looking to get it online soonish, all being well :-) Privatemusings (talk) 20:12, 16 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I have addedd the image to different articles both in the English and Spanish wikipedia. I have also added the different versions to Commons, with the exception of the final tiff version, since I am not really sure of which one was the final one. Could you do it? Feel free to nominate it in commons or English wikipedia and tell me at my talk page; I'll add my name as soon as I get the notice.--Garrondo (talk) 20:23, 16 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks very much! I've got the final TIFF version; can upload that. You do wonderful work; here's hoping it's the start of many. Durova38102:17, 17 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Hey, thanks. Likewise, apologies for the snarky tone of the edit summary. That sort of misunderstanding has happened a couple of times lately--one editor used a sock account to blank out an announcement of a featured picture drive. I was thinking "Oh no, not again" when actually you weren't involved in the prior incident. Wasn't fair of me; will try to put a better foot forward. Durova38216:23, 17 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Excuse my commenting on something I understand very little about yet (but have the page on my watchlist) — but this proposal sounds like a good idea ... and it certainly gives me a handle for thinking about something I have never thought about. So, thank you. :-)
(If I find out later that my first impression is wrong lol, then, of course, please forget I ever said anything ... other than I liked the sound of what you wrote. :-) [no reply necessary] Proofreader77 (talk) 03:56, 19 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Just found via watchlisting of Wikipedia talk:Arbitration/Requests ... User:Durova/Logo_poll. Smiling at the confirmation that my ignorance of structures here ... may be diminished so gracefully. I have praised you too much lately to gush more ... but I will acknowledge my pleasure at having stumbled into noticing the amazing (and enlightening) things you do. [No reply necessary.] Proofreader77 (talk) 23:46, 19 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I don't understand why you posted this proposed site ban at WP:AN rather than WP:AN/I. Could you please explain? I am not suggesting that you posted in the wrong place; rather, I would like to understand why it belongs at WP:AN. Thank you.—Finell23:39, 20 December 2009 (UTC)(To preserve the continuity of the conversation, I will watch for your reply here on your Talk page.)[reply]
... it would be important that you get the facts straight. I have no objection to the case being decided by summary motion, nor to the idea that I would be personally admonished for my actions in this if the committee feels it warranted (I obviously do not, but it is clear I would not myself act in a way I did not believe was appropriate).
The only matter which worried me is that a piece of important policy affecting all arbs for the foreseeable future might have been decided by summary motion with a small fraction of the committee; it is apparent that the active arbs also foresaw how iffy that would have been and clarified they would not. That satisfies me entirely. — Coren(talk)01:22, 21 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Coren, other people have also been sanctioned on a basis that was basically ex post facto. The Committee has, in effect, created important pieces of policy in doing so. These people had none of the power you are requesting to have a voice in the matter. One of the shortcomings of this website's Arbitration Committee is that it has never had a member who's come from the other side of the fence to provide that perspective. It was good for Wikipedia that Rootology returned from a siteban to join the admin corps. It would, potentially, be a very good thing for the Committee if you rose above the language of this thread header and brought insights from this experience. Durova38601:45, 21 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
You're missing the point; my problem was that the matter would be decided at all on summary motion with so few arbs active. If they felt it indispensable to do so, then doing it with a fraction of the committee would have been disastrous. It's no accident that at least four arbs (two of them recused) also chimed up on that very topic; where I erred is in not simply assuming that the arbs which are active would also see it for themselves (and clarify it quickly) — not for lack of trust but simple fear that it would be overlooked. Obviously, by the responses that came quickly, my fears were unwarranted and I was reassured. — Coren(talk)02:53, 21 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Pardon if this is a misreading, but it appears that with each post you refine your position. Are you asserting now that ex post facto on principle is an acceptable way to arbitrate? If so, please explain in full to Touretzky, whom you determined to have acted inappropriately and then topic banned on the sole visible basis of two posts he had made which complied with the external linking policy when he made them (the policy was later changed). He had never been blocked, never been warned, was not party to the events that precipitated the arbitration case, and hadn't edited the topic in over a year when you sanctioned him. When he appealed you ignored his appeal and did not respond. There are other instances where broader precedents were set, if you need reminders. From this vantage your contentions are scarcely distinguishable from special pleading. I really hoped that you, as one of the more insightful arbitrators, would smile along with the humor of the "shoe on the other foot" post and be more accepting of the serious side of its commentary. Durova38603:23, 21 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
My position has been constant, but since it's clear that it's being misunderstood I do my best to clarify it. And no, I don't believe that it's generally appropriate to sanction someone for something novel or clearly disputable when it has not been previously noted to be a bad thing. There are a number of cases where it is appropriate, but invariably those are cases of interpretation of more general or vague policy (breach of trust, for instance, where it is impossible to anticipate all the ways in which it could occur), or when it's part of a larger pattern. Where things are considerably more delicate, is when such a sanction would create, de facto, a new policy with effect reaching far beyond the case at hand. That the policy might be required, or at least bear serious discussion, is entirely possible; that it be done by motion with a fraction of the committee would have been disastrous.
For the record, had the active arbs decided otherwise, it would also have been okay; insofar as I would have taken the lump and complied as required by my colleagues — but I would have been remiss in my responsibilities to the committee if I didn't raise the point. — Coren(talk)03:48, 21 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Then here's an example that had broader policy implications. Perhaps you would re-weigh my request for a statement from the Committee affirming the voluntary nature of admin recall? This proposal had been unanimously supported and was mooted only because of my voluntary resignation--not because the Committee shouldn't be rendering voluntary processes involuntary. Leaked arbitration mailing list correspondence available at Wikileaks, whose substance has been confirmed by the arbitrators themselves, demonstrates that this remedy was being hammered out at nearly the same moment my RfC was filed--before RFAR was initiated. That motion was completely unnecessary because I would have respected the recall pledge and have never asked for the tools to be returned: the only thing it accomplished was to undermine the recall process. Please entertain the possibility that I understand you perfectly, and just don't buy it. Would appreciate acknowledgement that this criticism rises above the neener neener threshold. Perhaps a courtesy refactor to the thread title? Durova38604:28, 21 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I'm afraid that I can't see the parallel; Durova. As far as I can tell, this was strictly an acknowledgment of something which you had stated was your intent (and, indeed, at least one arb took the time to explicitely state that this was okay as an observation and not a directive). — Coren(talk)22:36, 21 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
People quietly took their names off the recall list after my arbitration case, due to fears that similar wikipolitics could be played against them with the Committee's stamp of approval. Yet in the big picture the Touretzky sanction may do more harm to the site. He's a notable professor at a leading university. Despite the fact that there really doesn't seem to be any basis for his topic ban (no evidence against him was posted to the case and his contribution history is so short it could be read in an hour), half a year and at least three appeals haven't resolved the problem. To the best of my knowledge his requests haven't ever been denied; they've just fallen to the bottom of pile and been neglected. His colleagues have been asking him at conferences "I hear you've been banned from Wikipedia..." because they don't know the difference between a topic ban and a siteban. This isn't like banning graduate students: one unresolvable problem like this could make the rounds of academia as a horror story. Professors already know they have nothing to gain professionally by editing here. It would only hurt us as a website to gain the reputation that a capricious arbitration ruling would actually damage careers. Durova38622:58, 21 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Peanut gallery: (1) "neener neener" (excellent!) (2) Rootology returned from a siteban (I didn't know that. Interesting: From siteban back to admin.) [Feel free to delete. Just observing.] Proofreader77 (talk) 03:05, 21 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : XIV (November 2009)
The November 2009 issue of the Military history WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you. This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 08:48, 21 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you very much, and welcome. :) Please email me for my Skype ID and I'll send you an image. Would also love to see your work. Cheers, Durova38622:47, 21 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
(commenting here, as I'm most active on en.wikipedia). As an appreciative follower of your work and blog, you came up in my conversation with the Wikimedia Bookshelf Project's writer, Lindsey Beaman. I suggested he get in touch with you, especially regarding image work on Wikipedia and attracting new visually oriented people to various Wikipedia projects. I'll drop you an email with contact information for Lindsay. tedder (talk) 22:25, 21 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Yep. Really, he probably just wants to talk for an hour and then have you review things going forward, so the email was just boring contact info. (unfollowing, your talk page is way too busy!) tedder (talk) 22:52, 21 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Hi again. Quick question. I see you provide your real life identity on your user page. Suppose I was going to do the same, but wanted to "prove" the name information was correct.
Does Wikipedia have any process for confirming real life identities? (Or is that only for cases like Arbcom candidates, stewards, etc where the foundation has to know who they are.) Many thanks. Proofreader77 (talk) 01:07, 22 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Typing is hard enough, but this asks too much. My reach is less than a foot long, my camera doesn't have a decent macro lens, and I don't have opposable thumbs. The only way to get a decent focus would be to use a tripod, in which case everyone would claim it was staged by a human. I actually can't prove I'm a cat. You wouldn't believe what it took to get the State of California to issue a driver's liecense. Durova38602:09, 22 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
(edit conflict) @Casliber - But what if I've kidnapped the real me and now have their ID to wave in front of a camera (after I get Durova to Photoshop a fake me id, of course) ... Then I hypnotize the real me so they forget the whole kidnapping thing ... So I don't see how that helps prove anything. :-)
@Cat (claiming to be Durova) I do not know enough about photography to know if you are telling the truth or not — but rest assured the day will come that I will know enough about photography to tell. Then, we'll just see! :-)- Proofreader77 (talk) 02:16, 22 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Casliber, on a related note: Do you happen to know how that confirmed identity string works? I mean like if a cat wanted to prove they were a cat and had put their cat tag number in a 512 hash along with the length of their tail at the 2nd birthday ... How would that help anyone figure out anything? lol Proofreader77 (talk) 03:43, 22 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Dagnabbit, you broke the code. Now I'll have to count the number of hairs I shed on the Christmas turkey, and divide by the number of unsifted ahem in the catbox. Durova38603:47, 22 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
(LOL) As you see, my rhetorical matrix processor is quite powerful, dear cat ... with 9 parallel vector calculators (whichever life you're in, loose hair count already projected with only omicron .8 variance) ...
Of course even with this precise knowledge, I still lack the slightest idea of how to prove you're a cat based on a 512 hashed confirmed identity code. I guess will just have to use random sandbox sampling function. ;-) Proofreader77 (talk) 04:41, 22 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
lol Purrfect. :-) (Thank you welcoming my visits to your page. I am delighted we crossed paths during the holiday season ... with license for a bit more grace, conviviality, and good fun than the usual day-to-day of practical communication.) Cheers. Proofreader77 (talk) 08:47, 22 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, Brentwood. Never had the patience to get on the waiting list for a parking spot. Just took the bus a couple of times. Awesome. Look me up if you head down to San Diego. :) Durova38623:02, 23 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
20 Celsius this afternoon (that's low seventies in American), 30% humidity, winds 2 miles an hour, and clear blue skies. Now 'scuse me while I go shopping before the sun sets. Might just buy lights to string up on one of the palm trees...because I love ya so much Fozzie. ;) Durova38623:27, 23 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Awesome. :) Just a Yank here, although one who's traveled a bit. 17 countries, three continents (or four continents if the south side of the Panama Canal counts)? Durova38602:27, 24 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
After it stopped mattering in any serious way. Historic districts in Panama City, plus the old city where they were excavating the parts Morgan didn't burn. Got a bit farther south than that when I wasn't on land. Durova38602:40, 24 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Of "Celsius," and "humour," and "parking lots" ... Dropping back by after the party's over ... (How delightful to see my revealing my identity would inspire so much discussion. lol)
Regarding our choice of vocabulary ... Don't tell anyone but I frequently drop in some British spellings so that my cover as MI-5 agent is not blown. (My actual agency is much more secret than MI-5. :-)
Thank you, Durova, for the invitation to chat down San Diego way ... And I see you mentioned a problem about scheduling parking at the Getty ... Don't forget that the 405 is formally having it's designation changed to California State Parking Lot 405, so that should handle the parking problem, but alas makes driving to your area a complex matter. Perhaps Jimbo will loan me a helicopter. :-)
To all the world travelers above (and those whose passports have many blank pages)... what blessed lives we lead. A prayer of thanks (if you don't mind the gesture) for all we have ... and the delightful encounters and adventures in our future. I am grateful.
Durova, before CoM and I take this to DYK, can you do super-quick touchups to a couple of a few of your favorites out of these photos? All I'm asking for is a crop and deskew. And the deskew is probably only needed for this one. And it's okay to say "no, don't bother me, I have a queue and don't want to do something that could be done by anyone with artistic talent, meaning NOT TEDDER." tedder (talk) 08:26, 22 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Hm. Per the FAQ at the top of this talk page how 'bout we strike a deal? I'll do a full restoration on the 20MB version of this image and you two do an improvement drive on one of my GAs to take it to FAC? Durova38617:13, 22 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Actually I think this is a better photo Elephants!as far as the interior architecture goes. ChildofMidnight (talk)
That's a possibility. Would need to look it over carefully to see whether there's enough data at far left to bring out with a shadow/highlight adjustment. Durova38623:58, 22 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Better graphics. Although there's a really obvious way to parody that with a little Photoshop. Fortunately I have to head out for last minute shopping, so you're safe. Durova38623:04, 23 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, please see the FAQ at the top of this page. I think Jean Desbouvrie could make a fine FA drive. Please inform me when it's ready so that I can sign as conominator (I did start the page and take it to GA). When that FAC goes live get back to me about your request. Thanks in advance. Durova38616:27, 24 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oh my. Well in case he's watching this page Wikipedia:Standard offer. Keep your nose clean John, eamil me in six months, and if you haven't been socking again I'll initiate your unban request myself. Jack came back legitimately. You've got that chance too. Just be real and shoot straight. Durova38616:23, 24 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
A NobodyMy talk is wishing you a MerryChristmas! This greeting (and season) promotes WikiLove and hopefully this note has made your day a little better. Spread the WikiLove by wishing another user a Merry Christmas, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past, a good friend, or just some random person. Don't eat yellow snow!
Spread the holiday cheer by adding {{subst:User:Flaming/MC2008}} to their talk page with a friendly message.
![[3]](https://sivegame.netlify.app/host-http-memory.loc.gov/cgi-bin/displayPhoto.pl?path=/pnp/habshaer/wa/wa0100/wa0170/photos&topImages=168793pr.jpg&topLinks=168793pv.jpg,168793pu.tif&title=17.%20%20WEST%20SIDE%20OF%202100%20BLOCK%20OF%20PACIFIC%20AVE.%20FROM%20RIGHT;%202102-2106%20PACIFIC%20AVE.,%20MORRIS%20MILLER%20BUILDING%20%281906%29,%20FREDERICK%20HEATH,%20ARCHITECT;%202110%20PACIFIC%20AVE.,%20TACOMA%20DRY%20GOODS%20BUILDING%20%281906%29,%20FREDERICK%20HEATH,%20ARCHITECT;%202114-16%20PACIFIC%20AVE.,%20HUNT%20%26%20MOTTET%20COMPANY%20HEADQUARTERS%20%281907%29,%20BULLARD%20%26%20HILL,%20ARCHITECTS.%20%3Cbr%3EHABS%20WASH,27-TACO,6-17&displayProfile=0){kind=link}
