Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 04:56, 27 January 2010

Hello and welcome. If you're wondering about the 403 in the signature, it's the number of my featured credits.

Frequently asked questions:

1) Would you teach me to restore images?

• Absolutely. Helping you learn is my pleasure and priority.

2) Would my photograph pass featured picture candidacy?

• Please ask at Misplaced Pages:Picture peer review.

3) Would you create a map, vectorize an image, or something like that?

• Please go to Misplaced Pages:Graphic Lab.

4) I don't want to learn to restore images, but I want you to restore stuff for me.

• Please supply an uncompressed TIFF or PNG file of 10 MB or larger. And offer to do something for me.

5) I thought you restored images in ten minutes with a couple of Photoshop plugins?

• False assumption. The fastest good article writers turn out good articles at about the same speed as I restore images. Takes comparable effort. Actually, Juliancolton and Ottava Rima say they're faster.

6) What can I do in return?

• I have written seven good articles; how about you improve one of them and we conominate at featured article candidates? Then you answer all the manual of style objections. ;)

7) I have a random problem. Would you please drop everything and solve it?

• This is not Misplaced Pages's complaints department. Please go to User talk:Jimbo Wales. He's equally ineffective but his page auto-archives.

8) You screwed up.

• Please explain where and how and I'll try to set things right. And please entertain the outside possibility that it wasn't intentional evil.

9) Are you a troll?

• No, but my sockpuppet is.

10) When are you going to ask for administrator ops again?

• Actually I have admin ops at three other WMF projects. On this site my user talk has 77 archives and needs a FAQ. If people here could ask me for unblocks I'd never get any work done.

Headhunters newly posted to my blog....which, incredibly, has become an official "Blog of Note".

Don't miss the all-important arbitration poll. Vote early, vote often!

Bananas

Where did all the idle chatter go? I added a scales of justice image to my userspace. If I'm expected to credit in some way apart from what's on its file page please let me know. Oooh oooh ooh aah aaah aaah. :) ChildofMidnight (talk) 20:26, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

Oh dear... Well, occasionally I do archive this page. :) Durova 20:31, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

No worries.

I like the image design very much, although I've come to realize it can be interpreted in various ways depending on the assumptions and insights brought to it by the viewer. For example it can be seen as depicting Misplaced Pages as symbolically balancing out the world's bananas. But the meaning isn't clear and seems elusive to me with some of the many possible interpretations being negative. This makes the image even more intriguing if somewhat "dangerous".

I see it as a kind of dadaesque statement. But I guess it was created more as a political message.

Thanks very much for you answers to my questions on images. Are you familiar with the debate about peeling bananas? A lot of people were advocating that the most pragmatic way to peel them is from the side opposite the stem. I haven't heard much about it lately though, and my own findings were inconsistent with that theory. Anyway, I'm going to take my monkey business elsewhere. Have a good one. ChildofMidnight (talk) 21:17, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

The original edit was the "thumb on the scales" design. The bananas came by chance inspiration from a tangential discussion. People often weigh bananas, though, in places where they're sold by the pound. So yes it's a bit dadaesque. "Going bananas" is an intentional analogy, but not the only possible one. :) Durova 21:30, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

Restoration possibility

Do you think this photo would be worth spending my time on a restoration? Staxringold _talk 02:04, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

• Although from this article it seems like the copyright claim is incorrect. Staxringold _talk 02:05, 26 January 2010 (UTC)
  • The Bain collection was donated to the public domain. Looks like a fine candidate for restoration if you don't mind beating yourself up on another glass plate job. :) Best, Durova 02:09, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

• Mind updating the copyright tag if there's a better one? Staxringold _talk 02:50, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

The correct tag is PD-Bain. Have fixed that. I dislike that page altogether, frankly. The undocumented upload of radical edits to historic material is not a good practice. Durova 03:04, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

Note

Hello Durova. MZMcBride has requested that you see his comment here as it directly involves you. Regards, Ryan Postlethwaite 21:05, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

Thank you for the notification. I'll have a look at that. Durova 22:10, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

Durova, quite frankly this series of edits is unacceptable. Specifically, where you say; "He renews the obnoxious suggestion that the Arbitration Committee should hold a woman culpable because a sitebanned editor once sold underwear with her portrait on it." - Either add evidence where MZMcBride has specifically stated that women should be held accountable because of a sitebanned editors specific actions (and by evidence, I don't mean just speculation - I mean where he's actually stated what you're suggesting) or remove it immediately. Ryan Postlethwaite 23:54, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

Your post appears to demand evidence for an assertion I did not make. I am willing to provide diffs for the assertion I actually made. It would take a little while. Durova 00:01, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

You clearly did make an assertion in the quote which I gave you; specifically MZMcBride's "suggestion that the Arbitration Committee should hold a woman culpable because a sitebanned editor once sold underwear with her portrait on it." Please remove it until you are willing to provide diffs to back it up. If it's going to take a while, then take it down until that point. I think 30 minutes is a fair amount of time to decide what you're going to do, else I'll be forced to remove it myself. Ryan Postlethwaite 00:04, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

Ryan, the decision is already made. I was always willing to provide diffs. The only unclarity was your demand "add evidence where MZMcBride has specifically stated that women should be held accountable because of a sitebanned editors specific actions". He never made a general statement about women, nor did I claim that he did. Several posts that he made from January 12 onward do carry a disturbing tendency, and I have observed no post from him that is inconsistent with the tendency: the pattern is consistent in one instance and it is reasonable to inquire whether he would repeat it in others. I was gathering diffs while you posted and will return to that task as soon as this reply is complete. Due to their cumulative nature and the fact that both MZMcBride and I are prolific editors, a half hour deadline for the completion of this task is not feasible. Durova 00:15, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

Fair enough, I've had no other option but to refactor your comment myself. 30 minutes was a reasonable time frame for you to decide that you wouldn't have enough time to find diffs and remove it yourself. Ryan Postlethwaite 00:23, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

Ryan, each time you post here consumes time away from actually fulfilling your demand. It is difficult to fulfill your request swiftly for reasons already explained. An additional challenge is that your statements appear to shift ground with each post. You stated, "I think 30 minutes is a fair amount of time to decide what you're going to do". I promptly replied that I had indeed decided. If you had instead demanded that whether or not it was feasible to actually carry out that intention within half an hour I must refactor promptly or you would do so, then I would have refactored. Instead a substantial portion of that half hour was consumed in parsing your demands, you have refactored (which gives the appearance that I have been uncooperative), and as a result of your action I see little alternative to entering something as evidence which I would have preferred to have resolved less formally. It is more than a little surprising to see this; in four years I have never had an interaction with an arbitration clerk unfold this way before. If you can see a way to turn the heat down on this, please advise. But if this is the sort of clerking you do then I hope that such stringency is evenhanded. Durova 00:37, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

"a half hour deadline for the completion of this task is not feasible." - To me, that's stating that you are unwilling to comply. Perhaps I was a little quick in the actual refactoring, but I read your last comment to mean "I'm not going to be able to find diffs and I'm not willing to refactor" - Please accept my apologies if this was not the case (as you're stating now). I would suggest that if you have evidence of this, you send it directly to the committee by email - I'm not sure there is anyway that you could present such evidence on-wiki without heat being turned up to the max. Ryan Postlethwaite 00:42, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

(unintdent) Not unwillingness; inability. It's a matter of collecting diffs across two prolific edit histories and multiple pages. I have half a dozen quotes in a text editor now and am beginning to craft a statement. We all have our strengths and our weaknesses; one of my weak points is multitasking. I am endeavoring to comply with your request as fast as possible. It's late afternoon in my time zone, though, and in a short while I will need to leave the computer to fix dinner. If all goes smoothly I may be able to post an early draft before then. Durova 00:49, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

popping in

G'day D - we had a bit of a mini-interaction over at the request for comment about biographies a short while ago, and I thought I'd pop by to see if you could shed a wee bit more light on this comment? It came across to me as a bit grumpy (fair enough) - but I'm keen to learn more about how you're feeling, and what you've learned - I think it's a fair interpretation of that comment that you feel / know that I've bungled somehow in my 'freelance attempts' (did you intend that to sound pejorative? It sort of comes across that way) - I'm a big supporter of the powerhouse museum down here, though really haven't had much to do with them (sharing a nice lunch with User:Witty lama and the powerhouse folk is about it - I missed the 'backstage pass' sadly) - if your comment was more grump than substance than that's cool, otherwise I'm interested in what you meant..... Privatemusings (talk) 01:54, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

My feelings needn't worry you. There is an old saying that people who live in glass houses shouldn't throw stones. Inappropriate accusations of misbehavior often originate from those whose consciences are not clear: a child who skips class accuses sick schoolmates of malingering, etc. It's good practice to make one's own disclosures proactively when suggesting that other editors may have withheld information. That only takes a few extra words and eliminates the risk of confusion. Durova 02:21, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

hmmmm... I think I may have lost you? I just can't really make sense of your reply! I get the first bit (that I needn't worry about your feelings) but the rest, whilst I can generally sort of agree with you, I find hard to see how it applies to my post above? What I'm trying to ask is a) whether or not you intended to be a pejorative (grumpy / rude etc.) and (more importantly) b) what you meant by referring to my (meagre) contacts with the powerhouse folk - it sounded like you were aware of harm / confusion / damage that I'd been part of? You also mentioned 'accusation' above, and in the original post, and that's escaping me too, I'm afraid - because I'm occasionally quite slow at this sort of thing, would you mind filling in the blank 'I feel that you accused me of _____________' I'm sure we can clear this up :-) Privatemusings (talk) 02:40, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

Most recent evidence in the MZMcbride 2 Request for arbitration

This is to let you know that your most recent evidence submission, as well as related evidence talk page sections, have been copied and moved to the Arbitration Committee private wiki. This is done to respect the rights of both parties involved. The nature and characterization of your evidence is such that neither party should feel obliged to discuss the issue in a heavily-watched public forum. Should you have further evidence along these lines, you are encouraged to submit it by email to the Arbitration Committee, and a copy will be shared with MZMcBride. Likewise, any evidence he submits to the Committee on this subject will be shared with you. Risker (talk) 03:58, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

May the Committee's deliberations reflect that the submission was posted under extreme time pressure per an explicit demand from the case clerk, and that I had voluntarily redacted sensitive names although the case clerk had not requested redaction. I respectfully request that the slurs upon my integrity and character be likewise moved to the Committee's private wiki, since you prevent me from using publicly available information to rebut them. This handling has been very one sided: the attacks accumulated for weeks without any response from the arbitrators or clerks; it is only the defense that is concealed. Twenty-six diffs substantiated everything in that evidence submission. I have made no personal attacks and have violated no policy. I have no reason to be ashamed.

There are sixteen other arbitrators who are welcome to handle this matter. I repeat for the fourth time, Risker, the request that you recuse from anything having to do with me. Durova 04:19, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

Durova, the Committee, and I personally, take any allegations of sexual/gender-based harassment very seriously, and also recognise that additional harm can come from forcing a highly public discussion of the situation. As such, the discussion has been moved to a private forum, away from prying eyes. I for one do not want to force you to publicly relive what I know was a very difficult situation for you. I do strongly encourage you to submit any additional evidence you may have that is similar in nature to that which you discussed on the evidence page. As to recusal, I believe it had always been clear that this particular arbitration case was about MZMcBride, and not about you; nobody has submitted any evidence relating to you or your actions. Should a case arise in which your actions are being scrutinised, I will certainly recuse. Risker (talk) 04:56, 27 January 2010 (UTC)