Shoemaker's Holiday flames out Options

[chrisoff]

Posted this somewhere else, but meant to post it here.
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=...oldid=349006975

"My main issue is Durova's tendency to weasel herself into discussions. There have been at least a dozen incidents where I've posted something which had no connection with her; a few days later, she showed up, complained about not being told, acted in utter ignorance of the situation, stated a few platitudes, and told people to close the conversation. Then I had to go back to dealing with an article/series of personal attacks/sockpuppetry issue, which she had effectively stopped discussion of. I do not trust her. I expect that, even if I worked in completely unrelated fields, she'd still find a way to make my life on Wikipedia hell, unless I have recognition that she has acted to bully me."~~Shoemaker's Holiday

[Somey]

Sorry if this should be obvious, consider me "out of the loop", but what is the thing about a Wikipedia grant in reference to? What position does Durova hold where she controls Wikimedia funds?

SandyGeorgia wants to know, too...

If I understand this correctly, Durova actually was heavily involved in the partnered exhibition on Maroon culture at the Tropenmuseum in Amsterdam, but that page doesn't say anything about money. Still, it wouldn't surprise me to learn that they'd offered to buy Mr. Cuerden a nice new scanner in order to help facilitate something like that, though of course he might not be the ideal person to count on to meet their deadline. My best guess is that Durova may have pointed this out to them, and that this is what Mr. Cuerden was upset about.

I expect that, even if I worked in completely unrelated fields, she'd still find a way to make my life on Wikipedia hell, unless I have recognition that she has acted to bully me."~~Shoemaker's Holiday

That's a bit naive, isn't it? For him to have this idea that mere recognition of Durova's bullying is going to prevent her from making his life on Wikipedia hell...?

At best, he's seriously underestimating her determination to get the job done!

[chrisoff]

I expect that, even if I worked in completely unrelated fields, she'd still find a way to make my life on Wikipedia hell, unless I have recognition that she has acted to bully me."~~Shoemaker's Holiday

That's a bit naive, isn't it? For him to have this idea that mere recognition of Durova's bullying is going to prevent her from making his life on Wikipedia hell...?

At best, he's seriously underestimating her determination to get the job done!

Well, yeah. Durova's whole point is to bully. Why else is she pontificating at ArbCom about situations she know nothing about?

A little pathetic that she has to get her rocks off on looking "28" (laugh) for the Wikipedia teeny boppers.

[Jon Awbrey]

If I understand this correctly, Durova actually was heavily involved in the partnered exhibition on Maroon culture at the Tropenmuseum in Amsterdam …

You misspelled "moron" …

Jon

[chrisoff]

Got to agree with the Durova is a parasite bit. She appears to be seriously lacking in a real life. She spends most of her time maneuvering her comments about arbitrations that have nothing to do with her. Why does she think her opining is so important?

Ego, man EGO

Yup!

[BelovedFox]

Just another case of people caring a bit too much about a website... all that street cred doesn't turn into much in the real world. In my case, a bunch of random trivia and an opportunity to learn and improve my writing... but for the people so involved in the dramaboards, I'm not so sure you get much of worth out of it.

[Wiki Witch of the West]

What you're getting away from, guys, is that I also prioritized Shoemaker's ArbCom appeals ahead of my own and stood up for him for a year and a half until he got his case vacated. These past few days have been something like the end with David Shankbone.

The thing that drew me to both of them was seeing someone who did a lot of good work and had a lot of potential who looked like they needed a hand. They both got my trust; once they had that trust I was slow to pick up on the signals that maybe that trust wasn't deserved. Until it was really obvious.

Mantanmoreland was similar but he fooled more people. And looking back on how it transpired, he surrounded himself with idealistic people who didn't always choose the right crusade.

[thekohser]

I've been thinking about this more, and I'm rooting for Durova.

[Somey]

I've been thinking about this more, and I'm rooting for Durova.

Well, I think that's understandable, but neither of them are looking so good at the moment... what fun!

As for the scanner, here's what Mr. Cuerden says (repeated here):

To SandyGeorgia: The scanner was offered because I've spent thousands of pounds on material to scan over the years, but was - and am - unable to work with it due to having now lost my main source of income, and thus was unable to get a replacement scanner. Unlike Durova, I actively seek out historical material, instead of using scans prepared by others.

I'm not sure of the details, and, frankly, with the number of things Durova has said she was going to do - the scanner, the Tropenmuseum exhibition, various other projects she claimed were in the air, and then used to get people to do what she wanted, none of which ever materialized, I doubt there was ever any practical chance of me getting one. But she milked it for months in order to manipulate me.

So if I'm reading this correctly, Mr. Cuerden says that Ms. Durova promised to arrange the "grant" to buy him a new scanner herself, and then didn't. It still sounds slightly fishy, or should I say "banna-phaffish," in that he doesn't say that his old scanner broke, or that he had to sell it - rather he seems to be saying that he can no longer work with his old scanner because he lost his main income source. Losing your income is bad, but does it really mean you can no longer scan things? Hopefully he just wasn't being clear for some reason.

Also, he spent thousands of pounds on "material to scan"? What was he scanning, gold bullion? Original paintings from the Post-Impressionist era? Original Shakespeare quartos? Unless he's referring to the scanning hardware itself, I suppose... but even the highest-priced consumer-level scanners are well under 500 quid. Unless he's going through one or two Epson Perfection-Series scanners per year, I'm not quite down with this part of the story.

[dtobias]

What you're getting away from, guys, is that I also prioritized Shoemaker's ArbCom appeals ahead of my own and stood up for him for a year and a half until he got his case vacated. These past few days have been something like the end with David Shankbone.

Yeah, yeah, I get it... you did everything for him, and then he turned around and bit you anyway... though in the interaction that set the whole thing off, it seems like you were the first to excessively overreact (though he soon was upping the overreaction ante himself). You seem to be the sort who keeps an elaborate mental score so that you can come back with a "he owes me one" when necessary.

[Jon Awbrey]

What you're getting away from, guys, is that I also prioritized Shoemaker's ArbCom appeals ahead of my own and stood up for him for a year and a half until he got his case vacated. These past few days have been something like the end with David Shankbone.

Yeah, yeah, I get it … you did everything for him, and then he turned around and bit you anyway … though in the interaction that set the whole thing off, it seems like you were the first to excessively overreact (though he soon was upping the overreaction ante himself). You seem to be the sort who keeps an elaborate mental score so that you can come back with a "he owes me one" when necessary.

Got a problem, need help, odds against you? — Call The Equalizer.

I guess it's a step up from Ms. T, at least … or is it?

Jon

[dogbiscuit]

Well, on the one picture of Pearl Harbour that she was so proud of, she had blotted out cables assuming they were scratches, and arguably if historic photos have blemishes, they should be retained as otherwise you are creating an image of a past where the technology was more advanced than it was. I'm surprised WikiMedia hasn't moved into colorizing the pictures (it probably has, thinking about it).

You've asserted that before a while back. Don't know where you got the notion I was especially proud of the USS West Virginia restoration. Your previous post seemed to be referring to one prominent scratch that passes from the left superstructure to a point slightly above the right superstructure and then swings upward past a dark cloud past the second superstructure. That upward swing at far right defies gravity and the scratch is several shades lighter than any of the actual cables.

Now there is a classic Durova-ism. The point was not about pride in that work, you have plenty of that generally without investing it in a particular work; the point was you have made an alteration to the photograph where it is now not possible for people to ponder whether it is a mark or a representation.

You assert that the upswing defies gravity without understanding what might be out of frame on a ship in harbour, on a blurred photograph with all sorts of effects occurring because of intense fire. I'm actually quite happy that it might be a scratch, but I remain to be convinced as there are a number of plausible explanations.

One solution to the problem, rather than guessing, rather than original research, would be to find prints from other sources of the same photograph and see what artefacts are in them or indeed, places for that cable to join...

It could be that the scratches were made in the original, and that, around the fallout from battle, the scratched picture is how it was originally produced and the damage was not that of ageing. Is it then appropriate to "restore" a picture to a state that it had never been in?

Perhaps you just need to call what you do something other than restoration.

[Zoloft]

<snip>
It could be that the scratches were made in the original, and that, around the fallout from battle, the scratched picture is how it was originally produced and the damage was not that of ageing. Is it then appropriate to "restore" a picture to a state that it had never been in?

Perhaps you just need to call what you do something other than restoration.

'Cleanup' or 'Retouching' would be more accurate. As you Cedric said earlier, it is appropriate to display a cleaned-up photo if marked as such and a link to the original scan is included.

This post has been edited by Zoloft: Thu 11th March 2010, 5:07pm

[Cedric]

<snip>
It could be that the scratches were made in the original, and that, around the fallout from battle, the scratched picture is how it was originally produced and the damage was not that of ageing. Is it then appropriate to "restore" a picture to a state that it had never been in?

Perhaps you just need to call what you do something other than restoration.

'Cleanup' or 'Retouching' would be more accurate. As you Cedric said earlier, it is appropriate to display a cleaned-up photo if marked as such and a link to the original scan is included.

No, I didn't say that. Check my post again.

[Zoloft]

<snip>
It could be that the scratches were made in the original, and that, around the fallout from battle, the scratched picture is how it was originally produced and the damage was not that of ageing. Is it then appropriate to "restore" a picture to a state that it had never been in?

Perhaps you just need to call what you do something other than restoration.

'Cleanup' or 'Retouching' would be more accurate. As you Cedric said earlier, it is appropriate to display a cleaned-up photo if marked as such and a link to the original scan is included.

No, I didn't say that. Check my post again.

Sorry. My paraphrase was incorrect.

...alteration to "enhance" an image, as Durova does, is generally not acceptable. When it is done, it is usually done to a small detail appearing in the photo (such as a ring or a lapel pin), and the unaltered blow-up and the enhanced blow-up will appear together so that the reader can judge the interpretation for themself.

Allow me to rephrase:
'Cleanup' or 'Retouching' would be more accurate. I believe it is appropriate to display a cleaned-up photo if marked as such and a link to the original scan is included.

[RDH(Ghost In The Machine)]

What Durova does with images is not that much different from what the Soviet government did in publications during the Cold War: they alter images willy-nilly according to their own tastes and as a matter of course. After Stalin, photo alteration was such an ingrained practice it simply continued on long after him. It wasn't just photos of communist leaders that were altered, but everything. I remember during my college days seeing a book published in the Soviet Union on the US Civil War. The book was thoroughly illustrated and every photo reproduced in it was heavily air brushed in the traditional Soviet style. After seeing so many faithful reproductions of photos of grizzled men like Lincoln, Sherman and Grant, it was rather weird and a bit creepy to see their spruced-up Soviet counterparts. Whether it be due to simple ignorance or pure narcissism, Comrade Durova simply doesn't get it.

I thought about making that comparison earlier...but now I'm glad I refrained, because you did a far better job!


From me it would have come off sounding simply mean or, at best, funny. Especially since I lack a personal anecdote to drive home the point.

[Web Fred]

To paraphrase the well-known phrase or saying "don't put down to deviousness that which is actually stupidity", Durova isn't deliberately altering history, she's just fucking lousy at doing what she does.

This post has been edited by Cunningly Linguistic: Fri 12th March 2010, 11:53am

[SB_Johnny]

What you're getting away from, guys, is that I also prioritized Shoemaker's ArbCom appeals ahead of my own and stood up for him for a year and a half until he got his case vacated. These past few days have been something like the end with David Shankbone.

Yeah, yeah, I get it... you did everything for him, and then he turned around and bit you anyway... though in the interaction that set the whole thing off, it seems like you were the first to excessively overreact (though he soon was upping the overreaction ante himself). You seem to be the sort who keeps an elaborate mental score so that you can come back with a "he owes me one" when necessary.

I'm guessing she has a big database of ready "diffs" for strategic use, which boggles the mind.

[Eva Destruction]

To paraphrase the well-known phrase or saying "don't put down to deviousness that which is actually stupidity", Durova isn't deliberately altering history, she's just fucking lousy at doing what she does.

In fairness, I have to say that, although I find Durova's "without me you're nothing" posturing intensely irritating, when I was active on WP on the occasions I had any dealings with her in the image-retouching context I always found her perfectly helpful, willing to listen to criticism and suggestions, and pretty good at what she did.

[Web Fred]

To paraphrase the well-known phrase or saying "don't put down to deviousness that which is actually stupidity", Durova isn't deliberately altering history, she's just fucking lousy at doing what she does.

In fairness, I have to say that, although I find Durova's "without me you're nothing" posturing intensely irritating, when I was active on WP on the occasions I had any dealings with her in the image-retouching context I always found her perfectly helpful, willing to listen to criticism and suggestions, and pretty good at what she did.

As a professional image restorer I can attest that she's bobbins at it.