Talk:Valora Noland

Forums → Ten Forward → Valora Noland (reply • watch)

Original discussion

Moved from User talk:Sulfur.

Sulfer, you obviously have made yourself my overseer for this wiki. If you care so much to get things right, how about seeing that the pic. of Valora Noland playing Daras is brighter. It is a simple matter to adjust bright and contrast for jpgs in photo program.

I see you have blocked my edits. But your discrimination is not perfect, nor is imdbs. People who are not performers themselves get involved with it and like to flatten the game for the actor, even many years later, it appears. I do not approve of imdbs adding actors birth names nor year of birth, which they did a few years back for the first time. The Star Trek Memory Alpha does not have to copy them.

I don't see any important reason for blocking my edits of "lost on this site" entry in Valora Noland TALK. I took the email out, and Valora Tree out. Nit picking at best not to allow this. I was doing a kind of housecleaning. I think all this older stuff could be automatically deleted, leaving only entries from last six months.

Question: There seems to be a Valora Noland talk page associated with the main wiki pg. for actress Valora Noland, and then, if I log in I log in as Valora Noland, and this person also has a talk page. I can't make sense of it.

Paranormal is in S.Trek episode, so is a Star Trek topic supreme. Valora Noland (talk) 17:22, November 11, 2012 (UTC)

Please note that the image used is taken from the blu-ray, with contrast and color levels presented as per the image on the official releases.

You may not approve of places posting those birthdates, but those dates are public knowledge, and as such, we choose to post them so that we can attempt to build as complete a picture of Star Trek's rich history as possible. That includes birthdates, production dates, and so forth. We have had birthdates listed whenever possible since the encyclopedia began 10+ years ago.

Removing the email address should not be a problem, but doing it without making an mention in the edit summary (box to the top right above the "save/publish" button) makes people question what is occurring.

Finally, main encyclopedia pages are separate from "user" pages. As such, there is a page for "Valora Noland" in the main encyclopedia, and since you created a used with that same name, there is also one in the "user" space. -- sulfur (talk) 19:27, November 11, 2012 (UTC)

Sulfer, I got your reply from my messages of this morning.

But as for "image of Daras is taken from blu-ray..." I can only say that it doesn't qualify. Why change the one I gave the wiki a few years back? At least you could match it for bright aspects. Too dull? Then get one from a non-blu-ray video. For Gods sake!66.87.2.248 00:00, November 12, 2012 (UTC)

Hi Sulfer, this is Valora again. I just, at 10:03 a.m. Pacific time (for locating purposes if needed), uploaded a Daras photo for your Valora Noland encyclopedia page. It has better color bal. than what's there at present, and is cropped almost the same. Thanks. Valora Noland (talk) 18:11, November 12, 2012 (UTC)

I forgot to add that the Daras frame grab on the "Daras" page also could be improved by replacing with the one I just uploaded.Valora Noland (talk) 18:22, November 12, 2012 (UTC)

Here we are on the 13th of Nov. 2012. If you know about number symbolism, #13 is very interesting, representing change more than anything else.

I have spent a long time trying to find an article with all the needed info. on replacing images in photo history, replacing a current image on a page, etc. but to no avail, so must bother you again. The image I uploaded yesterday did not have large enough resolution, I fear, and it should be deleted. Daras from Patterns of Force.jpg is what I called it.

This morning I took three frame grabs and resized them to about 500 pixals in one direction. A different one could go on each of the three pages where Daras or Valora Noland has a photo, but I don't know how to proceed, and am afraid of goofing further. Could you tell me how to do this? Or where there is a good article on HOW? I could just upload them all to the general photo gallery, but then, how would any of them end up in my photo history? So I need some help to proceed.

As I said, two of these images are almost the same as what is up now, but brighter, and one is a better version of the closeup prior to Jan, 2012. Thanks. Valora Noland (talk) 19:19, November 13, 2012 (UTC)

The problem with changing the contrast and such on the images that are uploaded is that they are no longer the images found on the DVD or Blu-ray. The image we have now is precisely what is found on the Bu-ray, as it was presented in the episode itself. The images you have uploaded with contrast and colour changes are not. We have made a specific point of using the original image, unaltered in any way (except for cropping to present a specific object with more clarity). I'll bring this to the attention of a couple of the other admins to get their POV on the issue though. -- sulfur (talk) 20:38, November 13, 2012 (UTC)

I think this thing has been drawn out enough by now. I personally stopped responding to mails from this person years ago, because it just wasn't possible to reason with her. So, what should happen, at most, is that a new screenshot is grabbed from the Blu-ray and uploaded without change. After that, we should be done with it - and if this person still doesn't get it and continues to harass people, she should be blocked after a proper warning. -- Cid Highwind (talk) 21:24, November 13, 2012 (UTC)

I recaptured an image from the Blu-ray, and it was almost pixel for pixel identical for the image that we currently have (also captured from the Blu-ray). -- sulfur (talk) 21:49, November 13, 2012 (UTC)

Valora answers, to look at the current image, blu-ray is obviously too blue or too grey. Other images on this wiki have normal skin tone, or as one finds the images in the original Star Trek videos. I don't have a set up to watch blu-ray here at home, so I don't know if everything looks bluish on your screen.

Sorry Cid, I don't think this is a crazy subject.

22:09, November 13, 2012 (UTC)

I don't know if I entirely understand what is going on here, but I don't think we should have altered images in articles; we should only have ones lifted from the episodes themselves. If possible, it should be from the Blu-ray as that will be the clearest and have the best color possible from film made in the 1960s. 31dot (talk) 03:46, November 14, 2012 (UTC)

Our policies only allow for the altering of images for a very small number of reasons, and in very limited ways. The rational given so far for altering the image(s) in question is not a sufficient reason to do so. - Archduk3 07:32, November 14, 2012 (UTC)

There's another difference between the two images, they use notably different aspect ratios. In the "bright" image, the face looks considerably wider than it should, making the "blu-ray" one better in yet another regard. -- Cid Highwind (talk) 09:45, November 14, 2012 (UTC)

Hi, interested third party here. How about this shot as an alternative? It's from the blu-ray, and it's not from that cave set with the dark lighting. - Aatrek 13:46, November 14, 2012 (UTC)

I think the image Aatrek referenced above might be a good compromise. That shot (or a very similar one) was originally on the Daras article to begin with when the article was created. I might also suggest that if Ms. Noland has a nice promo shot she'd be willing to upload, that one could be used on the Valora Noland page rather than the same one from the episode. She would have complete control over the contrast, etc. on that one. ;) -- Renegade54 (talk) 14:43, November 14, 2012 (UTC)

In the interest of everyone seeing the full picture here: the oldest mail I could find regarding this is a November 2009 mail in which "Valora Tree" contacted me after what apparently was a three-month hiatus in our discussion, asked for help regarding some stray "enlarge" link next to an image of her, and mentioned some "spirit faces" she saw in that image, which may be "reincarnations" or "extra-dimensional beings". In July 2011, she contacted me again with a new image version. Between and before those two contacts, she asked for removal of any image of her also showing a swastika, talked about more spiritual nonsense, and even went to Wikia at least once to have images depicting her removed from this site. She not only contacted me, but also Sulfur several times, and probably other admins as well.

This stuff has been going on for over three years now, probably approaching four years, and while the requests may be genuine, the whole chain of events would also be compatible with one huge and weird trolling attempt - and I don't like to be trolled. The image Aatrek suggested looks good, so let's just upload that one over the other, and remove the near-duplicates that were uploaded today and during the last days. -- Cid Highwind (talk) 15:10, November 14, 2012 (UTC)

Aatrek's suggested image seems fine to me as well, and if a publicity photo turns up at some point for the actress' page, then all the better. - Archduk3 00:51, November 15, 2012 (UTC)

I'll second that. 31dot (talk) 03:09, November 15, 2012 (UTC)

I've uploaded the image over the other revisions, despite Valora's objections on my talk page. - Aatrek 15:58, November 17, 2012 (UTC)

moved from User talk:Cid Highwind

Cid, I'm replying to your entry of Nov.14: You are acrimonious, intolerant, and unfair. Our prior communications were slight if spread over the three years since I first discovered this wiki and a dark, unacceptable image of "Daras". You should resign as a helper on this site if you cannot proceed with the right spirit. Besides, I don't believe I contacted (bothered) you this last round.

P.S. The paranormal which I discovered is very interesting for those with an inquiring mind which you obviously do not have.Valora Noland (talk) 18:05, November 19, 2012 (UTC)

My "entry" can, at the moment, be found on User talk:Sulfur - might be best to move all that to this page as well. -- Cid Highwind (talk) 21:24, November 19, 2012 (UTC)

Newest discussion

Transferred from 31dot's talk page, and continued from the original discussion

There are many admins on this site. I'm trying you for a change, as you contacted me when I was trying to upload some images last week.

A few days ago, one who calls himself "Aatrek" deleted the four images I recently uploaded as possible replacements for the Valora Noland, Daras, and Ekosian pages. What was on these pages was dark and dingy, praise it though some may (because they prefer dark and dingy). I have been blocked from being able to do much on this wiki, and since I don't know how to go about things anyway, in most cases, that' okay as long as someone else can operate the controls for me.

I think it should be possible to choose an image for the three pages mentioned above which everyone, including me (who played Daras in the episode) agrees on. The prior image, uploaded by --- in Jan, 2012, was too dark but otherwise appropriate. I contributed the same but brighter to the general "add image" folder, "Daras from Patterns of Force.jpg", but then thought I should increase the resolution Thus, "Daras3.jpg". Could we go back to this image in one version or another? I truly dislike the picture which is on now.

About 1850, a few women activists began to push for a Women's Bill of Rights which included the right to vote. I know there is a very big need today for an "Actor's Bill of Rights", passed and signed by the president. The Screen Actor's Guild is inadequate in this regard.Valora Noland (talk) 17:35, November 19, 2012 (UTC)

First, I have moved this page here, as this should be discussed in one location instead of you "admin shopping" to find someone who will be more supportive of you. As things here are decided by consensus, that won't really help you much anyhow. I urge you to confine your discussion of this issue to this page.

Second, this is not the forum to advocate for legislation on actors' issues. Unless and until the law changes, the fair use doctrine permits use of images from Star Trek here if we are not profiting monetarily from them, which is the case.

Third, it has been explained that in the vast majority of circumstances, we do not permit altered images; only ones taken directly from the episodes. Images from the Blu-ray release can(and should) be used as they will have the best resolution possible from film made in the 1960s. 31dot (talk) 18:08, November 19, 2012 (UTC)

Edit conflict:

I'm not sure what the Bill of Rights has to do with anything here, but for the rest (most of this is the same old, same old, again):

• We use untouched images from blu-rays (or DVDs if blu-rays are unavailable) to present the episode materials in the best format possible.
• The images you uploaded were, by your own admission, lightened and had the contrast and brightness changed. As such, these images are not acceptable for use on Memory Alpha.
• The offer was made to you to provide a promotional image for use on the Valora Noland article. The other two articles must use an image from within the episode proper.

So, in short, if you provide a promotional headshot, then that can be used for the actress page. As the other images were all unacceptable to you and no comment was made on the new image until well after it replaced the others, the only other option is to revert to the original image choice (with the same light levels that it had already).

Otherwise, this discussion is simply going in circles (as it really has been for the past 3+ years). -- sulfur (talk) 18:12, November 19, 2012 (UTC)

Valora answers here again: I don't know how to reply on the forum page, as text goes all the way to the bottom.

About the images I uploaded which I assume are still somewhere in the wiki system: No, I did not alter the bright or aspect ratio in these images. They are as I received them from the video business which extracted them in 2009. I did use PhotoShop to get rid of the gun in Daras' hair to make that image more of a portrait, but otherwise left alone. Recently, I went back to those files and cropped two shots exactly as the one already on, uploaded by someone else in Jan.2012. Obviously, they are from a pre-blu-ray DVD. (Check out Sally Kellerman's page for bright shots of her from the Star Trek show she did, lower on page).

Second, the mention of Actor's Bill of Rights was meant to focus on lack of disclosure out of which problems are born. Recently, the bad film which found its way to the Middle East and caused such havoc was acted by actors who didn't know what they were acting in! I can well understand. I would not have been in Patterns of Force if facts about the show had been told or shown me prior to the first day of shooting. I think it's a good episode, but not appropriate for me to have played in. This is only one example of many I could mention if including other shows. In a certain way, Actor's Bill of Rights does relate to this wiki. Maybe someone will pick up the idea and bring it into being.

When a photographer takes stills of someone, in the old days, he or she was pleased if they got just two or three great shots out of a proof sheet, several rolls of film being usual. In cinema, there may not be an alternative to use, so another approach is necessary. I have many faces in the Patterns of Force episode, some pretty and some, like the one which is up now, not what I would pick from a proof sheet, to put it mildly. There is no bone structure. I did a lot with photography for 25 years following Hollywood, and perhaps that is one of the reasons it pains me so much to see the present pick.

One way I can handle it is to never visit this site again, in which case I won't have to see myself. You suggest I should give the wiki an actor's still for the Valora Noland page, but at this point, I feel very unloved and hesitant to risk it. Who knows what could follow that!

Is this a hopeless situation, to get you to put a better image back up?Valora Noland (talk) 15:30, November 22, 2012 (UTC)