These guides represent the thoughts of their authors. All individually written voter guides are eligible for inclusion. Guides to other guides are ineligible.
I bitz yur artikl till it ded then I delete it. In memory of content writer Richard Arthur Norton, lynched at AN after 13 years and 6 months at Wikipedia.
A request for comment about removing administrative privileges in specified situations is open for feedback.
Technical news
Progress has started on the Page Triage improvement project. This is to address the concerns raised by the community in their 2022 WMF letter that requested improvements be made to the tool.
You could be right. Then again, it is pretty damned easy to skip a rules synopsis and pretty damned essential for a reader to have a grasp of the rules of the given year to make heads or tails of a seasonal summary. I don't feel religious about the matter, delete what you wanna. Carrite (talk) 18:55, 9 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
That would seem to be a good alternative play: a series of annual rules sections in the Season articles. I've had in the back of my mind doing some sort of football rules by year series but that might be a good way to consolidate information with a See Also link that could get everyone who needs to be taken up to speed to that point with a click. I knew as I was pasting in multiple text blocks that it was kind of cumbersome way to address the issue, which is why I kind of stopped with the West. Carrite (talk) 17:30, 12 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
That would be a good place to present rules changes, for sure. I'm not sure if those general descriptions of "the game as of (year)" are perfect fits. Add if you think it's appropriate. I'm sort of engaged with NFL football in the 1920s and the Chicago Cardinals at the moment. Carrite (talk) 20:28, 27 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'm happy to make those additions to the 1893 and 1899 season articles if you want, but since it's substantive content that you assembled, I thought you may want the deserved attribution! Jweiss11 (talk) 21:35, 27 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I will never participate in a Commons deletion discussion nor will I ever again upload to that dysfunctional Lord of the Flies institution. Carrite (talk) 02:14, 12 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It is actually not on Commons, it is on the English Wikipedia. You are welcome to comment, though the discussion can be closed at any point now. Ymblanter (talk) 10:21, 19 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Took me 20 minutes to find it and at least that much longer to re-scan it and re-edit it. So it goes. Source: Industrial Unionism, frontis (1935). Carrite (talk) 05:40, 29 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Your ACE question
I appreciated your question at ACE; I'd have asked it if I had more questions.
If you notice anything else from that list that you think would be helpful to ask, I'd very much welcome your doing so. Best, KevinL (aka L235·t·c) 19:53, 13 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I really don't like the trend towards secret cases with secret evidence. Arbcom has long suffered from the problem of being translucent rather than transparent — secret cases are simply opaque. I can't think of anything else that's a pressing single question. I feel like I already used my two... Thanks for the feedback. —tim /// Carrite (talk) 20:02, 13 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, that's understandable.I will say, on this question, where you stand probably depends quite a bit on where you sit. There are cases that the committee has to hear privately, and also can't really say exactly why it has to hear them privately. The hope is that the community will elect arbs who it will trust when those decisions come up. My sense is that we're not drawing on a large enough pool of candidates for ACE elections to truly result in that kind of broad community trust, so it's an understandable (but unfortunate) dynamic that when the committee does have to make those calls, there are folks who will feel compelled to criticize those decisions — even though I'm sure they would've made the same call if they were in an arbitrator's shoes.Based on your guide, I'm aware that I probably would not be receiving your vote if I were running, so I'm not expecting to convince you, but I hope you would agree that there are multiple possible good-faith perspectives on this question. Best, KevinL (aka L235·t·c) 21:13, 13 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Unfortunately there are also bad faith perspectives. I dunno, I think we've got at least 9 sensible choices and 7 of them or so should get seats, so things will be improved over the depleted committee that has been grinding towards the finish this year. I agree that a couple more choices would help with the winnowing. Carrite (talk) 21:59, 13 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
ArbCom 2024 Elections voter message
Hello! Voting in the 2024 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 2 December 2024. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.
The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.
An automated process has detected that when you recently edited 1957 Chicago Cardinals season, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Chuck Weber.
This effectively swaps the pages. If you do not want to do this manually every time, you can install an automated tool to do that by following the instructions here. JJPMaster (she/they) 19:22, 23 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Obsolete Center tags
Hello, I've noticed this evening that you've been adding <center>...</center> to sports articles. Please don't use this tag. The tag is not HTML5 compliant and usage reports an obsolete tag WP:LINT syntax error. No articles on enwiki have any obsolete tags. If you would, please use an HTML5 compliant alternative. Cheatsheet here. If you have any questions, feel free to ask at Wikipedia talk:Linter and I or one of the other regulars will be happy to assist. Thank you, Zinnober9 (talk) 05:50, 26 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
|style="text-align: center;" |0–1
I'll try to remember.
t
File:1939-Giants-mediaguide.jpg
Hi Carrite. I'm assuming you photographed File:1939-Giants-mediaguide.jpg yourself, right? If you did, it might be better to try and frame the photo so that it's taken from straight on overhead position per c:COM:2D copying because it could be argued that the current photo is eligible for copyright protection since it's taken at a slight angle. -- Marchjuly (talk) 02:30, 28 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It seems a bit extreme perhaps, but the idea is that the photographer perhaps did make some creative decisions when taking the photo (the angle of the shot, the placing of the media guide, the distance between camera and guide, etc.) and such things in and of themselves can be considered sufficiently creative to establish separate copyright protection for the photo regardless of the copyright status of what's being photographed for the same reasons as given in c:COM:PD-Art#This does not apply to photographs of 3D works of art. Since you took the photo yourself, you could just add a free license of your choosing for the photo if needed; if, however, someone else took the photo, you can't really do that. For this reason, full-frame slavish reproductions of PD works tend to be preferred since they eliminate (at least under US copyright law) any concerns about the copyright status of the photo itself. To cover other countries, sometimes c:Template:Licensed PD-art or c:Template:PD-scan is used as a "wrapper" for both the licensing of the photo and photographed work just to dot the "i" and make things clear. -- Marchjuly (talk) 01:42, 29 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
You be you on Commons, I could not care less about that institution. There is no "artistic input" on a reproduction of a cover of a public domain printed work shot from "something other than 90 degrees". It's an irrational splitting of hairs, Alice in Wonderland stuff, which is why it is par for the course for some bizarre argument like that to propagate in the Commons septic tank. And BTW: fuck "slavish reproductions". We should provide our users with the best images possible, which means digital editing. Carrite (talk) 04:37, 29 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Women in Red December 2024
Women in Red | December 2024, Vol 10, Issue 12, Nos 293, 294, 324, 325
Women in Religion have a monthly virtual edit-a-thon and the next session is December 2nd 4:00 - 5:00 p.m. CST. For Zoom meeting details, contact Dzingle1 or RosPost. Women in Red members are welcome to join the Zoom Meeting here
Tip of the month:
Think of rewarding contributors, especially newcomers, with a barnstar.
I was revising my 1944 boxes for List of presidential nominating conventions in the United States#Workers', Communist and Socialist Workers parties to include the 1944 NYC convention of the Communist Political Association (since they did have a convention without nominating anyone, i.e. endorsing FDR explicitly would hardly have helped his chances), but I found it hard to give a good wikilink or external link, since the history pages for the CPUSA have been rearranged a good deal.
Do you think it useful to add (or would you mind adding) either a dedicated subsection to CPUSA/History of the CPUSA or a small new page about the C.P.A. (more than a stub, though hardly needing exhaustive coverage plus perhaps a workable link -- since I couldn't make one -- to the MIA's C.P.A. manifesto)? After all, Wikipedia does have articles about such ephemera as the Social Democratic League).
I'm not sure how to handle that. It was a simple name change for CPUSA, but it included changing the name of primary party units and might have marked a change of party culture as well. Still, I think it should stay within the main CPUSA article as a subsection, it really wasn't a different organization the same way the early CPA (underground) and WPA (above ground) were different, parallel organizations. BTW, I haven't ever seen it mentioned that the name "Communist Political Association" was a reversion to the antecedent acronym, CPA — which I am 99.999% sure was no accident! So anyway, dedicated subsection would be my recommendation. Ciao! —tim //// Carrite (talk) 08:02, 2 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated files}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the file's talk page.
No objections to that but I see motherfucking Commons has bot-uploaded another one of my Lee files to their domain without leaving the original behind at en-WP and without preserving my original rationale in full or crediting me for digital editing. Par for the course. Carrite (talk) 15:46, 2 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Following an RFC, the policy on restoration of adminship has been updated. All former administrators may now only regain the tools following a request at the Wikipedia:Bureaucrats' noticeboard within 5 years of their most recent admin action. Previously this applied only to administrators deysopped for inactivity.
Following a request for comment, a new speedy deletion criterion, T5, has been enacted. This applies to template subpages that are no longer used.
To add a tag to the image, select the appropriate tag from this list, click on this link, then click "Edit this page" and add the tag to the image's description. If there doesn't seem to be a suitable tag, the image is probably not appropriate for use on Wikipedia. For help in choosing the correct tag, or for any other questions, leave a message on Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. Thank you for your cooperation. --ImageTaggingBot (talk) 20:30, 6 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Very strange that there's almost no information about this conference / set of conferences in modern articles and media guides. I had never heard about it until last week. Its history should have featured prominently into the recent articles written about the collapse of the Pac-12. The Pac-12's accepted history seems to begin at the Pacific Coast Conference in 1915 but from the contemporary citations there seems to be a clear line from the 1902/1908 conference(s) in the Pacific Northwest.
I'm in the process of expanding the article, building football and basketball standings, and hopefully bringing it up to GA status. Invitation to collaborate if you are still interested in the conference. PK-WIKI (talk) 23:48, 8 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hiya PK. I've built a complete run of NCAA guides from 1899 to the early 1980s (early issues reprints) and I try not to work from modern media guides too much at all since I've found so much in them that isn't quite correct or sometimes downright wrong. I'll say for sure that the history of college conferences is considerably more complex than we think it is — I suspect there are more than a few conferences not even mentioned on Wiki at this point. My own interest is the NFL through 1970 or so, so this isn't what I concentrate on much, but I do notice that the number of conferences was great and their composition fluid. Anyway, if you have any question about who was it what conference in a specific year, it is quite simple for me to pull a volume to look it up so don't hesitate to ask.
The NCAA also did annual basketball guides, but that's outside of my interest, except for my alma mater, Oregon State, a little.
As for the Pac-12, I think there was a break in there and it wasn't a straight line from the Pacific Coast Conference. I remember seeing OSU as an independent again at some point, anyway. I think the conference broke up and came back again — but this is a question for you to solve as the historian, I reckon... Again, if you come to a point where you have a year-related question, drop me a line and I will try to look up the answer. Best regards, —tim //// Carrite (talk) 00:20, 9 December 2024 (UTC) //// email: MutantPop@aol.com[reply]
There was a break circa 1959 when the PCC ceased and the AAWU began, but modern Pac-12 has claimed the PCC history despite being a different organization. They probably should have also claimed the pre-1915 PNW conference history as well based on the contemporary citations showing the PCC to be an offshoot / sister conference of the existing Northwest Conference. At the very least, history article about the UW/WSU or Oregon/OSU breakup should have noted the much longer shared conference history prior to the PCC.
There also do not seem to be schools claiming the northwest conference championships... UW's first claimed football conference championship is the 1916 PCC which completely omits their Gil Dobie championship years. Probably another 10+ earned conference championships to claim, which I hope to eventually bring up with the SID.
If you have any older NCAA guides circa 1890-1915 that list any conference groupings for the PNW schools I'd be very interested in seeing those sources. Also any 1915-1925 that list a second "Northwest Conference" affiliation in addition to the better-known PCC affiliation. Where is Gonzaga affiliated from 1920-1925?
I'll spin through a few guides while I'm half-watching MNF. First up: 1912 volume, covering the year 1911: "Washington won the championship [of the PCC] for the fourth consecutive time, by a bigger margin than ever." (p. 253) Oregon and OAC second and third. "Football in California" is a separate section, since they went back to rugby rules at Stanford and Cal... There is no standings like they presented in later volumes. Carrite (talk) 01:30, 9 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
One other thing worth mentioning — the degree of coverage in the NCAA guides is much better for NCAA member schools than non-member schools. So it may be that the PCC gets big attention while a smaller Northwest Conference gets little attention or no attention.
The 1913 volume is pretty useless for purpose, mostly photos and rules. Three pages on "Football in the West," which is everything from Wisconsin to the Pacific. In the 1914 volume I don't see anything about the Pacific Coast at all. Some words about the "Western Conference" a.k.a. "The Big Nine", which was actually Midwestern. In 1915 there is only one conference showing standings, somewhere back east. I do so multiple pages of All-Star teams and that might be a way to figure out conferences a little. There is an "All Northwest Eleven" by the sports editor of the Portland Oregonian... WSC, OAC, UO, UW. So that would be PCC again, I guess. Gonzaga not mentioned in the pages and pages of previous season results (although many high schools were). [What was the formal name of the school in this era? Gonzaga College???]
That's the play if one is looking up a single word like "Gonzaga"... I downloaded the 1912 volume and ran a search of the PDF, which generated one hit, a 1911 shutout loss to Idaho. Carrite (talk) 02:08, 9 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
PK - My sense is that there's nothing really useful in volumes of this era on Gonzaga football. I think teams self-reported and sent in team pictures for publication — the rules book being the main draw of the publication. Carrite (talk) 02:10, 9 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
As soon as I say that, I see a section "Football in the Pacific Northwest College Conference" in the 1916 volume. Page 81 is where it starts. See the link JW put up above and download that. The All-Conference team includes UO, OAC, UW, WSC, and Whitman. Carrite (talk) 02:14, 9 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipediocracy
Hello, Tim, and Happy Holidays. On October 23, we had a conversation about Wikipediocracy here on your talk page, and today, I did some reading there as I do every few months. I noticed that several people there criticized me for two comments in particular: "a handful of vile obsessives" and "I do not socialize with embittered cranks and creeps who revel in tearing other people down". I was accused by some of personal attacks against everyone there. I think that "handful" is the operative word here. I want to make it clear that I think that the majority, probably the overwhelming majority of the participants there, are acting in good faith. I also think that the site reveals various shortcomings of Wikipedia that are worthy of attention. Some of those problems can be solved easily, while others require years of work. I also want to make it clear that I do not have any problem with any productive Wikipedia editor who believes that it is a good use of their time to comment there regularly. It is the antics of the "handful" who despise Wikipedia that lead me to avoid active participation there. Every time I visit Wikipediocracy, I see certain people say vicious and cruel things with very little pushback. Just as Wikipediocracy is a Wikipedia criticism site, I wish that there was a Wikipediocracy criticism site. At such a hypothetical site, it might be easier for me to learn what's worth reading on Wikipediocracy, and I might be able to mostly avoid the ranting of the handful of highly active bullies, which I find unbearably distasteful. Cullen328 (talk) 04:02, 11 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Ha ha! It's called "Wikipedia Sucks!" Google is your friend... WPO gets the WPO treatment. Such pain we feel... /s
Yeah, don't overthink it. Your comments about WPO are understood. It's a diverse message board and I wouldn't expect you to like everybody... Carrite (talk) 04:59, 11 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Dear @Carrite: I have seen that you are the person who uploaded to Wikipedia English a picture of Louis Lingg. Your description follows as this: "Image from a contemporary cabinet card, photographer unknown, produced before 1923, public domain; Additional digital editing by Tim Davenport ("Carrite") for Wikipedia, no copyright claimed, released to the public domain without restriction." There are things to add in here. First of all, not only the photographer is known, but also the exact date and place in where it was photographed: By John Joergen Kanberg, in County Jail, on May 3, 1887. He photographed all of them as far as I know, but only executed ones' photographs is in circulation now. He produced two variants of a collage post card with all of their pictures used. However these version are (understandably) cropped, I said cropped because Labadie Collection has a larger version of Spies' photo. Also the picture you uploaded gives larger view, too (and also in post card Lingg's photo was crossed by others' in four sides). Thus, I'm writing this to you. Do you happen to have a chance of scanning this photo, preferably in 400 or 600dpi, and upload it without cropping the edges or making any retouches, to Commons? Of course you can also upload the version you made edits on it, but it's better to upload it as a different file. If you can't, can you inform me in where this pictured is stored. A personal collection? An institution? I may try to connect with them thru e-mail or anything possibly. With best regards, Kemkhachev (talk) 02:37, 16 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, Kemkhachev— 1. Good to know the photographer is known, presumably you've made appropriate changes to my initial rationale. 2. Not sure where the scan originated; I did work at Michigan for a week, so it is possible it came from there but if it is low resolution that is probably out. It could possibly have sprung from a book frontis or book illustration, but I would have almost certainly credited that. Not sure. Also very possible that it was an eBay lot. I do have a pretty huge library and pamphlet collection, but 19th Century anarchist material is not my forte. 3. I don't own the card or have ready access to it. 4. Even if I did, I would never scan it for Motherfucking Commons™, retouched or unretouched, medium resolution or high. I do my digital work for English-Wikipedia, period. If somebody packrats my files to Commons, that is not my fault (or my desire), it has probably been ten years since I have willingly participated in that clownshow of a Wikimedia project. Best regards, —tim ///// 21:39, 17 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
In actually looking at the file, it looks at a glance like a microfilm scan. Again, I would typically credit this, so I can't really say more than that. It has artifacts and a certain fuzziness that looks microfilmish to me. I've got probably 1,000 reels of film, so it's quite plausible as a source of origination. Back in the day I used to roll up the image I wanted on a Minolta 603Z screen and snap it with my digital camera. That's what this looks like. I've got a Big Boy film scanner now. Carrite (talk) 21:50, 17 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Dear @Carrite: I actually looked at your profile after writing this, and I saw that you are pretty negative towards Commons. I don't know your reasoning for it, and while I do respect it, as you know uploading to commons makes it useable for every other language wikis too. For example, I'm Turkish, and I also contribute to Turkish wikipedia. About the source issue: 1) Unless you photographed it with a phone camera, I don't think it looks like a book source. It doesn't look like it has the defects from the book printing. However, this may also be result of retouches too. But I'm not an expert, you probably know better than me as you do that work. 2)What I do fear most is it being from an Ebay lot, because, that means, it's probably lost forever. Worthpoint mirrors Ebay content, but I couldn't manage to find it in there (maybe it isn't up to search in free use [I think they hide some content to paid subscribers?]). I do hope that you own it, even if you couldn't find, at least I would know who has it. 3) If it's really from a microfilm, since you have a thousand reels, naturally I couldn't ask from you to look for it if possible, because it's obviously very unlikely to find it among all of them. It would be selfish, I know. But, as a human being disabled with every kind of humanly bad features as much as everyone is, may I ask that can you at least check a couple of possible ones? Of course it's only normal for you rejecting it, too. It's just that sadly Kanberg's photos are very rare as photographs, whether being photo prints or in published material, and while there are plenty of drawings based on them, not them itself. The only photo of Haymarket martyrs taken by Kanberg exists in an institution is Spies' photo in Labadie collection. All the others are rarities. And the one you uploaded is really looks fine, and I really do hope for seeing a good scan of it. But as I said, if you say no, a no is a no. With best regards, Kemkhachev (talk) 02:40, 18 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Kemkhachev, I am 100% sure that is a camera photo by me of an image from microfilm against a microfilm screen. Outside of that, I really can't say the source. The problem with digital cameras is that you have cards with 200 unnamed images on them and you have to try to attribute them after the fact. I presume that was a CdV image, but it's plausibly a misidentified pamphlet image or news photo... Finding it would be a needle in a haystack, literally. best regards, —tim /////// Carrite (talk) 03:55, 18 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Kemkhachev - I appreciate you going the extra mile to find out the source of this. I had no idea that it was such a rarity of an image; as I said, 19th Century anarchism is not my forte. I really don't have any idea of where to start looking for it. Happy editing, —tim //// Carrite (talk) 01:33, 21 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Carrite: I must note one thing. I'm not anarchist, and like you 19th century anarchism isn't my shtick, nor the American labour movement. I do respect these martyrs because these working class men fought for their ideas and liberation of working classes till their last breath. Other thing is I'm more into visuality, maybe just like a kid. I do try to spot original sources of pictures, their producers, their taken time etc. if possible. For many great men of history these type of albums exist, but not for all. Either way, at least we know this much, it's also something. With best regards, Kemkhachev (talk) 05:21, 21 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Shakescene - Thanks for that, that's kinda cool. I've got a really good book in me about the history of American radicalism 1916 to 1925, but I'm embroiled in football at the moment, which is different! (Although the NFL billionaire owners are good communists with their egalitarian sharing of television megabucks, ha ha!) —tim /// Carrite (talk) 01:36, 21 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yeesh, that first page is a fucking unreadable Junior High School review of SPA history. I'll give it a try later when I am less drunk and more stoned, or vice versa! —tim /// Carrite (talk) 01:43, 21 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
