This is an archive of past discussions with User:GRuban, for the period 2022, Jul-Dec. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.
I'm working on The Vertiginous Thrill of Exactitude, about a ballet. I found a couple of images ([1] and [2]) on Flickr that I thought is useful, but they were deleted from Commons a few years ago. Both are indicated to be in the public domain, and I believe they are uploaded by the press office of Liceu, an opera house in Barcelona. I'm wondering what exactly was the problem and whether you can help with that. Thanks. Corachow (talk) 20:50, 29 June 2022 (UTC)
I can't find the deletion discussion on Commons, I'm afraid. Do you know where that might be, or who deleted them, or anything of the sort? I admit, at first glance they seem like they would be all right. --GRuban (talk) 21:26, 29 June 2022 (UTC)
Got a response, you can read it there. Sigh. Do you write Portuguese? Here's what I wrote to RGPD@liceubarcelona.cat, but in English, because I don't, and didn't want to risk automatic translation. If you can write a similar email in Portuguese, that might be more effective.
I'm a volunteer editor for Wikipedia, the free online encyclopedia. We'd like to use some of the beautiful images on your Flickr account, such as https://www.flickr.com/photos/premsaliceu/25464967025/ that you have licensed with Public Domain Mark, but an editor has brought up that you might not actually mean the images to be public domain. Can you please confirm, in an email to permissions-commons@wikimedia.org (cc me), that:
you own the copyright to the images on your Flickr account, such as that one, and
that when you put the Public Domain Mark on them, that is because you want to put them into the public domain?
Hello, I created the article Ashley Ellis a few days ago, and there's a YouTube video of her dancing with Creative Commons license ([3]), would you mind making a screenshot of the video? Corachow (talk) 13:49, 8 August 2022 (UTC)
Done No one frame was ideal, so I grabbed three hoping the combination would suffice. Pick one or all, as you choose. If you have the energy, could you rename the images? Right now they're just 01, 02, 03, but I imagine those poses each have specific names. I did a quick search, but only found first position, second, position, etc., which seem to be separate for feet and arms, and the more interesting names, like arabesque, plie, don't seem to apply. --GRuban (talk) 13:48, 10 August 2022 (UTC)
Thank you very much! I picked the second one for the article. I'm not very well-versed in ballet steps names beyond the basics so I can't tell what the steps are at first glance, and I'm too busy to look up the glossary. Will do that if I remember and have time. Corachow (talk) 08:23, 11 August 2022 (UTC)
Episodes (ballet)
Hello again! I just expanded the article Episodes (ballet). I found two images from Commons (from a photo shoot, not an actual performance), but they are photographs of printed photos, with visible edges, so I'm wondering whether you can crop the edge out? According to the rights and restriction information, cropping is discouraged but not an enforced rule, and I don't think that applies here. Corachow (talk) 19:59, 12 December 2022 (UTC)
On 30 June 2022, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Olena Shevchenko, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that a journalist dubbed Olena Shevchenko(pictured) as "probably the most famous lesbian in Ukraine"? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Olena Shevchenko. You are welcome to check how many pageviews the nominated article or articles got while on the front page (here's how, Olena Shevchenko), and if they received a combined total of at least 416.7 views per hour (i.e., 5,000 views in 12 hours or 10,000 in 24), the hook may be added to the statistics page. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page.
FYI, I have taken the liberty of e-mailing you on another article I'm working on...because we work well together :) and you have skills I don't. SusunW (talk) 16:32, 1 July 2022 (UTC)
DYK for Pat Gozemba
On 1 July 2022, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Pat Gozemba, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that Pat Gozemba married her wife while researching a book about the history of the struggle for equal marriage in Massachusetts? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Pat Gozemba. You are welcome to check how many pageviews the nominated article or articles got while on the front page (here's how, Pat Gozemba), and if they received a combined total of at least 416.7 views per hour (i.e., 5,000 views in 12 hours or 10,000 in 24), the hook may be added to the statistics page. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page.
Makio, the Ohio State University yearbook, for 1933, page 89Makio, the Ohio State University yearbook, for 1933, page 151
This says her photo is in the 1933 edition of the Makio Yearbook of Ohio State University. I can't find it on archives.org, but possibly on your side of the pond, or possibly her daughter http://catherinecreed.com would give us one? I've been working on Eunice Foote for GA and possibly FA and I just could not pass up the irony that the woman who rediscovered Foote's contributions also lost her own record of contributions. I've asked Ian to look it over, but I'd like to nominate it for GA fairly quickly and do a double DYK hook for them. SusunW (talk) 21:39, 17 July 2022 (UTC)
So the 1933 Makio yearbook is online at https://kb.osu.edu/handle/1811/72657, beautiful scan, color and everything. Her photo seems to be on page 89, 3rd from top, rightmost column, profile; not the greatest photo, but much better than nothing. There may be an even worse one on page 151. The Makio does, however, say "Copyright" on page 4 or so. Now, technically that might not good enough, per Copyright notice#Form of notice for visually perceptible copies since it needs the date, which isn't anywhere on that page, and since it's not or likely that the next name on that page, the editor, is the copyright holder ... but that's a rather fine point. We'd be in easier shape if the copyright wasn't renewed, which is possible. I can see at least one "Makio" registered at https://archive.org/details/catalogofcopyrig361lib/page/1050/mode/2up?q=makio which isn't the same year and isn't a renewal, but makes me worry slightly, we do need to do a thorough search. Renewal would likely be about 28 years later, so something like 1951. Looking ... --GRuban (talk) 15:36, 18 July 2022 (UTC)
You're the best! Thank you. Was at a doctor's appointment for my husband, but back now. Will see if I can find anything. SusunW (talk) 16:24, 18 July 2022 (UTC)
I did look and couldn't find, but if you would search as well it would make me feel better. Meanwhile I'll start cropping the image. --GRuban (talk) 16:59, 18 July 2022 (UTC)
Ok, there's an identification problem. Please zoom in on these images. Page 89 seems to identify Wagner as the third from the top, right column, correct? And Page 151 seems to identify Wagner as first row, third from the right, correct? Well, those look like different people to me, most obviously the one in 151 is wearing glasses. The one identified as Wagner on page 151 seems a lot closer to the fourth from the top right column on page 89. Any chance the page 89 switched the pictures of Wagner, Elizabeth and Waite, Margaret Louise? Do you know whether Wagner wore glasses in college? --GRuban (talk) 17:22, 18 July 2022 (UTC)
There's photos of her published in 2020 in the PDF version of EBSCOhost143003976. pp294 (1936) and 297 (1956), neither with glasses. Do they help? I'll look through the renewal catalogs and get back to you. SusunW (talk) 17:37, 18 July 2022 (UTC)
I find no renewals in either of your links, so the good news is if we can figure out who she is, we can use the photo. We need facial recognition software. LOL. I agree that the photo on 89 of Waite looks more like the photo identified as Wagner on 151. All so confusing. But, I note that Wagner in the 1936 image in Velasco has a squarer chin and more prominent eyebrows than Waite to my eye. Perhaps we have to ask Catherine anyway? SusunW (talk) 17:56, 18 July 2022 (UTC)
That works. I thought about emailing Catherine, but it occurred to me if she said she had a better image I would still have to ask you. Sorry but you know I rely on you for this, so if you could send it, that'd be great. SusunW (talk) 19:12, 18 July 2022 (UTC)
A cup of tea for you!
Thanks again for your empathy and understanding - I look forward to continuing to work with you, and very much appreciate your image-finding skills. Beccaynr (talk) 15:12, 21 July 2022 (UTC)
Another "not-Russian"
My goal was to do 5 articles for Women in Green's editathon this month and since it looks like Max won't get me the info on Miller in time for the end of the month, I decided to do one more. She's Ukrainian. (I googled variations of her name and the most frequent citation is Evdokia Reshetnik. Would you be willing to look it over before it is published to check on the transliterations of names etc? I am doubtful that we have any usable photographs, but both p 19 and page 143 have photos that apparently were provided by her son. The 143 one is used as "fair use" on uk.WP. If you're too busy, no worries. I appreciate you and your skills, very much, and am thankful that you are so willing to collaborate. SusunW (talk) 17:26, 21 July 2022 (UTC)
Thank you so much. So question, is there a way to transfer the fair use image from uk.WP to a fair use image on en.wp? or do I need to re-upload it? If it must be re-uploaded, maybe I want to load the one from page 19, as she doesn't look quite so angry in it to me. Your thoughts? SusunW (talk) 13:19, 22 July 2022 (UTC)
Hey, I wanted to ask you if I am wrong here. You are now my resident image expert. lol
I de-blurred the image of Amund Dietzel with Remini software, but one editor has twice reverted back to the blurry image. Is the other editor correct? Should I upload the new version of the file separately or should I leave it be? Thanks! Bruxton (talk) 15:45, 23 July 2022 (UTC)
Upload the new version separately. The old one is a historical image (for some values of historical!) and maybe someone will want it for some reason. Meanwhile the sharpened version is probably better for the article. I too used to just overwrite images when I was sure the new version was better, but was then convinced to leave the old version as well. For example, many of the images in https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Category:PD-Gotfryd I made an obviously better version for use, but left the old one for historical purposes.
As far as I can tell, there are no photos of Mary, but I found a drawing of the academy which could be used for both articles. As far as I can tell first published in 1903, but this version is terrible. Published again in 1927, with a better version. I have no idea how to flip it. Can you help? Off to a check up for my husband's ear infection, but will be back. SusunW (talk) 14:35, 1 August 2022 (UTC)
With or without caption. Or I can turn the sepia tones black and white, if you prefer. Text says it was originally a watercolor, drawn circa 1830, and there is an 1856 color copy at https://connecticuthistory.org/sarah-pierces-litchfield-female-academy/ here is that as well, which I uploaded, then cropped and brightened. From there, there is a picture of Academy founder Sarah Pierce, which we already had a version of, but I think this one is better, being straight rather than a bit off center with borders. I also cropped and brightened it to more human rather than orcish skin colors, if you prefer. Here are all three versions of that picture as well for your discretion. --GRuban (talk) 14:53, 2 August 2022 (UTC)
And totally weird, and I have no idea where to notify anyone of this, but when I put the alt parameter into the info box for the academy, I got "Preview warning: Page using Template:Infobox university with unknown parameter "alt"." Because why? Why would any of our info boxes disallow an aid for people with sight impairments? If I even had a clue of who to notify, I would ask them to check every single info box for this issue, but I have no clue. Do you know? SusunW (talk) 15:55, 2 August 2022 (UTC)
I have no idea how you found that, but I truly appreciate your skills with this platform. That fixed the issue. Thank you so much. SusunW (talk) 16:04, 2 August 2022 (UTC)
Response to Fox news evidence
Can you please move your responses to the evidence to your own section entitled critique of evidence by yourself Andrevan@19:01, 1 August 2022 (UTC)
@Andrevan:, it would probably be better to not separate the sources presented as evidence by who is presenting them + separate responses to those materials. That makes it very hard to follow replies to individual sources. Instead it would be better to present each source as perhaps it's own sub-sub section where people could then debate the merits of each. In addition to a risk of duplicate sources in multiple lists, if a source is clearly shown to be good/bad that can't be easily seen by other readers. Springee (talk) 19:34, 1 August 2022 (UTC)
I think GRuban's solution is fine, he copied my statements and the sources and responded to them. Thank you for doing that. Andrevan@19:43, 1 August 2022 (UTC)
@Andrevan: Except, of course, you're putting your responses to my responses in my section. I am trying to be flexible, but admit to being unclear on the general rule here. Why should my responses go in my section, not in yours, but then your responses also go in my section? Of course yet a third section "Andrevan's responses to GRuban's responses to Andrevan's evidence" would be absurd ... but that kind of goes to Springee's point, no? --GRuban (talk) 19:47, 1 August 2022 (UTC)
@GRuban I am OK if you want to respond to me in the response to your criticism section. I'm mainly concerned about the original list of evidence since it's quite long already and I want people to be able to review all the links and respond to them without making it even more massive. Andrevan@19:57, 1 August 2022 (UTC)
I think the source and discussion should stay together. It's just too confusing when they are separated and editor may not see that many of the sources have been challenged. Springee (talk) 19:59, 1 August 2022 (UTC)
I disagree, it will make it very confusing and hard to read if we have inline threads between all of the sources. Please respond in separate discussion sections rather than interspersing commentary throughout the evidence list. Andrevan@20:06, 1 August 2022 (UTC)
@Springee, I understand your point. I'd like to keep the original list of evidence bare of the discussion threads. It will make it hard for new editors to come in and review the evidence. I am ok with having discussion sections be individualized or combined. Andrevan@19:56, 1 August 2022 (UTC)
After the last newsletter (No.28, June 2022), the backlog declined another 1,000 to 13,000 in the last week of June. Then the July backlog drive began, during which 9,900 articles were reviewed and the backlog fell by 4,500 to just under 8,500 (these numbers illustrate how many new articles regularly flow into the queue). Thanks go to the coordinators Buidhe and Zippybonzo, as well as all the nearly 100 participants. Congratulations to Dr vulpes who led with 880 points. See this page for further details.
Unfortunately, most of the decline happened in the first half of the month, and the backlog has already risen to 9,600. Understandably, it seems many backlog drive participants are taking a break from reviewing and unfortunately, we are not even keeping up with the inflow let alone driving it lower. We need the other 600 reviewers to do more! Please try to do at least one a day.
Coordination
MB and Novem Linguae have taken on some of the coordination tasks. Please let them know if you are interested in helping out. MPGuy2824 will be handling recognition, and will be retroactively awarding the annual barnstars that have not been issued for a few years.
Open letter to the WMF
The Page Curation software needs urgent attention. There are dozens of bug fixes and enhancements that are stalled (listed at Suggested improvements). We have written a letter to be sent to the WMF and we encourage as many patrollers as possible to sign it here. We are also in negotiation with the Board of Trustees to press for assistance. Better software will make the active reviewers we have more productive.
TIP - Reviewing by subject
Reviewers who prefer to patrol new pages by their most familiar subjects can do so from the regularly updated sorted topic list.
New reviewers
The NPP School is being underused. The learning curve for NPP is quite steep, but a detailed and easy-to-read tutorial exists, and the Curation Tool's many features are fully described and illustrated on the updated page here.
If you have noticed a user with a good understanding of Wikipedia notability and deletion, suggest they help the effort by placing {{subst:NPR invite}} on their talk page.
If you are no longer very active on Wikipedia or you no longer wish to be part of the New Page Reviewer user group, please consider asking any admin to remove you from the list. This will enable NPP to have a better overview of its performance and what improvements need to be made to the process and its software.
To opt-out of future mailings, please remove yourself here.
Once again, I need your help. Working on a bio of this Cherokee woman for Indiginous month at WIR. I think I do not want to use any of the "costume" photos in the lede, and thus it seems to me that the best photo for the lede would be the one on p 141 (Callam) (published 1925[4]). Supposedly there are a 75 photos at the Smithsonian, but the only ones I find are here (proof that the VP Curtis photo was published, but I can't find proof of publishing on any of the others.) This photo was widely used in newspapers, but I think a better copy can be found in Callam at page 85. There are 3 versions[5],
[6],[7] of the portrait setting with Remington Schuyler. None are particularly good, but I think I would like to use one. On the other hand, the final portrait was produced on this magazine cover. Perhaps you have access to things I don't. Anyway, any help would be appreciated. SusunW (talk) 17:07, 9 August 2022 (UTC)
The picture on p141 of Callam ("Unkalunt circa 1924. Photograph taken by the Pierson Studio, Muskogee, Oklahoma. National Museum of the American Indian, Smithsonian Institution (P23848)") is not actually the same as the one published in the Daily News; for one thing, the Callam photo has her dark fur collar overlap the side of her chin, while the Daily News photo has a light collar, with no overlap over the chin. So we can use the Daily News photo, since it was published in 1925, but I agree it's nowhere near as good as the Callam photo, but we do not know when the Callam photo was originally published, possibly there was only the one copy that someone sat on until the NMAI got it.
I'm buying all of that, but I really don't want to use the Daily News one. Let me do some work on the one of her with Charles Curtis. It was published a lot, not sure when the first publishing was, but I'll see if I can narrow it down. If I prove that it was not copyrighted, it would be a better image of her not in costume to use in the lede. SusunW (talk) 21:28, 13 August 2022 (UTC)
More promising is that picture on p85, which says is the cover of a pamphlet, circa 1924. As a pamphlet, I'm going to argue it was published. It is also the same photo as you have in the Juvenile Instructor on the Internet Archive, which was definitely published in 1927 - that could be one year too late, currently the dividing line is end of 1926 - but I think we can take the "published in 1924" argument, and I doubt many people will argue the point since the 1927 date will work in 5 more months anyway, and quite possibly the Juvenile Instructor is PD-not-renewed or something anyway, I'm not even looking.
The "Farm and Fireside" painted cover - heh! Honestly, if I didn't see the photo of it being painted, I would have bet money it was just a generic Indian Princess image, not a painting of anyone in particular, and would have sworn I'd seen a hundred images just like it from a hundred painters. But we have the photo of it being painted, so yes, it's definitely Unkalunt! And it's a 1923 cover, so it's public domain. We'll probably want to upload one of the photos of it being painted, but just as evidence, not to use it in the article, since the photo is pretty poor quality, but we can use the painting.
The "Atalie Unkalunt [Iva J. Rider], postcard photo in Y.M.C.A uniform, circa 1918. Princess Atalie Unkalunt Collection, NMAI.AC.117, P23895" from the Smithsonian Blog is also reasonable. Again, we can argue that it's a postcard, so published, and 1918 is easily public domain. Now maybe someone could argue that we don't actually have proof the postcard was mass reproduced, since we only have the one copy ... but I think that's stretching the bounds of probability.
Aha, I see User:Victuallers already uploaded that one. Good for him. We should probably specify on the image that it was specifically a postcard, though, in other words, published, not just a family image that someone sat on for 50 years.
I also like your proof that the Charles Curtis photo from the same blog was published - but what's the date on that Brownsville Herald page? If it is either before 1927 then it's public domain, or if not we can search for copyright renewal for the Brownsville Herald, and if we don't find it, we can likely use that one.
It seems likely Unkalunt/Curtis first appeared on 9 January 1929 in multiple papers:
Searching periodicals for 1929, there are no entries for any of the following: International Newsreel, International News Photos, International News Service, Hearst Metrotone News (didn’t check UPI, as that didn’t come into being until 1958); Courier News, Courier-News, Plainfield; New Britain Herald; Lancaster (only appears in relationship with Armstrong Cork Company), New Era; North Adams Transcript. Searching works of art for 1929 There is 1 entry for International Newsreel, "7153 for Salm's (Millicent) second child April 4, 1929: 2 C. April 5: J 28" p.7126; nothing at all for International News Photos, International News Service, or Hearst Metrotone News. SusunW (talk) 22:41, 13 August 2022 (UTC)
Finally we should see if The Earth Speaks was copyright renewed. Odds are good that it wasn't, as a fairly obscure book, which would let use the cover.
I'll upload the easy ones at least, if you want any of the slightly harder ones that require searching please say. --GRuban (talk) 21:46, 13 August 2022 (UTC)
Miss Iva Ryder, known as Princess Atalie Unkalunt, 1926
I rotated the postcard just a bit and cropped it a lot, 1918
Princess Atalie Unkalunt having her portrait painted by Remington Schuyler
The painting, 1923
Curtis photo, cropped, brightened.
I also uploaded the original from the Smithsonian blog, and this is actually a historical enough photo you may want to ask User:Adam Cuerden to see if he could restore the damage to it, which is beyond my ability, but am pretty sure not beyond his. Or I could take one of the newspaper photos, which would be lower resolution, but not missing random bits.
The Earth Speaks cover
I love the 1926 photo! These are all fabulous. Do you think we can get the Curtis photo, and the book, and the Callam picture on p85 (it was the most widely used photo of her and reprinted from 1924 through the 1940s.) I'll let you make the call of whether we need to upload one of the pictures of Remington Schuyler painting the portrait. I wish we had a better copy of it, but it definitely does prove that the magazine cover is her and not some other "princess". You are the magic man and I really appreciate your help. SusunW (talk) 03:37, 14 August 2022 (UTC)
I asked Adam Cuerden and pointed him to our discussion here noting that the newspapers show the missing bits. We'll see what he says. I've added what we have so far to the article and think I can fit the book and the Callam photo into the article without overloading it. I do appreciate your help so much. SusunW (talk) 15:56, 14 August 2022 (UTC)
@SusunW: I'm afraid that I'm reading our article and am troubled by the strong focus on discrimination being definitely what stopped her from non-Amerindian opera success, and forced her into "playing Indian". I'm not finding it nearly as strongly stated in the sources. I'm reading the sources that say that Unkalunt was quite focused on her Amerind identity before, during, and after her opera work. She may have invented the word Amerind, she wrote books and poetry with Amerind focus, she did political lobbying for Amerinds, etc. This part in your article is sourced mostly to Callam, who doesn't come out and say that Unkalunt was really interested in European opera, and only did Amerind work due to discrimination. In fact, she says "Much of what Unkalunt truly thought – about her repertoire, about being expected to “play Indian,” to use Deloria’s phrase – is absent from the archival record." (In fact, Callam seems to be sucking up to Deloria here, who is very focused on "playing Indian", but wasn't writing about Unkalunt specifically! Deloria seems to have been Callam's advisor or something? Here's what Deloria had to say about Unkalunt: https://uwpressblog.com/2019/05/28/bringing-indigenous-artists-to-the-forefront/ He had never even heard of her! I'm pretty sure he means Callam as the student here, and seems somewhat condescending about Callam's work, though that's just my impression from reading that.)
The most that I can find in Callam to support that is
"... the mid 1920s, with the failure of Nitana, the demise of her own operatic endeavor, and possibly other undocumented obstacles, Unkalunt “found herself a full-fledged opera singer with nine operas at her command, but no chance to sing in her own country.”125 This statement seems to suggest hurdles including racism and financial obstacles kept Unkalunt from an operatic career, barriers which European or European-trained singers were less likely to encounter. The wording is certainly striking, particularly “in her own country”: white society in the U.S. was most eager to claim Unkalunt as she fit into the idealized past, much more eager than it was to support a Cherokee soprano in her quest to sing opera."
That's a noticeably weaker statement than the ones in our article, either "By 1921, she was living in New York City and hopeful of becoming an opera performer. Unable to break through the color bar, she performed as an "Indian princess"" or "Unkalunt's musical career and dreams of performing as an operatic soprano, were thwarted by the public demand for her to promote Native American culture and perform Indianist music.". Even Callam only says "the wording is striking" and "seems to suggest", and I don't see any other sources we're citing that use stronger terms about Unkalunt specifically; we're citing sources about how other Amerind performers hit the color bar, but not Unkalunt specifically. Note that even Callam focuses on Nitana, the opera that Unkalunt worked hardest at, which is specifically about performing as an "Indian princess". Yes, it's possible that actually Unkalunt really wanted to play Brunhilde and only played Nitana because she had to, but our sources need to actually say that. Instead I'm reading them to say she was quite proud of trying to bring Amerind culture to white American culture. We shouldn't go beyond our sources, and we shouldn't deprive Unkalunt of agency in her own life choices unless we have to. I think we should weaken our statements, and remove the "playing Indian" bit entirely. I would not be surprised if Unkalunt would have found it offensive. She was quite proud of being Indian, or as she would have put it, Amerind. --GRuban (talk) 12:33, 15 August 2022 (UTC)
Sorry, I've been at a doctor's appointment for my husband all morning. I appreciate your review. It is entirely possible that I am too close to the subject, having read multitudes of the invented nonsense written about her in newspapers. Calam says "classically trained Cherokee soprano went unfilled; instead, she navigated meeting white audience demand and promoting Native culture in her concerts of Indianist music", "faced assumptions that American Indians were a “dying race” while she performed versions of American Indian music harmonized by white composers","Unkalunt, due to stereotypes of American Indians in white society, had less freedom than the other three curators regarding whether or not even to engage with the past." "Unkalunt had to perform her Indianness in the face of white expectations and stereotypes. Though her dream was to be an opera star, Unkalunt spent her career performing works by white Indianist composers, who forced Native melodies into the Western harmonic system as a way to “preserve” supposedly disappearing repertoire.", "Unkalunt 'found herself a full-fledged opera singer with nine operas at her command, but no chance to sing in her own country'. This statement seems to suggest hurdles including racism and financial obstacles kept Unkalunt from an operatic career, barriers which European or European-trained singers were less likely to encounter", "Benedict also claimed that Unkalunt stole seven bottles of whiskey to sell at $20 each, and by doing so she played on the trope of Indians as alcoholics". In addition, I read hundreds of articles to write this and I can assure you I am not reading anything into the discrimination she faced. Then there are newspaper clippings like this, this, this and this to name a few and I didn't even save most of the truly offensive ones. I am sure all of the Native people who had to play a part found it offensive, but they did what they had to do to earn a living, which Unkalunt acknowledges. I read the bit from Deloria, and he admits he couldn't possibly know every Native person, so I don't really see how the fact that he didn't know of her is any big deal. All of that said, feel free to edit it any way you want. I truly mean that. SusunW (talk) 16:12, 15 August 2022 (UTC)
Thank you, will edit. I do like pointing out that she faced discrimination, and that she wanted to be an opera star. That said, those two statements don't quite add up to either of that she was only not an opera star due to that discrimination (lots of aspiring opera stars don't make it); or that she only played Indianist roles due to that discrimination. We should state those facts, and leave the possible, but not definite, conclusion to the reader, without stating it outright in Wikipedia's voice. --GRuban (talk) 16:26, 15 August 2022 (UTC)
I get it. I really do, but I also have a lived experience about discrimination towards women and Native people. We can read the same sources and come to different conclusions because of our lived knowledge, which is why collaboration is always a good thing. As for role-playing, she was, and she never denied it. She didn't label herself as princess, the press did. She never claimed to be full-blooded, instead highlighted her attributes as being mixed, but the press did. She said her dad was a politician, the press called him a chief. And yet, then that same press reported that she perpetrated a hoax. I didn't want to load the article with photographs of her in costume, as her Plains Indian costumes aren't remotely similar to Cherokee traditional dress. Anyway, I am always extremely thankful for your input and assistance. SusunW (talk) 16:54, 15 August 2022 (UTC)
OK, I think I weakened the focus sufficiently, also made a few other tweaks. I actually left much of the "playing Indian" paragraph in. Take a look, and if you don't like the end result, we can try again. Thank you for encouraging me to edit! --GRuban (talk) 12:33, 16 August 2022 (UTC)
You did a good job. Thank you! (And for the record, I am always appreciative when you edit, otherwise we might have dice rather than roster ) Perhaps someday someone will write explicitly about the discrimination I know she faced. It will be a victory when her story won't be able to be taught in Florida. I noticed something reading through that I didn't before. She studied in Boston with Millie Ryan and then in New York with a Millie Ryan. I searched for the name in quotes in Newspapers.com and come up with no hits for Boston, but this which shows that Ryan in Omaha, Nebraska had a studio in NYC. There does not appear to be any other Millie Ryan except a vocal coach who is covered in the news between 1900 and 1920. Do we think we should say she resumed studying with Ryan and refer to her by her surname or leave it as is? Oh and two final questions, "Indian female lead", while it would have been proper at that time, perhaps would be better to be Native now? Do you think we are ready to nominate it for GA? SusunW (talk) 16:07, 16 August 2022 (UTC)
Thank you! I'd leave the Ryan(s) alone since we don't have any evidence she's the one in Boston. Especially since our recent episode with a certain pair of Greek immigrants to Mexico![ [8] It's not the most uncommon name, so while it's possible they're the same it's also possible they aren't. At worst, we have a single word of redundancy, which is better that writing something incorrect. I was torn about the "Indian female lead" - that is the wording our sources use, and it's by no means the only "Indian" in the article. If you strongly want to change it to "Native", I won't oppose, but is there another way to hint that "The Dying Race" is almost certainly referring to specifically the "dying" American Indian race, which seems relevant? I am hardly an expert on GA, you write one every week if not several every week, while I don't have any listed on my user page, so whatever you think is right. It's certainly a "good article" in my opinion... ah, sure, go for it! --GRuban (talk) 17:10, 16 August 2022 (UTC)
I haven't actually found any description of the film other than it's name and date in sources. (Callam even thought it was produced in 1915, but I can't find record of anything other than 1916.) I know it was produced because of the inclusion of it in the archives of John R. Freuler. You have definitely been credited on a whole slew of GAs, which you could claim, because they wouldn't have been nominated or reached that point without your help: 20108, 2020, 2021, 2022 I'll nominate it now. SusunW (talk) 19:57, 16 August 2022 (UTC)
Should be fine, Vice is an in-depth international source, and she's got a bit more coverage than just for winning one contest, but I seem to have been removed from the list of WP:AfC reviewers. Let me look into that. --GRuban (talk) 11:42, 12 August 2022 (UTC)
Sorry, while I did create Miss and Mister Supranational (and defended it through quite a few deletion attempts!), that's pretty much my only beauty pageant article, and it's been mostly rewritten by other eager contributors. I may appear to edit many beauty pageant articles, but that's mostly to add images, I'm not that interested in them otherwise. See, I like adding images to articles. I also, for example, add quite a few images to articles about female and minority scientists, but don't actually write very many of those either. And as it happens, there are quite a few more images of beauty pageant contestants than of scientists on the Internet! Yes, I'm shocked too, I have no idea why that would be ... --GRuban (talk) 15:29, 16 August 2022 (UTC)
For those who may have missed it in our last newsletter, here's a quick reminder to see the letter we have drafted, and if you support it, do please go ahead and sign it. If you already signed, thanks. Also, if you haven't noticed, the backlog has been trending up lately; all reviews are greatly appreciated.
To opt-out of future mailings, please remove yourself here.
On 22 August 2022, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Eunice Newton Foote, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that the unacknowledged contributions of Eunice Newton Foote to climate change research were recovered by Elizabeth Wagner Reed, whose research in genetics were also obscured? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Eunice Newton Foote. You are welcome to check how many pageviews the nominated article or articles got while on the front page (here's how, Eunice Newton Foote), and if they received a combined total of at least 416.7 views per hour (i.e., 5,000 views in 12 hours or 10,000 in 24), the hook may be added to the statistics page. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page.
On 22 August 2022, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Elizabeth Wagner Reed, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that the unacknowledged contributions of Eunice Newton Foote to climate change research were recovered by Elizabeth Wagner Reed, whose research in genetics were also obscured? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Eunice Newton Foote. You are welcome to check how many pageviews the nominated article or articles got while on the front page (here's how, Elizabeth Wagner Reed), and if they received a combined total of at least 416.7 views per hour (i.e., 5,000 views in 12 hours or 10,000 in 24), the hook may be added to the statistics page. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page.
On 22 August 2022, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Chaz Stevens, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that after Florida schools banned 54 mathematics books, Chaz Stevens petitioned that they also ban the Bible? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Chaz Stevens. You are welcome to check how many pageviews the nominated article or articles got while on the front page (here's how, Chaz Stevens), and if they received a combined total of at least 416.7 views per hour (i.e., 5,000 views in 12 hours or 10,000 in 24), the hook may be added to the statistics page. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page.
Just started on this, but I would like photos. This photograph was taken in 1913. The photos from the Wanamaker expeditions are credited to Joseph K. Dixon but he was the leader of the expedition, not the photographers, according to this. The book says the photographs were located in the American Museum of Natural History, but I cannot figure out how to search their catalog[9] and have been unable to locate a publication date prior to this book. It was copyrighted in 1971 by Charles R. Reynolds Jr. on the acknowledgements page. There is no record of same in the 1971 books and pamphlets nor art. It is however, in the 1972 books as A321921 filed 17 November 1971. Searching on-line catalog for renewals of title "American Indian Portraits from the Wannamaker Expedition of 1913" nada; for the name "Charles R. Reynolds Jr. nada'; for registration number A321921, nada. The photo was probably sent out as PR, as it is shown in numerous newspapers, the first of which was masthead, publishing data,photo none of which contain any marks, but I am always nervous as to whether I searched the database correctly. (Much easier for me to be sure if it is in print .)
If you don't think this is sufficient for commons, I suppose we could upload it fair use, when the article is done. But, if we do that, then the question becomes which is the better photo? This one, or this one. The quilt was made for FDR during his first presidential run, so is dated to 1931 or 1932 and per this p 666 was made by Brooks Studio, Shawnee, Oklahoma. Unfortunately, that book was published in 1978, so I am fairly sure it is copyrighted still. (Note that the comment thread on Flickr says there were actually 3 quilts made.) As always, your help would be greatly appreciated. SusunW (talk) 14:31, 22 August 2022 (UTC)
Okay, a teeny bit more, but I still can't find her. This photo says it was from the 1913 expedition and came from the Library of Congress. I found this listing but have no idea how or if the images can be viewed. SusunW (talk) 20:52, 22 August 2022 (UTC)
OK, the book specifically says "... [these] portraits ... most of which are first published in this book ... are nearly sixty years old. Taken in 1913, they were filed, and in effect, forgotten, until 1965." If they had been forgotten for 70 years they would have fallen into the public domain, but they weren't. It looks like the originals were donated to the American Museum of National History... presumably with their copyrights, and presumably the museum gave Charles R. Reynolds who compiled the book, the right to publish them. The book does have a noticeable copyright 1971 statement, you found it registered, and after 1964, US books don't need to have their copyrights renewed. So looks like the book images are in copyright in general. But since this particular image was published in multiple newspapers without a copyright notice, it is probably good. It might be slightly debatable whether we can use the better quality image from the book scan, or would need to use the poorer quality image from the newspaper scan. I'm going to argue that the image from the book was sent out by Reynolds's publishers in multiple copies for reproduction ("published") in at least the resolution as printed on the cover and frontispiece of the book, since the Albuquerque Journal printed it rather large, but someone could nitpick and say we don't have absolute proof of that and ask we use the Journal scan. (They could even say we don't have absolute proof the publishers even sent it out as a PR photo, but the multiple newspapers does make it likely.) --GRuban (talk) 19:54, 24 August 2022 (UTC)
I so appreciate you. I was hopeful, but unsure, especially since I couldn't even find them on the museum page. There were lots of "buy this book for Christmas" articles that came out at the end of 1971 featuring the photo. It seems weird to me that I also couldn't find the commissioned medal for the Smithsonian, but I am happy if we even have one photo. SusunW (talk) 21:52, 24 August 2022 (UTC)
Weird that none of the 3 Mexican Kickapoo listed in the newspaper article are listed on the list. From the article, it's pretty clear the Smithsonian commissioned them and at least one was cast while he was in Oklahoma, otherwise, how would anyone know it resembled the person? Hmmmmm. SusunW (talk) 01:51, 25 August 2022 (UTC)
I see it's just been declined, which is weird, the sourcing is sufficient, and the subject seems rather interesting. I might be willing to improve the article and push it to main space. But I also see it's being actively edited, and I am pretty slow. If someone else does it, great! If not, I might wait until everyone else is done, and work on it a bit. --GRuban (talk) 17:06, 1 September 2022 (UTC)
Aha. It's been deleted due to being created by a sock puppet or sock master or something. Well, I am still intrigued by the subject, so will ask that it be restored to my user space so I can - slowly - work on it. --GRuban (talk) 15:09, 6 September 2022 (UTC)
Help
I'm working on expanding a stub that somehow made it into main space with issues: Barbara Dawson. At first glance, I mistakenly thought she was a non-notable academic, and have since learned that she is the first female director of the Hugh Lane Gallery. I'm working against the clock to get that BLP shaped into a decent start article (if you can help it would be greatly appreciated), and I was hoping you could find some images we could use. For example, I'm going to include the material about the stolen painting and need a PD image of this painting. BBC and other news sources used it, so it must be available somewhere. There is other artwork mentioned in the article - I found one on Commons, and did not look further, but I'm thinking there's probably more. Can you help? Atsme💬📧01:03, 6 September 2022 (UTC)
Yes, Daumier died in 1879, so it would have been PD in France in 1950, which is before 1996.
"Original" Image from Irish Independent
Cropped to actual drawing, slight perspective correction and brightening
Sorry, I was a bit busy writing a somewhat related and arguably more timely article, Guide to the Free World, and I'm not nearly as fast as you are, this sort of thing takes me much more time. Let me nominate it for DYK and I will look at the Library article. --GRuban (talk) 14:59, 4 October 2022 (UTC)
Sure, and ping when you nominate. I always need reviews ;) -- (sorry, never signed that one)
Template:Did you know nominations/Guide to the Free World - though, don't feel obligated, please, I'm sure someone will get to it eventually. A possibly interesting story: I tend to ask living people that I want to write Wikipedia articles about if they want an article first. 80% say yes, but a few say no, and then I don't write it. When I started on the draft, I tried to ask Lobanovskaya in something like 4 different places (she has a large number of Internet accounts), but she didn't respond. OK, I thought, she's busy. When I pushed it live, yesterday, I dropped her a final note in a few of her chats. She responded immediately, with an obscenity. I wrote - OK, it's only been a few minutes, I can probably still get it deleted if you don't want it. She said, no, no, no, she wants it, she was just so surprised! --GRuban (talk) 15:41, 5 October 2022 (UTC)
Alla Gordienko, Director of the National Library of Ukraine for Children, in 2022
One more: Our conductor, Johannes Schröder, gave the world a great concert of Verdi's Requiem. Program and (excellent) review call him Johannes M. Schröder, so does the German Wikipedia, and Wikidata. I asked that living person (who turned 31 on concert day) if he wanted to be known with that middle initial, and he said he had no time for Wikipedia and I could do as I like. To my understanding, that M. will rarely be spoken, so I doubt it's the common name, but it's on the music he composed and now also in a review. What do you think? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 16:20, 5 October 2022 (UTC)
First, sources. There's a much longer version of the article on the Ukrainian Wikipedia, but without sources. However, it references the Ukrainian Library Encyclopedia which is even longer. Ukrainian Wikipedia has an article about it Українська бібліотечна енциклопедія. That also looks like a Wiki, but not an open Wiki, at least I couldn't figure out how to trivially edit it, and our wikipedia article on it doesn't say it's an open wiki. So let's say that's a reliable source for the moment, and use it. Then there is the library's own page, which is a reliable source for WP:ABOUTSELF. I'll use those.
Now images. I found this image of the current library director (since 2013 according to the Ukrainian Library Encyclopedia), that should be good. I can also get an image of the library itself from this video at 0:17 ... but I'm not sure. The problem is Freedom of Panorama in Ukraine, which, basically, isn't; that's the reason the image on the Ukrainian Wikipedia article got deleted from the Commons. Now this video was taken by a Ukrainian television station, and this station has taken several videos of the Library, so maybe they got permission to release the image from the Library... but there is a reasonable chance that they didn't, and just took the video. I can still upload it, and say "well, they say it's Creative Commons Attribution", but that's risking being accused of being disingenuous. How much do you want it? --GRuban (talk) 15:24, 5 October 2022 (UTC)
Thank you, and I'll get back to this, but first have to deal with a few other things, - helping a friend with translating in real life, and a RD article here, - for some weeks now, no German died (in Deaths in 2022), but two today, and one is a woman who was even courageous, so I feel called. (I always go out and hope someone did it in the meantime, but again no.) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 16:13, 5 October 2022 (UTC)
Great if you can add, and use the image of the director. I don't think trouble to get the image is not worth it, better let readers look at the video. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 19:44, 6 October 2022 (UTC)
So far I thought the library wasn't for DYK because most of what I wrote was taken from the founder. In case you'd add enough which is new, the day to nominate would be today, which doesn't mean it would have to be added today, only nominated. But a more relaxed approach might be to write the bio of the current director (only that there isn't much at least in English, much more about a young actress of the same name). We could also just hope - more relaxed - that it got its attention with the founder and doesn't need a few hundred views extra. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 06:30, 7 October 2022 (UTC)
I don't see why not, it's marked Creative Commons Attribution Share-Alike 4.0 on the German Wikipedia. Let me see if I can figure out if that's correct, and if so, why it's not on Commons already. As a side note, though, I've started working on the National Library of Ukraine for Children following my notes above but I'm slow - I can't do everything at once. I can do everything, but it will take time. --GRuban (talk) 20:09, 6 October 2022 (UTC)
Aha. OK, first the image is definitely from the Bayerischer Landtag as it says, here it is archived from 2015: https://web.archive.org/web/20150503040516/https://www.bayern.landtag.de/parlament/praesidentin/ However, when I look at that page, either archived or modern, I I can't see any statement that says "all these images are CC BY-SA 4.0". Instead, digging around, I found this page https://www.bayern.landtag.de/fileadmin/Internet_Dokumente/Oeffarbeit_Paed_Betreuung/Nutzungsbedingungen_aktuell.pdf which seems to say that these photos are available only for press purposes and non-commercially, which we can't accept. (Even if we're non-commercial, and debatably press, we need to have the Wikipedia usable by those that definitely aren't.) However again, I see the last editor of that image page was https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Benutzer:Landtag_Bayern_Internetredaktion, which seems to say it's a verified identity of the Landtag. So if that user says this is released under CC BY-SA 4.0, then that's pretty good. However yet again - this image was uploaded in 2015, why hasn't it been uploaded to Commons in the past seven years? There's a contradiction here. Either the image is CC BY-SA 4.0, in which case it should be fine for Commons, or it isn't, in which case it isn't labeled correctly on the DE Wikipedia either.
So this is what we need to do. First, could you scan over the photo source page, either at that archive or at the current version at https://www.bayern.landtag.de/parlament/praesidentin/ and see whether you can see a link or some text that says something about copyright or license? I couldn't see such a thing, but then I'm working through an auto-translated version, and the translator might have munged something. If we can find something that says images there are CC BY-SA 4.0, that's perfect, and I can upload to Commons.
Second, if not, could you ask either that DE user (last edited September 13, so not that long ago) or just some DE Wikipedia administrator or discussion board about this image? Again, I can try to do it, but I'm handicapped by not speaking the language. (Side note: some decades ago my wife and I took a trip to Europe, including Germany. She had recently taken a 1 year German class in college and wanted to try it out. We got lost on some street, and she proudly used her German to ask a well dressed gentleman for directions. He listened politely, then said, in perfect English: "I'm very sorry, but I'm in a hurry. Is it all right if I answer in English?") --GRuban (talk) 20:44, 6 October 2022 (UTC)
No answer yet. Just in case, could you perhaps crop our current one to a less upright format, with less blouse and more focus on her face? For Template:Did you know nominations/Ella van Poucke, perhaps something similar, to show the cellist, not the whole orchestra - just for DYK. While for the other, I think it might be better for all purposes. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 13:06, 7 October 2022 (UTC)
The Ella van Poucke orchestra photo is very fuzzy, cropping to just her looks bad. There were two other photos in her category on Commons that would be better. Finally I rotated and cropped one of them (and removed an errant nose) that may or may not be better.
Thank you, but while I agree about the quality, the - approved - hook is about the playing that night. It's with orchestra, so the crop should not show her alone but orchestra also, just less. Did you see the YT video: same piece same dress, for the competition ;)--Gerda Arendt (talk) 22:16, 8 October 2022 (UTC)
I wouldn't want to replace the pic by a crop because for the whole situation and the hall, I'd like the full orchestra. For DYK, I could imagine to keep the cellist on the right, and the concert master on the left. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 21:42, 12 October 2022 (UTC)
Still working my way through this one, but am hoping to wrap it up in a few days for WiG's editathon. I would appreciate your help in reviewing these photos (names are totally arbitrary, just to ease our discussion):
"Fur coat" Neither photo, masthead, nor publishing data show any copyright notice. Photos taken by Dolores McCutcheon. Copyright catalogs for Periodicals shows nothing for Tundra Times or McCutcheon. Also checked Artworks and there is no listing.
"swim suit model" From the same edition of the paper and same photographer in #1 photo shows no mark.
"Bergt and Agnew" Neither photo, masthead, nor publishing notice 1,2,3,4,5, and 6 show any marks. (Who ever knew 6 publishing notices were needed?) Taken by UPI Telephoto and likely a publicity photo as appeared in numerous other papers that day The Boston Globe, The Columbian, The South Bend Tribune, Thomasville Times Enterprise, for example (there are lots more of it). Copyright catalogs for Periodicals show that some of the issues of the Miami Herald were copyrighted, but it skips from issue 97 to issue 104, passing over our issue 99. Also checked UPI, United Press International, Telephoto, but found no entries.
"NCIO" Neither photo, masthead, nor publishing data show a mark. May have been taken by a government employee as this was a national task force and the photo was in the December 1970 issue of the NCIO News (p. 2), but the Tundra Times publication in September came first. Copyright catalogs for Periodicals show no entry for the Tundra Times.
"ANCSA" This photo's origin is somewhat of a mystery. Alaska Magazine says it was published in the Anchorage Daily Times. I searched here for the 10th, 11th, 12th, 13th, 15, 16, and 17, but there is no such photo. (The paper doesn't publish on Sundays and the first hearing was held on July 11th.) It was published without a notice on the 17th in the Fairbanks Daily News-Miner]. Neither the photo, masthead, nor publishing data show a mark. A blog said it was created by the Tundra Times, but they didn't publish it until the 19th. Copyright catalogs for Periodicals show nothing for the Anchorage Daily Times, Fairbanks Daily News-Miner, or the Tundra Times.
"Olympic Award" I am fairly sure I cannot use this, but I cannot find any issues of the Tundra Times for 1984. I was curious if it could be used as fair use because it was the presentation of the inaugural Frank Whaley Award of the World Eskimo Indian Olympics, which is discussed in the article, but her daughter isn't a deceased person, so I wasn't sure about that.
As always, you know I rely on your magic and appreciate any help you can give in reviewing these. Oh how I would love to see the expression on Johnny Carson's face when she handed him that oosik. SusunW (talk) 15:17, 7 October 2022 (UTC)
I am not trying to rush you, but the article is done except for the photos. If you don't have time to review them, I get it and can ask someone else, but I truly enjoy working with you on them. SusunW (talk) 18:59, 14 October 2022 (UTC)
While I'd love to have these last two photos, I do think that we probably have sufficiently illustrated the article. I think I am going to go ahead and nominate it for WIG's editathon and if you are able to add the photos later, we can always do that. I do so appreciate your help. I am never 100% sure about the photos and am grateful for your second review on them. SusunW (talk) 15:32, 18 October 2022 (UTC)
About time to turn to October. Today is the birthday of a dear friend who is a choral conductor. I'm excited that OREYA will (we hope!!) make it to our area for a concert again (as in 2009 first - pictured - and 2016 so far last). I'd like to update their article, and add biography of the conductor. Can you find Ukrainian sources? Depending on what you might find I'd keep it within the choir's article (as in your model) or make a new one. Yesterday, I had another pictured DYK (but not pictured by me this time): look at power work tensions (if you translate) -- Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:11, 14 October 2022 (UTC)
today's DYK: two facts from the two concert of this years Rheingau Musik Festival I liked best, both a cappella singing. If you follow the songs, you see a circus, where I performed singing, and in the end the whole tent joined for Dona nobis pacem. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 20:22, 19 October 2022 (UTC)
She is on the Main page now. One ref mentions Stravinsky's The Moor. No idea what that may mean, - any help from Russian sources? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 11:15, 26 October 2022 (UTC)
3 good ones: Susanna, Michaela and Tatyana. A not reliable source has one of them, that could go for external links, but I guess interested users will find it without us. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 16:27, 26 October 2022 (UTC)
I don't know if I can. Martinevans123 was blocked at a time for hosting links to YouTube videos without proper licensing on is user page, - not what I want. In the search you provided, it's # 1, 5, 6, and I like 6 best, then 5, then 1. The link I mean has 1. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 18:13, 26 October 2022 (UTC)
Courage, dear Gerda! Tapferkeit? I am quite sure we can link to almost all pages and even pages with videos, you must be referring to a very special case. Anyway, https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8IreHnw5d2o is not licensed Creative Commons, https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Where_is_the_license_on_various_sites%3F#YouTube explains how to figure that out. For example, you can see that https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9zZFzND2XF4 the "Meet the Composers" video I got the above images from, has a "SHOW MORE" link, which, when clicked on, shows "License
Creative Commons Attribution license (reuse allowed)" which is what I'm talking about. That's the main thing. Maybe 1% of the videos on YouTube are Creative Commons licensed, and those are mostly the ones we can use. Now there are some exceptions - there are some people who mark their videos Creative Commons that shouldn't, and there are even a few videos that are public domain whatever the YouTube marking is, but this one is a clip from a 1974 film, presumably a Soviet film, and that film is very likely still in copyright. Similarly with the other search results, I'm afraid. --GRuban (talk) 18:59, 26 October 2022 (UTC)
Much has happened since the last newsletter over two months ago. The open letter finished with 444 signatures. The letter was sent to several dozen people at the WMF, and we have heard that it is being discussed but there has been no official reply. A related article appears in the current issue of The Signpost. If you haven't seen it, you should, including the readers' comment section.
Awards: Barnstars were given for the past several years (thanks to MPGuy2824), and we are now all caught up. The 2021 cup went to John B123 for leading with 26,525 article reviews during 2021. To encourage moderate activity, a new "Iron" level barnstar is awarded annually for reviewing 360 articles ("one-a-day"), and 100 reviews earns the "Standard" NPP barnstar. About 90 reviewers received barnstars for each of the years 2018 to 2021 (including the new awards that were given retroactively). All awards issued for every year are listed on the Awards page. Check out the new Hall of Fame also.
Software news: Novem Linguae and MPGuy2824 have connected with WMF developers who can review and approve patches, so they have been able to fix some bugs, and make other improvements to the Page Curation software. You can see everything that has been fixed recently here. The reviewer report has also been improved.
NPP backlog May – October 15, 2022
Suggestions:
There is much enthusiasm over the low backlog, but remember that the "quality and depth of patrolling are more important than speed".
Reminder: an article should not be tagged for any kind of deletion for a minimum of 15 minutes after creation and it is often appropriate to wait an hour or more. (from the NPP tutorial)
Reviewers should focus their effort where it can do the most good, reviewing articles. Other clean-up tasks that don't require advanced permissions can be left to other editors that routinely improve articles in these ways (creating Talk Pages, specifying projects and ratings, adding categories, etc.) Let's rely on others when it makes the most sense. On the other hand, if you enjoy doing these tasks while reviewing and it keeps you engaged with NPP (or are guiding a newcomer), then by all means continue.
This user script puts a link to the feed in your top toolbar.
Backlog:
Saving the best for last: From a July low of 8,500, the backlog climbed back to 11,000 in August and then reversed in September dropping to below 6,000 and continued falling with the October backlog drive to under 1,000, a level not seen in over four years. Keep in mind that there are 2,000 new articles every week, so the number of reviews is far higher than the backlog reduction. To keep the backlog under a thousand, we have to keep reviewing at about half the recent rate!
Reminders
Newsletter feedback - please take this short poll about the newsletter.
If you're interested in instant messaging and chat rooms, please join us on the New Page Patrol Discord, where you can ask for help and live chat with other patrollers.
If you are no longer very active on Wikipedia or you no longer wish to be a reviewer, please ask any admin to remove you from the group. If you want the tools back again, just ask at PERM.
To opt out of future mailings, please remove yourself here.
Mexican opera singer Enriqueta Legorreta, circa 1943
Another one if you can help that'd be great. Photo appears in Musical America in Vol 63 Iss 7 25 April 1943. Says copyright on the publishing data on page 2. 1971 Renewals book shows Musical America, Billboard and High Fidelity are joined under Billboard Publications, but I find no renewals for Musical America, High Fidelity, nor Billboard Publications. Billboard renewed 1943 publications (starts with Vol 55 no 28, 10 July 1943) but nothing matches this volume. The fact Billboard's renewals started in July made me check 1970 Renewals but there is nothing for Musical America. So then I thought just to be safe, check the number and I went to the 1943 Periodicals. p 182 shows vol 63 no 7, was registered as B583940. Rechecking both 1970 and 1971 renewals, I get nada, so I am fairly sure the photo is fine to use. Do you agree? (I would just like to point out these last 3 articles had no scandals, I must be slipping.) SusunW (talk) 16:31, 17 October 2022 (UTC)
With the possible exception of Dr. Henry TemPas! Not to mention a public snogging of a sitting vice president... Will look... --GRuban (talk) 20:46, 18 October 2022 (UTC)
The publishing history is messy, but I also searched and did not find. We can only do our best. Have an image. --GRuban (talk) 21:44, 19 October 2022 (UTC)
Thanks for this one! and yes, that one has really messy history but I honestly think we did a thorough job of searching based on what was stated and it doesn't appear that Anchorage published it. SusunW (talk) 22:51, 19 October 2022 (UTC)
I'm reluctant to use it as a ref, though it might be a useful jumping-off point for further research. The issue is that I can't find any other reliable sources citing it, and while its "About Us" page, https://www.famechain.com/info/about certainly makes claims about being "the most thoroughly researched family facts resource on the internet" and lists plenty of fine sources (among a few questionable ones), I don't see those sources being specifically cited for specific facts; meanwhile I don't see that page saying who the people behind famechain are. If we had a source or two saying they were experienced journalists or historians or something like that, that would be one thing; if we had a source or two saying they were anonymous volunteers, that would be another thing; without either, I'd use it a jumping-off point but not a source in articles directly. I don't recall exactly why I linked to it on that personal page, but it was probably for something like that. --GRuban (talk) 20:28, 18 October 2022 (UTC)
On 27 October 2022, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Guide to the Free World, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that the founder of the Guide to the Free World, helping people leave Russia after its invasion of Ukraine, said she was told: "It's good that you get out of Russia, but a pity that you won't be shot"? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Guide to the Free World. You are welcome to check how many pageviews the nominated article or articles got while on the front page (here's how, Guide to the Free World), and if they received a combined total of at least 416.7 views per hour (i.e., 5,000 views in 12 hours or 10,000 in 24), the hook may be added to the statistics page. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page.
Thank you for the article below, done in collaboration. It's also featured on Project Opera's talk, and archived in that project's two DYK records. I'm back from vacation, more pics under "songs", two of them actually about singing. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 14:58, 17 November 2022 (UTC)
On 17 November 2022, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Enriqueta Legorreta, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that Enriqueta Legorreta(pictured), who was the first Mexican woman to appear as Sieglinde in Wagner's Die Walküre, became an award-winning environmental activist? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Enriqueta Legorreta. You are welcome to check how many pageviews the nominated article or articles got while on the front page (here's how, Enriqueta Legorreta), and if they received a combined total of at least 416.7 views per hour (i.e., 5,000 views in 12 hours or 10,000 in 24), the hook may be added to the statistics page. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page.
Still trying to figure out the @#)$^&! Italian monastery bit, and I need to expand the lede, but I think I am mostly done. (Been a loooong haul - French (ugh), Georgian, Dutch, and German sources). I found this photo p 13proof of publishing 1913 in Saxalxo Gazeti Suratebiani Damateba which I think would be good for the lede image. I'd also like to use the photo of the ergography machine here, but I am unable to find it on gallica. (The link in the article doesn't work.) I found a copy on commons, but I am unsure if the licensing is right. Can you verify for me that I can use it with that licensing? As always I appreciate your help. SusunW (talk) 18:57, 18 November 2022 (UTC)
Thanks to assistance from Kober, I got the Italian thing sorted and expanded the lede. Moving it to mainspace, so if you can look at the proposed lede photo, that would be fabulous. I appreciate you. SusunW (talk) 17:38, 19 November 2022 (UTC)
So, the first image (from where exactly? What is an Aneuli? A Georgian magazine? Printed in 2021?) is clearly a better image, because the second is so fuzzy. However, since it's tilted and the oval is different, it's not an exact copy of the one published in the Gazeti (I'm guessing that's a Georgian newspaper?), so there is some slight chance that someone might complain that we don't know the Aneuli one was also printed in 1913. It would be nitpicking, I mean, they're clearly originally from the same photograph, but I'm not quite sure how the decision there would go. I tried to increase the contrast on the Gazeti one, but I'm sure User:Adam Cuerden would be able to do a better job of that, maybe even get it to the standard of the Aneuli image (at which point it would be better, since she isn't tilted to one side for no known reason). --GRuban (talk) 14:11, 20 November 2022 (UTC)
Aneuli 2021
Gazeti 1913
Gazeti 1913, cropped, contrast enhanced
You rock! Aneuli, according to my searches is a literary magazine and yes, the Gazeti is a newspaper. I have no idea about the first image or even what it says, as I am unable to translate it because instead of Georgian script it copies like "gamo barbare erTxans garicxuli iyo universitetidan, rasac is, bunebrivia, Zalian ganicdida", i.e. pure gobbledegoop. It'd be lovely if Adam could fix the one we know was published in 1913. I always forget about that option. Do you think the ergograph image is okay. (By the way, your improvements to Dae were really good). Thank you for these. SusunW (talk) 14:49, 20 November 2022 (UTC)
Not sure how you found that but you are genius! I like it better than the one on commons, and it is from Kipiani and Joteyko's paper, so we know it is what they used. SusunW (talk) 04:51, 21 November 2022 (UTC)
And that is why you get paid the big bucks around here, or at least why I bother you to check stuff so often. It's so complicated. This says Verdin died in 1907, if that helps. SusunW (talk) 22:29, 21 November 2022 (UTC)
Yes, it absolutely does help, very much! French copyright is 70 years after death, so we don't have to say "well, if he was old enough to have a company and a catalog published in 1890, then he probably died before 1950...", we are very good! I think that L'Année psychologique image is the best we're going to get, it seems pretty clear, so I uploaded it, it has the 1890 and the 1904, I think the 1904 image is the one the ladies used in their paper, but if you want I can crop the other out as well or instead. --GRuban (talk) 18:39, 22 November 2022 (UTC)
Mosso's ergograph in Verdin's catalogs, 1890 and 1904.jpg
And while you are here helping me, (I know, I know, I know Ukrainian isn't Russian, but it would've been part of Russia at the time she was born) Nadine Ivanitzky seems very "Frenchified" to me. "The tenth member of a family of eleven who inherited an estate at Kharkov that many generations of the ancestors had possessed" p 302 makes me think I ought to be able to figure out what that family was. Any ideas in Cyrillic script what it was likely before it was butchered? And would it be possible to fix that photo of her on page305? SusunW (talk) 17:24, 21 November 2022 (UTC)
Possibly Nadia or Nadezhda Ivanitskaya, Надя Иваницкая or Надежда Иваницкая? Unfortunately I can't immediately find anything about a WWI era sociologist with that name; except for scientific papers, and since at least nowadays, Russian scientific papers are written by the first initial only, so that would be "Н. Иваницкая" - and that last name is fairly common, there are many, many of those. I am, however, amused by the comment from that text about the German invaders who are so "repulsive" that they drink beer straight from the bottle. Surely that was only wartime propaganda, no one could sink that low in real life... --GRuban (talk) 19:35, 21 November 2022 (UTC)
Horrors! LOL, surely I have never, ever done that! I did think it might be Nadia, but I would never have come up with Nadezhda. You're the best! SusunW (talk) 19:58, 21 November 2022 (UTC)
Okay, well, it's done. I am thinking that it is going to have to be loaded as fair-use for a dead person. I have searched and searched for Annie B. Salmon as a photographer. The only person I find in the UK in this time frame with that name was a temperance activist. Not impossible that she was also a photographer, but I cannot find anything that says so or indicates when she died. I have been told in the past that you cannot alter a fair use image, and the one I see on p 305 has some weird purple shadows. Does that mean that it has to be loaded like that? Or maybe you see something different since I could only open the .mx version? (I can't open any version right how. My computer might be dead, it's in the shop and I am working from various borrowed devices.) SusunW (talk) 17:31, 28 November 2022 (UTC)
Maybe I was unclear, Salmon is the photographer of Ivanitzky. Sorry, it's hard to work in a construction zone and without my computer. SusunW (talk) 13:50, 30 November 2022 (UTC)
No, I understood. I also looked for Annie B. Salmon and could not find anything I could be sure was about her (a surprisingly common name!). Which is a shame, because it's a 1915 publication so quite likely she died more than 70 years ago, which would make that photograph public domain per UK copyright law, as well as US law since it's pre-1927. But 1915 is only 107 years ago, not 120, or we could have assumed it per {{PD-old-assumed}}. I don't recall anything about not being able to alter a fair use image - if you can find where you were told that, it would be good to see the specifics. We alter fair use images to reduce their resolution all the time. There's also a strong argument that the weird purple shadows are an artifact of the scanning process, rather than the original image, so removing the purple shadows is being more faithful to the original, rather than less, since it's highly unlikely the 1915 book was printed in black-and-white-and-purple. Anyway, if you can find the place you were told about no modifications please say, if not, I'll assume something was misunderstood somewhere and will upload it for you as fair use. --GRuban (talk) 14:36, 30 November 2022 (UTC)
You have to read through a lot, but the image in question is Brunschvicg and I was told that if published in the US and not elsewhere it had to match exactly what was published in the US. In this case, since the magazine is British, I don't think we have an image published anywhere except in the UK. SusunW (talk) 18:15, 30 November 2022 (UTC)
Read that, and still don't see a "don't modify fair use images" in there - though it is, admittedly, a lot to read. Uploaded low resolution fair use image to Nadine Ivanitzky, without the purple, but still with an annoying diagonal cross hatching even in black and white. Probably a better photo editor than I would be able to get rid of that, but possibly won't want to put in the work, since it's only fair use and we won't be able to upload it at a high resolution anyway. Hopefully you and I will still be around here in 2035 and will be able to upload it per {{PD-old-assumed}} then! --GRuban (talk) 19:09, 30 November 2022 (UTC)
Hello! Voting in the 2022 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 12 December 2022. 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.
Several weeks back Kusma and I began working on unraveling the daughters of Andrew Planta. We have found enough information to confirm that they are all notable, except Anna (the first) and Barbara (the last). Anna has proved particularly elusive, but we cracked all the other stories, which Kusma is writing. Anna Elisabetha (neither Anna nor Elizabeth) "Eliza" when in England, left London after her husband died and moved to Russia. Her daughter Elizabeth Stephens married Mikhail Speransky and they were the parents of User:SusunW/Elisabeth Bagréeff-Speransky. I can tell from the bits of Cyrillic that I recognize that there is information here on Eliza Planta, but I have no clue what or if it repeats information we already know, but think it probable that there are things we haven't discovered. I don't know how to convert this type of PDF, so 1) is it possible to convert it to OCR and if not, would you be willing to read it and assist with the draft on EBS?
2nd issue. We now have access to ancestry through the WP library. I noticed when sending info that I found to Kusma that the links die (like Proquest links) and are only active for a short time. I figure that has to do with the whole proxy thing in the link, but you know how untechnical I am. I figured out that if instead of this, if I use only the first part, i.e. this I can go back to it, but I also know that some bot/person will come bleep out the link because of the proxy. Is there a way to cite the link without using the wikipedia library as a proxy and actually be able to return to it? As always I appreciate you and will be thankful for any help you can give. SusunW (talk) 16:07, 6 December 2022 (UTC)
I can't figure out how to get the images of the text into OCR-able form, I'm afraid. For manual translation - Aah! That's 312 pages of old fashioned Russian! (Reforms of Russian orthography: think somewhere between Shakespeare and Chaucer in terms of English.) Pant, pant. OK. They're short pages, it must have been a small sized book. I can try, but will be maybe 95% accurate, due to the old style spelling and phrasing. Better than Ukrainian. I won't commit to translating all 312 pages, though. What information do you want me to especially look for, Mikhail's daughter EBS, or his wife Elizabeth, or her mother Eliza ... that family had absolutely no imagination in naming, did they? That's going to make it even more difficult, that they all had basically the same name. --GRuban (talk) 16:38, 6 December 2022 (UTC)
Kusma was able to find a better copy of that image that has better licensing because we know from it who the lithographer was. I've put it on my draft, but it probably should be cropped. There is another one in the category, but I don't like the licensing on it either. While searching for something else about her, I ran across this statement "Неизвестный литограф. Портрет Елизаветы Михайловны Фроловой - Багреевой. Середина XIX века. Бумага, литография 20,3 х 16,7; 25 х 20,3 см. Поступил в 1919 г. Государственный Эрмитаж.", so I searched the Hermitage collections and found it. I'm not sure how to update the licensing, but obviously it is artwork and done before her death in 1857 and probably a couple of decades earlier. I also found this in google images, but when you go to the link, there is no picture. Can you help with any of these? SusunW (talk) 20:04, 9 December 2022 (UTC)
Another photo question. Korff says the house at Tauride Garden was on the corner of Sergievskaya. This says #62. I looked here and only found the interior photos, but they are marked #63? Then I went to wp.ru and the article on the street has a photo of #62, which to my eye matches the sketch in the article about the house, but I am not sure about the notation "№ 62 / Потёмкинская, 5: Экономический факультет Санкт-Петербургского государственного университета". Is it now part of the university and numbered on the cross street? Also not sure about the licensing. I'd rather have a historic photo, without the cars and wires, but if this is what we have, it is what we have. SusunW (talk) 14:56, 14 December 2022 (UTC)
Meh. See, the footnote continues on page 276, and there it says "...was then sold to the Privy Councilor Dubensky and completely rebuilt a long time ago; but among the St. Petersburg old-timers, not one still remembers this modest two-story dwelling, with a small garden, then even more than now remote from the center of the city." I think "not one" means "more than one", in other words many people still remembered it at the time Korf wrote, since Speransky was a Big Deal and. But the key point is that the building was rebuilt completely, so whether it was 62 or 63 is not nearly as important as it could be since the house no longer looks anything like it did at Speransky's time; for example, when he lived there, it was two stories, the picture you have is four stories. Look also at the page you cite, which says the same thing about the rebuilding since Speransky's time. So I question the value of including a picture of the 4 story building in the article, whatever the license. --GRuban (talk) 22:16, 15 December 2022 (UTC)
A side note - do you want to call her Bagreef-Speransky or Bagreef-Speranskaya? I can see an argument for doing it either way (or even Bagreev, or Bagreeva, or ...) but we should be consistent, you've got both forms in the draft so far. --GRuban (talk) 22:35, 15 December 2022 (UTC)
I buy that, what about the photo at the Hermitage? Also this one? It's the only photo I can find of her estate in Ukraine and if you click on the actual image, it dates to 1888. As for her name, definitely Elisabeth Bagréeff-Speransky, as that was how she published. I tried to call her Speranskaya until she began publishing, but I'll check that. SusunW (talk) 13:55, 16 December 2022 (UTC)
Uploaded the one from the Hermitage, but it's exactly the same dimensions as the one we already had. If you like I can reduce the saturation on one of them and make a third one that is completely black and white. It's a lithograph, so it could have been printed on paper of any color. The picture of the estate from sobory.ru certainly qualified for PD-old-assumed, but ... are you sure this is her estate? Sobory means cathedrals, and this says it is a picture of a church, and doesn't mention her. I mean, she was a wealthy powerful person, she could well have built a cathedral on her estate ... --GRuban (talk) 01:05, 17 December 2022 (UTC)
I prefer black and white, but I know others prefer color. Not sure which way to go. No, I'm not sure that it's her estate. I wanted something that would give a depiction of the conditions in the village pre-1900. In my brain when it said she built schools, orphanages and a "brewery and stables, and to found a brickyard, carpentry shop, distillery, forge, saltpetre factory, and a sawmill, as well as windmills, watermills, and a spinning mill" those were in the village. I didn't recall anything about a church, but I went back and checked and on p 31 of Duret it mentions her speaking in the village church. ("Une messe solennelle fut dite après laquelle on chanta un Te Deum d'action de grâces pour cette délivrance. L'église et l'enceinte extérieure de Téglise étaient combles: la foule, pâle et languissante encore, était inclinée et recueillie, et priait avec ferveur. Quand à la fin de l'office, Mme Bagréeff s'adressant à eux, leur promit son aide et sa protection désormais en échange de leur obéissance...") Was it that church in the photo? Did she build it? I have no idea. Perhaps with your better language skills you can find a sketch of either the estate or the village?
Maybe a better way to go would be images of her works, but I'd really like to have a photo of the rural area, as opposed to all the glamor of Saint Petersburg. If we go the way of works, her most famous book was this one. Do you think we should crop the lede photo? Perhaps also a photo of her dad and/or her husband? This has an image of her husband that appears to have been published in 1898. I am not nearly as good at illustrating articles as others. I appreciate you. (I'm still waiting on the Korff letters that claim she led a life full of affairs. I am not remotely sure that is accurate, as nothing else supports that. Duret 340-341 compares her to George Sand, but specifically says she would not have supported adultery, "Mme Bagréeff avait un esprit trop juste et trop pondéré pour tomber jamais dans les écarts d'idées et de morale de notre célèbre romancier. Mme Bagréeff n'a jamais songé à sanctionner, comme dans Jacques l'adultère de la femme par le consentement du mari ; elle n'aurait jamais justifié l'infidélité si résolue de Valentine". But I need to make sure what Korff actually says. Fortunately, I have another source that says the WP.ru tells a different version of her life than is commonly reported. SusunW (talk) 14:41, 17 December 2022 (UTC)
So I took it live and then got the Korff source. After finding the Cantacuzène-Speransky source that said the Velyka Burimka was destroyed by looting and fire in 1918, I thought I'd try for the Velikopolye estate in Novgorod, but then I found this which says it was destroyed too. So, I give up on estate photos. Can you get the the husband and the cover of Les pélerins russes à Jérusalem? I'll email the Korff source. SusunW (talk) 16:53, 19 December 2022 (UTC)
That is an excellent image of the husband, but the page doesn't actually say the image was published in 1898. It says "Источник: Список дворян, внесенных в дворянскую родословную книгу Полтавской губернии. Полтава, 1898. Стр. 715": "Source: List of nobles included in the noble genealogical book of the Poltava province. Poltava, 1898. P. 715". That list is online at https://rusneb.ru/catalog/000199_000009_003555328/, and page 715 is https://viewer.rusneb.ru/ru/000199_000009_003555328?page=735&rotate=0&theme=white - it does have the name Frolov-Bagreev there, but it's just a list of names, I couldn't find any illustration. I think that line means that book is where that website got the list of nobles, but not where it got the images. Now, that image was very likely published in the 19th century but we don't have absolute proof of this. --GRuban (talk) 23:10, 19 December 2022 (UTC)
Title page of Les Pèlerins Russes à Jérusalem by Mme E. De Bagréeff-Speransky, 1857
You are making me work haaaaaard. It isn't a photograph, though, it's a lithograph right? So we can use art over 70 years old if we can prove the artist is dead more than 70 years. Problem is I cannot figure out who the artist is because it is in Russian. Can you read the name? The one to the right. The one below is I think Frolov-Bagreev's signature. Thanks for the book. SusunW (talk) 23:28, 19 December 2022 (UTC)
I guess, in truth, I am making you work hard too. Ancient Russian and photos, sorry. Can you crop the lede image too? SusunW (talk) 23:35, 19 December 2022 (UTC)
I'm sorry, I can't read the signature there, it's blurry and handwriting; though I agree with you the one below seems to say "A. F. Bagreev". Honestly, if you weren't going for WP:GA or WP:FA, I'd say to put up the image, write "unknown author" and "PD-old-assumed", and take your chances, since it most likely was made during the subject's lifetime, so really old, so public domain. However, since I'm guessing you are going for GA or FA, that makes me worry, since we don't have a very good argument that it really was made during his lifetime, just that we're assuming it was. It's rare, but not unheard of, for images to be made much much later, based on pure hypotheticals, just think of the many images of Jesus there are lying around. I found the image on http://histpol.pl.ua/ru/novosti?id=12186 which says at the bottom "Гравюра Александра Алексеевича Фролова-Багреева предоставлена Юрием Владимировичем Фроловым-Багреевым" "Engraving of Alexander Alekseevich Frolov-Bagreev provided by Yuri Vladimirovich Frolov-Bagreev" - I don't suppose you've run into contact information for that probable descendant in your reading? --GRuban (talk) 17:51, 20 December 2022 (UTC)
I appreciate you! Thanks for the crop. Much better as a lede image. If I take that engraving to full page, about all I can get is "В. Г?б (blur)" If Yuri is this guy, it looks like he can be contacted through this link (birthdays on both links and name are the same) and it says "Архивариус древнего дворянского рода Фроловых-Багреевых" he's the family archivist and the site was last updated in December 2022. SusunW (talk) 18:49, 20 December 2022 (UTC)
Yes, I want information on all the Elizabeths and if anything of interest is said on the Plantas that might help to solve the issues on Anna, just Anna, not Anna Elizabeth LOL. I saw the Russian and Swedish articles, but I think I am better from scratch because those don't link to the Plantas and her common name is the French version. I don't like the licensing on the photos, but suspect they may have come from the French book by Duret. I don't know, but (ugh French) I am trying to wade through it. Breathe, there is no rush. Any help at all will be more than we had before. What I know so far is that EBS was raised by Eliza after Elizabeth Stephens died, her dad was sent to Siberia, and she was forced to marry the governor. (My kind of story , messy!) SusunW (talk) 17:15, 6 December 2022 (UTC)
Okay cool. I wish if they were going to do this proxy link thing, they would put instructions in how normal, not technical editors were supposed to cite the links, but such is life. SusunW (talk) 17:40, 6 December 2022 (UTC)
The Russian article on Speransky, specifically the ¶ denoted by footnote 17, says EBS moved to her dad's estate in 1816 and cites it to the ancient book above but gives no page numbers. I cannot figure out a way to search inside the book, BUT, I found a searchable copy on Hathitrust, but of course the problem is that I cannot read 100-year-old or even modern Cyrillic. Does the ability to search make it possible for you to figure out on what page that tidbit is given? SusunW (talk) 19:58, 8 December 2022 (UTC)
2 2 тоже умершей), родился тотъ славный Михаиль, кото- раго имя такъ тѣсно должно было слиться съ исторiею на- шего законодательства и нашей администрации и который умеръщГрафомъ Сперанскими. Годъ рождения младенца Михаила долго оставался подъ сомнѣніемъ. Самъ Сперанскій, по семейнымъ разсказамъ, зналъ только одно: что онъ родился въ ночь на Новый годъ, но на который именно, въ этомъ онъ разнорѣ- чилъ. 6 января 1813 года, благодаря одного изъ самыхъ старинныхъ своихъ пріятелей, Петра Григорьевича Ма- сальскаго, за поздравленіе съ днемъ рождения, онъ пи- салъ: «Цѣлымъ годомъ вы сдѣлали меня моложе, назначивъ мнѣ 44-й годъ, тогда какъ я полагалъ себѣ уже 43-й». Въ другомъ письмѣ, отъ 1 января 1817 года, къ своей до- чери, онъ говорилъ: « сегодня мнѣ исполнилось 43 или 46 лѣтъ». Въ собственноручной его запискѣ, подъ заглавіемъ: Эпохи М. Сперанскапо, писанной, какъ имъ отмѣчено, 1 мая 1823 г., сказано, напротив, совершенно опредѣли- тельно: «родился 1 января 1771, почти въ полночь», и тотъ же годъ повторенъ въ напечатанной, въ 1824 году, автобіографій его. Такъ выходить и по двумъ ОФФиціаль- нымъ актамъ: по ревизской сказкѣ 14 iюля 1782 и по вѣдомости объ учителяхъ Александроневской семинари за 1795 годъ; въ первой Сперанскій значится 11, а во второй— 24 лѣтъ. И, при всемъ томъ, 1771 годъ не былъ годомъ его рождения. Всякое сомнѣніе о томъ изчезло для насъ послѣ справки съ дѣлами Владимирской консистории. Метриче- скихъ книгъ за это время въ ней не найдено, но сохранились исповѣдныя росписи, въ которыхъ, за 177 1 годъ, у свя- щенника Михаила Васильева и жены его Прасковьи Федо- ровой сына Михаила еще не показано, а за 1772 (роспись подана в iюля) онъ записанъ полугодовымъ: слѣдственно этотъ младенецъ родился января 1772 года.
2 2 also deceased), that glorious Mikhail was born, whose name was so closely merged with the history of our legislation and our administration, and who died as Count Speransky. The year of the birth of the infant Michael remained in doubt for a long time. Speransky himself, according to family stories, knew only one thing: that he was born on the night of the New Year, but on which precisely, in this he disagreed. On January 6, 1813, thanks to one of his oldest friends, Pyotr Grigoryevich Masalsky, for congratulating him on his birthday, he wrote: already 43rd. In another letter, dated January 1, 1817, to his daughter, he said: “today I turned 43 or 46 years old.” In his handwritten note, under the heading: Epoch M. Speranscapo, written, as he noted, on May 1, 1823, on the contrary, it is said quite definitely: “I was born on January 1, 1771, almost at midnight,” and the same year is repeated in printed, in 1824, his autobiography. So go out according to two OFFICIAL acts: according to the revision tale on July 14, 1782 and according to the statement about the teachers of the Alexandronevsky seminary for 1795; in the first Speransky is 11, and in the second - 24 years. And, for all that, 1771 was not the year of his birth. Any doubt about that disappeared for us after the information about the affairs of the Vladimir Consistory. No parish books were found in it during this time, but confessional paintings have been preserved, in which, for 1771 years, the priest Mikhail Vasilyev and his wife Praskovya Fedorova have not yet shown son Michael, but for 1772 (the painting was submitted in July) it is recorded as half a year old: consequently, this baby was born in January 1772.
The OCR isn't great, for example you can see that Speranskago was OCRd as Speranskapo, but if you allow for the OCR issues, the translation is fine. --GRuban (talk) 17:28, 9 December 2022 (UTC)
It truly takes a village! You are a genius, as I wouldn't have figured out how to get it to the text (although admittedly that is what I am doing with Duret and the French. Same issues with some of the words being OCRd wrong, but I just keep both the text and book view open and it is fairly easy to make corrections. Now I can just search for "дочь" and see if that turns up anything interesting. It's how I did Raeff and worked pretty well. SusunW (talk) 17:36, 9 December 2022 (UTC)
Good luck. I clicked around a few likely 1816-seeming places and couldn't trivially find it - the biography seems to be roughly chronological, but only roughly, it goes back and forth a few years each time. I note our founder has a similar issue with not know exactly when he was born though for him it is +/- 1 days, not 3 years... --GRuban (talk) 17:47, 9 December 2022 (UTC)
There is also supposed to be a description on this page that describes her husband as "Багреев был большой простак" a simpleton, but for the life of me, my eyes just swim and I cannot find that quote on that page. Can you help? SusunW (talk) 23:27, 8 December 2022 (UTC)
That one is easier, first sentence of second paragraph. It's not quite a quote ("Bagreev was a big simpleton") but almost: "As regards Bagreev, that was a big simpleton: ...". You can see the colon? Then the paragraph goes on to elaborate. Will do the rest later. --GRuban (talk) 23:39, 8 December 2022 (UTC)
Translation of that page at User:GRuban/Kochubey Family Chronicle. I admit I don't quite understand why loading a carriage on the street would be an issue, where did he expect it to be loaded? I might be missing some detail of nineteenth century travel. Maybe "loaded on the street" is being used as a euphemism for "dumped out onto the street". Anyway, I'm learning as much about the author, Kochubey as about Bagreev from those pages, he seems to be the nineteenth century equivalent of a gossip columnist. --GRuban (talk) 16:57, 9 December 2022 (UTC)
LOL, glad to be of service to your education. However, every other person who describes Bagreev has a pretty much unfavorable opinion of him as well. Since one was English and the other French, I thought it important to have a "Russian" view as well. SusunW (talk) 17:07, 9 December 2022 (UTC)
* Next query. I haven't found a source which gives the name of son #2, but her Russian article says he was Alexander, cited to "Крещен 13 декабря 1830 года в Казанском соборе, крестник графа В. П. Кочубея и графини В. П. Полье // ЦГИА СПб. ф.19. оп.120. д.167. с. 30. Метрические книги Казанского собора." Any clues on how I might find these baptismal records? SusunW (talk) 20:28, 10 December 2022 (UTC)
The next question is complex, so:
Hello, GRuban. Please check your email; you've got mail! It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template.
Thank you. Some might go to the Kyiv Opera article, but hard to tell. Not even in Ukrainian has it a simple list of general managers. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 16:29, 9 December 2022 (UTC)
Hello, I started an article for an NRHP house (Rainbow Ranch (Nashville, Tennessee) in Tennessee. In looking for photos I found that the NRHP has a Flickr account. They have set their images to "all rights reserved". My question is this: if the images are the work of a federal government employee, can we use them? Here is a link to the images. Thanks in advance. Bruxton (talk) 16:58, 7 December 2022 (UTC)
Photographs posted by this account are from the official National Register and National Historic Landmarks archives - courtesy of the respective State Historic Preservation Offices (SHPO) or nomination preparers. Some of our photographs were taken by NR/NHL staff members. We have posted photography in order to increase knowledge of our listings and the history behind their significance. We ask that you take a look at our Copyright Statement before using the pictures. Our second reason for joining was to increase dialogue with you. We encourage Flickr users to post feedback and ask us questions. We may contact you for permission to feature your photography on our website.
So they're basically saying some of them are public domain (taken by NR/NHL staff members) and some aren't (state officials, other people who gave permission for their photos to be used but aren't federal employees). That Copyright Statement link is dead, but in 2017 it looked like this: https://web.archive.org/web/20171010183523/https://www.nps.gov/nr/content_copyright.htm
CONTENT IS PROTECTED BY INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY LAWS
This website includes both Government content that is in the public domain; as well as resources such as photographs, audio and video clips contributed or licensed by third parties that may be protected by copyright, or other proprietary rights. Transmission or reproduction of protected items beyond that allowed by fair use http://www.copyright.gov/fls/fl102.html, as defined in the copyright laws, requires the written permission of the copyright owners. Although every effort has been made to obtain appropriate permissions and correct attribution, we welcome any information to update our records.
Image Rights and Reproduction Guidelines
For permission to reproduce or use the materials on this website for other than fair use purposes, please contact the National Register of Historic Places:
Aha! Here's a 2017 thread by a different federal government employee asking how they could mark their images US Government Works on Flickr; apparently it's not as straightforward as they'd like. https://www.flickr.com/help/forum/en-us/72157682072173806/ So there is at least some chance Joeckel will be perfectly happy to release the image, and the only reason he didn't already mark it as public domain is that he couldn't get the attention of anyone at Flickr. If they can't change the license to "US Government Work", they can at least change it to CC-0 public domain, that should also work. We'll also accept CC-BY Attribution, CC-BY-SA Attribution-Share-Alike, and probably the "public domain mark", though the first three are preferable for various reasons. --GRuban (talk) 17:18, 7 December 2022 (UTC)
This is an archive of past discussions with User:GRuban. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.
.jpg)
.jpg)
.jpg)
.jpg)
.jpg)
.jpg)
.jpg)
.jpg)
.jpg)
.jpg)
.JPG)
.JPG)
.jpg)
.jpg)
.jpg)
.jpg)
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
_(14802854173).jpg){kind=link}
