User talk:GRuban/Archive 9
 | This is an archive of past discussions about User:GRuban, for the period 2020 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. |
| Archive 5 | ← | Archive 7 | Archive 8 | Archive 9 | Archive 10 | Archive 11 | → | Archive 13 |
I need to pick your brain again. I've just finished an article on Prenner and would like to use the following photographs, Prenner with parents or Prenner communion, Neznani storilec or Skok, Cmok in Jokica. Here's the link of Slovenian copyright The first one (with parents) was likely taken in 1911 or 1912 given that that is when they moved to Windischgraz (aka Slovenj Gradec) and the fact that Prenner is clearly younger in the image than they were in the 1915 communion photo. I can find diddly squat about the photographer, tried searches on Google, archive.org, Hathitrust, Slovenian Archives, Ministry of Culture, Slovene Digital Library, etc. What I am fairly sure of is that the town name changed around 1918 and the only images on the web for the photographer Ferd. Andreiz are from 1890-1915.[1] Since we know who the photographer is, but I cannot find dates for him, possibly we cannot use it. The communion photo, however has an unknown author and the description of the code says routine amateur photographs were never copyrighted and other photographs copyright lasted for 25 years. On the books, clearly both were published before 1978, so are they useable, or do I have to not use them as Prenner did not die until 1977? Any help you can give will be appreciated. SusunW (talk) 20:25, 26 June 2020 (UTC)
- First note: pronouns. Not what you asked, but sort of jumps right out at me. Did Prenner use "they"? (I'm only guessing there is such a thing as he/she/they distinction in Slovenian, but it is an Indo-European language, so seems likely.) MOS:GENDERID seems to be the most relevant guideline here. "ive precedence to self-designation as reported in the most up-to-date reliable sources, even when it doesn't match what is most common in reliable sources." So, what gender did Prenner use? We shouldn't use "they" if Prenner used "he". MOS:GENDERID goes on "When a person's gender self-designation may come as a surprise to readers, explain it without overemphasis on first occurrence in an article." I'd make the very second sentence something like "assigned female at birth, but from a young age, identified as male and began to transition as a teenager." It's a rather important part of understanding the following story, we should get it out of the way quickly. Whatever the final decision, the second sentence "They wrote the first detective story of Slovenia and was" needs one of those two words "They was" changed. Also "one of the first female lawyers in the Kingdom of Yugoslavia." needs citation and explanation - who says Prenner was one of the first female lawyers if Prenner considered himself male? --GRuban (talk) 20:57, 26 June 2020 (UTC)
- Thanks, it was a hard one to write. Apparently Prenner used female nouns/pronouns in public and male nouns/pronouns in court and in their private life. There are multiple sources which say that. It would be impossibly confusing to try to do that, so I opted for they, as the easiest way around the problem. I like your second sentence (and I had already caught that the subject/verb agreement needed to be changed). I think that the explanation is fairly explicit, but maybe you can guide me. For years people pretended Prenner was a woman who marched to her own drum. Bios ignored her gender identity and referred to them as a "brave woman" who dressed differently and challenged female stereotypes. Clearly new scholarship shows that it was a much more complex situation and Prenner even explored gender reassignment surgery. Not sure how I can explain it better. SusunW (talk) 21:40, 26 June 2020 (UTC)
- And just to make it abundantly clear, I figure after you are dead, you become a public figure. I initially wrote it calling Prenner she, as that was her public personna, but it seemed disingenuous and untrue, so I changed all of the pronouns to they. If you have a better solution, I am happy to discuss it. SusunW (talk) 21:57, 26 June 2020 (UTC)
- I think you need to write it just like that. Now that you point it out, I see it spread between the sections, some in early life, some in later life, some in death and legacy. Did they only start doing the public/private thing after 1954? If not, I really think it's worth making that second sentence "was assigned female at birth, and used female identity in public, but privately identified as male from a young age", that would make the pronoun even clearer. Except ... "neither man nor woman"? Aiee. Consider a specific section for "Personal life" or even "Sexuality and gender identity" section that gathers all these details, and their girlfriends... (Who are similarly spread out between sections; Slavica Jelenc, who was a mathematics professor, was female? I think it's worth specifying.) All that said, though, deep waters, and I'm not a trans expert, though I have had a few acquaintances; it's an emotionally fraught area. One of those acquaintances was big on correct pronoun use, let me see if they have an opinion. It'll be a good excuse to look them up again. --GRuban (talk) 11:36, 27 June 2020 (UTC) (UTC)
- I've pinged you into the discussion on Ian's page. I would definitely appreciate input from your acquaintances. I asked mine and their opinion was that the pronoun doesn't really matter. I proposed that we could use she up to "Legal career" and he thereafter, but am just not sure that is the way to go. I typically do not pull out personal life from the chronology, as it seems weird to me. Your personal life happens in tandem with your public life and isn't separated, but in this case maybe that would be best? Then my brain says that's discriminatory, treating Prenner's situation differently. Oy, it's tough, but talking it through with you and Ian helps. Nudging that I still need your thoughts on the photos ;), but am very, very appreciative of your input about the language usage, as it is integral to the presentation of the article. SusunW (talk) 15:02, 27 June 2020 (UTC)
- I think you need to write it just like that. Now that you point it out, I see it spread between the sections, some in early life, some in later life, some in death and legacy. Did they only start doing the public/private thing after 1954? If not, I really think it's worth making that second sentence "was assigned female at birth, and used female identity in public, but privately identified as male from a young age", that would make the pronoun even clearer. Except ... "neither man nor woman"? Aiee. Consider a specific section for "Personal life" or even "Sexuality and gender identity" section that gathers all these details, and their girlfriends... (Who are similarly spread out between sections; Slavica Jelenc, who was a mathematics professor, was female? I think it's worth specifying.) All that said, though, deep waters, and I'm not a trans expert, though I have had a few acquaintances; it's an emotionally fraught area. One of those acquaintances was big on correct pronoun use, let me see if they have an opinion. It'll be a good excuse to look them up again. --GRuban (talk) 11:36, 27 June 2020 (UTC) (UTC)
- And just to make it abundantly clear, I figure after you are dead, you become a public figure. I initially wrote it calling Prenner she, as that was her public personna, but it seemed disingenuous and untrue, so I changed all of the pronouns to they. If you have a better solution, I am happy to discuss it. SusunW (talk) 21:57, 26 June 2020 (UTC)
- Thanks, it was a hard one to write. Apparently Prenner used female nouns/pronouns in public and male nouns/pronouns in court and in their private life. There are multiple sources which say that. It would be impossibly confusing to try to do that, so I opted for they, as the easiest way around the problem. I like your second sentence (and I had already caught that the subject/verb agreement needed to be changed). I think that the explanation is fairly explicit, but maybe you can guide me. For years people pretended Prenner was a woman who marched to her own drum. Bios ignored her gender identity and referred to them as a "brave woman" who dressed differently and challenged female stereotypes. Clearly new scholarship shows that it was a much more complex situation and Prenner even explored gender reassignment surgery. Not sure how I can explain it better. SusunW (talk) 21:40, 26 June 2020 (UTC)
- (talk page stalker) My opinion might not be welcome, but SusunW I support your use of "they". The MOS is a guideline and all rules have exceptions. By making a choice here we're either prioritizing how they identified publicly or how they did privately, when both choices were doubtless made for good reasons. We also need to remember that due to the age the public identity happened in, it may be seen as being a bit "under duress". Psiĥedelisto (talk • contribs) please always ping! 15:46, 27 June 2020 (UTC)
- Thanks for weighing in Psiĥedelisto I totally welcome the input. It's a difficult situation to try to address, as we need to be respectful of Prenner's identity, but take into consideration that the historical perception of that identity has shifted. How we do that in the most neutral way is the rub. SusunW (talk) 15:56, 27 June 2020 (UTC)
- (compressing and rephrasing) The former coworker I asked (who, though not a credentialed expert, co-founded a trans employee resource group, and has spoken on the topic at several conventions) says that we want to pick a single set of pronouns for Prenner and use them consistently throughout the article. Changing pronouns during the story, is, they say, likely to upset people in the community as disrespectful. Since Prenner transitioned away from female, and sometimes referred to themselves as male, and sometimes neither, they say either "he" or "they" is likely to be more respectful to Prenner than "she". If we decide on "he", they like the current sentence "was assigned female at birth, but from a young age, identified as male and began to transition to a male appearance as a teenager.", while if we decide on "they", then the quote "I am Dr. Ljuba Prenner, neither man nor woman" would be good towards the beginning.
Will get back to the images, honest. --GRuban (talk) 13:14, 29 June 2020 (UTC)
- I point you to the note I put on the talk page yesterday regarding pronoun usage. I came to the conclusion given all the research I have done in policies and weighing all the discussion, that the use of "he" is critical. It is how Prenner wanted to be perceived. The point is do we make it more confusing to readers when he is attending girls' schools, or becoming a female lawyer. Life just isn't consistent. It seems to me that reflecting the transition from female to male leads to a perfectly natural shift of prounouns and that anything else would be confusing. I can lede with the quote if we think it helps explain things, but I reworked the lede to make it less "all about her gender identity" and more about her overall notability. I truly appreciate your input, as I said to Ian yesterday, your guidance led me to continue to dive into the policy side of the challenge. I await your analysis of the photographs, but please let me know if you still have concerns about the language. As always, your collaboration is genuinely appreciated and necessary to me to improve articles. SusunW (talk) 16:49, 29 June 2020 (UTC)
- Thanks for weighing in Psiĥedelisto I totally welcome the input. It's a difficult situation to try to address, as we need to be respectful of Prenner's identity, but take into consideration that the historical perception of that identity has shifted. How we do that in the most neutral way is the rub. SusunW (talk) 15:56, 27 June 2020 (UTC)
Images
Finally here! Unfortunately, even the communion photo isn't an easy PD: the key points are "amateur" and "published". We can't guarantee the photo was taken by an amateur; it's clearly a posed photo, and it's not unheard of to hire professional photographers to take photos of major life events like this. Similarly, do we really know when it was first published? The description on the link just says it's from someone's collection, if this was just in a family archive, then it wasn't necessarily published at that time it was taken. Unless I am misunderstanding and you have information that it was included in a book? If it was published 1969 or earlier, it would be PD, but I'm getting the impression that this wasn't published until some biography, and all of those were written in 2001 or later, right? I may even have worse news. I'm not at all sure that the three images we currently have under https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Category:Ljuba_Prenner are properly public domain, for the same reasons. They're all from the same place, the Digital Library of Slovenia, and are all marked "Rights: Copyright Not Evaluated", and have the same issues, I don't see proof they were actually published before 1970, or even 2001. So, I guess, if you want to look on the bright side, you could upload these the same way those were uploaded, and they wouldn't be deleted unless all those were too... but they could be all deleted together.
The Neznani Storilec cover should be fine under https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Template:PD-text (a book cover is flat, so it's an accurate photographic reproduction); we should probably crop it down to just the book, and remove the stone background. The SKOK, CMOK IN JOKICA cover, is, unfortunately, more than simple text, so probably protected until 70 years after author's death. --GRuban (talk) 17:27, 30 June 2020 (UTC)
- Frankly, I was afraid that was going to be the assessment. I am always reminded of that weeks-long photo review nightmare on the Inter-allied Women's Conference, and how many of the common's images were not allowed. I've continued to research the publication history, but find nothing more at this point. Can you do the "Neznani Storilec" cover? I know diddly squat about that license. I'll do it if you don't want to, but it makes me nervous. Thank you so very much for your help. SusunW (talk) 17:49, 30 June 2020 (UTC)
- As you can see here (scroll through) some images were published, but when, I cannot find out for sure. One looks like it might have been published in 1942, but is that a trick of the display? SusunW (talk) 17:56, 30 June 2020 (UTC)
- http://etnoinfolab.org/document/2578 Ferd. Andreiz was a photographer in Wind. Graz; https://museu.ms/collection/object/272828/weitenstein-bei-cilli - in 1903 F. Andreiz was a photographer in Windischgraz. He took this photo in 1890. https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Template:PD-old-assumed assumes that any photo taken 120 years ago is PD due to age. It is, unfortunately, not established to stretch this assumption enough to assume that since the author of the 1890 photo is the same as that of the 1911 photo, it must also be PD. So it does seem quite likely Andreiz passed on more than 70 years ago, but I haven't found definite statement of this. Here is a Master's thesis about Forgotten Carinthian photographers including Ferdinand Andreiz; but no date of death for him. http://invenio.nusl.cz/record/78096. It's by Rok Golob. This Rok Golob? I suspect it's probably digging too deep, but it's tempting to write an email - "Hi. We don't even know if you speak English. Or whether you're the author of a Master's thesis about Carinthian photographers. Or even if you are, if you know the exact death date of one of them. But if all that is the case, see, that photographer took a photo of an unrelated person we're writing an article about..." --GRuban (talk) 20:04, 30 June 2020 (UTC)
- I literally have no earthly idea how you found that, but your magic wand is clearly working! I literally had thought of doing the same e-mail thing with Jerica Mrzel or the museum that has a display of Prenner's life. I cannot find an e-mail address for Mrzel, but I did find a website with a contact form for Koroški pokrajinski muzej (Carinthian Provincial Museum). I've sent them an e-mail and we'll see what happens. And thank you very much for the book cover! SusunW (talk) 20:45, 30 June 2020 (UTC)
- For the record, I asked if they could verify that any photos of Prenner had been published before 1969 with a scan of the photograph and title page of the publication and if they could provide any information on when Andreiz might have died. (Of course, I wrote it in English with an apology for my lack of Slovene, so we'll just have to wait and see if anything comes of it. According to the website, they open tomorrow). SusunW (talk) 21:15, 30 June 2020 (UTC)
- Bad news and good news from the museum. They do not know if any of the photos were published before 1992. But, they gave me an e-mail for Mrzel. I have sent her a query and copied you in, as if she is willing to help us, you will have a better idea of what to ask than me. SusunW (talk) 15:28, 6 July 2020 (UTC)
- For the record, I asked if they could verify that any photos of Prenner had been published before 1969 with a scan of the photograph and title page of the publication and if they could provide any information on when Andreiz might have died. (Of course, I wrote it in English with an apology for my lack of Slovene, so we'll just have to wait and see if anything comes of it. According to the website, they open tomorrow). SusunW (talk) 21:15, 30 June 2020 (UTC)
- I literally have no earthly idea how you found that, but your magic wand is clearly working! I literally had thought of doing the same e-mail thing with Jerica Mrzel or the museum that has a display of Prenner's life. I cannot find an e-mail address for Mrzel, but I did find a website with a contact form for Koroški pokrajinski muzej (Carinthian Provincial Museum). I've sent them an e-mail and we'll see what happens. And thank you very much for the book cover! SusunW (talk) 20:45, 30 June 2020 (UTC)
- http://etnoinfolab.org/document/2578 Ferd. Andreiz was a photographer in Wind. Graz; https://museu.ms/collection/object/272828/weitenstein-bei-cilli - in 1903 F. Andreiz was a photographer in Windischgraz. He took this photo in 1890. https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Template:PD-old-assumed assumes that any photo taken 120 years ago is PD due to age. It is, unfortunately, not established to stretch this assumption enough to assume that since the author of the 1890 photo is the same as that of the 1911 photo, it must also be PD. So it does seem quite likely Andreiz passed on more than 70 years ago, but I haven't found definite statement of this. Here is a Master's thesis about Forgotten Carinthian photographers including Ferdinand Andreiz; but no date of death for him. http://invenio.nusl.cz/record/78096. It's by Rok Golob. This Rok Golob? I suspect it's probably digging too deep, but it's tempting to write an email - "Hi. We don't even know if you speak English. Or whether you're the author of a Master's thesis about Carinthian photographers. Or even if you are, if you know the exact death date of one of them. But if all that is the case, see, that photographer took a photo of an unrelated person we're writing an article about..." --GRuban (talk) 20:04, 30 June 2020 (UTC)
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 at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template. Psiĥedelisto (talk • contribs) please always ping! 07:12, 21 July 2020 (UTC)
Summer greetings
 | |
| pale globe-thistle above the Rhine |
Have a pic for all your pic work! --Gerda Arendt (talk) 17:20, 31 July 2020 (UTC)
- Es ist wunderschön! --GRuban (talk) 17:23, 31 July 2020 (UTC)
- Danke! Today, Monteverdi's operas became a featured topic! ... exactly 10 years after both Brian and I were declared awesome ;) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 21:08, 3 August 2020 (UTC)
- Thank you so much for the Johannes Schüler pic!! --Gerda Arendt (talk) 16:14, 4 August 2020 (UTC)
- There are actually six! I picked one for the page, and uploaded 3 to Wikimedia Commons since they're somewhat similar, but if you like a different one of the 6 better, please say. --GRuban (talk) 16:23, 4 August 2020 (UTC)
- I say three times thank you and that I'd have picked the same ;) - Any pic of Röhrbein? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 16:27, 4 August 2020 (UTC)
- No, but I did look! --GRuban (talk) 16:29, 4 August 2020 (UTC)
- A first for me today: a featured list (= a featured topic in this case) on the Main page, see Wikipedia:Main Page history/2020 August 21, an initiative by Aza24 in memory of Brian. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 22:08, 21 August 2020 (UTC)
- No, but I did look! --GRuban (talk) 16:29, 4 August 2020 (UTC)
- I say three times thank you and that I'd have picked the same ;) - Any pic of Röhrbein? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 16:27, 4 August 2020 (UTC)
- There are actually six! I picked one for the page, and uploaded 3 to Wikimedia Commons since they're somewhat similar, but if you like a different one of the 6 better, please say. --GRuban (talk) 16:23, 4 August 2020 (UTC)
 |
- Every once in a while, I have a TFA, happy that it was also a tribute to Brian, in great collaboration, fine Main page, and see also. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 19:39, 4 September 2020 (UTC)
- In contrast: matching colours music to the Dahlias, "brute loud and secretly quiet". - The music (specifically "Meermenschen") was given to me for my birthday. A funeral in 2 days. Brute. - Any chance to have the pic of Franz Leuninger here? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 13:52, 15 September 2020 (UTC)
- @Gerda Arendt: Maybe? You mean the picture at https://www.gdw-berlin.de/vertiefung/biografien/personenverzeichnis/biografie/view-bio/franz-leuninger/, right? https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Copyright_rules_by_territory/Germany says copyright is author's life plus 70 years, or if anonymous, publication plus 70 years. Leuninger died in 1945, so clearly the picture was taken before then, and 1945 + 70 = 2015. So if we assume it's anonymous, and was published any time during Leuninger's lifetime it should be fine. But we don't know that, so if someone is willing to argue hard against it, it could get deleted. Honestly, I think it's most likely public domain, so you may be willing to risk it. If you want I can do it for you. --GRuban (talk) 14:09, 15 September 2020 (UTC)
- IF you'd do that for me, and not mind that the time may be spent for nothing, I'd love it! My only experience is uploading my own. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 14:12, 15 September 2020 (UTC)
- Look. (6.456 views for the pic) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 05:56, 17 September 2020 (UTC)
- @Gerda Arendt: Maybe? You mean the picture at https://www.gdw-berlin.de/vertiefung/biografien/personenverzeichnis/biografie/view-bio/franz-leuninger/, right? https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Copyright_rules_by_territory/Germany says copyright is author's life plus 70 years, or if anonymous, publication plus 70 years. Leuninger died in 1945, so clearly the picture was taken before then, and 1945 + 70 = 2015. So if we assume it's anonymous, and was published any time during Leuninger's lifetime it should be fine. But we don't know that, so if someone is willing to argue hard against it, it could get deleted. Honestly, I think it's most likely public domain, so you may be willing to risk it. If you want I can do it for you. --GRuban (talk) 14:09, 15 September 2020 (UTC)
- In contrast: matching colours music to the Dahlias, "brute loud and secretly quiet". - The music (specifically "Meermenschen") was given to me for my birthday. A funeral in 2 days. Brute. - Any chance to have the pic of Franz Leuninger here? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 13:52, 15 September 2020 (UTC)
Jane Withers portrait
Hi, I don't know if I'm looking in the right place to check for copyright renewals on these portraits:
- When I search in the Internet Archive, just books and magazines pop up.
- All three of those we have front and back of, and no copyright notice on either side. All it says is "Credit ... would be appreciated", so that's https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Template:PD-US-no_notice. Upload front and back to prove it. Looks like they weren't worried about getting extra publicity for free; would that our current photographers felt that way. --GRuban (talk) 01:27, 2 August 2020 (UTC)
- I also can't find a renewal for this film, Angel's Holiday (1937) at all. Here is the publicity still: [2]
- Thanks, Yoninah (talk) 23:26, 1 August 2020 (UTC)
- If the publicity still is good enough for your purposes, then go for not renewed on the still, it almost certainly wasn't renewed, and you did look. If you want to upload the movie itself or frames from it, then let's look a bit more, that's more likely to have been renewed, here is where it was registered: https://archive.org/details/catalogofcopyri341lib/page/526/mode/2up?q=angel%27s+holiday. --GRuban (talk) 01:27, 2 August 2020 (UTC)
- Thank you! Yoninah (talk) 01:36, 2 August 2020 (UTC)
- If the publicity still is good enough for your purposes, then go for not renewed on the still, it almost certainly wasn't renewed, and you did look. If you want to upload the movie itself or frames from it, then let's look a bit more, that's more likely to have been renewed, here is where it was registered: https://archive.org/details/catalogofcopyri341lib/page/526/mode/2up?q=angel%27s+holiday. --GRuban (talk) 01:27, 2 August 2020 (UTC)
- What do you think of this? Published by Whitman Publishing in 1940, I don't find anything in the copyright site for 1968 (I searched here). Thanks, Yoninah (talk) 23:44, 3 August 2020 (UTC)
- Neat! However your search should be only in the copyright books, the way you have it it is over all the contents of archive.org, and I'm surprised you were able to look at all of those. You want to go to https://archive.org/details/copyrightrecords, type into that little box on the left, and check "Text contents" rather than "metadata". It's also useful to find the original entry before looking for the renewal so you know what to look for, and so you can be more sure that your search would actually find the renewal if it exists. That seems to be this: https://archive.org/details/catalogofcopyri371libr/page/160/mode/2up?q=%22jane+withers%22 or possibly this https://archive.org/details/catalogofcopyr371lib/page/850/mode/2up?q=%22jane+withers%22 (which was actually printed in 1938; both are described slightly differently but have the same artists, Avis and sometimes Marion Mac, I think they made a series of these books). So you want a search that looks like https://archive.org/search.php?query=%22jane+withers%22&and%5B%5D=collection%3A%22copyrightrecords%22&sin=TXT and here is another one for the artist that finds a few related ones https://archive.org/search.php?query=%22mac+avis%22&and%5B%5D=collection%3A%22copyrightrecords%22&sin=TXT. I also did a few others, and don't see anything that looks like a renewal. I think you're good! --GRuban (talk) 12:11, 4 August 2020 (UTC)
- Thank you. It'll take me some time to review all these instructions! Yoninah (talk) 12:54, 4 August 2020 (UTC)
Images
Hi GRuban, Good day. I have seen you adding a lot of images into the pages and I would like to do so in MMA fighters article and would like to seek you advice. I found out that certain MMA sites - such as MMAnytt do allow their image/videos to be reused. I am not sure how you do that, but would it be the right way if I download the video (interviews video to make sure the videos are produced by them) and capture a short of the video for the image and upload it to WikiCommon. If that is not the method you used, then pls advise. Thanks in advance. Stay safe and best. Cassiopeia(talk) 09:31, 8 August 2020 (UTC)
- That's right. There are a few things to watch for:
- The YouTube video needs to be marked "License Creative Commons Attribution license (reuse allowed)". When that's there, it's often hidden under the SHOW MORE link under the description.
- The video needs to be actually owned by the YouTube account. For example, https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=S4w58Hax_Hc is marked CC but if you look at it, most or all is actually from TMZ, not MMAnytt, so we can't use those parts, TMZ would have to release it, not MMAnytt. There are a number of YouTube accounts that upload and "release" videos they don't actually own, we want to avoid those.
- The resolution of the video is under the gear icon in the lower right of the video under Quality, I generally try to resize the video so it's approximately that height in pixels. I set the video speed to the slowest possible, 0.25, to get the best shot: when I try for a picture of a person, I am looking for them to be looking into the camera, and ideally smiling, but that is a matter of taste. Then I take a screenshot (PrtScn on my Windows box, then paste into Microsoft Paint), crop to the part I want, and upload it using the UploadWizard (https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Special:UploadWizard), marking the YouTube link as the source (and adding the time in the video, and "cropped" if it is, and often brightening or otherwise color correcting the image using the Microsoft Photos app). Sometimes I uses a service called http://youtubescreenshot.com which helps get rid of overlays. But that's all extra, the first two steps to verify the license are strictly required.
- I put {{YouTube}}{{LicenseReview}} in the UploadWizard: "Not my work: Another reason not mentioned above" license field. That last part will ask for a https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:License_review so in case the YouTube account goes away or changes its license, a trusted reviewer will have verified that it was properly licensed at the time. (That's why the timestamp within the video is useful, so the license reviewer can more easily find the exact place in the video you took the screenshot.) If you want, you can ping me after you upload your first few, I am such a license reviewer among other things. --GRuban (talk) 15:33, 8 August 2020 (UTC)
- HI GRuban, Thank you so much for the info and instructions. I have uploaded 3 files as below and would like you to review them.
- Thanks again for your assitance and take so much time to write down all the info for me. Very much appreciate your kindness. Stay safe and best. Cassiopeia(talk) 07:50, 9 August 2020 (UTC)
- Nice! Well done, good work. You do want to use the {{YouTube}} template, though, not {{cc-by-sa-4.0}}, technically YouTube uses CC BY 3.0, there is a difference from BY-SA 4.0. I license reviewed all 3 and corrected that for you. If you want to improve further, you could do these things:
- Add categories for the images you upload. That'll stop the Uncategorized template from showing up, and in general helps people find your images. For File:Tyson_Pedro_at_UFC_234.jpg those could be Category:Male_fighters_of_the_Ultimate_Fighting_ChampionshipCategory:Mixed_martial_artists_from_Australia. You can also look at what categories the Wikipedia article for the person is in; the Wikimedia Commons categories are often similar. If you really get into it, you can make a category for each person, by taking a look at already existing ones like it, say Category:José Aldo, which is pretty thorough, and following that model. I admit I don't usually do that until I have two or three or so images to put in such a category, but it's useful even if you only have one.
- Add the images to the Wikipedia articles! That's why you uploaded them, right? You don't have to wait for the LicenseReview, as so many things in this volunteer project, there is a backlog.
- But that is extra, just uploading images like those 3 is still useful, thank you!
- You can nominate any images for deletion by clicking "Nominate for deletion" in the toolbox at the left side of the page. For images you just uploaded, you can just edit the page and put {{SD|G7}} which is shorthand for Uploader requests deletion and will usually be reacted to faster, often in minutes or hours; a normal deletion discussion can take days or weeks. --GRuban (talk) 11:09, 9 August 2020 (UTC)
- Hi GRuban, Thank you so much for the review and and the deletion markup. I will work on adding the cats. Truly appreciate you help! Stay safe and best. Cassiopeia(talk) 11:54, 9 August 2020 (UTC)
Let's take these one at a time.
- https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Tai_Tuivasa_at_UFC_234.jpg - under Licensing you had {{You Tube}}, which doesn't turn into anything useful, which is why AntiCompositeBot applied the speedy deletion notice. You have to spell the template correctly, no space in the middle, you want {{YouTube}}{{LicenseReview}}. I fixed it, since speedy deletion does, in fact, sometimes mean speedy. We could hope the administrator coming to delete the file would have noticed the license tag misspelling and given you the benefit of the doubt, but they might have been moving fast and not seen it, so it's even better to get it correct the first time.
- https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Jack_Marshman_at_UFC_230.jpg - much better, you got the YouTube template right, and gave the file a category. I really would make a habit of adding the {{LicenseReview}} template as well, it does happen that the YouTube account changes the license away from Creative Commons Attribution, and then if our file hasn't been license reviewed it might be nominated for deletion. Not often, but it has happened, and when it happens we lose a whole lot of great images at once.
- https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Israel_Adesanya_at_UFC_230.jpg - likewise, nice.
- https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Al_Iaquinta_at_UFC_230.jpg - likewise, nice.
- https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Shane_Burgos_at_UFC_230.jpg - likewise. Here and others, you can shorten the source URL from https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sCw88f4tfhU&list=PLuHnK1AEEb9s4luYfKNcBvtCH8WAonNAz&index=30 to just https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sCw88f4tfhU : it goes to the same place, the &list&index parts are only useful to someone doing the search that you did to find this video, not in general. But it's not a big deal at all.
- https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Lyman_Good_at_UFC_230.jpg - likewise. I like this picture.
- https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Ilir_Latifi_at_UFC_232.jpg - likewise. A bit fuzzy, though, do you want to try again and get a shot a half second earlier or later when he has stopped moving his head? If it's very similar except for the fuzziness, you can just upload it to the same Commons file, using the "Upload a new version of this file" link under "File history", and not have to fill in the forms again.
- https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Michael_Chiesa_at_UFC_232.jpg - again, a bit fuzzy.
- https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Alexander_Volkanovski_at_UFC_232.jpg - another nice image.
- https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Alonzo_Menifield_Jan_20,_2019.jpg - nice. I think I prefer the "at UFC 232" style titles to the "Jan 19, 2019" titles, since the dates are available in a separate field. I think (from the hashtag on the YouTube file) that this was at UFC 231? But not a big issue.
- https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Alexander_Hernandez_Jan_19,_2019.jpg - I'd title this and the next one "... weigh in" or something like that, or put that in the description, to explain why they're standing like that. Again a matter of taste.
- https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Karl_Roberson_Jan_19,_2019.jpg - likewise.
Nice! Do add the {{LicenseReview}} tags, but I think you've basically got it. You'll get better and better with practice... and maybe even be able to help other people who come to you for advice! You don't have to ping me for further uploads unless you have specific questions. --GRuban (talk) 12:51, 10 August 2020 (UTC)
- Hi GRuban, Thank you very much for detailing the issues above and I will bear in mind to add {{LicenseReview}}, select a clear shot, and note on the title of the file. I believe I would download the video and take a short clip from it and upload to Wikipedia Commons. I would like to know what is the max size / how long the clip (in seconds) is the limit to upload to Commons? Thanks again for your assistance. Stay safe and best. Cassiopeia(talk) 13:06, 10 August 2020 (UTC)
- I don't think there is a maximum size limit. I'd just upload whatever size would be most useful for the article; we are primarily used for reading, rather than video viewing, so I'd only upload the ones that are truly interesting. But I know a lot less about videos than about images: while I've uploaded over a thousand images, I've probably uploaded fewer than 10 videos - maybe only one, even. So I'd just read and follow , and trust that if I make a well intentioned mistake, someone will tell me, nicely. --GRuban (talk) 13:20, 10 August 2020 (UTC)
- I don't think there is a maximum size limit. I'd just upload whatever size would be most useful for the article; we are primarily used for reading, rather than video viewing, so I'd only upload the ones that are truly interesting. But I know a lot less about videos than about images: while I've uploaded over a thousand images, I've probably uploaded fewer than 10 videos - maybe only one, even. So I'd just read and follow , and trust that if I make a well intentioned mistake, someone will tell me, nicely.
- Hi GRuban, Thank you very much for detailing the issues above and I will bear in mind to add {{LicenseReview}}, select a clear shot, and note on the title of the file. I believe I would download the video and take a short clip from it and upload to Wikipedia Commons. I would like to know what is the max size / how long the clip (in seconds) is the limit to upload to Commons? Thanks again for your assistance. Stay safe and best. Cassiopeia(talk) 13:06, 10 August 2020 (UTC)
- Hi GRuban, OK thank you for the link. Once again thank you very much for prodiving me the info and instructions of the above. Stay safe and best. Cassiopeia(talk) 10:13, 11 August 2020 (UTC)
I took a page out of your playbook…
File:Cullen_Hoback.jpg. The "guy sought after for Wikipedia photos" has become the "seeker of Wikipedia photos". 
Psiĥedelisto (talk • contribs) please always ping! 05:11, 9 August 2020 (UTC)
- @Psiĥedelisto: Neat! I like how you're using your fame, thank you. But how is it a California photo, aren't you in the Philippines? Does this mean there'll be a new in depth reliable source about you coming out soon that I can use to expand our article about you with interesting facts? --GRuban (talk) 12:56, 10 August 2020 (UTC)
- I've been in Los Angeles since February. I expect to ultimately lose my cyberlibel case, that's why...I believe Gilbert reported this in Vice. And yes, I will be in his film, whenever it comes out. Don't want to give too much away about how extensive or not my role in it is. 👀 Psiĥedelisto (talk • contribs) please always ping! 21:12, 10 August 2020 (UTC)
LaNada Means
Hope all is well with you. Been a difficult month for me, but we are hanging in. I would like to use this photo of LaNada Means, published 20 November 1970. This copy says its an AP wire photo, but ran 2 days after the Examiner’s photo, which makes me think they took it from the San Francisco paper. Neither "Periodicals" January-December 1970 nor "Artwork" January-December 1970 show anything for the Examiner and the only hit for it in "Commercial Prints" January-December 1970 has nothing to do with Means. I also get no hits in any of them for AP Wirephotos, AP Wire photos, Associated Press having anything to do with Alcatraz or Means, or Hearst (Hearst corp owned the Examiner). I'd appreciate your thoughts, if you have time. If not, no worries. SusunW (talk) 18:23, 15 August 2020 (UTC)
Sorry. See, here's what I'm going by: https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Copyright_rules_by_territory/United_States#General_rules - most of the items I'm advising Yoninah on were before 1964, so if their copyright wasn't explicitly renewed, they become public domain. They're also mostly standalone items, as individual photographs that are published to be handed out to press organizations for publicity, so they would have to be copyrighted separately, and the copyright statement would have needed to be on the photo itself, either the front or the back. However this is a 1970 item, so it doesn't need explicit copyright renewal, just a copyright notice, writing "Copyright Examiner 1970" would have been enough to carry it through the present day. And, since this wasn't published alone, like a publicity photo, but as part of a newspaper, I suspect that they could have put that copyright notice anywhere in the newspaper. I didn't look thoroughly, you can if you like, but most newspapers and magazines do write something like that somewhere, as a matter of course, often on the first or second or last page, or on the page where they put their list of editors, publisher, circulation figures, contact address, etc. So, unfortunately, I don't think it's necessarily lapsed, I think it could well be still in copyright. --GRuban (talk) 23:31, 15 August 2020 (UTC)
- Sorry, I forgot to give you the masthead and publishing notice. I scrolled through the entire paper and there is nothing on any page or photograph that indicates copyright. The books I gave you aren't for renewals, they are for the original filings. I have researched photos in the Examiner before and never found any copyright statements in the paper. It's odd that Hearst Corp filed on magazines, but not the newspaper, but that has been another thing I have noticed in researching other photos. My big concern on this one is the AP Wire Photo thing. I don't really know how their system worked, so were they just able to use any affiliates photo and distribute it? I always assumed if it was marked like that, it was taken by an AP reporter. SusunW (talk) 15:46, 16 August 2020 (UTC)
- Hmm. Well, if you want, you can try to upload it and mark it {{PD-US-no_notice}}, which says "This work is in the public domain because it was published in the United States between 1925 and 1977 inclusive, without a copyright notice." But I'm worried; I find it unlikely the entire newspaper was published without a copyright notice. Professional publishers of the time were quite aware that would mean it went into the public domain; for publicity photos movie companies or actors agents sometimes didn't mind, because they weren't interested in selling publicity photos, they were interested in selling movie tickets, or sometimes they didn't bother renewing 28 years later, because the expense and hassle was more than they expected to make from "old news", or sometimes they forgot 28 years later, or sometimes they made a mistake, especially if they were amateurs. But this was a newspaper, published by professionals. Without a copyright notice, another newspaper could legally just copy any part or even all of what they wrote the very next day, and not have to pay them anything. I'm not a newspaper person, but I am fairly sure that printing articles from another newspaper is done fairly often, but usually involves paying money to the original publisher, and the original publisher would be counting on that money. The relative hassle of printing the three words "Copyright (year) (company)" would be minimal, there are tens or hundreds of thousands of words in a newspaper. So I, personally, would think we're just missing the notice and that it must exist somewhere in the newspaper. But if you can honestly say you looked through the entire archived newspaper and didn't find any notice, you can try. --GRuban (talk) 17:57, 16 August 2020 (UTC)
- Sorry, I forgot to give you the masthead and publishing notice. I scrolled through the entire paper and there is nothing on any page or photograph that indicates copyright. The books I gave you aren't for renewals, they are for the original filings. I have researched photos in the Examiner before and never found any copyright statements in the paper. It's odd that Hearst Corp filed on magazines, but not the newspaper, but that has been another thing I have noticed in researching other photos. My big concern on this one is the AP Wire Photo thing. I don't really know how their system worked, so were they just able to use any affiliates photo and distribute it? I always assumed if it was marked like that, it was taken by an AP reporter. SusunW (talk) 15:46, 16 August 2020 (UTC)
Hi, I wonder if you could clarify the status of the image licensing. The image was taken by an employee of this NRHP building and was posted on their Facebook page. The employee freely licensed it on Commons. Is this kosher? Thanks, Yoninah (talk) 20:49, 25 August 2020 (UTC)
- I've never heard a "real" Jewish or Israeli person use "kosher" in that context before! Anyway, ... probably? So, I guess you are referring to one or both of these?
-
File:Et webb historic.jpg -
File:Elijah Thomas Webb House.jpg
- The first one is marked PD because it was printed in 1895, which seems quite likely. The second one is a modern photo that anyone walking by on the street could have taken, so would probably not even get a second glance if the uploader were to just say "I took that personally"; we've got Freedom of Panorama for buildings in the United States and even if we didn't, the house is over 100 years old so out of any reasonable copyright. So probably OK. I'm confident enough to put the images here on my talk page, for example, which I wouldn't be able to do if they were only "fair use".
- Why only probably? Well, the uploading user (Elijah Thomas Webb Residence (talk · contribs) - don't click on that user page name, it goes to the article for some reason, but contribs and talk work) isn't quite kosher in their user name choice. Wikipedia:Username policy#Usernames implying shared use says we're not supposed to edit as an organization, just as a person, and there's an implication that this could be a promotional article, you can see User:MB worrying about that at User talk:Elijah Thomas Webb Residence#Managing a conflict of interest. And if someone were to give that second glance to that modern photo, they might find it at https://www.facebook.com/elijahthomaswebb/photos/a.390944987600676/2983255635036252/ noticeably before it was uploaded here. So if some diligent editor were to really not like the uploader or just have Inspector Javert-like tendencies, they might demand proof from the uploading user that the first mage was actually published in 1895 (info about the published book, for example) and that they actually represent the organization that owns that Facebook page with the second, via an email conversation with OTRS. (And that they declare COI, and possibly change their user name, but that wouldn't directly impact the images.) It would be high grade nitpickery, since, honestly, the uploader represents a non-profit-slash-governmental-agency, so the amount of promotion possible is pretty low, but, well, I've encountered editors here capable of that level of nitpickery on a bad day. If you or they are planning to nominate the article for WP:FA you probably want to fill in that paperwork. Or if you or they have enemies.
If you don't, and don't want to bother, the images will probably be OK as it is. --GRuban (talk) 21:26, 25 August 2020 (UTC)
- GRuban,Yoninah, a little more background. This editor used the name of the house as their user name and put the article contents on their user page. I moved the article to a draft (and later to mainspace) which is why a redirect at their user page takes you to the article. I told them they should create a new individual username, and they responded to me via email that they had no interest in making any further edits on WP beyond this article (although they have gone and added the photo to another article). They certainly are a SPA, who is proud of their historic house. So their effort may be considered a tiny bit promotional, but its nothing compared to the flagrant paid COI editing that goes on all the time. The uploader does not represent a "non-profit-slash-governmental-agency", they are a private individual who own and live in the house and petitioned the government to designate it historic. All of this is a little unusual, but like you say, should be ok, including the images, unless this attracts the attention of a "high grade nitpicker". MB 21:46, 25 August 2020 (UTC)
Catalogue
I'm not understanding how to find the Verses occasioned by death of Edward Weld. (ob. Dec.1761). The article Edward Weld (Senior) states in the last paragraph that he "received many tributes including eulogies in verse." Any idea how to find those eulogies? Atsme Talk 📧 01:46, 31 August 2020 (UTC)
- Not directly, no, I'm not an expert of Georgiana, and it seems you need to go to Dorset to look at these? You might ask on the Wikipedia:WikiProject Resource Exchange. However, I see this is a case of defence against AfD? I'd enter this wonderful document into the Keep column. http://www.bu.edu/law/journals-archive/bulr/documents/hoffman.pdf - much though Mr. Weld himself would much wish the scandalous event were best forgotten, it seems to be somewhat notable 300 years later! And that also means that maybe one of our several excellent writers who like the more colorful aspects of English history might be interested in helping: such as User:SchroCat, User:Cassianto? Maybe one of them can get to a Dorset document? --GRuban (talk) 02:34, 31 August 2020 (UTC)
- That would be wonderful, if they have time. Thx, GR. Atsme Talk 📧 02:38, 31 August 2020 (UTC)
Hi, I wanted to add this image to this article, but the PD-US-not renewed template ends at 1963, and this film was in 1965 or 1966. What do I do? Thanks, Yoninah (talk) 00:28, 1 September 2020 (UTC)
- You better sit down. There is a clear copyright statement, and two different laws extended the copyright term to ... 95 years. So 2060. You may want to laugh at me, but it's true. I hate to shoot you down, but we won't be able to use it until we're grown. Copyright renewal in the United States tells the sad story. Credit to Sonny Bono and his (posthumous) Copyright Term Extension Act. --GRuban (talk) 22:31, 1 September 2020 (UTC)
- Oh, well. I guess I'm going back to movies from the 1940s! Yoninah (talk) 22:36, 1 September 2020 (UTC)
- @Yoninah: How about this one, though? [20] I understand it's her as a child rather than a grownup, but still better than nothing, no? --GRuban (talk) 02:19, 2 September 2020 (UTC)
- No, child is great; she was a child actress. But this picture of a picture is not really good; it has a shiny reflection on her head. Perhaps she was in a film that is now public domain?
- Shiny reflection, yes, but IMHO that's not so terrible. To me, it's a nice image, at a good resolution. Your call as to whether to use it in the article, of course, but I couldn't resist uploading that image and trying to do a bit of work to improve it. Probably a better image editor could even get rid of the shiny reflection on her head, when I tried it just became worse. --GRuban (talk) 16:42, 2 September 2020 (UTC)
- No, child is great; she was a child actress. But this picture of a picture is not really good; it has a shiny reflection on her head. Perhaps she was in a film that is now public domain?
- @Yoninah: How about this one, though? [20] I understand it's her as a child rather than a grownup, but still better than nothing, no? --GRuban (talk) 02:19, 2 September 2020 (UTC)
- Oh, well. I guess I'm going back to movies from the 1940s! Yoninah (talk) 22:36, 1 September 2020 (UTC)
-
Base image -
Perspective corrected -
Brightened
- Thank you so much for this upload. I cropped a little more off the top to run it as a lead image at DYK and it got over 18,000 hits! That was a similar total for the hook and image you provided for Eva Lee Kuney. I am most appreciative! Yoninah (talk) 17:08, 22 September 2020 (UTC)
- I just watched Shadows Over Shanghai. If it's in the Internet Archive, does that mean it's public domain? If so, could I ask you to make a screen grab? I'll figure out which one tomorrow. Yoninah (talk) 02:38, 2 September 2020 (UTC)
- Sort of - the Internet Archive is run by volunteers interested in copyright just like we are, and that the Internet Archive says that it's public domain is an indicator, but not really proof. But I did do my own search and while I could find the original copyright registration, I couldn't find the renewal, so yes, I'd agree with the IA that it's public domain. But ... it's a 1938 film, she was only born in 1941, how ... ? --GRuban (talk) 16:55, 2 September 2020 (UTC)
- Thank you!!! I'm going to use one of these portraits of Melinda Plowman in her infobox. I appreciate that you have the ability to fiddle with the image quality too.
- Shadows Over Shanghai is part of my effort to see every James Dunn movie that I can. I just watched it yesterday and expanded the article. The only illustration the article has now is a fair-use poster. I found this image on e-bay, but it's not a press photo and has no copyright notices, so I'm not sure if it can be used. If it could be uploaded, great, then that will do. But if not, I was wondering if you could make a nice picture out of the scene in the hotel room, between 25:00 and 28:00 minutes, where Dunn, Ralph Morgan, and Linda Grey are speaking? If it's not too much trouble, of course. Thanks, Yoninah (talk) 19:23, 2 September 2020 (UTC)
- Sort of - the Internet Archive is run by volunteers interested in copyright just like we are, and that the Internet Archive says that it's public domain is an indicator, but not really proof. But I did do my own search and while I could find the original copyright registration, I couldn't find the renewal, so yes, I'd agree with the IA that it's public domain. But ... it's a 1938 film, she was only born in 1941, how ... ? --GRuban (talk) 16:55, 2 September 2020 (UTC)
- I just watched Shadows Over Shanghai. If it's in the Internet Archive, does that mean it's public domain? If so, could I ask you to make a screen grab? I'll figure out which one tomorrow. Yoninah (talk) 02:38, 2 September 2020 (UTC)
Ah, not related. I do think it's a press photo, not a frame from the film: it's pretty well lit, and the people in it are standing still as if they were posing, rather than as if they were caught in the middle of motion. Though that isn't proof, and I haven't seen the film, so I guess it is possible that it's a film frame. But I don't think it matters: in either case I'd go with https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Template:PD-US-not_renewed: "because it was published in the United States between 1925 and 1963 and although there may or may not have been a copyright notice, the copyright was not renewed." It is also better quality than any screenshot I could make from that film form the Internet Archive, try to pause that film somewhere, and you can see it's grainier, lower quality, and less well lit than that photo. Lighting isn't as important for movies as it is for still photos, or rather it's different - for movies, poor lighting adds to tension or ambiance (see film noir), and I'm guessing this is supposed to be a rather tense film. For press photos, clarity seems more important. --GRuban (talk) 00:18, 3 September 2020 (UTC).
- Great! Thanks again for all your help! Yoninah (talk) 10:42, 3 September 2020 (UTC)
A barnstar for you!
|
The Random Acts of Kindness Barnstar |
| Dear GRuban: This barnstar is long overdue! Thank you for your continual availability and willingness to help us copyright-ignorant editors improve the visual look of our articles. Thank you for your incredible patience as you explain exactly what needs to be done, and often go ahead and just do it for us! Your kindness makes Wikipedia a much nicer place to spend our free time. Thanks again! Yoninah (talk) 22:06, 5 September 2020 (UTC) |
Hi, I promoted your Miss and Mister Supranational hook to Prep 4. I just wanted to say that anyone who also clicks on Jenny Kim is going to see a pretty poor article. I tagged it for writing style and bare URLs. If you're inclined to fix it up before your hook hits the main page, all the better. Best, Yoninah (talk) 13:07, 6 September 2020 (UTC)
- I'm not very good at improving the style of articles that I didn't write myself, I'm afraid. If it needed expansion I could do that, but this one more needs contraction, and I'd be feeling guilty towards the original author for every bit I delete. Maybe I can do a little, it seems large parts were written by a non-native English speaker, I could help that. --GRuban (talk) 13:30, 6 September 2020 (UTC)
- @Yoninah: All right, done, I think. I see you deleted great swathes of stuff yourself, and added lots of citation needed tags; I either cited (where I could) or deleted (where I couldn't) all those. Still couldn't find a good free picture. I'm slightly worried by the fact we say she's a model, and I can't find any indepth stuff abut her actual modeling, but there are short throw away lines in various articles about her wanting to be a model, so only slightly worried. Similarly I'm not even sure that what we write about "Kim Je-ni" is correct, I haven't found that to be her name - but I guess it's just a hatnote, not content as such, maybe? To be honest, I may not have done her justice. To me the most interesting part about her is that she represents Korea but grew up in Indonesia, and that's not very. I have nothing against models, but I try to write about something unusual: the environmentalist; the martial artist; the computer programmer; the plus size cancer advocate. I guess she's young yet, but I've written about younger people. I don't think I would have written about this one if you hadn't prompted. If someone wants to rewrite it quite a bit, I won't object. --GRuban (talk) 19:23, 8 September 2020 (UTC)
- Thank you! Actually, that wasn't me who added all the cn tags, but after the other editor did so, I took the liberty of paring things down. I'll take a look at your changes. Thanks, Yoninah (talk) 20:33, 8 September 2020 (UTC)
- User:Hogwarts Portal found a free image of Jenny Kim! Hurrah! I am so glad to be by no means the only or even the best image editor around here ... --GRuban (talk) 20:59, 9 September 2020 (UTC)
- The article looks so much better now. Thank you! Yoninah (talk) 14:07, 10 September 2020 (UTC)
- User:Hogwarts Portal found a free image of Jenny Kim! Hurrah! I am so glad to be by no means the only or even the best image editor around here ... --GRuban (talk) 20:59, 9 September 2020 (UTC)
- Thank you! Actually, that wasn't me who added all the cn tags, but after the other editor did so, I took the liberty of paring things down. I'll take a look at your changes. Thanks, Yoninah (talk) 20:33, 8 September 2020 (UTC)
- @Yoninah: All right, done, I think. I see you deleted great swathes of stuff yourself, and added lots of citation needed tags; I either cited (where I could) or deleted (where I couldn't) all those. Still couldn't find a good free picture. I'm slightly worried by the fact we say she's a model, and I can't find any indepth stuff abut her actual modeling, but there are short throw away lines in various articles about her wanting to be a model, so only slightly worried. Similarly I'm not even sure that what we write about "Kim Je-ni" is correct, I haven't found that to be her name - but I guess it's just a hatnote, not content as such, maybe? To be honest, I may not have done her justice. To me the most interesting part about her is that she represents Korea but grew up in Indonesia, and that's not very. I have nothing against models, but I try to write about something unusual: the environmentalist; the martial artist; the computer programmer; the plus size cancer advocate. I guess she's young yet, but I've written about younger people. I don't think I would have written about this one if you hadn't prompted. If someone wants to rewrite it quite a bit, I won't object. --GRuban (talk) 19:23, 8 September 2020 (UTC)
DYK for 2channel
On 7 September 2020, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article 2channel, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that 4chan owner Hiroyuki Nishimura claims that 2channel, once "Japan's most popular online community", was stolen from him? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/2channel. You are welcome to check how many page hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, 2channel), and it may be added to the statistics page if the total is over 5,000. 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.
Cwmhiraeth (talk) 12:02, 7 September 2020 (UTC)
- @Psiĥedelisto: I appreciate the honor, but don't deserve it; I nitpicked a lot, but don't think I actually wrote any part of it. As Robin Hood said about quality longbows, "The good article is all yew." --GRuban (talk) 18:12, 7 September 2020 (UTC)
You once made a yellow picture not yellow, so now I am wondering if you can make this blue photograph not blue? It is the only image of her that I can find, and as it was published in 1982 will need to be loaded fair use. SusunW (talk) 14:47, 8 September 2020 (UTC)
Done, File:Nellie_Weekes.jpg. I admit I couldn't find the 1982 date in the article, so you will need to put that in. --GRuban (talk) 15:37, 8 September 2020 (UTC)
- I learned here, that you can access the link the "Ask a Librarian" from the Library of Congress sent me (yay, I wasn't sure if other people could access it and so I didn't even try to archive it). It's from a 1982 journal article that is not live on the internet, or wasn't until I requested access. Thank you so much. SusunW (talk) 16:13, 8 September 2020 (UTC)
- You're welcome. But remember, since it's one of your articles, it's not complete until you document her steamy personal life! --GRuban (talk) 16:17, 8 September 2020 (UTC)
- LOL. Well if she had one, it's impossible to know. I found her bio in the Oxford Dictionary of the Afro-Caribbean, but other sources were virtually nil. Then I found the journal article but couldn't access it. I sent a request to the LOC in June and they just now sent it to me. SusunW (talk) 16:22, 8 September 2020 (UTC)
- You're welcome. But remember, since it's one of your articles, it's not complete until you document her steamy personal life! --GRuban (talk) 16:17, 8 September 2020 (UTC)
- I learned here, that you can access the link the "Ask a Librarian" from the Library of Congress sent me (yay, I wasn't sure if other people could access it and so I didn't even try to archive it). It's from a 1982 journal article that is not live on the internet, or wasn't until I requested access. Thank you so much. SusunW (talk) 16:13, 8 September 2020 (UTC)
DYK for Miss and Mister Supranational
On 12 September 2020, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Miss and Mister Supranational, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that Jenny Kim's victory in the 2017 Miss Supranational beauty pageant (finalists pictured) marked the first time that a contestant representing South Korea won a major international pageant? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Miss and Mister Supranational. You are welcome to check how many page hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, Miss and Mister Supranational), and it may be added to the statistics page if the total is over 5,000. 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.
I've just barely started working on this, but I am curious if her image here is usable? I know diddly squat about stamps, but it seems to me this photo is all over the web. SusunW (talk) 20:54, 13 September 2020 (UTC)
- Probably copyrighted, sorry. I don't know much about stamps myself, and Uruguay doesn't show up in this list: https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Stamps/Public_domain but I see that https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Copyright_rules_by_territory/Uruguay says public domain 50 years after author's death, and doesn't say anything about stamps or government works being public domain. It does say that most works in Uruguay seem to be public domain 50 years after author's death and this stamp is marked Fotografia: Cyro Giambruno, so if that is this person https://es.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cyro_Giambruno he dies in 1980, so 50 years later means 2030. Unfortunately "all over the web" does not correlate well with "public domain", most people aren't as careful about copyright laws as we are. --GRuban (talk) 14:30, 14 September 2020 (UTC)
- Why I asked, it seemed incongruous. Next question, I've never uploaded a stamp as fair use as a photograph "at the top of the page as identification of the subject". Is that sketchy, or do I need to find another photo of her that isn't a stamp? SusunW (talk) 15:24, 14 September 2020 (UTC)
- Eh. There is a dispute between theory and practice. The message at the top of Category:Fair use stamp images seems to say they should only be used to illustrate philately (stamp collecting) articles, but a number of fair use stamps are used just as illustrations, for example File:Lewis & Clark stamp 2004.jpg in Lewis and Clark Expedition and File:Nguyen Van Troi.jpg in Nguyễn Văn Trỗi, probably more. Honestly, I don't see the reasoning behind restricting the fair use stamp to only stamp articles; why does the fact that a specific image have a scalloped border or not make a difference? If someone really objects, we could crop it to remove the scalloped border, I guess. Also, the image that the stamp was made from seems to be here:https://www.carasycaretas.com.uy/diputados-rindio-homenaje-a-alba-roballo-al-cumplirse-110-anos-de-su-nacimiento/ so if someone really complains you can use that one, but I would first try arguing that the fact that they put her on a stamp goes towards her Notability. --GRuban (talk) 17:52, 14 September 2020 (UTC)
- What if we just ignore the dispute all together and use this one, which appears to be on a book cover (and she's not frowning)? I'd really like to have a photo, but given her era, finding one that is free to use seems unlikely, so my guess is that anything will be fair use. SusunW (talk) 21:09, 14 September 2020 (UTC)
- Template:Non-free book cover says much the same thing as Template:Non-free stamp and I can't imagine the argument about them being any different. Except that Category:Fair use images of book covers doesn't have a message like at the top of Category:Fair use stamp images. So it seems that whoever put up the Category...stamp message doesn't care about the book cover, so maybe they won't bother complaining. Again, I'd argue that we should be able to use either as fair use equally well.
- But now that Stamps message has me interested, looks like it was put up in 2006 by User:Stan Shebs. He's still around, I'm going to ping him and see if we can remove that message, I don't think it's right. --GRuban (talk) 11:37, 15 September 2020 (UTC)
- You are the best. Thank you so much for helping me work through this. I appreciate your help very much. (Take note, yet another non-controversial personal life...LOL). SusunW (talk) 16:29, 15 September 2020 (UTC)
- What if we just ignore the dispute all together and use this one, which appears to be on a book cover (and she's not frowning)? I'd really like to have a photo, but given her era, finding one that is free to use seems unlikely, so my guess is that anything will be fair use. SusunW (talk) 21:09, 14 September 2020 (UTC)
- Eh. There is a dispute between theory and practice. The message at the top of Category:Fair use stamp images seems to say they should only be used to illustrate philately (stamp collecting) articles, but a number of fair use stamps are used just as illustrations, for example File:Lewis & Clark stamp 2004.jpg in Lewis and Clark Expedition and File:Nguyen Van Troi.jpg in Nguyễn Văn Trỗi, probably more. Honestly, I don't see the reasoning behind restricting the fair use stamp to only stamp articles; why does the fact that a specific image have a scalloped border or not make a difference? If someone really objects, we could crop it to remove the scalloped border, I guess. Also, the image that the stamp was made from seems to be here:https://www.carasycaretas.com.uy/diputados-rindio-homenaje-a-alba-roballo-al-cumplirse-110-anos-de-su-nacimiento/ so if someone really complains you can use that one, but I would first try arguing that the fact that they put her on a stamp goes towards her Notability. --GRuban (talk) 17:52, 14 September 2020 (UTC)
- Why I asked, it seemed incongruous. Next question, I've never uploaded a stamp as fair use as a photograph "at the top of the page as identification of the subject". Is that sketchy, or do I need to find another photo of her that isn't a stamp? SusunW (talk) 15:24, 14 September 2020 (UTC)
Stan Shebs agreed! So now book cover, stamp, whatever, fair use is fair use. Pick the one you want.--GRuban (talk) 01:07, 17 September 2020 (UTC)
Precious anniversary
 | |
| Three years! |
|---|
--Gerda Arendt (talk) 23:00, 17 September 2020 (UTC)
I found a photo from a 1993 concert performance, mailed it to a friend who is also pictured, and who remembered who took it, and now that person emailed that we can upload it on the Commons credited to his name. How do I do it? I have the pic and the email exchange. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 11:23, 22 September 2020 (UTC)
- Once upon a time, you could just email that email exchange as verification of the license release. Now the photographer needs to send the email themselves. You (or they, if they're Wikipedia-savvy) upload the image using https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Special:UploadWizard picking a reasonable name, and other fields as appropriate. The photographer can fill out the form at https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Wikimedia_OTRS_release_generator to be sure to do it properly, but the important part of that boils down to "I, Jane Bleau, photographed the attached image, also uploaded as https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:The_Reasonable_Name_I_Picked.jpg, and release it under the license https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/", and could suffice if you want to keep it brief. (The key point is that anyone be able to freely edit or reuse the image, like the rest of the contents of Wikipedia/Wikimedia.) They then need to email that text or the form generated text to permissions-commons@wikimedia.org, also known as OTRS. That will send back an automated response almost immediately, and a human response in somewhat longer time (hours to sometimes months!). You then put {{subst:OP}} on the uploaded image, and eventually a human responder will stamp it with an OTRS number, but the OP, or "OTRS pending", will generally suffice for the meanwhile; you can use it as soon as it's uploaded. There is some chance that the human responder will want to email the photographer for some clarification before stamping, so do be sure the email address it comes from will be read, and respond. An alternative if the photographer has a web site, they could put the pic up on it with similar text, and avoid the email back and forth. If you need more help, you can ping me, or User:Atsme who is one of the OTRS - the few, the proud, etc. Good luck! --GRuban (talk) 02:35, 23 September 2020 (UTC)
- Thank you. I'll share that with the friend and the photographer and hope the latter can do what is expected. I have my scan of a paper image. 1993 was not the time he used a digital camera. Would that matter? He wrote (I don't think it's too private to share): "... Since it would have been on film I would not have a digital copy in the computer. So you have my permission to put in Wikimedia commons, and you may credit Richard Ten Dyke. Glad to hear from you. What a wonderful organization you had with Master Singers. A valuable contribution to our town and community." The photo is of said Master Singers, not notable enough for a stand alone article but the community, Bedford Presbyterian Church. The photographer does have a web site, but I doubt that he wants the old image on it. I'll check. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 09:24, 23 September 2020 (UTC)
- One more question: what do I tick when uploading? -And another: could the photographer simply upload without the OTRS? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 09:28, 23 September 2020 (UTC)
- The default for "own work" is Creative Commons Attribution ShareAlike 4.0, that's the one that link I recommended above goes to. That has the details, but basically the "Attribution" part means anyone using the work needs to credit the original author ("Photograph by Richard Ten Dyke"), the "ShareAlike" part means that anyone who makes changes needs to also make those changes reusable and editable under the same license. That's about as many restrictions that can be put on the image and still have it meet our "free for everyone to reuse and edit" rules. By the way, that name seems familiar, we have https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Richard_Westenburg_photo_by_Richard_Ten_Dyke.jpg that was uploaded as "own work"; is it possible he has done this before? That would make it easier. Yes, he could certainly upload the thing himself, if it hasn't been published before there usually isn't a problem with him just checking "this is my own work" and not emailing anyone. If it has been published before, and/or is glossy professional caliber work, then someone may ask him to email OTRS anyway, since it is not rare to have people uploading newspaper and magazine photographs before, claiming to have been the photographer, which claim then dissolves into smoke when someone looks more deeply into it. (We have also had a few angry professional photographers and magazine representatives complaining when we publish their photos without permission, so we do try and look into these things when it seems questionable.) If it's pretty clearly an amateur photo, then we will probably take the uploader's word for it that it's their work. --GRuban (talk) 12:09, 23 September 2020 (UTC)
 | |
| thanksgiving |
Unfortunately, the photographer hasn't responded yet. - Thank you for more miracles! - For Agnes Stavenhagen, could you perhaps find this pic? - Anna Tifu is probably too recent? I took a pic in the hall before they began. Enchanting playing, as a critic said. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 16:37, 11 October 2020 (UTC)
Wow, you could read my mind, no? Thank you sooo much! Gerda Arendt (talk) 16:47, 11 October 2020 (UTC)
I added a YouTube to her article that ends on a Bach encore, like for us! --Gerda Arendt (talk) 17:47, 11 October 2020 (UTC)
16 October memories --Gerda Arendt (talk) 19:50, 16 October 2020 (UTC)
I just added a pic to Sinfonietta (Poulenc). There's a photo much closer in time (1950), but with doubtful license. Could you please check? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:41, 21 October 2020 (UTC)
- This one? File:Francis-Poulenc.jpg? Yes, I agree with the stamp there that the "Public" authorship there is dubious without more information on the photo. That said, though, if you're really interested in finding a better image closer to 1950, it may well be possible if you have the time and effort. He was European, and most European countries measure copyright for 70 years after author's death or publication if anonymous, so if there is a European photograph just before that time that is anonymous it should be in the public domain. Or, I see in his article that he took a US tour or two, so if any US photographs were published around that time (on albums of his works, or in newspapers) without a copyright notice or not renewed (fairly likely, most weren't renewed), they would also have entered the public domain. But as you write, there are other photos in https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Category:Francis_Poulenc, so it may not be worth the effort of digging to find an only slightly better one. --GRuban (talk) 13:59, 21 October 2020 (UTC)
- Thank you. I like the 1930 one I used, - I just think it's a bit too "old" for a 1947 composition - that I just heard, a lot of wit in there ;) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 14:06, 21 October 2020 (UTC)
- This one? File:Francis-Poulenc.jpg? Yes, I agree with the stamp there that the "Public" authorship there is dubious without more information on the photo. That said, though, if you're really interested in finding a better image closer to 1950, it may well be possible if you have the time and effort. He was European, and most European countries measure copyright for 70 years after author's death or publication if anonymous, so if there is a European photograph just before that time that is anonymous it should be in the public domain. Or, I see in his article that he took a US tour or two, so if any US photographs were published around that time (on albums of his works, or in newspapers) without a copyright notice or not renewed (fairly likely, most weren't renewed), they would also have entered the public domain. But as you write, there are other photos in https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Category:Francis_Poulenc, so it may not be worth the effort of digging to find an only slightly better one. --GRuban (talk) 13:59, 21 October 2020 (UTC)
Beautiful Main page today, don't miss the pic by a banned user (of a 2013 play critical of refugee politics), nor a related video, interviews in German, but music and scene. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 15:40, 29 October 2020 (UTC)
- @Gerda Arendt: Banned user? That lady with the cross is a beautiful pic, but who is banned? This seems to indicate someone thought he was blocked but wasn't? --GRuban (talk) 18:21, 29 October 2020 (UTC)
- You are right, just blocked on en-WP. Two many user names, and so good ones. See Lohengrin and other magic theatre photography. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 21:33, 29 October 2020 (UTC)
New Page Patrol Granted
Hi GRuban. Based on your experience at Articles for Creation and because you have the autopatrol permission, I have added you to the "New page reviewers" user group for three months. Please check back at WP:PERM if you would like to make it permanent. This user group allows you to review new pages through the Curation system and mark them as patrolled, tag them for maintenance issues, or nominate them for deletion. The list of articles awaiting review is located at the New Pages Feed. New page reviewing is vital to maintaining the integrity of the encyclopedia. Before doing any new page patrols you need read the tutorial at New Pages Review, the linked guides and essays, and fully understand the deletion policy. If you need any help or want to discuss the process, you are welcome to use the new page reviewer talk page. In addition, please remember:
- Be nice to new editors. They are usually not aware that they are doing anything wrong. Do make use of the message feature when tagging pages for maintenance so that they are aware.
- You will frequently be asked by users to explain why their page is being deleted. Please be formal and polite in your approach to them – even if they are not.
- If you are not sure what to do with a page, don't review it – just leave it for another reviewer.
- Accuracy is more important than speed. Take your time to patrol each page. Use the message feature to communicate with article creators and offer advice as much as possible.
- This allows you to "unreview" an accepted article from AFC to allow a second look while in mainspace. To do this simply click the green check after accepting an article from AFC.
The reviewer right does not change your status or how you can edit articles. If you no longer want this user right, you also may ask any administrator to remove it for you at any time. In cases of abuse or persistent inaccuracy of reviewing, or long-term inactivity, the right may be withdrawn at administrator discretion. Barkeep49 (talk) 01:41, 22 September 2020 (UTC)
2 questions
Hi, I keep forgetting how I'm supposed to check whether press photos have had their copyright renewed. Let's take The Caribbean Mystery (1945) as an example. I go to [21] and click on "text". Now, do I only have to click on 1973 (28 years) in the dropdown list of years on the left? Then I only have 14 entries to check instead of that humongous list?
I would now like to upload this studio portrait. How in the world would I check if it's been renewed? I don't even know the copyright date, but it looks as though it was photographed in the 1940s.
Thanks, Yoninah (talk) 17:05, 22 September 2020 (UTC)
- I'd look a bit earlier as well. 28 years is the latest it could have been renewed, but a year or two before then is not out of the question. For example, the motion picture itself was renewed in 1972, I found that here: https://archive.org/details/catalogofc19723261213libr?q=%22The+caribbean+mystery%22. (It's comforting to find that, it gives more confidence a similar process would have found the photo renewal if it exists.) Honestly, if it is a press photograph, the search is pro forma, it's highly unlikely a press photograph was renewed, but the search does need to be done. If it is a frame from the movie itself, however, as above, that was renewed, so we can't use it.
- The second one is a bit more complex. The problem is that without the title or date you don't know what to search for or when for the pro forma search. I mean, it was almost certainly not renewed, it might well not even have not been copyrighted in the first place, it's not marked copyrighted on the front. But in theory it could have been marked copyrighted on the back, since we don't see that. So, if you were desperate, you could search for her name, assuming that would be part of any title, and mark not renewed based on that. But a legalist could object. There do seem to be other good photos of her on EBay, so you may want to use a different one that has a more clear provenance. --GRuban (talk) 11:48, 23 September 2020 (UTC)
- Thank you! Now I understand that it's a pro forma search for press photos. But what I don't understand is how you got to that 1972 renewal. As I mentioned, I plugged in the film name and "text", and came across a million entries. Did you click on dates in the list of years at left to look at the years individually, and that's how you found it? Yoninah (talk) 11:53, 23 September 2020 (UTC)
- I put the name of the film "in quotation marks". The link doesn't wikify well, the second half gets cut off, but it ends up like this, https://archive.org/search.php?query=%22The+Caribbean+Mystery%22&and[]=collection:%22copyrightrecords%22&sin=TXT. That often means to search for this sequence of words in this specific order, which cuts down the number of results drastically. Of course it does help to get some hits this way, it would be annoying, if, for example, it had been copyrighted under "Caribbean Mystery, The"! If I hadn't gotten anything, I'd have repeated the search without the quotes, and looked in likely years, say 1943-1946 for the original registration and 1970-1973 for the renewal. In the end, we can only do a best effort search, we are only human, but it should be our best effort. --GRuban (talk) 12:21, 23 September 2020 (UTC)
- OK, now I found the 1972 renewal that you did, with only 3 entries in the list! That looked easy. But I'm still going to ask you about everything, if that's okay. Right now I've been asked to find photos for the Gloria Swanson article. If you don't mind, I'll post what I want to use here to double-check their copyright status for the page creator's peace of mind. I just uploaded a different press photo for which I had the front and back, so I felt secure in that upload. Thanks again, Yoninah (talk) 12:30, 23 September 2020 (UTC)
- Looks good to me! --GRuban (talk) 12:41, 23 September 2020 (UTC)
- Another question: I notice that many film articles have as an infobox image a fair-use image of a DVD cover. In the case of Hearts in Bondage, I cannot find a film poster, and wonder if I could use this DVD cover in a fair-use upload? Thanks, Yoninah (talk) 00:47, 24 September 2020 (UTC)
- I don't see why not. Both film poster and DVD cover seem to have the same primary purpose, to encourage people to see the film, I'd think they'd have the same fair use justification. --GRuban (talk) 12:18, 25 September 2020 (UTC)
- Great, thanks! Yoninah (talk) 12:56, 25 September 2020 (UTC)
- I don't see why not. Both film poster and DVD cover seem to have the same primary purpose, to encourage people to see the film, I'd think they'd have the same fair use justification. --GRuban (talk) 12:18, 25 September 2020 (UTC)
- Another question: I notice that many film articles have as an infobox image a fair-use image of a DVD cover. In the case of Hearts in Bondage, I cannot find a film poster, and wonder if I could use this DVD cover in a fair-use upload? Thanks, Yoninah (talk) 00:47, 24 September 2020 (UTC)
- Looks good to me! --GRuban (talk) 12:41, 23 September 2020 (UTC)
- OK, now I found the 1972 renewal that you did, with only 3 entries in the list! That looked easy. But I'm still going to ask you about everything, if that's okay. Right now I've been asked to find photos for the Gloria Swanson article. If you don't mind, I'll post what I want to use here to double-check their copyright status for the page creator's peace of mind. I just uploaded a different press photo for which I had the front and back, so I felt secure in that upload. Thanks again, Yoninah (talk) 12:30, 23 September 2020 (UTC)
- I put the name of the film "in quotation marks".
Is it true that ...
If a film is copyright 1938, and the copyright was renewed in 1965, the copyright law has extended the renewal for another 95 years?
But would a film poster be included in that copyright renewal? Yoninah (talk) 01:22, 24 September 2020 (UTC)
- Almost certainly not. That certainly looks like a separate work, not a frame from the film. --GRuban (talk) 00:14, 25 September 2020 (UTC)
- Thanks! Please also see my DVD cover question in the previous post. Yoninah (talk) 09:51, 25 September 2020 (UTC)
Hi, I'm wondering why this image is licensed as a public-domain screenshot when the film copyright was renewed in the 1970s? Yoninah (talk) 23:33, 24 September 2020 (UTC)
- Hmm. It has been renewed, hasn't it? Two possibilities. One is that this is actually from a promotional trailer that was released separately, so maybe might require a separate copyright renewal. http://www.hd-trailers.net/movie/sunset-boulevard/ isn't around any more, I can't see the original clip, so can't say one way or the other. The other is that maybe we should nominate it for deletion. That does happen, we can't use all the images we want. It could possibly still be left in the article as "fair use" if it really is the iconic scene, or maybe not, since there are certainly plenty of other images in the article. --GRuban (talk) 12:32, 25 September 2020 (UTC)
- I work so hard on finding acceptable uploads that my inclination is to nominate this for deletion. I came up with a much clearer press photo from the film anyway. Yoninah (talk) 18:36, 26 September 2020 (UTC)
- https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Deletion_requests/Files_in_Category:Sunset_Blvd._(1950_film) --GRuban (talk) 15:23, 28 September 2020 (UTC)
- Thank you! Do other editors leave their keep/delete !votes at Commons like they do at WP:AFD? Yoninah (talk) 17:55, 28 September 2020 (UTC)
- Yes, except since Commons is a (slightly) more multilingual environment, templates https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Template:Vote_delete and https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Template:Vote_keep are encouraged along with your comment. Also, it's much more common for deletion discussions to close with less participation (I'd say more than half don't have responses; they generally do get deleted anyway); discussions are never reopened for lack of participation; and it's less clear how long discussions take: while here on EN, it's rare for a discussion to take more than two weeks, on Commons, it's when an admin gets around to it, which sometimes makes it take longer. --GRuban (talk) 19:03, 28 September 2020 (UTC)
- OK. I'll watch and wait to see how it goes. Yoninah (talk) 19:08, 28 September 2020 (UTC)
- Yes, except since Commons is a (slightly) more multilingual environment, templates https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Template:Vote_delete and https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Template:Vote_keep are encouraged along with your comment. Also, it's much more common for deletion discussions to close with less participation (I'd say more than half don't have responses; they generally do get deleted anyway); discussions are never reopened for lack of participation; and it's less clear how long discussions take: while here on EN, it's rare for a discussion to take more than two weeks, on Commons, it's when an admin gets around to it, which sometimes makes it take longer. --GRuban (talk) 19:03, 28 September 2020 (UTC)
- Thank you! Do other editors leave their keep/delete !votes at Commons like they do at WP:AFD? Yoninah (talk) 17:55, 28 September 2020 (UTC)
- https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Deletion_requests/Files_in_Category:Sunset_Blvd._(1950_film) --GRuban (talk) 15:23, 28 September 2020 (UTC)
- I work so hard on finding acceptable uploads that my inclination is to nominate this for deletion. I came up with a much clearer press photo from the film anyway. Yoninah (talk) 18:36, 26 September 2020 (UTC)
Alma John
This seems to be a publicity photo, and there are notes of what appears on front and back. None seems to indicate it has any copyright markings. I find nothing on the web for "Glamor Pix" (note no U on the photo), nor anything on the copyright.gov website. So, 1) can we take the word of the library about what is on it? and 2) would it be worth it to e-mail and ask more questions? (My guess is it was taken in the 1950s because that's when she shifted from nursing to radio, and based on various photos here.) This book was copyrighted in 1957, but I find nothing that indicates it was renewed on copyright.gov, nor any hits for Alma John, also checked Vessels and Vessells, or Lucille Arcola Chambers or any variation of her name. So, if I cannot use the first picture, what about photos from the book? As always, I appreciate you and am grateful for your help. SusunW (talk) 21:16, 25 September 2020 (UTC)
- It may be worth it to email the library. Certainly won't hurt. Sure, if it was published without copyright notice before 1977 it enters the public domain, but I'd hate if we later find out that it happens to be a personal photo that was never published, not a publicity shot that was. I mean above in several places on this page I'm assuming that photos that look like publicity shots are, but that's because they're of major movie stars, in the context of that specific movie. Alma John was a radio and TV host of one show? That's an order of magnitude less major, and this photo is just a person on a fuzzy background, and Glamor Pix doesn't sound like it's the TV or radio show she worked for, it sounds like a vanity photography agency, I think we've all seen personal vanity photos that look like that. We would like them to confirm that it was a publicity photo, published before 1977 (if they're not sure of the exact date but say "in the 1950s", or even in the 1960s, that should do) and without a copyright notice on front or back. If they say they don't know, we can decide what to do then, but at least asking seems a good idea.
- The archive.org page for the book, however, says: "Possible copyright status Copyright status reviewed by UF staff - Out of copyright" I would believe the word of the University of Florida as relayed by the Internet Archive. Unless we have reason to suspect otherwise, I think that book is out of copyright, and we can use those images. --GRuban (talk) 21:39, 25 September 2020 (UTC)
- Actually she was on the air from 1952 to at least 1978 and was a "big deal" in the black community. (Haven't gotten that far in the bio yet-just started on her radio career.) From the sources I have she was on air with WWRL from 1952-1969? with "The Homemaker's Club", (this kind of indicates for 25 years?), and did "Black Pride" on WPIX from 1969 to 1975? Also did the "Alma John Show" on WPIX as well as "Like It Is" to at least 1978. WWRL was NBC's flagship station and I would've assumed they would note something if it was for them, but I wondered if "Glamor Pix" and WPIX were somehow related? I'll click on the link and ask some questions. Yay on the book being out of copyright, at least some photos. SusunW (talk) 22:16, 25 September 2020 (UTC)
- I shot off an e-mail and asked them those questions and if they knew if Glamor Pix was related to WPIX. As it is in a collection of "African Americans in the Performing Arts" I thought they might know, whereas most sources I find mentioning her, I cannot access or even find. That Kaiser index is great, but I haven't yet found any of those sources. SusunW (talk) 14:06, 26 September 2020 (UTC)
- Bingo, 1963. no notice on photo (even cut off the photographer credit); none on the masthead, nor on the publishing data. No entries for Hartford Courant in 1962, in 1963 it looks like the only issue they filed copyright on was 30 December 1962 and none in 1964. Does that change your answer? I have not heard from the Detroit Library, but just ran across this clipping and went, aha! SusunW (talk) 21:20, 26 September 2020 (UTC)
- Yeah, that's convincing proof the image was published. That plus the word of the Detroit library that it had no copyright notice, will do, put a pd-us-no-notice tag on it, and put a link to the both the library and the newspaper image somewhere. --GRuban (talk) 01:06, 28 September 2020 (UTC)
- I've uploaded all the images. The librarian at the Detroit main library, Carla Reczek wrote, "Re: Contact Us [#3090] Thank you for contacting the Burton Historical Collection! I checked the original photograph in our files, but it did not have any additional information." So, I'm going with what we have confirmed that it had no notice. The others I loaded as expired. SusunW (talk) 17:32, 29 September 2020 (UTC)
- Yeah, that's convincing proof the image was published. That plus the word of the Detroit library that it had no copyright notice, will do, put a pd-us-no-notice tag on it, and put a link to the both the library and the newspaper image somewhere. --GRuban (talk) 01:06, 28 September 2020 (UTC)
- Bingo, 1963. no notice on photo (even cut off the photographer credit); none on the masthead, nor on the publishing data. No entries for Hartford Courant in 1962, in 1963 it looks like the only issue they filed copyright on was 30 December 1962 and none in 1964. Does that change your answer? I have not heard from the Detroit Library, but just ran across this clipping and went, aha! SusunW (talk) 21:20, 26 September 2020 (UTC)
- I shot off an e-mail and asked them those questions and if they knew if Glamor Pix was related to WPIX. As it is in a collection of "African Americans in the Performing Arts" I thought they might know, whereas most sources I find mentioning her, I cannot access or even find. That Kaiser index is great, but I haven't yet found any of those sources. SusunW (talk) 14:06, 26 September 2020 (UTC)
- Actually she was on the air from 1952 to at least 1978 and was a "big deal" in the black community. (Haven't gotten that far in the bio yet-just started on her radio career.) From the sources I have she was on air with WWRL from 1952-1969? with "The Homemaker's Club", (this kind of indicates for 25 years?), and did "Black Pride" on WPIX from 1969 to 1975? Also did the "Alma John Show" on WPIX as well as "Like It Is" to at least 1978. WWRL was NBC's flagship station and I would've assumed they would note something if it was for them, but I wondered if "Glamor Pix" and WPIX were somehow related? I'll click on the link and ask some questions. Yay on the book being out of copyright, at least some photos. SusunW (talk) 22:16, 25 September 2020 (UTC)
Seeking help
Hi George I'm wondering if you might help Glenn Gass with a photo or two. He's a terrific educator and he's just trying to get his photo on to his page but is having a tough time, and you are one of the rare people in Wiki who can make things happen.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 00:04, 28 September 2020 (UTC)
- Sure; but my advice will be pretty much the same that I sent to the New York Times ladies, that I think you got a copy of. You can forward that to him, or give him my email address, or email me his email address or ... is there some special circumstance? --GRuban (talk) 01:10, 28 September 2020 (UTC)
Mary Dee
Okay, I haven't even started the article, but this one brings me back around to something that happened in the GA review I did for Gloria Swanson I was confused about lobby posters for movies. Then I found this when searching for info on the first black woman DJ in the US. To my eye it is advertising, which is the same category I would put on a movie poster or lobby card, but are the rules different for those? Are they considered art? Or just publicity? How would one know if they were copyrighted, as no one is gonna write on the face of the object, so is it typically marked on the back somehow? I don't even know where to start on researching this so I hope you can help. SusunW (talk) 19:59, 29 September 2020 (UTC)
- They certainly could put "Copyright (date)" in small print at the bottom, like with publicity photos, that's not rare. I don't see it there (slightly higher resolution as https://i.ebayimg.com/images/g/M~sAAOSwjVVVwoJ5/s-l1000.jpg). But, unfortunately, as you write, they could do so on the back. If you're willing to put in the time, you can search the copyright renewal records at https://archive.org/details/copyrightrecords (in text, not metadata), but it will be painful, since it's not clear what to search for - her name, but also the radio station, and the name of the program, they had lots of options, also the date to look for isn't obvious, in theory about 28 years after publication, but I'm not completely sure the 1960 date from the URL is exact, so you should look even wider. The good news is that you probably won't find it, and therefore will probably be able to upload it with https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Template:PD-US-not_renewed. But you do need to make the good faith effort. --GRuban (talk) 13:46, 30 September 2020 (UTC)
- Thanks, I'll do the research after I write it, so I can narrow down the timeline. I know she started in Pittsburgh, then broadcast in Baltimore and ended up at this station in Philly in 1956. She died in 1964, so we aren't looking at a long period of time, even from my initial searches. (I also noted that Getty has grabbed numerous images of her and claimed they are the owners as well, but this one doesn't appear to have been snatched.) I'll probably circle back. Thanks for your help! SusunW (talk) 14:21, 30 September 2020 (UTC)
- I haven't yet taken it live, still trying to confirm when that Ebony piece occurred (my guess is between 1949 and October 1950, because the digitized ones start in November 1950 and she isn't in them). But, be that as it may, she went to Philly in 1958 and died there in 1964. She was sick for the last year of her life, so probably 1958 to 1963, but to be safe will check all the years. Still not clear what to check. Songs of Faith was a radio show. Given this is advertising that show, would I look in "Drama and Works prepared for oral delivery" (seems the likely place, but it was a live broadcast, so probably not scripted), or "Artwork", or "Music"?
- This obit (1964) has 2 other possible photos we could use. According to the masthead and publishing data (2nd publishing notice). There are no notices in the "periodicals" registry to indicate the Pittsburgh Courier was copyrighted in 1964 or 1965 (I also searched Charles Harris, Harris Photo, and Teenie Harris because I suspect he is the Harris Photo listed on this one (DJ let's call it). I think that because the Carnegie Museum of Art has a number of photographs taken by him of Mary Dee which they hold the copyright on. I have tried to compare theirs with the DJ image, but I don't see any matches. If you'd like to scroll through them and see if you concur, that'd be great (it's pretty hard, IMO). I checked copyright.gov and find no entries for the Pittsburgh Courier, Harris, Mary Dee (Mary Dudley) or any combination of her name.
- The other photo (Let's call it smiles) from the obit is harder. It was clearly used in advertising long before the obit, as early as 1956. But, since most black newspapers and the Associated Negro Press are not widely available, how do we confirm when it was first published? The Afro American was copyrighted so if it is what we must use as the first use, can't use it. SusunW (talk) 20:35, 1 October 2020 (UTC)
- I gave up on these, finally found a trove of other images. Also discovered that advertising, at least in a magazine, requires a separate copyright filing from just the magazine filing p16 and has its own separate template {{PD-US-no notice advertisement}} If an advertisement doesn't have visible on its face © or the word, the year, and the copyright owner before 1978 it wasn't copyrighted, per United States Copyright Office, Circular 3, page 2. I thought that might also be helpful information for Yoninah to know too, because of her old movies work. SusunW (talk) 21:40, 3 October 2020 (UTC)
- That explains all the advertisement in Playbill copyright notices I found! Thank you. --GRuban (talk) 23:49, 3 October 2020 (UTC)
- You really should mark your page as a tutorial in photograph uploading. I learn so much from just reading what you discuss here with others. I am ever your grateful student. SusunW (talk) 14:53, 5 October 2020 (UTC)
- That explains all the advertisement in Playbill copyright notices I found! Thank you. --GRuban (talk) 23:49, 3 October 2020 (UTC)
- I gave up on these, finally found a trove of other images. Also discovered that advertising, at least in a magazine, requires a separate copyright filing from just the magazine filing p16 and has its own separate template {{PD-US-no notice advertisement}} If an advertisement doesn't have visible on its face © or the word, the year, and the copyright owner before 1978 it wasn't copyrighted, per United States Copyright Office, Circular 3, page 2. I thought that might also be helpful information for Yoninah to know too, because of her old movies work. SusunW (talk) 21:40, 3 October 2020 (UTC)
- Thanks, I'll do the research after I write it, so I can narrow down the timeline. I know she started in Pittsburgh, then broadcast in Baltimore and ended up at this station in Philly in 1956. She died in 1964, so we aren't looking at a long period of time, even from my initial searches. (I also noted that Getty has grabbed numerous images of her and claimed they are the owners as well, but this one doesn't appear to have been snatched.) I'll probably circle back. Thanks for your help! SusunW (talk) 14:21, 30 September 2020 (UTC)
I just made the things as suggested by you. Kindly see if they are in order. Thanks and Regards RAJIVVASUDEV (talk) 17:28, 1 October 2020 (UTC)
- Not quite. You got most of my suggestions in User talk:Gerda Arendt#Bafta cloth, but missed these:
- “ bafta ' - this is in the Etymology section. You probably want to correct that to "bafta" - straight, rather than curly, quotes (MOS:QUOTEMARKS), no spaces inside, and the same type at the beginning and end.
- Tic earliest Englishman to notice ’it was Thomas Best (1612-1614), who makes a special mention of its fine Calicoes. - This part may actually be useful to leave in. It is about the cloth (I am guessing Calico is being used for the cloth here. It is a quote, you want to make clear where it's from with a reference.(MOS:QUOTE) And do make sure "Tic" is correct, and not a typographical or text recognition error.
- "vol1_chapter05". www.columbia.edu. Retrieved 2020-10-01. - This is the reference. It seems to be a page from "Selections from Travels in India (1676) by Jean-Baptiste Tavernier, Baron of Aubonne, translated by Valentine Ball", and should be cited with more details. The Template:cite book form is admittedly a bit complex, but if you can't work it, at least write that information in text.
- Add a link to this article in BAFTA (disambiguation), not a link to BAFTA (disambiguation) in Bafta cloth. In other words, edit the BAFTA (disambiguation), and add a link there to BAfta cloth with a short sentence fragment that says it's a kind of plain weave calico cloth originally from India.
- --GRuban (talk) 18:16, 1 October 2020 (UTC)
- Your suggestions were a great help. Nobody did it to me during this previous time. I was excited and in hurry to correct what was suggested. And did whatever i could do immediately but missed these points because i was hesitant about a few things. I shall try to implement the missing ones. Thanks for the guidance and help. Best regardsRAJIVVASUDEV (talk) 02:51, 2 October 2020 (UTC)
Playbill cover
Hi, can I upload this playbill cover? I don't see any copyright notice. Thanks, Yoninah (talk) 20:39, 1 October 2020 (UTC)
- Probably yes, if you are willing to look in the archive for the renewal and upload under "not renewed", rather than "no copyright". The thing is a Playbill is a short magazine, and they could have put a short copyright statement on any page, and that EBay listing only has four pages. I have done a quick glance in the archive and there are some Playbill registrations, though I don't see any renewals, and I doubt they would have gone to the trouble of renewing it, it's not useful 28 years later. But I only did a quick glance, not a best effort. (Strangely enough, there are plenty of copyright registrations for the advertisements in Playbill!) --GRuban (talk) 12:20, 2 October 2020 (UTC)
DYK for Honey Badger (men's rights)
On 4 October 2020, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Honey Badger (men's rights), which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that women called Honey Badgers are among the most prominent men's rights activists? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Honey Badger (men's rights). You are welcome to check how many page hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, Honey Badger (men's rights)), and it may be added to the statistics page if the total is over 5,000. 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.
Disambiguation link notification for October 7
An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Binibining Pilipinas 2008, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Patricia Fernandez.
(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:14, 7 October 2020 (UTC)
About my DYK picture upload
How are you doing? I did upload the picture from that book that USC provided. However, Yoninah said that I needed to edit the upload the way that you told me. However, I am unsure of what they mean! Is there any way you can take a look at my upload to see what I did wrong. I had permission to upload it on Wikipedia, and they gave me the image from the book itself. Thank you for your time. Scorpions13256 (talk) 20:06, 10 October 2020 (UTC)
- Here is the link: File:Picture of the Cleveland School before the fire.png. Yoninah (talk) 20:25, 10 October 2020 (UTC)
- She meant the part I wrote about "Write on that image page that the image was published in (details of that book) in 1923". You did part of that, but not quite all, so if someone wanted to check if the image really was published before 1925, it might not be exactly clear how. You want to put "published in J. O. Moseley, The terrible Cleveland fire, its victims and survivors, Charleston, S.C.: Southern Printing and Publishing Co., 1923." probably in the Source field where right now you just have "The Terrible Cleveland Fire: Its Victims and Survivors", which isn't clear is a book, and is a bit harder to find without author and publishing information. That's the standard information people usually use to cite a book: title, author, publishing house, publishing date, page number. (By the way, is it ": Its Victims ..." or ", its victims..."?) If you can put the page number in the book that the image is at, that would be even better (since that book only has 36 pages according to worldcat, it's not an incredible hardship without, but helpful with). --GRuban (talk) 21:40, 10 October 2020 (UTC)
- I updated the publishing information like you said. I was not sure of the page number, because the picture is located towards the very beginning of the book. Scorpions13256 (talk) 22:03, 10 October 2020 (UTC)
- Book frontispiece? --GRuban (talk) 23:22, 10 October 2020 (UTC)
- Yes. The only page from the original book that was before the picture is the half-title. The only other page before it in the document that was provided to me is the page that mentions who donated it. I am almost 100% sure it is the Book frontispiece. Scorpions13256 (talk) 23:44, 10 October 2020 (UTC)
- Then I recommend you write "frontispiece". The point is to make it easier to find, so even being possibly technically incorrect while still making it obvious where to look is a good thing. But again, this is almost a formality; if you were referencing War and Peace or Remembrance of Things Past and didn't give a page number, then people would have a real problem finding it, but finding an image in a 36 page book isn't a major hardship. --GRuban (talk) 00:20, 11 October 2020 (UTC)
- No problem. However, where would I put the word "frontispiece" and how would I format it? Would it be under source or description? Scorpions13256 (talk) 00:28, 11 October 2020 (UTC)
- I'd put it in source; I see the description as explaining the picture and the source as helping find the picture. But it's judgment, in some cases the location of an item is as much description as source: for example the fact the Statue of Liberty is on Liberty Island where it welcomes arriving ships is a big part of the whole work; while the fact the Mona Lisa is in the Louvre is not particularly a big deal, it would be equally impressive in some other major museum. If you put the information in the wrong place, though, at worst, someone will move it. Better than not putting it in at all. That's generally the theory of wikis, any improvement is better than none, don't wait for perfection, someone else will eventually make it better still. --GRuban (talk) 00:39, 11 October 2020 (UTC)
- No problem. However, where would I put the word "frontispiece" and how would I format it? Would it be under source or description? Scorpions13256 (talk) 00:28, 11 October 2020 (UTC)
- Then I recommend you write "frontispiece". The point is to make it easier to find, so even being possibly technically incorrect while still making it obvious where to look is a good thing. But again, this is almost a formality; if you were referencing War and Peace or Remembrance of Things Past and didn't give a page number, then people would have a real problem finding it, but finding an image in a 36 page book isn't a major hardship. --GRuban (talk) 00:20, 11 October 2020 (UTC)
- Yes. The only page from the original book that was before the picture is the half-title. The only other page before it in the document that was provided to me is the page that mentions who donated it. I am almost 100% sure it is the Book frontispiece. Scorpions13256 (talk) 23:44, 10 October 2020 (UTC)
- Book frontispiece? --GRuban (talk) 23:22, 10 October 2020 (UTC)
- I updated the publishing information like you said. I was not sure of the page number, because the picture is located towards the very beginning of the book. Scorpions13256 (talk) 22:03, 10 October 2020 (UTC)
- She meant the part I wrote about "Write on that image page that the image was published in (details of that book) in 1923". You did part of that, but not quite all, so if someone wanted to check if the image really was published before 1925, it might not be exactly clear how. You want to put "published in J. O. Moseley, The terrible Cleveland fire, its victims and survivors, Charleston, S.C.: Southern Printing and Publishing Co., 1923." probably in the Source field where right now you just have "The Terrible Cleveland Fire: Its Victims and Survivors", which isn't clear is a book, and is a bit harder to find without author and publishing information. That's the standard information people usually use to cite a book: title, author, publishing house, publishing date, page number. (By the way, is it ": Its Victims ..." or ", its victims..."?) If you can put the page number in the book that the image is at, that would be even better (since that book only has 36 pages according to worldcat, it's not an incredible hardship without, but helpful with). --GRuban (talk) 21:40, 10 October 2020 (UTC)
Okay. So I ended up removing the picture because it appears that it may in fact be copyrighted. The picture they provided me was a research scan. They specifically mentioned that it was copyrighted in the email they sent me, but I was under the impression that I could use it if I attributed it to them because of a conversation I had with the librarian the next day. It turns out that the image they want me to use has a large watermark on the upper right corner. I'm not sure if we can use it on Wikipedia though. It's pretty big and it doesn't look good. Scorpions13256 (talk) 19:51, 13 October 2020 (UTC)
- @Scorpions13256: There's a great service over at Wikipedia:Graphics Lab/Photography workshop where you can request the removal of a watermark. Yoninah (talk) 20:38, 13 October 2020 (UTC)
- @Yoninah: Wait. Did I say watermark? I actually meant to say that the image has a giant symbol in the upper-right corner that says it belongs to the USC library. Under USC policy, I am not allowed to remove it. I could upload the picture they gave me permission to use and you could tell me if it is too large to be included on Wikipedia. They just provided the language this morning. Scorpions13256 (talk) 20:51, 13 October 2020 (UTC)
- Yes, please do upload what they sent. So here's the story: as far as we, Wikipedia, are concerned, if they made an exact copy, with no originality, of an image that's in the public domain, then their scan is in the public domain. The reasoning for that is a legal case about that, Bridgeman Art Library v. Corel Corp.:
- @Yoninah: Wait. Did I say watermark? I actually meant to say that the image has a giant symbol in the upper-right corner that says it belongs to the USC library. Under USC policy, I am not allowed to remove it. I could upload the picture they gave me permission to use and you could tell me if it is too large to be included on Wikipedia. They just provided the language this morning. Scorpions13256 (talk) 20:51, 13 October 2020 (UTC)
(in which Bridgeman Art Library sued the Corel Corporation for copyright infringement for distributing copies of digital reproductions of public domain paintings sourced from Bridgeman on a CD-ROM) established that "a photograph which is no more than a copy of a work of another as exact as science and technology permits lacks originality. That is not to say that such a feat is trivial, simply not original." As a result, reproductions of works that have fallen into the public domain cannot attract any new copyright in the United States.
- That's from our very relevant article, National Portrait Gallery and Wikimedia Foundation copyright dispute, where the National Portrait Gallery (in England!) uploaded scans of old artworks, and Wikipedia was rather firm in insisting that those scans were in the public domain. So if they just scanned that 1923 book, then we can use their scan even if they don't want us to. Now, if they scanned a different, higher resolution, copy of that photograph that wasn't published, then they could have a case. And we might not want to antagonize them even if we did have the right; after all, this is just one image, not hundreds of artworks. But in any case, do upload what you have and we'll take a look. --GRuban (talk) 22:06, 13 October 2020 (UTC)
- I'll upload it tonight with the appropriate language. I'm not going to reupload the research scan because I don't want to get involved in an unnecessary dispute. It's not worth it. Scorpions13256 (talk) 01:57, 14 October 2020 (UTC)
- Done. I used the language they told me to. However, I am unsure if I should link the permission document itself. Scorpions13256 (talk) 02:38, 14 October 2020 (UTC)
- I'll upload it tonight with the appropriate language. I'm not going to reupload the research scan because I don't want to get involved in an unnecessary dispute. It's not worth it. Scorpions13256 (talk) 01:57, 14 October 2020 (UTC)
- That's from our very relevant article, National Portrait Gallery and Wikimedia Foundation copyright dispute, where the National Portrait Gallery (in England!) uploaded scans of old artworks, and Wikipedia was rather firm in insisting that those scans were in the public domain. So if they just scanned that 1923 book, then we can use their scan even if they don't want us to. Now, if they scanned a different, higher resolution, copy of that photograph that wasn't published, then they could have a case. And we might not want to antagonize them even if we did have the right; after all, this is just one image, not hundreds of artworks. But in any case, do upload what you have and we'll take a look. --GRuban (talk) 22:06, 13 October 2020 (UTC)
- This one? If it's really a scan from the book, then it's not Creative Commons Attribution 2.5 Generic license, as you have it, it's public domain. If you have the permission document, please do link to it, or just paste it into the image page somewhere, it would be nice to show whether it is a scan from the book, or from a separate image copy not in the book. It's got halftone dots, so it's not a scan from a photo negative, it's a scan from a print. The mark is easily removable, there is nothing behind it, so we can just replace it with the "color" (shade) of the sky by copying and pasting from a nearby image area. We should replace the mark in either case; if they sent us the image with the condition that we not edit it, we can't accept that condition, we need to be free to edit. --GRuban (talk) 14:15, 14 October 2020 (UTC)
- What do you mean by "paste it onto the image page." It's in picture format. I am not sure how to do that. Would it be possible to link it via Imgur or another site? It was emailed to me. Scorpions13256 (talk) 01:30, 15 October 2020 (UTC)
- Oy. Like a PNG or JPEG? Why, why, why do they do this... Yes, please put it up somewhere where we can all look at it. Or if it's easier you can just email it to me. (You have my email address from when you sent me Wikipedia mail and I replied, even if it wasn't a very long reply.) Ideally we'd write the terms on the image page somehow, but now I'm worried that if it's complex, we might hit the point where we can't upload it since it itself is not under a free license, weird... --GRuban (talk) 13:34, 15 October 2020 (UTC)
- What do you mean by "paste it onto the image page." It's in picture format. I am not sure how to do that. Would it be possible to link it via Imgur or another site? It was emailed to me. Scorpions13256 (talk) 01:30, 15 October 2020 (UTC)
- This one? If it's really a scan from the book, then it's not Creative Commons Attribution 2.5 Generic license, as you have it, it's public domain. If you have the permission document, please do link to it, or just paste it into the image page somewhere, it would be nice to show whether it is a scan from the book, or from a separate image copy not in the book. It's got halftone dots, so it's not a scan from a photo negative, it's a scan from a print. The mark is easily removable, there is nothing behind it, so we can just replace it with the "color" (shade) of the sky by copying and pasting from a nearby image area. We should replace the mark in either case; if they sent us the image with the condition that we not edit it, we can't accept that condition, we need to be free to edit. --GRuban (talk) 14:15, 14 October 2020 (UTC)
USC University Libraries notice
Ok, this is a "to whom it may concern", and we're certainly concerned, so it's to us. 
. It was mailed as a PDF, which isn't a picture format as such (it can be, but in this case it's text, you can copy and paste from it, for example.)
To Whom It May Concern: The South Caroliniana Library grants non-exclusive permission to use the following digital file to illustrate the Wikipedia entry regarding the Cleveland School Fire. • Digital image of the Cleveland School in Camden, S.C., originally printed in The Terrible Cleveland Fire, Its Victims and Survivors by John Oliver Moseley, 1923. This permission does not include the right to use the material in any printed materials, or in any additional digital work, or in any advertisement, promotion or marketing for the work other than as expressly noted above. The Library cannot guarantee that there may not be additional permissions required and cannot be held liable for such. The credit line should read “Courtesy of the South Caroliniana Library, University of South Carolina, Columbia, S.C.” Credits should appear in close proximity to the image or properly cited in a special section devoted to credits. Should you decide to reference the text of the volume in the Wikipedia entry, citations of quoted materials and facsimiles from published materials must include the name of the source as part of the credit line. For example, “From The Terrible Cleveland Fire, Its Victims and Survivors by John Oliver Moseley, 1923, South Caroliniana Library, University of South Carolina, Columbia, S.C.”
So. Three important points:
- This image was originally printed in The Terrible Cleveland Fire, Its Victims and Survivors by John Oliver Moseley, 1923. That means it's public domain in the United States as per our article. The fact that University of South Carolina scanned it and stamped it is very well and good, but that doesn't mean they hold the copyright to it, that's exactly as per Bridgeman Art Library v. Corel Corp. as above.
- That is important because otherwise we couldn't use the release as stated: as stated it is a release to only use it in Wikipedia, and we can't accept that. All our content needs to be reusable and editable by everyone, not just by us: https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Licensing.
- We are fine with putting the credit line on the image page, but, as above, it's public domain, we can't enforce that others will. We should also quote that important "originally printed" line in point 1.
--GRuban (talk) 23:22, 15 October 2020 (UTC)
- Thank you so much. However, where exactly on the Commons page would I copy and paste such a wall of text? I'm new to uploading pictures. Scorpions13256 (talk) 03:26, 17 October 2020 (UTC)
- I wouldn't paste the whole wall of text, especially since we're not going to follow part of it. I would write the important parts:
- Under "Source" (after the "|source=" section of the Information template) I would write "This image was originally printed in The Terrible Cleveland Fire, Its Victims and Survivors by John Oliver Moseley, published Charleston, S.C.: Southern Printing and Publishing Co., 1923. Courtesy of the South Caroliniana Library, University of South Carolina, Columbia, S.C." That's the important part, it explains the licensing. I wouldn't put the courtesy line under Permission, just Source, and look carefully, you seem to have a | after Columbia, which is breaking your template a bit.
- Under "Licensing", {{PD-US-expired}}
- Under "Description" (it will be after "|description={{en|1="), pretty much whatever you can think of to describe the image that isn't already printed in the other sections. "The Cleveland School in Camden, South Carolina, before the May 23, 1923 fire." might do it, but you're the expert on the subject, maybe you can figure out who some of the people are or some other useful things. It looks like there are both adults and children, would those be teachers and students? Is this the front view? I'd personally add "From the collection of John C. West, later governor of South Carolina. His mother was a teacher at the school." That seems to be useful information about the image. Your judgment.
Now other questions:
- Do you want to try to remove the stamp in the upper right corner? We probably should, unless you are strongly against it. You can do it, or I can try it, or the watermark group that Yoninah referred you to. We can have one image with the stamp and one without.
- I really recommend putting the information about John C. West and his mother being a teacher and his father perishing in the fire in the article, cited to https://digital.tcl.sc.edu/digital/collection/scpcexhibit/id/129. It's an interesting and important fact about the fire; not every fire kills the father of a future governor, and has his mother and grandmother both barely escape. --GRuban (talk) 14:55, 17 October 2020 (UTC)
- I did everything you recommended except the stamp removal. Yes I am willing to remove the stamp, but I'd rather have that group to it. I think I have dysgraphia] However, if it's good enough for DYK, I don't see why I can't upload the picture now. What do you think?Scorpions13256 (talk) 19:12, 18 October 2020 (UTC)
- Sorry didn't get back here for a bit: yes, absolutely, should be ready as far as I'm concerned; but Yoninah is the expert on DYK matters in general, she only called me in for picture advice. --GRuban (talk) 14:08, 21 October 2020 (UTC)
Tarantella (ballet)
Hello. I just noticed you added an image on Tarantella (ballet). However, the one you added is from a completely different ballet under the same title, so I removed it. I do want to include an image, just not sure how the fair use thing works. Corachow (talk) 07:41, 11 October 2020 (UTC)
- OK, thanks. I thought it matched not only the title but the descriptions of the man and woman in red and black and red and white costumes with tambourines. --GRuban (talk) 12:27, 11 October 2020 (UTC)
Disambiguation link notification for October 14
An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Black List (survey), you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Nick Wechsler.
(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:09, 14 October 2020 (UTC)
Kinescope screenshots
Hi, I'm coming across a number of these kinescope screenshots from 1950s American television programs, and I wonder if they're being correctly licensed. The uploader is alternately labeling them "fair use" and "public domain". Examples:
- File:William Shatner in A Town Has Turned to Dust.jpeg
- File:Melvyn Douglas as Stalin.jpeg
- File:Martin and Merman duet in Ford Anniversary Show.jpeg
- File:Charleston Heston in Forbidden Area.jpeg
- Thanks, Yoninah (talk) 15:31, 14 October 2020 (UTC)
- I think the uploader may be right. I did a few searches for the last one at https://cocatalog.loc.gov/, and found 33 episodes of "Playhouse 90" renewed, but not "Forbidden Area". I found copyright for the screenplay by Rod Serling, but not the episode. I can imagine a justification for the fair use images; they're images of a specific work, the article is about the work, we're not going to find or make free ones, one work is The Plot to Kill Stalin, the image is of Stalin, so that seems like a good candidate for definitive image for the work. The image of Shatner in the other one could be debatable as definitive (is knowing what one of the several characters in the work look like really crucial to understanding the article? especially given that it's basically a photo of the actor, not very heavy makeup, unlike the Stalin one?), but I'm not going to debate it. The uploader is User:Cbl62, an administrator with 13 years experience, which doesn't guarantee but does tend to imply they know what they are is doing. Most importantly, they're active, edited today. Ask them directly. The one thing that I would have a problem with is that the images are being uploaded at too high a resolution, for example, File:Martin and Merman duet in Ford Anniversary Show.jpeg, there is no way the original resolution for that was 1000 pixels on a side. I don't know where Cbl62 got it, but I'd argue that it would be better at the smaller original resolution. But that's a nitpick. --GRuban (talk) 16:15, 14 October 2020 (UTC)
- I always do my best to apply the correct license. @Yoninah: If you have questions about any of them, feel free to ask. I use "public domain" only when a search of the Copyright Office records confirms the lack of copyright renewal on works of sufficient vintage that renewal would be needed for the protection to remain intact. For the others, I've tried to select defining images, such as Melvyn Douglas as Stalin, William Shatner in the scene where he leads the lynch mob (the defining scene in the production), etc. My understanding is that such single-frame screen shots are permissible in illustrating on article on the work at issue. Cbl62 (talk) 17:47, 14 October 2020 (UTC)
Questionable Links
Hi GRuban: In response to your note: as a user, I fact-tracked the reference. It led me to an unrelated page. As an editor, I removed the link. It isn't the user's job, I think you would agree, to go hunting through moribund links. Common sense dictates that if the referenced biographical data is relevant and important, it should be easily and credibly documented. That is hardly the case here. I am agnostic on the material; however, I feel firmly that biographical material which, for the immediate time being, appears to be at best notional (though, possibly, factual), not be included, particularly so high in the biographical matter of a recognizable figure. Jdash30 (talk) 16:02, 15 October 2020 (UTC)
- No, it's not the user's job, but it is the editor's job to repair the work of other editors, rather than destroy it. You'll appreciate that some day when another editor has the choice to delete information you put in when the reference you used moves, or to track down where it moved to. --GRuban (talk) 00:34, 18 October 2020 (UTC)
Copyright?
Hi -- Following up on the recent kinescope discussion, I'd appreciate your input on whether File:The Green Pastures (Hallmark, 1957).jpg is within copyright protection. It is advertising for a TV show published in newspapers in 1957. As advertising content not created by the newspaper, it is not something over which the newspaper claims copyright. Further, the advertising contains no copyright notice. Thoughts? Cbl62 (talk) 07:49, 19 October 2020 (UTC)
- I learned that one myself just recently, thanks to User:SusunW, a few sections above on this very page! https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Template:PD-US-no_notice_advertisement applies: "This advertisement (or image from an advertisement) is in the public domain because it was published in a collective work (such as a periodical issue) in the United States between 1925 and 1977 and without a copyright notice specific to the advertisement." There is a long discussion of the issue in https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Deletion_requests/File:Pat_Buttram_Billboard_2.jpg which is where the template came from, but it does seem that a US advertisement before 1978 needed a separate copyright notice. --GRuban (talk) 12:44, 19 October 2020 (UTC)
- Very helpful. Thanks. Cbl62 (talk) 13:29, 19 October 2020 (UTC)
A barnstar for you!
|
The Copyright Barnstar | |
| For helping me with my DYK nomination, I award you this. Scorpions13256 (talk) 23:57, 24 October 2020 (UTC) |
Disambiguation link notification for October 29
An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Czech Miss, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Vysočina.
(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:20, 29 October 2020 (UTC)
You're too quiet
So I'm waking you up because I need your help. See Belle Reve Farm. It needs to be expanded. I want to do this by the book because if I don't, I will probably be accused of a COI by my detractors. I prefer to be on the safe side because I do care, and I don't want anyone to form the wrong impression of me over something this trivial when all I'm interested in doing is helping to expand a pretty cool article - at least "cool" from the perspectives of those interested in that particular subject. (Most of the young people today don't even know Captain Kirk). Are you that young? 
Atsme 💬 📧 19:42, 29 October 2020 (UTC)
- You're waking me up for a ... sweet dream? What help do you need? Honestly, my horse riding knowledge is rather limited - there is a nice lady who has four near my mom's house, and has sometimes given my kids short lessons, and that's about it. (After which the kids come back and try to teach me the difference between trot and canter, unsuccessfully.) What COI could you be accused of? Are you secretly William Shatner? --GRuban (talk) 19:52, 29 October 2020 (UTC)
- I'm not going to force you to straddle wood - just help me expand that article and find RS to cite. I have images I can upload, and clips from the PBS doc that we can upload (I own the copyright) but we need more text in the article about Belle Reve. Atsme 💬 📧 20:35, 29 October 2020 (UTC)
- Ah, and the COI is because you wrote or filmed or something the PBS documentary that is going to be the main source for the article? OK. Well, the way I did my COI articles was to write them in my user space, then let someone who was not me review them and push them to main space. Want to do that? Write the changes separately, and have me, or someone else who doesn't know the front end of a horse from ... well ... review and insert the changes they approve of into the main space? Actually writing about the farm may take someone who cares to look into the issue deeply, because I'm doing a cursory Google search and not really finding much about the farm. It's mainly mentioned as a side note "and Shatner also does this". Most recently it seems to have been the spoils of his most recent divorce? At least give me a link to this PBS documentary. --GRuban (talk) 20:52, 29 October 2020 (UTC)
- I started a corral for source links on the article talk page, so you can pen that filly in thar. --GRuban (talk) 21:15, 29 October 2020 (UTC)
- Ah, I see it now. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MY_6VGWQqXY - is there a transcript? That would be more convenient. --GRuban (talk) 21:24, 29 October 2020 (UTC)
- No transcript - it was a shoot and go, and I moved on to other projects...like raising kids which was my hardest job - very time consuming and full of surprises.
Atsme 💬 📧 22:03, 29 October 2020 (UTC)
- No transcript - it was a shoot and go, and I moved on to other projects...like raising kids which was my hardest job - very time consuming and full of surprises.
- Ah, I see it now. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MY_6VGWQqXY - is there a transcript? That would be more convenient. --GRuban (talk) 21:24, 29 October 2020 (UTC)
- I started a corral for source links on the article talk page, so you can pen that filly in thar. --GRuban (talk) 21:15, 29 October 2020 (UTC)
- Ah, and the COI is because you wrote or filmed or something the PBS documentary that is going to be the main source for the article? OK. Well, the way I did my COI articles was to write them in my user space, then let someone who was not me review them and push them to main space. Want to do that? Write the changes separately, and have me, or someone else who doesn't know the front end of a horse from ... well ... review and insert the changes they approve of into the main space? Actually writing about the farm may take someone who cares to look into the issue deeply, because I'm doing a cursory Google search and not really finding much about the farm. It's mainly mentioned as a side note "and Shatner also does this". Most recently it seems to have been the spoils of his most recent divorce? At least give me a link to this PBS documentary. --GRuban (talk) 20:52, 29 October 2020 (UTC)
- I'm not going to force you to straddle wood - just help me expand that article and find RS to cite. I have images I can upload, and clips from the PBS doc that we can upload (I own the copyright) but we need more text in the article about Belle Reve. Atsme 💬 📧 20:35, 29 October 2020 (UTC)
Transcript
@Atsme: So, after browsing around on the web a bit, I found
- a service to download just the audio from a YouTube video, https://ytmp3.cc/en13/
- another service to convert the youtube videos to mp3, https://www-ytmp3.com
- a way to transcribe audio file to text using Microsoft Office online, https://support.microsoft.com/en-us/office/transcribe-your-recordings-7fc2efec-245e-45f0-b053-2a97531ecf57
- a service to convert the mp4 to mp3 for free, https://www.mp4tomp3pro.com
- resulting in this transcript: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1ebor7HMwVSd95n5-Wi2pEh-FFh25_kb-24vH98wVHek/edit?usp=sharing!
It's publically commentable, so if you want to correct something, or draw attention to something, please do. As best I can tell, the most useful bit for the article should be the part at 00:23:53 where Shatner says "This is my wife Marcy she's my partner ... in this business. She mostly charms the people who buy." Then there is 08:05 where it says "Bill and his lovely wife Marcie at their Belle Reve Farm in Lexington, Ky." confirms they had it, but that part we've got lots of other sources for. Then we can cite the whole video in general to say that the Shatners used their farm to breed, raise, train, and sell horses. I'll need your expert help for that - is that pretty much standard all included in selling horses, or are there farms that do the breeding but don't raise, or raising without breeding or selling, or training but not breeding, or are there other parts that should be mentioned? --GRuban (talk) 14:33, 2 November 2020 (UTC)
- Thank you GR. I actually have an editing program but it's good to know there's something available online. Sidenote: Bill and Marcy divorced so I probably wouldn't use that segment. What I might do is capture some frames to use as static images in article, if I can get some quality freeze frames, and maybe add a short clip or two relative to training/breeding/raising/showing the Saddlebreds, which is a big part of Belle Reve's purpose. I'll go through the footage to see if there's a clip or 2 we can use and I'll upload them to Commons. If you think they're worthy of inclusion, that will be your decision, not mine. Atsme 💬 📧 19:53, 2 November 2020 (UTC)
- I don't know clips from clip-clops, I generally like static images in my articles. My intention is to use the words there, to cite that they ran the ranch together. After all, this is about the ranch, right? And ... correct me if I'm wrong, but didn't Shatner lose the ranch in the latest divorce? We can hardly not mention that. Or did he just lose the house, but keep the ranch itself? --GRuban (talk) 20:12, 2 November 2020 (UTC)
- Courier doesn't state that she got the acreage (Belle Reve Farm). Regardless, I'm not going to call him to verify it. I'm quite familiar with the need for published media verifiability on WP; therefore, unless we can verify via RS that it is no longer his, we can simply stay on course, right? Atsme 💬 📧 20:36, 2 November 2020 (UTC)
- Absolutely! Stay the course! Support the former TV star who may or may not be soon removed from the large house symbolic of his secondary career ... wait, am I getting this confused with something else? --GRuban (talk) 21:04, 2 November 2020 (UTC)
- Whatever you say, I have no rebuttal.
Atsme 💬 📧 21:41, 2 November 2020 (UTC)
- Absolutely! Stay the course! Support the former TV star who may or may not be soon removed from the large house symbolic of his secondary career ... wait, am I getting this confused with something else?
- Courier doesn't state that she got the acreage (Belle Reve Farm). Regardless, I'm not going to call him to verify it. I'm quite familiar with the need for published media verifiability on WP; therefore, unless we can verify via RS that it is no longer his, we can simply stay on course, right? Atsme 💬 📧 20:36, 2 November 2020 (UTC)
- I don't know clips from clip-clops, I generally like static images in my articles. My intention is to use the words there, to cite that they ran the ranch together. After all, this is about the ranch, right? And ... correct me if I'm wrong, but didn't Shatner lose the ranch in the latest divorce? We can hardly not mention that. Or did he just lose the house, but keep the ranch itself? --GRuban (talk) 20:12, 2 November 2020 (UTC)
Belle Reve is more like the Trump name (forgive me for that analogy but celebrities consider their names as assets); therefore, now that you've uncovered (with your excellent research ability) the other Belle Reve facilities, we may need an entirely different approach. Based on what you've uncovered so far, I'm wondering if maybe we should consider a spin-off for William Shatner (equestrian), and William Shatner (marriages) or should that be a list? [FBDB] Atsme 💬 📧 20:43, 3 November 2020 (UTC)
- Yeah. See article talk page, I think there are, or at least were, at least three of them. Belle Reve, my stallion's hindquarters. More like Mauvais Cauchemar. Whatever we write, I offer good odds it will be used as an example of yet another thing Wikipedia got wrong, because even our sources are confused which is which! --GRuban (talk) 21:19, 3 November 2020 (UTC)
- For clarity - Bill uses his farm name "Belle Reve" as the "global entity" for registering and showing his horses. I was looking back through newspaperarchive clips to see if I could locate the sale/move/purchase of his KY location(s) with no luck, so now I'm waiting for the renewal of my access to newspaper.com. Some of the misinformation in media doesn't surprise me anymore, and neither does their unreliability as clickbait media today, especially involving animals/breed types/official breeds. I was looking through newspaperarchives.com and came across a news report that misidentified the breed of horses that Bill was raising - they referred to his American Saddlebred as a Standardbred. *sigh* That's why I adamantly object to listing dog types in List of fatal dog attacks in the United States, and similar. Sight ID, even by experts, and people who are unfamiliar with animal breeds/breed types, get the IDs wrong frequently enough that the CDC even refuses to list breed types. I liken it to laypersons diagnosing someone with a sore throat as having tonsilitis or mono when it's actually haemophilus influenzae. Atsme 💬 📧 19:41, 5 November 2020 (UTC)
Hi, I promoted your hook to an image slot. Would you like to start a stub for Nabil Ahmad, so he can be linked in the caption? Otherwise we don't usually include names that do not have a Wikipedia page. Thanks, Yoninah (talk) 13:02, 1 November 2020 (UTC)
- OK, will stub. --GRuban (talk) 14:48, 2 November 2020 (UTC)
- Hmm, you have more than a stub there. Would you like to make it a double nomination?
- * ... that when Neelofa announced live on air that she was leaving talk show MeleTOP, it was a surprise to Nabil, her co-host of eight years (both pictured)? Yoninah (talk) 18:01, 2 November 2020 (UTC)
- Well, I thought it was going to be a stub, then it grew on me! It's still not large enough, though. The problem is that I don't read Malaysian (Bahasa Melayu?), and therefore I'm limited to using maybe 10% of the references I'm finding; there is a fair bit more about him out there, but I am not quite sure what it says. (The legendary User:SusunW wouldn't let that stop her, of course, but I am not her!) Anyway, I would think to keep them separate; his story really isn't that much MeleTOP's story, he seems to have done a bunch of things other than on Tuesday evenings. Maybe if I expand it further in the next 5 days I'll even submit it for a separate DYK - we are not so overloaded with DYKs about Malaysian television hosts, so that we desperately need to group them together as one? --GRuban (talk) 18:09, 2 November 2020 (UTC)
- I needed a laugh today. Totally stressing out, but you just brought me to calm. Thank you! SusunW (talk) 18:37, 2 November 2020 (UTC)
- First of all, it is long enough for DYK. Second, I have no problem leaving the original hook, but now I get to add the link to the image caption! You can still go ahead and nominate the new article when you're ready. Thanks, Yoninah (talk) 19:18, 2 November 2020 (UTC)
- I needed a laugh today. Totally stressing out, but you just brought me to calm. Thank you! SusunW (talk) 18:37, 2 November 2020 (UTC)
- Well, I thought it was going to be a stub, then it grew on me! It's still not large enough, though. The problem is that I don't read Malaysian (Bahasa Melayu?), and therefore I'm limited to using maybe 10% of the references I'm finding; there is a fair bit more about him out there, but I am not quite sure what it says. (The legendary User:SusunW wouldn't let that stop her, of course, but I am not her!) Anyway, I would think to keep them separate; his story really isn't that much MeleTOP's story, he seems to have done a bunch of things other than on Tuesday evenings. Maybe if I expand it further in the next 5 days I'll even submit it for a separate DYK - we are not so overloaded with DYKs about Malaysian television hosts, so that we desperately need to group them together as one? --GRuban (talk) 18:09, 2 November 2020 (UTC)
DYK for MeleTOP
On 6 November 2020, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article MeleTOP, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that when Neelofa announced live on air that she was leaving talk show MeleTOP, it was a surprise to her co-host of eight years (both pictured)? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/MeleTOP. You are welcome to check how many page hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, MeleTOP), and it may be added to the statistics page if the total is over 5,000. 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.
Nina Miglionica
I want this photo (last one in the series). The copyright mark is here but it's kinda weird. I cannot tell what/who has copyrighted it. So, I searched 1932-1933 here and find nothing for The Entre Nous, Howard College, Loee Salter, A. S. Barger for either 1932 or 1933. Checking renewals in 1960 and 1961 I also find nothing. Am I good to go? SusunW (talk) 23:48, 6 November 2020 (UTC)
- I think you are good! I'd use {{PD-US-not renewed}}. But do you mean Nina Miglionico? And ... unfortunately, her statue, which we have an image of File:Nina Miglionco Statue.jpg (yet another creative misspelling) is probably not good (per https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Copyright_rules_by_territory/United_States#Freedom_of_panorama). --GRuban (talk) 01:21, 7 November 2020 (UTC)
- Hmmm, Thanks for catching that. Just checked my sources and both spellings are there, but it looks like Miglionico is right. The photo uses an "a", but I am sure it is her per this [22] which confirms she went to Howard. Thanks so much for your help. SusunW (talk) 06:38, 7 November 2020 (UTC)
Gerda's November corner
 |
look! - ever so proud of the little article which is my DYK 1500 and relates to DYK 1 - by sheer coincidence! --Gerda Arendt (talk) 21:46, 7 November 2020 (UTC)
look today for bright memories - thank you so much for adding a pic to the composer! --Gerda Arendt (talk) 19:44, 16 November 2020 (UTC)
Do you think you might find a photo of this one? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 14:53, 17 November 2020 (UTC)
@Gerda Arendt: Hermann Schey? I think this is him, though it calls him Herman Schey? --GRuban (talk) 16:29, 17 November 2020 (UTC)
- Thank you so much! I wonder if he tried a more international when hiding, but saw no source mentioning it. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 18:49, 17 November 2020 (UTC)
- Look today more on BB music, a little crusade of mine. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 12:24, 22 November 2020 (UTC)
- Today's DYK: to be sung "happily" --Gerda Arendt (talk) 21:34, 26 November 2020 (UTC)
You're the best
You remind me of my time at a New York publishing company (I was the West Coast editor) where they hired a special advisor to answer all the editors' math questions. They knew it would take us too much time to figure it out ourselves, so we would just call up and say, "Barry, if they sold this-and-this much last year as opposed to this year, what would be the percentage increase?" And Barry always gave the answer off the top of his head. For us editors here at Wikipedia who don't know anything about image licensing, you're a godsend! Thanks for being so helpful. Yoninah (talk) 21:07, 10 November 2020 (UTC)
- I totally agree with Yoninah. You are amazing and I really appreciate you and your work. SusunW (talk) 21:36, 10 November 2020 (UTC)
Evelyn Butts
I want this, really, really, really badly. It was published 26 Jan 1966 without a notice and says it is an AP Wirephoto. No copyright notice on the masthead or publishing data. (I checked every page of the paper, this is the only notice.) Nothing in periodicals for The Progress-Index either. Checked AP Wirephoto, Wirephoto, and Evelyn Butts in artwork. Am I good for "no notice"? SusunW (talk) 21:54, 10 November 2020 (UTC)
- Sigh. How brave do you feel? The problem is that the version you can prove was published in Jan 1966 and can probably show wasn't copyright renewed is greatly, greatly reduced in both scope (cropped to just her head, really) and quality from the version you want to upload. I mean, it's not likely that just the cropped fuzzy version was the only one published - but it's possible. There are places on the web nowadays that let reduced quality versions of pictures be downloaded for free, but ask for money for the higher quality versions. I've not heard of the Associated Press playing games like that but it's possible. Now it's not hopeless - her daughter uses a higher quality photo as the cover of her book, writes about the taking of it as the foreword, and Virginia Department of Human Resources has a copy, and there are some even higher quality copies online at The Virginian-Pilot: [23] and [24]. So odds are really good that higher quality photo was published, and most likely also in 1966. But we don't have proof of that. You can search for it in other old newspapers, you can write her daughter or one of those other places about it (asking: hey, where did you get this photo? Can you in good faith tell me it was published somewhere in 1966, and ideally where, so I can check the copyright wasn't renewed? Probably the daughter would be best; the newspaper might not answer, and the DHR seems to be satisfied with "source unknown" in the photo title, which implies they don't know or care, while the daughter at least knows quite well it was an AP photo.) If you want it that badly, and upload with just what you have, and mark it PD-US-not_renewed, I won't be the one to nominate it for deletion; but I won't have a very strong argument to defend it if someone else does. Additional notes:
- you misspelled Evelyn in your link, but there isn't a Butts in there either. However I'm not sure that would be very useful if it was never published as a standalone work: Associated Press sells stuff to be used by other newspapers, they may not do a lot of publishing themselves.
- If you have the choice I'd recommend the the version from the Virginian-Pilot, specifically here, as it's larger resolution, and I really like the text EQUAL JUSTICE UNDER LAW over her head; the photographer knew what he was doing in arranging the photo. --GRuban (talk) 00:20, 11 November 2020 (UTC)
- That is a gorgeous image. I will see what I can do and appreciate your direction. Fingers crossed. SusunW (talk) 15:25, 11 November 2020 (UTC)
And while you are pondering that, I'd also like this photo of Ceola Wallace. But, I'm kind of confused about the credit. Does it mean it belongs to Ebony Magazine? Should I look there to try to find it published in 1964? It may have to be fair use, but then I'd need to prove she is dead, right? SusunW (talk) 22:00, 10 November 2020 (UTC) Okay, it is in Ebony and she's not alive. SusunW (talk) 22:09, 10 November 2020 (UTC)
- I think I can see the original Ebony copyright registration here: https://archive.org/details/catalogofcopy19643182libr/page/116/mode/2up?q=ebony you need to zoom in, but it looks like a list of 12 issues, one for each month of 1964. So you would need not_renewed ... and I can see the renewal at https://cocatalog.loc.gov/ as well. Sorry. I think this is the month, but if it isn't, there were eleven other renewals; looks like Johnson Publishing Company was thorough. --GRuban (talk) 00:46, 11 November 2020 (UTC)
Ebony. Vol. 19, no. 11, Sept. 1964. Type of Work: Serial Registration Number / Date: RE0000579560 / 1992-03-30 Renewal registration for: B00000167344 / 1964-08-25 Title: Ebony. Vol. 19, no. 11, Sept. 1964. Copyright Claimant: Johnson Publishing Company, Inc. (PCW) Variant title: Ebony Names: Johnson Publishing Company, Inc.
- Oh; yes, you can probably go fair use. In fact, if you want to spend the effort, you could write Ebony and ask if they'd be willing to release it under creative commons attribution. Probably not, to be honest, but possibly: I'm betting they have quite a large number of photographs of minor Freedom Riders, enough so they just might be willing to spare a few. --GRuban (talk) 00:50, 11 November 2020 (UTC)
- Ah. https://www.artandobject.com/news/foundations-unite-save-ebony-magazine-archives Looks like the Ebony photo archives aren't owned by Ebony any more. You may think that's good news, since they plan to make it available to the public? But, no. Getty doesn't release things for free, and the Smithsonian is a big behemoth that sometimes does but moves very slowly. --GRuban (talk) 01:12, 11 November 2020 (UTC)
- I know I can use the photo for Wallace on an article about her as fair use, but can I use it as an example in my article on poll tax repeal if indeed she is discussed in the article? That's the big question. I am totally unsure about who/how to even begin to ask the Smithsonian and as you know, I don't have a clue when it comes to instructing them on what we need for it to be released. SusunW (talk) 15:25, 11 November 2020 (UTC)
- Ah. https://www.artandobject.com/news/foundations-unite-save-ebony-magazine-archives Looks like the Ebony photo archives aren't owned by Ebony any more. You may think that's good news, since they plan to make it available to the public? But, no. Getty doesn't release things for free, and the Smithsonian is a big behemoth that sometimes does but moves very slowly. --GRuban (talk) 01:12, 11 November 2020 (UTC)
- Oh; yes, you can probably go fair use. In fact, if you want to spend the effort, you could write Ebony and ask if they'd be willing to release it under creative commons attribution. Probably not, to be honest, but possibly: I'm betting they have quite a large number of photographs of minor Freedom Riders, enough so they just might be willing to spare a few. --GRuban (talk) 00:50, 11 November 2020 (UTC)
Just wondering
This image is from 1987 from The Independent. The subject just died. Can it be uploaded as fair use? Thanks, Yoninah (talk) 02:08, 16 November 2020 (UTC)
- Maybe? This isn't as hard and fast a rule as whether something is in or out of copyright (usually! Sometimes even copyright is questionable...) The usual question is, is it reasonably likely we can find or make a free image of this subject? If so, no to fair use images. If not, and if the picture is vital to the article, then we can use one. For living people the answer is no, unless they're a hermit someone must see them every so often, and it's not out of the question that they could be persuaded to take and release a photo, so usually no to fair use. For long time dead people, the answer is usually yes, we certainly can't make one, and since they've been dead a while the odds of there being a free one that we just haven't found aren't that high, so we can often put up a fair use photo. For ones that just died ... I'd say yes? We certainly can't make more, and while there is some chance that there is a free photo that someone just took but hasn't put up on Flickr or wherever yet, but it's pretty slim, and going down every day. Give it a try. --GRuban (talk) 13:32, 16 November 2020 (UTC)
- Well, it is a historic photo, as it was taken in 1987. Thanks for the advice. Yoninah (talk) 14:49, 16 November 2020 (UTC)
Can you use your magic and make this picture not brown? Photo of Sayler is on page 4; publishing data on 8; I see nothing that indicates copyright so I think it can be uploaded as {{PD-US-no notice}} Thank you so much. SusunW (talk) 20:36, 17 November 2020 (UTC)
- Done. Honestly, I'm not sure the "brightened" one is better, because that makes the letters from the other side of the newspaper page more visible. But maybe it is. Your call. --GRuban (talk) 21:14, 17 November 2020 (UTC)
-
File:Frances Wheeler Sayler in UE News.jpg -
File:Frances Wheeler Sayler in UE News, brightened.jpg
- I agree, but at least she isn't some weird color of old faded newspaper. Thank you so much! SusunW (talk) 21:23, 17 November 2020 (UTC)
ArbCom 2020 Elections voter message
 | Hello! Voting in the 2020 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 7 December 2020. 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. If you wish to participate in the 2020 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add |
Susan B. Anthony II
I wanna use this. The Masthead shows a copyright notice for vol 155 (CLV), No. 65 March 6, 1949. The Catalogue confirms the 1949 copyright of this issue was filed as B180318. And I find no renewals 1978 to present on that number at copyright.gov. Per UPenn Renewals, January-June 1976 are on 367-389 of first volume but I see no Boston anything, skips from Bluebook Magazine to Boy Commandos. The July-December 1976 are on 393-424 of second volume but again no Boston, skips from Blue Ribbon Comics to Boy Commandos. Checking 1977 Renewals, January-June are on / 416-447 of first volume but again it skips from Blue Book Magazine to Boy Commandos and July-December are on 431-495 of second volume but it skips from Blue book Magazine to Boy's Life. No listing of any renewals for Boston Globe, Boston Sunday Globe, etc. Am I good to go? SusunW (talk) 22:57, 25 November 2020 (UTC)
- Looks like you're good for {{PD-US-not renewed}}! Strangely enough, I did find that number in another volume, https://archive.org/details/1977periodicalsj3312libr/page/n75/mode/2up?q=b180318, but I don't think that's related. --GRuban (talk) 23:15, 25 November 2020 (UTC)
Virginia Durr
Opposite problem to Evelyn Butts, the published image is larger than the better photo, but clearly was cropped from it. Neither masthead nor publishing data indicate copyright, nor does a search of "Richmond" or Times-Dispatch return any registration for 1948 or 1949. Can I use the better cropped image? SusunW (talk) 22:38, 26 November 2020 (UTC)
- Don't think so. Like the Evelyn Butts image, we can use the versions of the images that are published but we can't guess that just because one version has been published, that the higher resolution must also have been. By the way, I do recommend you write Butts's daughter about that previous image: since she went to some length to publicize her mother's life, I think there is at least a reasonable chance that she will be responsive, and will know something about the publication history of that image. Not guaranteed, but worth an email. --GRuban (talk) 01:28, 28 November 2020 (UTC)
- I know the full photo image of Durr is out there somewhere, as it was used on this book cover. But I am really tired of trying to find usable images. I spent all day today researching and found 1. It begins to feel like a waste of time.
- As for Butts, I sent her daughter two e-mails and I got no response at all. I have to be honest, it's just one more frustrating and disheartening thing about searching for photographs. I think I am just going to give up and run with the images I have in the poll tax article. SusunW (talk) 05:05, 28 November 2020 (UTC)
Mary Church Terrell
- Okay, so I loaded the ones I had and have 1 more I'd like to add. middle bottom photo Mary Church Terrell. Copyright book 1963. Registered 1963 as A668085. Checking copyright.gov shows no renewal. Am I good for {{PD-US-not renewed}}? SusunW (talk) 19:42, 28 November 2020 (UTC)
- I'm sorry, but I can find the renewal on https://cocatalog.loc.gov/, by searching for Title: Washington Capital
- Okay, so I loaded the ones I had and have 1 more I'd like to add. middle bottom photo Mary Church Terrell. Copyright book 1963. Registered 1963 as A668085. Checking copyright.gov shows no renewal. Am I good for {{PD-US-not renewed}}? SusunW (talk) 19:42, 28 November 2020 (UTC)
Washington, capital city, 1879-1950. Vol. 2. By Constance McLaughlin Green. Type of Work: Text Registration Number / Date: RE0000507022 / 1991-09-09 Renewal registration for: A00000668085 / 1963-12-30 Title: Washington, capital city, 1879-1950. Vol. 2. By Constance McLaughlin Green. Copyright Claimant: Lois Green Carr & Donald Ross Green (C) Variant title: Washington, capital city, 1879-1950 Names: Green, Constance McLaughlin Carr, Lois Green Green, Donald Ross
That said, though, there are a number of photos of her at the Library of Congress that are marked "no known copyright restrictions" (which means public domain), such as https://www.loc.gov/pictures/item/97500102/ https://www.loc.gov/item/93516449/ and so forth. Use those! --GRuban (talk) 15:29, 29 November 2020 (UTC)
- https://www.loc.gov/item/mss425490754/ is only a so-so pic, but indicates the LOC has a whole archive of her papers, most of which are public domain (published 1925 or before are automatically public domain, regardless of copyright claims); there is a lot to look through. If you are tired of it, I can upload a few for you, but there are so many that I think you will probably be best at picking some. --GRuban (talk) 15:34, 29 November 2020 (UTC)
- https://catalog.archives.gov/id/559207 painting! --GRuban (talk) 15:46, 29 November 2020 (UTC)
- Thank you. I truly am at the place where the picture part is frustrating. The goal is to nominate Women's poll tax repeal movement for FA on Monday and I fully intend to list the work you've done to help with the photos. I've been trying to find a balance of black and white women's photos who worked in the movement and trying to make them period appropriate, if that makes sense. In other words the photo on Terrell's article is great for her article, but it is from 1890-1910 judging by the dress she is wearing. I want something more modern, for the 1920-1960 period that women were involved in poll tax repeal. This appears to be the same photo Green used. Wonder when it was published? this would also work, but I'd rather it not be a full body shot. If you can work out either of those, that'd be great. I think the painting may be on commons, can't remember. Anything else in that period would also work. I truly appreciate your help. SusunW (talk) 15:55, 29 November 2020 (UTC)
- This one would also work, though it's kinda glam ;) SusunW (talk) 15:58, 29 November 2020 (UTC)
- I may have found proof of publication on this last one. Check your e-mail. SusunW (talk) 19:21, 29 November 2020 (UTC)
- This one would also work, though it's kinda glam ;) SusunW (talk) 15:58, 29 November 2020 (UTC)
- Thank you. I truly am at the place where the picture part is frustrating. The goal is to nominate Women's poll tax repeal movement for FA on Monday and I fully intend to list the work you've done to help with the photos. I've been trying to find a balance of black and white women's photos who worked in the movement and trying to make them period appropriate, if that makes sense. In other words the photo on Terrell's article is great for her article, but it is from 1890-1910 judging by the dress she is wearing. I want something more modern, for the 1920-1960 period that women were involved in poll tax repeal. This appears to be the same photo Green used. Wonder when it was published? this would also work, but I'd rather it not be a full body shot. If you can work out either of those, that'd be great. I think the painting may be on commons, can't remember. Anything else in that period would also work. I truly appreciate your help. SusunW (talk) 15:55, 29 November 2020 (UTC)
- https://catalog.archives.gov/id/559207 painting! --GRuban (talk) 15:46, 29 November 2020 (UTC)
Disputed non-free use rationale for File:Sharecropper.jpg
Thank you for uploading File:Sharecropper.jpg. However, there is a concern that the rationale provided for using this file on Wikipedia may not meet the criteria required by Wikipedia:Non-free content. This can be corrected by going to the file description page and adding or clarifying the reason why the file qualifies under this policy. Adding and completing one of the templates available from Wikipedia:Non-free use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your file is in compliance with Wikipedia policy. Please be aware that a non-free use rationale is not the same as an image copyright tag; descriptions for files used under the non-free content policy require both a copyright tag and a non-free use rationale.
If it is determined that the file does not qualify under the non-free content policy, it might be deleted by an administrator seven days after the file was tagged in accordance with section F7 of the criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions, please ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thank you. DMacks (talk) 04:29, 30 November 2020 (UTC)
- @DMacks: Ah, uploaded in 2005. I was young and naive then. I wasn't even the one who added the fair use rationale, that was User:Lithoderm in 2008. And yet, looking at the work, I think it does meet fair use, and was able to quickly cite two major US museums to back the parts of the fair use rationale that you have issues with. Unlike an AfD, there doesn't seem to be a specific forum to discuss. Want to talk it out here? --GRuban (talk) 13:55, 30 November 2020 (UTC)
- Three museums cited in article. Withdraw? --GRuban (talk) 14:18, 30 November 2020 (UTC)
- Good solution, thanks! Withdrawn. DMacks (talk) 18:35, 30 November 2020 (UTC)
Thank you --GRuban (talk) 19:43, 30 November 2020 (UTC)
- Good solution, thanks! Withdrawn. DMacks (talk) 18:35, 30 November 2020 (UTC)
- Three museums cited in article. Withdraw? --GRuban (talk) 14:18, 30 November 2020 (UTC)
![[3]](https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Tyson_Pedro_at_UFC_234.jpg){kind=link}
![[4]](https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Jimmy_Crute_at_UFC_234_(cropped).jpg){kind=link}
![[5]](https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Lyman_Good_at_UFC_244_(cropped_-3).jpg){kind=link}
![[6]](https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Lyman_Good_at_UFC_244_(cropped).jpg){kind=link}
![[7]](https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Lyman_Good_at_UFC_244_(crop).jpg){kind=link}
![[8]](https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Tai_Tuivasa_at_UFC_234.jpg){kind=link}
![[9]](https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Jack_Marshman_at_UFC_230.jpg){kind=link}
![[10]](https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Israel_Adesanya_at_UFC_230.jpg){kind=link}
![[11]](https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Al_Iaquinta_at_UFC_230.jpg){kind=link}
![[12]](https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Shane_Burgos_at_UFC_230.jpg){kind=link}
![[13]](https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Lyman_Good_at_UFC_230.jpg){kind=link}
![[14]](https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Ilir_Latifi_at_UFC_232.jpg){kind=link}
![[15]](https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Michael_Chiesa_at_UFC_232.jpg){kind=link}
![[16]](https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Alexander_Volkanovski_at_UFC_232.jpg){kind=link}
![[17]](https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Alonzo_Menifield_Jan_20,_2019.jpg){kind=link}
![[18]](https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Alexander_Hernandez_Jan_19,_2019.jpg){kind=link}
![[19]](https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Karl_Roberson_Jan_19,_2019.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
_(cropped).jpg){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
To whom it may concern
I see several people now use me for a general reference on free images for Wikipedia, and how difficult it is. Let me let you in on a very current instance of how it works for me. Here is our article Fionnghuala O'Reilly, about the first black Miss Ireland Universe, NASA datanaut (rocket scientist?), and generally impressive person. When I saw it, it didn't have an image.
- I searched around the web, found the subject's website, https://www.figoreilly.com/, noticed it had dozens of great images and a contact form, filled out the form asking whether she would be so kind as to release one with a statement like "I own the rights to this photo and am releasing it under https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/", either on her website or by email copying permissions-commons@wikimedia.org. This was in July.
- Just a few weeks ago, in November she got back to me. She emailed an image. Hurrah! She included the statement "you can use this on Wikipedia".
- So I wrote back, explaining we need the formal license that lets everyone use it, and would she copy permissions-commons. She wrote back, including the formal statement, and copied permissions-commons. Hurrah! So I put the image on the article that you see there now.
- But permissions-commons (OTRS) wrote to clarify that she really owns the rights. They said that many or even most image subjects think they own the rights to photos of themselves, but really don't. She didn't respond.
- So I searched the web again, found the photographer - I think - and am now writing them to confirm that they both took the photo and assigned her the rights so that she could release them. If they don't write back, we're probably going to have to remove the image. So it goes.
And this is one of the good ones, when the article subject both wrote back, and agreed, even if it did take four months; the majority of people I write like this don't write back at all, and a good number of those who do write back don't agree. This is just in case any web page readers think this sort of thing is only hard for them. --GRuban (talk) 18:23, 30 November 2020 (UTC)
- It worked! Took yet another email since photographer didn't mail permissions-commons the first time, and OTRS does prefer the email come from the copyright holder directly, not be just forwarded, but it worked! Picture approved by OTRS, and thumbnail just to the right here. Net count:
- web searches to find email contact info: two
- total emails to subject, photographer, and permissions-commons (OTRS): eight (most with replies)
- total time: 5 months
- end result: priceless literally: one image, free for everyone to reuse with attribution and share-alike; no price
The Daily Worker
Ian had asked if I couldn't find some photos of women protesting for poll tax abolition. The only one I found was marked 1963-1966 from Texas, but no clues where or if it might have been published. Searches in newspapers.com, newspaperarchive.com, and the Texas portal were moot. Then yesterday, I was working on another article and found this. The girl with the square around her head is the subject of my bio but the apron she has on says "Abolish the poll tax". The image totally sucks. identifying info: "Southern Delegates at American Peace Mobilization in Chicago. [Front row, left to right: Arthur Price, Nashville, Tenn., Valencia Hall, Birmingham, Ala, Blanche Gelders, age 14, Birmingham, Waring Averey, Washington D. C. Back row, left to right: Mary Frances Harris Green Pond, Ala., Anna May Mitchell, Lewsiburgh, Ala., Margaret Gelders, Birmingham, Elinor Eaves, Birmingham, Marjorie Haldsamback?, Birmingham, Maple Duncan, Birmingham. ~ Daily Worker Photo]" Beneath it says, "The Daily Worker photographer made this shot at the American Peace Mobilization meeting in Chicago in September 1940". My snooping tells me the LOC has this paper, but I keep getting, "We're experiencing technical difficulties. Try again later." Then I found this access from Villanova, but of course I cannot access it. The Catalog doesn't indicate the paper was copyrighted 1940-1941. Any chance you can help me find the photo? SusunW (talk) 14:40, 2 December 2020 (UTC)
- Sorry - tried some likely searches at the Library of Congress, and got either not enough or far too much. It does seem likely that if you did find the image, the newspaper would be not copyrighted or at least not renewed. I wonder if there is a way to find a Wikipedian who is a current student at Villanova who would have access? Wikipedia:WikiProject Resource Exchange/Resource Request? --GRuban (talk) 15:48, 2 December 2020 (UTC)
- I can try that. Let's see what happens. SusunW (talk) 18:30, 2 December 2020 (UTC)
- Answer: "Any image from a scanned copy of the newspaper will be of poor quality. An original print may be in Box: 359, Folder: 19449, of the Daily Worker and Daily World Photographs Collection, in the Tamiment Library and Robert F. Wagner Labor Archives, at New York University.[25] (The original negative may also be in their negatives collection, but it's organized differently, and could be harder to find.) The archive might be willing to scan it, although undoubtedly there would be a fee to do so. --Worldbruce (talk) 22:20, 2 December 2020" I think they are more likely to respond to your magic, but if you want me to e-mail, I'll certainly try. I don't really care if it is this exact image if it has women protesting the poll tax, but it would be lovely to have Marge's photo. SusunW (talk) 23:25, 2 December 2020 (UTC)
- I can try that. Let's see what happens. SusunW (talk) 18:30, 2 December 2020 (UTC)
Image cleanup
.jpg)
- Atsme that is so much better. Wow! Were it not a ridiculous imposition, I'd ask about all of the photos from newspaper clips in the Women's poll tax repeal movement, but any chance you can do something with the photo of Evelyn Butts there? It is the worst one, IMO. Clearly your magic wand is very powerful. I don't have one. SusunW (talk) 14:00, 3 December 2020 (UTC)
- Hi, SusunW - I'll see what I can do. Send me the Commons' links for the images that need fixing. Atsme 💬 📧 18:51, 3 December 2020 (UTC)
- These two are the worst. Butts, Durr]. I really appreciate the offer Atsme. SusunW (talk) 19:18, 3 December 2020 (UTC)
- SusunW, I think Butts cleaned up fairly well, but to do any more than I already did would be extremely time intensive. I uploaded it over the image of Butts that you uploaded using the same name. Hope that's ok? I also cleaned up Virginia Durr, but the image was so dark, I couldn't tell what was on the back of the folder she's holding, so I added blank paper. I didn't upload over the image you uploaded like I did Butts; rather, I uploaded it independently using a different name, so you'll have to change the image file name at the article if you want the cleaned-up image. Happy editing! Atsme 💬 📧 03:14, 4 December 2020 (UTC)
- These two are the worst. Butts, Durr]. I really appreciate the offer Atsme. SusunW (talk) 19:18, 3 December 2020 (UTC)
- Hi, SusunW - I'll see what I can do. Send me the Commons' links for the images that need fixing. Atsme 💬 📧 18:51, 3 December 2020 (UTC)
That is wonderful. Atsme, what did you use for this cleanup? --GRuban (talk) 23:07, 3 December 2020 (UTC)
- Thank you, GR! I use Adobe Photoshop 2021, and ON1 Photo Raw 2021.
- Wow, just absolute wow. Thank you so much Atsme. GRuban she used magic, it's obvious. SusunW (talk) 05:08, 4 December 2020 (UTC)
- SusunW, thank you! I changed the Virginia Durr images where they were in use and replaced them with the cleaner image, if that's ok with you? You may or may not want to nominate the newsprint image for deletion but if you do, let me know so I can adjust the image link of the clean image to the deletion discussion. With the Butts image, I simply uploaded the cleaner image to replace the other since nothing was altered like I did with Durr. Happy editing! Atsme 💬 📧 21:38, 4 December 2020 (UTC)
- Wow, just absolute wow. Thank you so much Atsme. GRuban she used magic, it's obvious. SusunW (talk) 05:08, 4 December 2020 (UTC)
DYK nomination of Nabil Ahmad
Hello! Your submission of Nabil Ahmad at the Did You Know nominations page has been reviewed, and some issues with it may need to be clarified. Please review the comment(s) at your nomination's entry and respond there as soon as possible. Thank you for contributing to Did You Know! Yoninah (talk) 11:34, 6 December 2020 (UTC)
Hi GRuban, I've reverted your revert. I don't wish to be rude, but there was not a single reliable source for anything on that article. Per WP:BLP, "All quotations and any material challenged or likely to be challenged must be supported by an inline citation to a reliable, published source." Praxidicae clearly challenged the content by removing the content and placing the redirect, thus restoring it would be inappropriate. Best wishes, please let me know if you have any questions. Thank you! Waggie (talk) 19:18, 9 December 2020 (UTC)
- @Waggie: We actually discussed it, and seem to have agreed to restore the articles while I work on finding sources for their content. If you like, I can leave this one a redirect, as there were four articles involved, and I can't work on them all at once (Heffernan seems to be the biggest one, so am starting there) but I hope you won't complain my restoring Stolhanske when I've gotten to it. --GRuban (talk) 20:25, 9 December 2020 (UTC)
New Page Patrol December Newsletter
Hello GRuban,
- Year in review
It has been a productive year for New Page Patrol as we've roughly cut the size of the New Page Patrol queue in half this year. We have been fortunate to have a lot of great work done by Rosguill who was the reviewer of the most pages and redirects this past year. Thanks and credit go to JTtheOG and Onel5969 who join Rosguill in repeating in the top 10 from last year. Thanks to John B123, Hughesdarren, and Mccapra who all got the NPR permission this year and joined the top 10. Also new to the top ten is DannyS712 bot III, programmed by DannyS712 which has helped to dramatically reduce the number of redirects that have needed human patrolling by patrolling certain types of redirects (e.g. for differences in accents) and by also patrolling editors who are on on the redirect whitelist.
| Rank | Username | Num reviews | Log |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | DannyS712 bot III (talk) | 67,552 | Patrol Page Curation |
| 2 | Rosguill (talk) | 63,821 | Patrol Page Curation |
| 3 | John B123 (talk) | 21,697 | Patrol Page Curation |
| 4 | Onel5969 (talk) | 19,879 | Patrol Page Curation |
| 5 | JTtheOG (talk) | 12,901 | Patrol Page Curation |
| 6 | Mcampany (talk) | 9,103 | Patrol Page Curation |
| 7 | DragonflySixtyseven (talk) | 6,401 | Patrol Page Curation |
| 8 | Mccapra (talk) | 4,918 | Patrol Page Curation |
| 9 | Hughesdarren (talk) | 4,520 | Patrol Page Curation |
| 10 | Utopes (talk) | 3,958 | Patrol Page Curation |
- Reviewer of the Year
John B123 has been named reviewer of the year for 2020. John has held the permission for just over 6 months and in that time has helped cut into the queue by reviewing more than 18,000 articles. His talk page shows his efforts to communicate with users, upholding NPP's goal of nurturing new users and quality over quantity.
- NPP Technical Achievement Award
As a special recognition and thank you DannyS712 has been awarded the first NPP Technical Achievement Award. His work programming the bot has helped us patrol redirects tremendously - more than 60,000 redirects this past year. This has been a large contribution to New Page Patrol and definitely is worthy of recognition.
Six Month Queue Data: Today – 2262 Low – 2232 High – 10271
To opt-out of future mailings, please remove yourself here
18:17, 10 December 2020 (UTC)
Beethoven 250 years
 | |
| Beethoven in 1803 |
|---|
The birthday display! --Gerda Arendt (talk) 16:35, 16 December 2020 (UTC)
- Nice! I didn't notice. So Crushed Rock and Ruth Williams Cupp are the odd ones out? --GRuban (talk) 16:46, 16 December 2020 (UTC)
- one more - many more older DYK when you click on Beethoven below the pic --Gerda Arendt (talk) 17:01, 16 December 2020 (UTC)
Copyright law
Hi, a question came up about a copyright renewal. If the copyright for a 1932 film was renewed in 1959, does that mean that the copyright will expire in 2027? Thanks, Yoninah (talk) 12:22, 17 December 2020 (UTC)
- Yes, as best I understand Copyright_law_of_the_United_States#Works_created_before_1978, 95 years from date of publication, so 2027. Thank you, Sonny Bono. --GRuban (talk) 13:26, 17 December 2020 (UTC)
DYK for Nabil Ahmad
On 18 December 2020, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Nabil Ahmad, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that Nabil Ahmad (pictured) became a comedian after a friend signed him up for a reality show as a prank? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Nabil Ahmad. You are welcome to check how many page hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, Nabil Ahmad), and it may be added to the statistics page if it received over 400 views per hour. 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.
— Wug·a·po·des 00:02, 18 December 2020 (UTC)
- Congratulations! With 18,726 views, your Nabil Ahmad hook is one of the most viewed hooks for the month of December. Accordingly, it has been included at DYKSTATS December. Keep up the good work! Cbl62 (talk) 19:32, 20 December 2020 (UTC)
- Nice! @Yoninah and Fandi89: Did you see this, folks? Thank you, Yoninah for the suggestion that I write this, Fandi89 for the Malaysian language and culture support. --GRuban (talk) 00:32, 21 December 2020 (UTC)
Slow as Christmas!! or Hanukkah
 |
| | This is an archive of past discussions about 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. |
| Archive 5 | ← | Archive 7 | Archive 8 | Archive 9 | Archive 10 | Archive 11 | → | Archive 13 |