User talk:Richard Arthur Norton (1958- )

From Wikimedia Commons, the free media repository
Jump to navigation Jump to search

American League Owners photo[edit]

Not much luck identifying them, I did manage to find a 1914 Reach Guide from the Smithsonian: https://archive.org/details/reachofficialame19141phil/page/n13/mode/2up ... There's a photo of all the owners on page 8, I think the one identified as Charles Sommers might be ES Minor from Washington. The photo above his matches 3 on the bottom (sitting) row, but I can't make out his name in the Reach guide; my guess is Nixey Callahan based on this eyebrows looking somewhat similar. Oaktree b (talk) 01:43, 27 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I'm off to bed soon, here's the reddit post I made, the responses are slowly coming in. https://www.reddit.com/r/baseball/comments/osdwf1/wikipedia_photo/ Oaktree b (talk) 03:14, 27 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Excellent, I also wrote SABR, but they rarely respond. --RAN (talk) 03:17, 27 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Bain News Service[edit]

Hi, One problem here is that the "George Grantham Bain Collection" has been made a hidden cat. Also presumably the GGBC comprises more than just Bain News Service items or not? Broichmore (talk) 17:04, 29 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Broichmore: Are you looking to distinguish between images that the studio took themselves versus images that the news service distributed that were taken by other studios? If you want to go though all 30,000 I think it would be a good project. We can move the small subset that shows the studio from "Bain News Service" to "Bain News Service studio" which would free up "Bain News Service" for you, but historically images taken from other studios are just marked with "George Grantham Bain Collection" and the name of the other studio or the name of the known photographer. For instance File:A. Babel LCCN2014686265.jpg and File:AtleePomereneBakerPortrait1.jpg are copied from another studio. Maybe it would be easier to create a category for those images, since they represent a minority of the 30,000 images we already have uploaded. BTW, if you like the Bain Collection, each Friday the Library of Congress releases 50 images the from Bain Collection that they are crowdsourcing context for. You can participate at Flick Commons. This is the last image loaded at Flickr Commons they are stored in an album called News in the 1910s and we are on page 267. The current tranche is from 1923, so the correct date needs to be transferred to Wiki Commons and a category added. All the images are already here but have the default date of "1900" and most have no categories. I also create a Wikidata entry for any new people identified in the images. This is the last image loaded at Flickr Commons. See Luella Frances Smith (1859-1952) for a Wikidata entry for someone pictured in the collection. --RAN (talk) 17:41, 29 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I just feel that unless there is a cat called, say: "Photographs from Bain News Service" then you will continue to have the Admin chore of clearing out unwanted extras in the studio cat. Broichmore (talk) 13:52, 2 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

We need your feedback![edit]

Hello. Apologies if this message is not in your native language: please feel free to respond in the language of your choice. Thank you!

I am writing to you because we are looking for feedback for a new Wikimedia Foundation project, Structured Data Across Wikimedia (SDAW). SDAW is a grant-funded programme that will explore ways to structure content on wikitext pages in a way that will be machine-recognizable and -relatable, in order to make reading, editing, and searching easier and more accessible across projects and on the Internet. We are now focusing on designing and building image suggestion features for experienced users.

We have some questions to ask you about your experience with uploading images here on Wikimedia Commons and then adding them to Wikipedia. You can answer these questions on a specific feedback page on Mediawiki, where we will gather feedback. As I said, these questions are in English, but your answers do not need to be in English! You can also answer in your own language, if you feel more comfortable.

Once the collecting of feedback will be over, we will sum it up and share with you a summary, along with updated mocks that will incorporate your inputs.

Also, if you want to keep in touch with us or you want to know more about the project, you can subscribe to our newsletter.

Hope to hear from you soon! -- Sannita (WMF) (talk to me!) 09:56, 2 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Methodologies[edit]

Wanted to be sure you were aware of the methodology described here, which you may find useful. DS (talk) 13:21, 24 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • @DragonflySixtyseven: Excellent! Do you also have a subscription to newspaper.com? Do you make an entry for the clipped article in Wikidata and transcribe at Wikisource? --RAN (talk) 14:17, 24 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • a) I do not - just take from Chronicling America and its affiliates. No possibility of licensing issues that way. b) Would that be relevant? What would be done, with, for instance, "The American Adventures of Marmaduke Squeezledene"? c) Mostly I just tag them as needing transcription because sometimes the captions can be quite bulky. DS (talk) 14:23, 24 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • @DragonflySixtyseven: Great work! I mostly work on obits. The list of papers that renewed copyright is available online, most small papers didn't spend the money to hire a lawyer to renew, so most are PD up to 1964. I have been adding copyright info on each paper to Wikidata and Commons. I am going to introduce new fields to contain "first copyrighted issue" and "first copyrighted article" to Wikidata soon. Check out Category:Jersey_Journal_articles where I write a blurb about copyright status for that publication. You can get a free account for Newspapers.com through Wikimedia. --RAN (talk) 15:18, 24 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • Can get a free NP account, but I've got so many other concurrent projects I'm not sure I could justify it to myself. DS (talk) 15:21, 24 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Dragsholm castle[edit]

In the note for Anders Örbom you are mentioning the destruction of Dragsholm castle and the battle of Seland. -That destruction actually happened around 1660 when the Swedes were leaving Denmark in the years after the Treaty of Roskilde. Have a read on da:Dragsholm Slot. -So what you are referring to as the battle of Seland in 1700 is probably en:Landing at Humlebæk which in the end resulted in the en:Peace of Travendal. -- Sturban (talk) 10:47, 10 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Pskov is Pleskow in archaic english and the "battle of Pitzur" would most probably be Battle of Petschora -- Sturban (talk) 11:11, 10 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
And the "battle of Lakowitz" is probably the siege of Lachowicze. -- Sturban (talk) 11:24, 10 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thanks again! I will make the changes and merge the duplicates. --RAN (talk) 14:36, 10 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

File:Charles Frederick Lindauer I (1836-1921), and others, as subjects of an article in the Jersey Journal of Jersey City, New Jersey on December 6, 1881.png[edit]

For File:Charles Frederick Lindauer I (1836-1921), and others, as subjects of an article in the Jersey Journal of Jersey City, New Jersey on December 6, 1881.png, the title says December 6, 1881 but the text inside says November 12, 1879. Is 1879 correct? Should I rename the file? -- Ricky81682 (talk) 09:53, 31 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • @Ricky81682: Let me double check, thanks for finding the contradiction. Fixed! I also added in the other info. --RAN (talk) 17:18, 31 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, you "have brought this up ... before"[edit]

Greetings Richard:

Our paths have been crossing a bit of late, but I do not understand why you seem to feel a need to lecture me about Commons process. I am a fifteen year contributor to Wikimedia Projects, administrator and bureaucrat, who has worked with deletions for a long time. I do not think I am in need of the mini-lectures and specific directions to my behavior you have offered lately on some deletion nominations. (E.g. Commons:Deletion requests/Files uploaded by Cadgepole Specifically "If you can take the time to nominate these images, you can take a few seconds more and read the conditions to be entered into the public domain in the county of creation. I think if you are clever enough to recognize there is a problem with the attribution and license, and have enough time to spend nominating, you have enough time to look at the license parameters and fix the problem. I have brought this up with you before. --RAN (talk) 02:29, 19 January 2022 (UTC)" [1]) and others.

"If you are clever enough" is not a particularly good reflection on the spirit of COM:AGF and not one that should be out in public as it only reflects badly on you. I do appreciate that you fixed the upload templates and licenses. You could have then said "Keep: Licenses and source now fixed, they were PD-whatever" and skipped the drama. In that particular case, the uploader had claimed all his uploads as "own work" - none were - several deletions resulted. I was hoping he would show up and I could help him learn how to do uploads that wouldn't get deleted. He hasn't shown up to help. Instead, what I get was a not particularly polite barb from a fellow contributor.

Most regular contributors are aware that Deletion Nominations are to discuss the issues with the images only. Lecturing the nominator of the deletion is outside the scope of the discussion, therefore I respectfully request that you consider the entire situation with the images first, then if you still feel like giving a lecture, then discuss your opinions of Commons procedure on the talk page of the person you feel needs is unaware. It might be a good idea to read their page too, so you know if a lecture is really in order. You might see something there that shows you why they do what they do - or not, but always read the talk page first! I do recall your prior lectures, but I am sure you know

  • COM:EVID requires the Uploader provide the source and COM:L for each image and
  • Commons has categories for "speedy," "no source," "no license" and other speedy deletions.

What you may not know is that I come across images while working in those categories and they fall into rough groups including:

  • I have deleted other parts of their upload galleries for problems.
  • Others have deleted most of their galleries and just left the problem images in the categories for deletion for "someone else to fix."
  • The uploader is new or inexperienced and think it is possible to save those images for the project instead of hitting "delete." If I can just fix it with what I am given, I do. I spend a lot of time researching, adding sources, and changing licenses - sometimes doing the work after the images are "deleted" and restoring them.
  • I think the image can be saved, but I do not have sufficient information to confidently make changes, the data for which is required from the uploader under COM:EVID, I nominate.
  • I think the uploader has potential and I wish to establish dialog to help them stay with the project in an effective manner. (This is the category which seems to offend you the most.)

In addition to keeping procedural issues on the talk pages, I request you take a wholistic approach whenever you feel like lecturing me - or anyone else on the project - as to why we nominated images instead of just hitting the "delete" which was already earned by not abiding by the few simple rules at COM:EVID. Particularly in my case, I do not encounter images or uploaders until after they've been sent to some speedy process, so you can always assume that there is/was already a problem with their uploads. I am sure you remember the new uploader who was so upset and challenged me to go after his other 50 uploads. If you check the history of his uploads, I had fixed all of them except the ones which did not have enough information to fix. As in his case, I have found over the years, that sending something to deletion may occasionally result in the uploader reappearing and helping to save the images - some of them even learn the process along the way and become awesome contributors. Unless you look, you have no idea of the history to the moment of the nomination - it would be better to come to my talk page and ask "why did you do that" than to lecture your opinion as fact on the nomination.

My focus is not - and has never been - on "how many images can I delete" because I am more interested in saving the images which can be saved. In other words, most of these were slam dunk deletes that I am hoping to save. I am sorry you have a problem with saving images for which there is insufficient information - or incorrect information - provided by the uploader in the template, but please keep the procedurals to the talk pages and we can argue this all out forever without confusing new uploaders seeing people argue about pins with or without angels dancing on them. As you are younger than me, I hope you understand the reference if not, please see en:wiki How many angels can dance on the head of a pin?

Looking forward to future productive dialog on issues not personalities. Cheers! Ellin Beltz (talk) 18:28, 21 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Your second warning on this topic is at Commons:Deletion requests/File:La porallée en 1230.jpg. Ellin Beltz (talk) 02:01, 26 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Richard_Arthur_Norton_(1958-_)&oldid=624559996"