I find the Cuban copyright page extremely confusing. I mean by that, does - "The period of validity of the copyright in a work created by a procedure analogous to that of the photograph, or on a work of the applied arts, extends to twenty-five years from the use of the work" - mean that the term for a photograph is 25 years? And then there is this "Photographs are in the public domain in the United States if first published in Cuba without compliance with US copyright formalities and used in Cuba before 20 February 1972". Does that mean that they had no mark and weren't copyrighted in the US? What I have found are:
Group Photo 1952, p 1. I don't see any copyright mark on the page 1 masthead, nothing on the publishing notice on page 2 either. It says it was made by "Foto Raú", but a google search doesn't tell me anything about that studio. The photograph was first published in Cuba and I find no photographs of her whatsoever in any time period published in newspapers.com, newspaperarchive.com, or the LOC Chronicling America collection. The 1952 US copyright catalog for artwork shows no registration for Foto Rau or Raú or Noticias de Hoy and the periodicals doesn't either.
Microphone photo 1960 p 7. I don't see any copyright mark on the page 1 masthead, nothing on the publishing notice on page 4 either. As per above search no photos in US newspapers. Neither the 1960 US catalog for Artwork or Periodicals shows anything for Noticias de Hoy.
I apologize, but am not sure which of the photos in the 1952 link you want. Is she the leftmost of the two female speaker images in the middle of the page? Or do you just want the top image of a dozen or so women? (And if so, which one is she?) --GRuban (talk) 16:56, 2 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I like the last one for the lede photo. On the other one she is indeed the leftmost woman in the middle of the page. I'd like it, but also the top one "Congreso de FDMC" if that's possible. SusunW (talk) 17:08, 2 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Candelaria Rodríguez at FDMC Second Congress.jpg
cropped
FDMC Second Congress
Uploaded. Where in the newspaper does it say that this is her, though? I admit it might be, it looks similar to the other image, but since neither one is the clearest... --GRuban (talk) 20:43, 2 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Look at the very last sentence above "Foto Raú". It says "En el centro, una vista de la masa asistente [illegible word]. Más abajo, las oradoras Dra. Candelaria Rodríguez y la Dra. Caridad Sánchez". Basically in the lower photo Rodríguez and Sánchez. SusunW (talk) 21:37, 2 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I am working on a series of biographies on African women and am hoping you can help me with photos. Ruth Neto and her sister-in-law Maria Eugénia Neto are both still living. As the sister and wife of Angola's first president, it seems to me that having their photographs would be extremely beneficial for the encyclopedia. Sources say Ruth has not been in the best of health for the last few years, but "Jenny" is globe trotting. Since she is a writer I wonder if a publisher could get us in touch with her to get photos of them both? I also know that Jenny's daughter Irene Alexandra Neto lives in Lisbon and possibly could help. Any help you can give will be greatly appreciated. SusunW (talk) 22:27, 13 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
And if I haven't already imposed on you too much, what is the status of UN photos? I just finished Marcela Pérez de Cuéllar who served two terms as first lady of the UN. There are photos of her on their website and perhaps there might be photos on the US government site of the infamous luncheon? SusunW (talk) 18:12, 16 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I couldn't find any free images of them either. Drat! On the facebook page for Fundação Dr. António Agostinho Neto it gives an email "fundagostinhoneto@gmail.com", but I have no idea if it works? I like this one of Pérez de Cuéllar and her husband, but who is the dude on the right? I thought there might be images in the presidential collections, but wasn't sure. Thank you SOOOOOO much for helping. I appreciate you. SusunW (talk) 17:41, 17 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Marcela Pérez de Cuéllar speaks at the United Nations in 1987
Marcela Pérez de Cuéllar with Nancy Reagan speaking at the United Nations in 1987
1987 Reagan Trip to New York, Nancy Reagan attending private lunch hosted by Marcela Perez de Cuellar
Got the last image (though now see it might not be as useful as I thought). You'll need to click through to see it at full magnification for its full glory. At first I thought the upper right hand image would be perfect, but now see our subject has her eyes closed. The three in the second row center could be good, if we can figure out who the short blonde lady in the checked coat is; I don't think it's either Leonora Annenberg or Helena Shultz, but could be wrong. One more reason you might like one of these is that they're by Mary Anne Fackelman, first ever female White House photographer. --GRuban (talk) 21:53, 17 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
These are great and I'd love to have photos by Fackelman! The green dress one is perfect for the lede. I had the same thought about the blond in the coat. Maybe someone on WIR will know? I am not good at identifying people by sight. I also like the one with the blue square around it which gives the whole group. I truly appreciate you and your skills. SusunW (talk) 15:10, 18 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It'd be lovely to know if any of them identify Maria Pia Fanfani. She looks like this p. 1 but I don't think I'll be able to use the US flipped version because it would be a derivative work first published abroad and not out of copyright. Sigh. SusunW (talk) 13:47, 19 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I finished Maria Pia Fanfani. I am thinking that if none of the white house photos can be identified as her I am probably going to have to go with fair use because of the time period in which she lived. SusunW (talk) 19:36, 20 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Ian found this lovely photo of Fanfani, which I don't know how to crop since it's already on WP. My concern is that it is marked author unknown and for the life of me, I cannot figure out then, how it can be CC 4.0 as who gave permission and regular copyright requires 70 years from publication, i.e. 70 + 1980 = 2050. The uploader seems to have found a photo album of pictures of Giuseppe Manacchini and uploaded all of them and then ceased to be active. But that said, can it be cropped and used as fair use even if it is on commons? SusunW (talk) 16:06, 23 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Nancy Reagan and Maria Pia Fanfani in Washington D.C. in 1981
Thank you. I wonder if either Perez de Cuellar or Fanfani have images in the George H. W. Bush collections too? I have no idea how you found these, but you are magic and I appreciate the help. SusunW (talk) 05:49, 24 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Madame Gasinzigwa Oda, President of the Rwanda National Women Council, at the Women’s Legal Rights Initiative conference, 2006
I've copied you in on an email I sent to her, as if she asks me any questions about adding a photo to her article I will likely not know the answer. I appreciate your magic. Hope all is well with you. SusunW (talk) 17:01, 7 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
You are magic. Sorry, I've been struggling lately with pretty severe allergies and have only been working a little bit each day. That and the million messages that are popping up on my watchlist because of that project to reconfigure all the WIR templates have made me miss a lot of messages. Just saw that you found this. I appreciate you. Don't suppose your magic could find images of Scholastica Kimaryo, Anne Shongwe or her sister-in-law of Susan Wakhungu-Githuku? Perhaps it is best to ping me until they finish this template project, at least. SusunW (talk) 16:17, 21 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
You are the best. Thank you sooooo much! I pinged you on the GA review on Gasinzigwa. All I found as other images were literally crap. LOL Mayhaps your magic will work better. SusunW (talk) 14:58, 22 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Stop doing COI work. Join the light side. We are your friends; not your corporate overlords. Consider it a failed experiment and move on. Polygnotus (talk) 14:01, 25 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I appreciate your friendship, but if you have the impression that I somehow "left" to become a primarily COI editor, I don't think you read that page you linked to. --GRuban (talk) 15:05, 25 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Polygnotus: That was unintentionally curt, sorry, I had a limited Internet connection. Let me expand, besides the explanation on the COI page you linked to. (I admit I had written specifically to explain just such questions, but I guess it didn't work; if you can explain why it didn't work, and how I could rephrase it so it does, that would be great!) Anyway, if you look above you on this talk page, you will see me helping out a much better and more prolific editor with her articles (I seem to have gotten good at finding free licensed images over my years here). If you check my talk page article archives, linked to above, last year's for example, or any of the several before that, you will see that has been going on for some time. If you check that same Wikimedia Commons page I link to, you'll see I found and uploaded just under 1000 images in 2023, for other people's articles, as I come across them. No different. No move to any dark side. But if you ask about articles, I guess that's less clear, but only because I'm not a very fast editor. In the 16 or so years I've been here, I've been the primary author of just over 100 real articles. Here are the last 5, all in 2023:
(Come to mention it, it's early 2024, and it's about time to write another; I have some ideas, but not actualized yet.) No change to any dark side. I wrote them because I ran across news about them in one way or another, realized they didn't have Wikipedia articles, and thought they would qualify; be interesting; and be fun to write. I write articles strictly for that reason. Any COI makes them more difficult to write, which does, I admit, reduce the fun, but no less - or more - inherent interest. OK? Again, thanks for your interest and concern - and nice to meet you! I could always use more wiki-friends. --GRuban (talk) 02:30, 26 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Your articles are a joy to read, and well-written and researched.
Only a sociopath could write a neutral article in an dry dispassionate impartial encyclopedic tone about something he/she cares about. You are clearly not a sociopath.
What makes this worse, in the case of Kessel Run, is that this success-story was created for political/commercial/PR reasons and has little to do with reality.
The claimed justification for the hype, that they introduced agile to the DoD, is not true (and not supported by sources). But even if that was the case it would not justify the hype because everyone was using agile & scrum at that time. Something like the Fast Company will publish any press release you throw at it, provided you have enough money. "Smaller team is faster and more flexible than giant bureaucratic corporation" is a great underdog story. It is also utterly banal.
Usually I don't mind scrapping and rewriting parts of an article when its badly written/sourced, but here that feels almost like vandalism. Like demolishing part of something you like.
Problem is, the article isn't great, even though it is well-written, and in an ideal world it would be returned to draft status and rewritten by someone who doesn't care about the topic and does not believe in the hype.
Aww, that's wonderful! OK, that's another reason I write articles, to hear that they bring someone joy. Thank you so much!
But I'm not sure for the reason for what seems to be your main objection, that Kessel Run did not essentially introduce agile software development to the DoD, despite the extensive references. Why do you think so? Your own knowledge? If so, I'm afraid we aren't able to write articles based on that. We are supposed to write articles based on reliable sources. And the sources aren't just Fast Company, [1] though that is the first and probably the greatest used single source in the article, there is also the second one, the NPR article,[2] which is only slightly smaller, and says exactly the same story, and the many, many other reliable sources in the article, like the 3rd one, the MIT paper, also generally considered a very respected reliable source ... I'm just going down the list of references in the article now. And there are 74 of them. And they do all say essentially that same thing. I can't vouch that it's true personally, I wasn't there in 2016, I was at either Microsoft or Google then, I had only been at Kessel Run a few months when I wrote most of the article, and have been there less than a year now. I can, however, tell you that Kessel Run goes deeper into Agile than either Microsoft or Google, stricter sprint periods, more formal scrums, formal pair programming, less upfront design. And I can also tell you that in the months I've spent there, that the old guard at the DoD is still, even now, fighting tooth and nail against it, as multiple higher ups that get brought in from the Air Force military and civilians have been regularly trying to cut away at bits and pieces of the culture, get back into big design upfront, enough so that I would not be surprised if it were only a hollow shell of its original premise soon. Really. But, again, all that's just me. We at Wikipedia aren't supposed to write articles from personal experience, only from sources, and all the sources do say that same thing, which is why I wrote it that way. I did look, honest. You can see that in the history of the article, I found the sources first, and wrote the text from what they said.
Ah, you can see that there, the first source I used for the first text I wrote wasn't any of Fast Company, or NPR, or MIT, it was The Boston Globe, and it says "Typically, it can take five years for a branch of the US military to develop and deploy new software. The Air Force-Pivotal team built the refueling app in four months."[3] That's what the sources say, all of them, in their own words each time, but basically that same thing, every time, so unless we find better sources saying different, that's what we have to say. I could not find sources saying different, and I looked. Hard. I would welcome a partner in finding those sources. Please.
You may also have a philosophical objection to anyone writing WP:COI articles. Which is certainly a point of view, but it is not our, Wikipedia, policy, which allows it, though making it difficult with many hoops to jump through. Which hoops I tried really hard to jump through! (I imagine that's because people thought that if it were banned outright, it would still happen, just this time without the writers revealing their COI. In any case, that's what the policy is.) Or maybe you're just saying, I, George, should not write COI articles because I, personally, am terrible at it. In which case, ouch. I guess I can't say much about that except that I do the best I can, and in my opinion at least, whatever that's worth, Kessel Run is a solid B-class article, as much so as any of the other solid B-class articles that I've been writing in the past few years and list on my user page. --GRuban (talk) 14:00, 26 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Polygnotus: All that said, I will be happy to address the specific issues you seem to mention, one at a time. Since I can't edit the page, I'll suggest things, and you'll need to put them in. We won't reach "perfect", but that's not the standard; hopefully we'll meet halfway. Thanks! --GRuban (talk) 21:55, 26 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
What I am saying is that you should not write COI articles because you are good at writing articles and I feel bad when I have to remove parts of a well written article because of undue weight, pov, lack of proper sourcing and attribution, promo et cetera.
Which exact quotes from the Fast Company, NPR and MIT links do you think support the claim that Kessel Run introduced agile software development to the DoD (more than 15 years after the Agile Manifesto)?
I know about WP:NOTTRUTH but I also know you are not stupid.
When you started the article you were already working there. It would really surprise me if you did not know when you read some sources before writing the article that this was going to look bad for a COI editor because all the sources are extremely positive. It is surprising to me that you decided to go through with it; it is clearly a notable topic so someone without a COI would've written it anyway.
Every code monkey knows that the hype surrounding agile & scrum is 95% cargo cult and the remaining 5% is based on plagiarism or common sense.
You also know that these stories were planted in the media for a reason.
Those media companies aren't going to send a jaded senior dev to debunk the claims made; they just publish what amounts to little more than a press release. Journalists are underpaid and spread thin so they don't have time to do serious research and they lack the decades of experience in IT required to ask the hard questions and discover what is actually happening. People in IT can fool any journalist with Star Trek level techno-babble.
The DoD employs quite a few people, including 100,000 software devs. I know that you know that the DoD was familiar with agile before 2017; no matter what the press releases/planted "news" articles say. Am I wrong? Before you answer, google it and you'll find documents like 1, 2,
3,
4,
5,
6,
7,
8,
9,
10. Polygnotus (talk) 02:37, 28 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you! I admit it, compliments are nice, and I'm floating on air here. Great to meet you! Want me to find an image for a Wikipedia article for you? Can't guarantee, my "hit rate" is only about 10-20%, but that's not nothing, will gladly try! May even write an article on a Wikipedia-notable topic for you, if you want, though as above, I'm slow. But, anyway, time to come back to earth.
"Introduced" doesn't mean "DoD, this is Agile, Agile this is DoD, shake hands". It means "added to the system from another place": https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/introduced; https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/introduce#English, meaning 3. It doesn't mean the DoD hadn't ever heard of Agile. It means the DoD wasn't using Agile in any reasonable way before Kessel Run. I'm sure many hackers in the DoD had heard of Agile, played with it in their spare time, maybe even used it before coming to the DoD; they just didn't use it in the DoD at any level anyone decided was worth writing about. The DoD has also heard of catapults, and war elephants, and longbows, but it isn't using them at any reasonable scale. Many military have historical weapons as their hobby, so I'm quite sure there is a military engineer setting up a catapult somewhere for fun, and several soldiers shooting longbows at targets in their spare time, and yet if a US Army troop starts officially using catapults and longbows or riding on war elephants in combat, not just as a hobby, people will also consider that very notable and will write about that!
Specific quotes that Kessel Run essentially introduced the multiple modern software industry practices generally referred to as "Agile" to the DoD, which hadn't really been using them before, are basically throughout the sources, on nearly every page.
Fast Company "...But can’t you just go fix this? And the answer was basically, no.” ... Standard DoD procedure requires systems like the AOC software to be competitively bid, and for the winning contractor to design, build, certify, and test the entire system before delivering it to users—and then to go through the entire process again each time any appreciable amount of code needed to be changed."
"The latest in U.S. Air Force technological advances can be found in an unlikely place: the WeWork coworking space on Portland Street in downtown Boston. "
" “Four months from start to in production, in use in combat operations,” Oti says. The average DoD software project takes almost three years, according to a recent study."
"The name Kessel Run has now become part of a culture that the team’s leaders knew would have to differ markedly from how the military normally does business. ... “we have these natural tendencies around command-and-control style organization, and we need the exact opposite of that.” In addition to the name, the team chose a hashtag for its project that is a nod to both agile software development, and the fact that Kessel Run’s culture is more startup than strictly military: #agileAF"
"That’s nothing more than best practices for modern software development, but at the DoD, such agility would normally be impossible. Specifications commonly take years to write and then more years to deliver on before code can even be tested in the field—often making systems obsolete by the time they’re delivered. “The DoD violates pretty much every rule in modern product development,” Schmidt told U.S. Congress recently." (Note that's Eric Schmidt there, chairman of Google, not benefiting from the KR project in any way, and often considered rather knowledgeable on modern software development projects. Also, of course, one of the wealthiest people in the country, so not someone who can be influenced by any amount of money that could be conceivably thrown around by a small military detachment's public relations department.)
NPR (click the Transcript button, hamburger-ish menu to the right) "He gives me this example. ... Look, there has been no progress in nine months. We could have built, deployed and had this thing scaled across your whole enterprise in, like, a month. This is just not going anywhere. And quite frankly, after the 10th meeting, we just stopped taking meetings. The Pentagon was just too hard of a customer."
"Enrique leads them into an office unlike any Air Force office Steve has ever been to. ... Beyond the blue hair, he sees a team that's doing so much less advanced planning and so much more just making things and patching up vulnerabilities quickly. WERT: And it took me, I would say, less than an hour to realize that this is what we should be doing for software, not what the Department of Defense have been doing for many, many years. LAWRENCE: He was sold. He went back to his air base a convert. WERT: Two weeks later, I'm back here in the office, and a software program's in front of me telling me, we're going to do a year or two of development followed by a year or two of tests. And four years from now, we'll deliver something. And my answer was, no, we're not going to do it that way anymore."
"And Kessel Run has inspired spinoffs in other parts of the Air Force and other branches of the military. Steve Wert now runs Kessel Run, and when people from the Pentagon come to visit, he's the one who gives them the tour.... And then, invariably, those tech tourists leave, and they don't necessarily support the budget. Kessel Run's been nearly zeroed out a couple times. WERT: That's the frustrating thing, is realizing how much visibility it's getting and how supportive senior leaders are versus the sort of budget process. That disconnect is frustrating. LAWRENCE: The old way of acquiring software is still the norm in the military. That disconnect between the military and Big Tech...OTI: I'll be honest - I don't think we've crossed that divide yet."
That last thing - it's something I've seen personally in the last months, as I wrote a few days ago, just above. Not only is KR's agile strategy innovative in the military, it may well not be around forever, there is noticeable ongoing pushback from the military higher-ups. But, back to the sources:
MIT paper page 3 "...‘Kessel Run,’ the U.S. Air Force’s novel approach to software acquisition, which resulted in a hybrid acquisitions and internal software operations capable organization. In short, Kessel Run began acquiring and internally building software solutions using modern industry practices. Kessel Run adopted methods and practices that MIT refers to as stages of experimentation, including agile principles, user�centered design (UCD), lean product management, and DevOps."
page 6-7 "This research illustrates the struggle of the Air Force’s predominantly waterfall acquisition methodology.16 Its rigid, requirements-based approach often results in solutions and systems that do not meet their original intent, or are no longer fit for purpose. More ‘agile’ techniques are better designed for rapid software development."
"The story of ‘Kessel Run’ is also about how tackling one small operational element (in this case refuelling as part of wider air operations) can introduce innovation – even if only of a little ‘i’ type – and expose an organization to new ways of doing things, changing the organization, its staff and its ‘culture’. "
That last bit even uses "introduce". But if that word, "introduced", is what troubles you, and you want to change it to something that says "made it so that the USAF starting using Agile modern software development at any reasonable scale", without also having the "handshaking" meaning, please do. I couldn't think of another single word that means that other than "introduced", but maybe you can.
Or, if you want to write a section that says "However, other sources say the DOD used Agile before", using the sources you found, feel free to do so. You're right, I didn't find them, because I was looking for "Kessel Run", and those sources don't mention it. I do notice that they each say "DoD now using Agile" and they are over a span of years, and don't really mention each other, so I suspect they may have all been test projects that went nowhere. The military is known for doing that. But, again, that's not a reason to put a bias tag on the Kessel Run article because there are sources that disagree, that's a reason to write the alternate point of view into the article. That's what we do at Wikipedia when there is a disagreement, we write what the sources say, all the sources. --GRuban (talk) 18:41, 28 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
No, we write what reliable sources say.
They didn't introduce agile to the DoD; at most you can say they used it. But that is not a bragworthy achievement to include in the lead section.
That is 8,900 bytes in response to 2 pretty simple questions I know that you know that the DoD was familiar with agile before 2017; no matter what the press releases/planted "news" articles say. Am I wrong?
and Which exact quotes from the Fast Company, NPR and MIT links do you think support the claim that Kessel Run introduced agile software development to the DoD (more than 15 years after the Agile Manifesto)?
I don't like WP:WEASEL words (e.g. "essentially introduced" which is a very weird way of saying "didn't").
It means the DoD wasn't using Agile in any reasonable way before Kessel Run. That's not how the average reader would interpret that sentence. And it is also incorrect, the 10 sources I posted are clear about that. If you wanted to make that claim you would've googled it.
FC, NPR and MIT also do not claim that KR introduced Agile to the DoD. I had read those sources before asking for the quotes, so I knew you would not be able to provide me with quotes that support the claim you made in the article.
want to write a section that says "However, other sources say the DOD used Agile before" No, that is not how it works. The reason I asked you is because I wanted you to confirm that you knew you were writing something that is not true and not supported by the sources you mentioned. Thank you, Polygnotus (talk) 19:03, 28 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
OK. Do you agree that the sources say that the Pentagon was not using Agile? And that Kessel Run used Agile? And that this was the KR secret sauce, the KR golden bullet, the KR value added, the KR overused mixed metaphor? --GRuban (talk) 22:03, 28 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'm pretty damn nitpicky with sourcing (can you tell?) and I believe the only creative license we have is avoiding copyright problems by reordering words a bit as long as the meaning stays the exact same. The sources I've read say that the DoD used agile before KR existed. There is no evidence to believe that agile was KRs secret sauce. "Smaller team is faster and more flexible than giant bureaucratic corporation" is a great underdog story. It is also utterly banal. As a code monkey, I know not to trust "%current buzzword% gave me superpowers". Polygnotus (talk) 22:12, 28 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Unfortunately, you'll have a strict disagreement from the plagiarism enforcers on your first sentence. They will specifically say that reordering words is still a violation. But OK. Give me a few days (I'm slow) and I will try to come up with an alternative phrasing that includes the first two statements, and strict source for the third, and we'll see if we can reach agreement. --GRuban (talk) 22:58, 28 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I cut this article in half and I didn't feel bad because the article was not well-written. But I feel bad when I criticize and scrap a bunch of text on a well-written article because I know how demoralising it can be when someone takes an axe to something you worked hard on.
Perhaps a bizarre counterproposal but, instead of trying to "undo the damage" I've done (aka the improvements I made), we could work together to get rid of everything that could even remotely be considered promotional and create a boring but well-sourced and factually correct article. There are already quite a few webpages trying to promote KR. Polygnotus (talk) 23:59, 28 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Sure, give it a shot. (When I say I'm slow, that could also be pronounced "lazy"!) As you know, my COI means I have severe issues editing the article, so if you go and delete things, I can't very well revert you. I do admit, I would prefer it if you kept in the funny parts - the agileAF (did you notice that's not just a double but a triple meaning?), the "never name child Alice" - but that's just me, they probably aren't that necessary to the article as such. Among the articles I enjoyed writing most of all are Cthulhu for President, and Chaz Stevens, because they were inherently funny; I didn't need to look for humor, I just told the facts straight and they were funny. Well, I think they're funny; many of my best friends think I'm just strange. (It's also not at all the request of my "corporate overlords" - who are, of course, not corporate but military overlords, and so notoriously lack any sense of humor; and honestly, they don't care that much about the article, no one has mentioned it to me in months.) Anyway, take out what you need to take out to make you feel comfortable removing the promotional tags, and if there's something that truly rips at my soul, I'll say, and maybe we'll work it out. At worst, I'll say "so it goes". The offer to help you with an article you are interested in still stands; it's not a bribe as much as a recognition that you're a well meaning fellow editor, even if you do sacrifice my deathless prose. --GRuban (talk) 02:39, 29 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Code monkeys are never lazy, we spend days automating tasks that could be done in a couple of hours. I am also working on another article Efrat (organization) and it is so deeply unfunny that it may be wise to collaborate on something patafysical after that. Do you have anything in mind that is funnier than the Chair Force? Polygnotus (talk) 10:21, 29 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Looking at the "Background"-section; it is basically just dunking on the competition right? If that information should be on Wikipedia, it should be elsewhere ("company x sucks" should not be on company y's article). Do you agree that that section can be removed? If not, what information do you think should be preserved? Can we replace it with, for example, "Kessel Run started as an aerial refueling management application which was developed by a joint Air Force Defense Innovation Unit and Pivotal Software team starting in 2016."? Polygnotus (talk) 22:42, 4 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
No; that's the origin of the company, and basically the interesting part of the story. You'll notice the two main sources, Fast Company and NPR, are basically that story, it would be out of proportion to the sources (WP:UNDUE) to remove that section. There is no "company X sucks", because there is no "company X" unless you mean the Defense Department, which KR is part of. Both Lockheed Martin and Northrop Grumman are mentioned once only, this is not about them. --GRuban (talk) 23:28, 4 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The interesting part of the story is about when Kessel Run did not exist? We can't start every article at the Big Bang/creation. It makes more sense to start an article when its subject starts existing.
"A Northrop Grumman project to modernize AOC software was commissioned in 2013 for $374 million for development, and $3.5 billion for lifetime maintenance.[4] By 2016, when the Defense Innovation Board was touring Al Udeid, nothing had been delivered.[2] The development price eventually grew to $745 million, and was three years behind schedule, with an estimated launch date of December 2019, when the project was eventually cancelled in July 2017.[4]" is dunking on Northrop Grumman, a company in direct competition with Pivotal Software, right? Polygnotus (talk) 23:31, 4 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Pivotal Software is not Kessel Run. Kessel Run is an Air Force department: it is made of Air Force military, Air Force civilians, and contractors, in vaguely equal proportions. Out of the three groups, the contractors often last the shortest period, as is the way of contractors. Pivotal is a private software development company that happened to be the first contractors, and that trained the first KR military coders, but it could have been any of a number of software development companies; as you yourself write, in 2016 there were plenty of Agile "code monkey" companies. For what it's worth, I don't know any current Pivotal contractors at Kessel Run, though possibly there still are some; there are quite a few contracting companies supplying contractors there now. GRuban (talk) 00:06, 5 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
If you want to remove the words "Northrop Grumman" and replace them with "large defense contractor", go ahead. Or "Pivotal Software" with "smaller California software company". I still think being more specific is better, but given the circumstances, am not going to (or able to) fight to the death to keep either company name. --GRuban (talk) 01:44, 5 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
That's because the sources didn't say that! I write from the sources. You will, however, note that in the beginning it starts about the tooth decay qualities of other lollipops and in the middle it gets to where Zollipops are the most popular Lollipops on Amazon in various categores. Because that's what the sources say! Also, I must say, sucking is exactly the point of lollipops. --GRuban (talk) 00:09, 5 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The point is that we should start the article when its subject starts existing. And we shouldn't use an article about X to make Y look bad. Polygnotus (talk) 00:14, 5 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
First part, absolutely not. Could not disagree more. An article about the United States that doesn't start before 1789 is a criminal disservice to the reader. Or even 1776. Ours (checks the link) starts in 11,000 BC! Go try and delete that part, see how far you get!
Second part, somewhat agree, except that we shouldn't use the article about Y to make Y look bad either. We shouldn't write articles with the intent of making anyone look bad. Or good! We should write articles to tell what the world knows about X primarily; hopefully in a way that will be interesting to read, secondarily; and to get to have fun ourselves, tertiarily (this is a volunteer project, after all, we do this because we enjoy it). Whether what the world knows about Y makes them look bad, or good, we should still write that. --GRuban (talk) 02:06, 5 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The AgileAF section can basically be replaced with "By April 2017, the aerial refueling tanker application, named Jigsaw, was in use at the CAOC. The total cost was reported at $1.5 million.", right? If you really want to we can mention that they use agile of course, but in a neutrally worded way. Something like "The speed of development was credited to the Agile software development process" is fine I think. What do you think? Polygnotus (talk) 22:47, 4 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The name "Kessel Run" came from a line in the 1977 film Star Wars, and represented the project's intent to "smuggle" new software development capability into the Air Force and use it to set new speed records.
That is basically taking out the most interesting part of the story, which is what the sources focus on. That's like taking article I wrote about Alina Morse and removing the part that she was a kid when she founded her company. That's like taking the article I wrote about Modest Stein and taking out the part about his anarchism. That's like taking the article about the assassination of Abe Lincoln (I assume we have one?) and focusing on the play. --GRuban (talk) 23:34, 4 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
If a source talks about all animals, and our article is about one animal, we have to stick to the part of the source that actually deals with the subject of the article, right? Fast Company can write about whatever it wants to, as an encyclopedia we are more limited in that aspect. The text in the article has to be about the subject of the article. Polygnotus (talk) 23:38, 4 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Which important and relevant information do you think is missing from the proposal above (as a replacement of those 2 sections)? Polygnotus (talk) 23:58, 4 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
All of it! The part about what's-his-name, the Google bigwig, touring the CAOC with a bunch of other software bigwigs and being met with guys in a room with a whiteboard and rulers and magnets. The part where they tell him "yes we have more modern software - but it doesn't work". The part that they wrote code in a few months that paid for itself in a few weeks, as opposed to code that did not succeed after years and the expenditure of millions. The part that they took their name and motivation from a (arguably the) fan favorite sci fi movie. That's the interesting part. Honestly the projects since then were fine, but downright paled relative to that.
Yes, it's a David and Goliath story; and the reason that is such a metaphor is that is the interesting part of the story about King David. The part about him maneuvering against Saul and then running the country is boring, and the part about him becoming a nasty raping, murdering SOB is downright sad. The KR hasn't hit the sad part yet, thank goodness, but it's well on the way to the boring part. We still need to write the boring part, but we shouldn't take out the interesting part. Because the sources don't. It is our job to write the truth, as related by reliable sources, in proportion to those sources. It is not our job to cherry pick them to be exciting, but it is similarly not our job to cherry pick them to be boring.
Anyway, there is only so much I can do, as I wrote, I can't actually edit the article any more. If you rip its guts out, the most I can do is start an RfC or something, and honestly I don't know if I will even have the energy to do that. I have started to hack on the article you pointed to Efrat (organization), and will continue to do that whatever you choose, because it's not a quid pro quo, but because you are a well intentioned Wikipedia editor, whether or not you agree with me about KR, and because the Efrat article needs help, and because that's what I do here, I try to make articles just a little better to my limited ability. Do what you have to do. Thank you, friend. GRuban (talk) 00:38, 5 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah I am working on Efrat (as you can tell from the talkpage), and I was hoping to just copypaste my version over the current one because it is far from perfect, so maybe we can collaborate on something else; something more fun? Do you have any proposals for a lighthearted article? For example, something like Oakland Buddha. Polygnotus (talk) 00:41, 5 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Eh - Oakland Buddha seems pretty nice already, I don't see much improving that can be done without taking it to GA or something else that I'm not sure I could manage; I'm not that good a writer. Efrat (organization) seems like it would be much easier to improve, it's got short sections, repetitive sections, citation needed tags, debatable sources for obviously controversial issues - a fertile field on which improvements will be clearly noticeable. Can you read Hebrew? To my Rebbitzin's lasting sorrow, I can't any more, so I'm stuck with reading English sources, which seem to mostly be American Christian Religious and/or Conservative, which are less than ideal for obvious bias reasons. But better than nothing, and there are a number of English language Israeli papers. Are you doing a complete rewrite somewhere that I can't see? If so, point me to it, and I can try to make changes there instead of in mainspace. As you prefer. As before, fair warning, I can be slow. This is a hobby, I do it when I get around to it... --GRuban (talk) 01:04, 5 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, when I first read it it was so bad that I have started an entire rewrite from scratch in a MediaWiki install in Docker. I will try to find something fun to write for us. Unfortunately I cannot read Hebrew, but I can read Dutch which is nearly as impressive (I am sure your Rebbitzin agrees with me here). I have found a SPARQL query that can be used to find articles that don't exist here but do exist in other languages so I might be able to use that to find us a decent topic. I'll let you know when and if I find something. Polygnotus (talk) 01:11, 5 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
If you want me to help on your rewrite, put it on Wikipedia somewhere, either Draft space or your User space, and I will help. I normally use my User space for something like that which is not ready for prime time. Here are two articles I'm currently working on like that:
Both are Magic: The Gathering players I ran into a few days ago at the second gaming convention I've ever been to, and asked, "Would you mind if I took a photo of you for Wikipedia?" I've written one previous MtG article like that (with her and her Dad's permission of course): Dana Fischer She's not nearly as much of a champion, but actually has more reliable third party sources writing about her, because, no offense to the champs, the reliable sources likely thought her story was more interesting. I certainly did. --GRuban (talk) 01:52, 5 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Sure, as you like. Seems a singularly appropriate subject for peace making! Again, I urge doing it in User or Draft space here; Wikipedia is a fine place to do collaborative editing. --GRuban (talk) 02:29, 5 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Are you sure that "handjes" means "little hands", and not just "hands"? I mean, I'll trust you as a human speaker, but automatic translations all say just "hands", as well as most English language sources I've found.
I can accept that Albert could be Albertus, that seems perfectly likely. But 1871-1842 doesn't easily translate into 1806-1838. So I think we should remove the 1871-1842 dates from our article (and possibly even the 1808-1892; even though we're pretty sure of those, putting them in for one brother but not the other seems unbalanced). I think we should leave the brothers' names in, since the fact that he married the sister whose brothers were recently trying to kill him is a notable line. --GRuban (talk) 00:18, 12 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I think the birth and death date of Felix can be replaced with 1806-1838, those make sense in the context of his brothers DOB and are from reliable sources. I am emailing the municipal archive to have them fix the mistake. I wanted to email the guy who wrote the article but he is very old so I am not sure I can contact him by email. Polygnotus (talk) 00:25, 12 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
This confirms that Albert Pierre Joseph received the "kruis van de Leopoldsorde" (transl: cross of the Leopoldsorde) because of his war service at the head of his regiment in August 1831, in Belgian service. He also raised an army of volunteers, and paid for their weaponry, outfit/gear and salaries.
Plot twist, it was Felix Hendrik Johannes Hubertus van Aefferden, born Roermond may 24th 1811, 1st luitenant artillery, died in Uccle October 29th 1842. Polygnotus (talk) 03:14, 12 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Uploaded the death notice. Where's the source for Felix's birth/death dates? I can believe the OCR error, and we can put them back if we have a source. Other than that, I think we're mostly done - I can't see much of anything we should really add, can you? Maybe one more pass over all the sources from all the other language Wikis? --GRuban (talk) 01:57, 21 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'll take a quick look to see if there is anything we missed. The archives are massive and I keep getting distracted by juicy details (e.g. "Documents regarding Alexander Scott's request to ensure the release of the adult Ernestine van Aefferden and to instruct her father to grant him access to her, 1782-1783.").
If you Google you'll find a bunch of usergenerated content, but I found the source they use: Nederland's adelsboek page 71:
The last sentence of the first alinea ("divided after death") and the last sentence of the article ("connection between the spouses across the boundaries") seem to contradict eachother a bit (they don't, but seem to). Let's emphasize the connection. Polygnotus (talk) 06:56, 21 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Cropped and re-credited. What does "gep. Kolonel." mean there? Kolonel means Colonel, his title, but Google translate didn't handle the "gep." abbreviation. GRuban (talk) 16:13, 21 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
"gepensioneerd" (retired). In English you would use (ret.). "Uit aller naam" is literally "in the name of all", I used "On behalf of everyone" because that felt closer to what a modern speaker would say. Polygnotus (talk) 01:25, 22 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I think this is "done", in the sense that nothing is ever done and certainly not on Wikipedia. But I believe we can release it into the mainspace. Polygnotus (talk) 14:53, 22 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Polygnotus: Doing final cleanup. I think I got everything you asked for, restored brothers full names and dates, please take a look that the last sentence of the lead about "after death" is good, if not, please fix it. I am going down all the sources listed in all the other language Wikipedia versions, and found this one https://libreriamo.it/societa/lamore-e-piu-forte-di-tutto-religione/ in Italian. It has a couple of colorful details that I would love to put in, but am worried that I don't see elsewhere
that their house was set on fire and their dog killed
that the two clasped hands were actually commissioned by the Catholic parish priest, at his own expense.
I don't know how reliable Libreriamo is, since these are very juicy details, that would seem strange not to mention if true. What do you think, should we use this? --GRuban (talk) 19:13, 25 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'm just going to push it live now, without the Libreriamo source. Feel free to edit further. Also, I would like to nominate it for WP:DYK, since it is an interesting article. Any ideas for a hook? "...that the Grave with the Hands marks a married couple joined across different cemeteries?" "... divided by society and religion, clasping hands after death?" --GRuban (talk) 22:04, 25 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I searched for their last name and the word "hond" (dog), the word viervoeter (quadruped), and various words relating to fire (vuur, fik, brand, brandstichting, afgebrand et cetera) but I can't find the source for those claims. In the same article another claim is made, Between the 4th and 6th centuries, all of Europe was invaded by the barbarians, and the Celtic-German-Roman peoples of the Netherlands were replaced by the Franks, Frisian and the Saxons. which is not something that actually happened. We were, and are, barbarians (they used that word to refer to basically all foreigners). Only the southern half of the Netherlands was incorporated into the Roman Empire. Demographic shifts certainly did happen of course. It is also a bit vague what Libreriamo actually is, but it is something similar to a webzine. Unfortunately I think we need to err on the side of caution and not use it. For reasons beyond my understanding my library card is blocked (despite not having any outstanding fines) so I will try to get it unblocked and ask if I can borrow "Dood, maar niet vergeten" (Dead, but not forgotten) by John Vaessen (the local historian who wrote about this double grave). Polygnotus (talk) 09:16, 26 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
This family was rather rich and influental. Why would they need a priest to pay for (part of) their tombstones? It doesn't make sense. Priests don't spend their time upgrading tombstones. Polygnotus (talk) 10:47, 26 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I have requested the book but it may take a while because it is somewhere else in the country and the interlibrary loan system is down. Polygnotus (talk) 13:49, 26 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
That is really cool! I got the administrators of the municipal website to fix the mistake there. Feel free to take the credit, the hardest part of what I did was actually finding an interesting topic that did not have an article on the English Wikipedia. Polygnotus (talk) 21:14, 27 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I think it would be "on" not "in May 27, 2002". I would probably leave out the date when it was listed as a rijksmonument because the lead section is already pretty densely packed with information. Polygnotus (talk)
At first we are talking about "separating the Catholic from the Protestant part of a cemetery", and then we say "separate graveyards". I think it is one graveyard divided in sections. Polygnotus (talk) 21:32, 27 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Polygnotus: I'll get some of those, but you should probably just edit the article to make the changes you really care about, to do it right. In fact, can I ask you to cite the two sentences that User:BeanieFan11 is talking about in the DYK review, above there? I think you wrote them originally, presumably you had a source. I will do the second QPQ. Thanks! --GRuban (talk) 13:18, 29 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Did the second QPQ and sourced the two sentences as best I could with my lack of Dutch language and/or history knowledge. --GRuban (talk) 02:52, 5 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
You know I don't understand CC by whatever licenses, so I am hoping you can help. This image was uploaded in 2021 and the uploader says "own work". But that seems pretty impossible, since it was Nyirahabineza's official photo for the East African Legislative Assembly for her term from 2007 to 2012. I don't see any marking at all on the legislative site saying that it isn't copyrighted and while I cannot find out if the East African Community has a statute, Rwanda does. According to our commons page it's 50 years, which clearly hasn't lapsed. I know when you have people send photos you have them send an authorization somewhere but I have no idea where that is, nor any clue if there is a list somewhere to confirm that copyright has been released. If not, I'm thinking we really shouldn't have this photo on commons, but I don't know what to do about that either. Can you help? SusunW (talk) 22:33, 15 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, GRuban. Please check your email; you've got mail! It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template.
Backlog update: The October drive reduced the article backlog from 11,626 to 7,609 and the redirect backlog from 16,985 to 6,431! Congratulations to Schminnte, who led with over 2,300 points.
Following that, New Page Patrol organized another backlog drive for articles in January 2024. The January drive started with 13,650 articles and reduced the backlog to 7,430 articles. Congratulations to JTtheOG, who achieved first place with 1,340 points in this drive.
Looking at the graph, it seems like backlog drives are one of the only things keeping the backlog under control. Another backlog drive is being planned for May. Feel free to participate in the May backlog drive planning discussion.
It's worth noting that both queues are gradually increasing again and are nearing 14,034 articles and 22,540 redirects. We encourage you to keep contributing, even if it's just a single patrol per day. Your support is greatly appreciated!
2023 Awards
Onel5969 won the 2023 cup with 17,761 article reviews last year - that's an average of nearly 50/day. There was one Platinum Award (10,000+ reviews), 2 Gold Awards (5000+ reviews), 6 Silver (2000+), 8 Bronze (1000+), 30 Iron (360+) and 70 more for the 100+ barnstar. Hey man im josh led on redirect reviews by clearing 36,175 of them. For the full details, see the Awards page and the Hall of Fame. Congratulations everyone for their efforts in reviewing!
Recruitment: A couple of the coordinators have been inviting editors to become reviewers, via mass-messages to their talk pages. If you know someone who you'd think would make a good reviewer, then a personal invitation to them would be great. Additionally, if there are Wikiprojects that you are active on, then you can add a post there asking participants to join NPP. Please be careful not to double invite folks that have already been invited.
Reviewing tip: Reviewers who prefer to patrol new pages within their most familiar subjects can use the regularly updated NPP Browser tool.
Hey there! Pascal Maynard here. Im extremely unfamiliar with how Wikipedia works, but Ive been asked a million times by people in the Magic community why I didnt have a Wikipedia page while other personalities of the game had one.
I see that you created this page for JED, so I was wondering if you'd be able to make one for me (Pascal Maynard) or could point in the right direction? Thank you and sorry if this is a bit intrusive! PascalMaynard (talk) 17:55, 5 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Maybe! Let me investigate; the main issue is the Wikipedia:General notability guideline; basically, how much has been written about you by uninvolved reliable sources? Could you send me an email? Click on the "Tools" menu at the top corner of somewhere on this page, and select "Email this user", if you've got your own email set up. If you can include in that email links to any and all such sources - ideally newspapers, magazines, books, but major websites can also often work - that write in-depth pieces about you (not just casual mentions in "a list of the top 8 at this event"), that would help, as I might miss some investigating. I'm pretty good finding sources, but not perfect. If they're on paper, rather than electrons, I can accept scans. Fair warning:
We do need sources, JED had a number, world champion and all; if there aren't multiple in-depth articles about you from third party sources (see that link in my first sentence), this won't work
I am not fast; this is a hobby and I write whenever I feel like it. The Jean-Emmanuel Depraz article took most of a month, and I'm now working on User:GRuban/Nathan Steuer, who is another person you may be acquainted with, another world champion.
(It just seems like I'm a MtG article writing specialist recently, but I'm really not; you can see I write all sorts of things from my user page. I just happened to attend the second Magic conference of my life, in Chicago, and each of them was kind enough to stand there and smile nicely for a photo, so I thought... my only other MtG article is Dana Fischer, who isn't quite a world champion; I met her at the very first Magic conference I ever attended...) --GRuban (talk) 18:33, 5 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hello! Sorry for the late reply. It doesnt let me email an user for some reason.
Thank you so much to even bother to reply to me. I certainly appreciate it and appreciate that you put time in building these wiki pages for MTG people, its awesome.
Yeah I don't play magic professionally anymore since I opened my store. I do play competitively more as a hobby now, which may lead me to qualify for the Pro Tour again, but it's not as much a priority anymore. I appear on content creator stuff sometimes, recently I appeared on a Tolarian Community College episode:
For my pro results, I have 13 Grand Prix Top 8s and 2 Pro Tour Top 8's. Magic deleted all of their Pro Tour/Grand Prix coverage pages a few years ago, it's a shame because it would have been much easier to use these as sources ... You can find the results in other places though. If you use this page:
On 13 April 2024, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Grave with the Hands, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that the Grave with the Hands(pictured) commemorates a married couple, divided by society and religion, clasping hands between cemeteries after death? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Grave with the Hands. You are welcome to check how many pageviews the nominated article or articles got while on the front page (here's how, Grave with the Hands), and the hook may be added to the statistics page after its run on the Main Page has completed. 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 need some help with images for Monika Kehoe. There are better ones in the 1960s with her "never-out" partner), but unfortunately they are from Canada, so not in PD in both places.
1) This 1923 image is clearly in the public domain, but really dark. Can you make it lighter?
2) So, I think from reading the guidelines that Canadian images from 1945 or earlier meet both Canadian and American public domain rules for Wikipedia. In that regard, I think I can use this one from 1940.
3) Does Guam as a US territory, fall under US rules? If so, I like these 1974 photos. I see no mark or photographer on the photos. The masthead has no mark or verbiage, but the publishing notice says "All rights reserved". I checked the Periodicals Catalog for 1974 and it shows no entry. Neither does the renewal website. Can I use them?
Yippee! I thought you had discovered something like that once before, but I thought it was for Puerto Rico, and I wasn't sure if that was the same. You are totally magic! SusunW (talk) 21:28, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Monika Kehoe as 13-year-old musician, from Fort Wayne Journal
Monika Kehoe as 13-year-old musician, from Fort Wayne Journal, brightened
Dr. Monika Kehoe in 1940 in Windsor Star article
Dr. Monika Kehoe in 1940 in Windsor Star article, brightened
Dr. Monika (or Monica) Kehoe, professor at the University of Guam, in 1974
Dr. Monika (or Monica) Kehoe, professor at the University of Guam, in 1974
Dr. Monika (or Monica) Kehoe, professor at the University of Guam, in 1974
I actually like the darker version of the first one; she is a very mature 13 years old in any case. If you disagree, I can do even brighter on the other, if you like. --GRuban (talk) 19:56, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
My husband is no help. He says "The one on the left gives more detail", but the one on the right "makes her look friendlier"?? What the heck. I'm going with the lighter one. I appreciate your help very much. SusunW (talk) 21:06, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
LOL (He like me, said the best one is this one, but alas, I cannot find that it was published in the US.) I'd love it for the lead photo. *sigh* SusunW (talk) 21:21, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Uploaded the last batch. Have to say, glad you're back to your theme of writing about forbidden love! I was worried you had gone tame... --GRuban (talk) 20:16, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
LOL. Thank you so much for your help. I truly appreciate it. And, me "going tame" is unlikely to happen. I find people who are multi-dimensional to be far more relatable than one-dimensional heroes. SusunW (talk) 21:06, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hi GRuban! Thought I'd let you know that I've posted a draft for the Walton Family Foundation. Figured you'd probably be interested in taking a look. :) I tried to apply what I learned during your review of the Art Bridges articles, and of course welcome any feedback you have! Thanks, Kt2011 (Talk · COI:Walton family) 16:46, 17 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Looks like it's been accepted without my input, congratulations! (My input would have been - "more images"!) --GRuban (talk) 20:26, 20 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I am the user that has done most of the work regarding Lev Gatovsky's page. I agree that Political economy terms regarding soviet affairs can be frankly difficult to understand sometimes. My idea was of course to try to "dumb it down" a bit for the common reader that is not used to this type of talking. This can be done with time, summarizing the content and linking it to other terms that appear in other articles. But I dont think being difficult to understand makes it necessarily bad, as there are plenty of wikipedia articles that have very complex topics as well for the common reader.
I do agree some sections are maybe too long for the relevance of its content, and my plan as I said was to summarize them even more when I had the time, but at least I had them there. These texts that I had to translate manually from articles of the time written in Russian (a language I do not speak), and then I wrote them with my own words (except the ones that are properly sourced as a quotation block). The reason for why there aren't many sources is just that: there aren't many sources from him, or at least no easily available. So I had to repeat the same one several times (another experienced editor suggested me that this was better than just referencing once a whole section).
My personal theory is that he was censored by the Soviet government later in his life and thats why is difficult to find material. That is the same reason there is almost no biographical information about him, as I had to take it bit by bit from different sources. All of this was explained in the talk page of the article.
The early life section was not my own idea, but the work of another experienced editor, and the fact that it mentions at the beginning that he was jewish is that I was not sure where to mention it in the text. As I said, I didnt have enough material for the biographical part. But as an economist, I think his work is definetely relevant and important to be discussed. The fact that he was director of the soviet institute of economics for so many years kind of indicates the importance he had on the field.
Still, as I said, this work I have been doing mainly alone, so I havent had the time to work on it properly, which I was counting on doing along this month.
After all of this I guess you can understand my surprise when I see that another user has deleted almost everything reverting the page to its original state. Leaving a claim that is indeed false: he was not the first soviet economist to bring up the objetive rules (whatever that means) of soviet economy.
I understand the rejection of the nomination, but I hope you can also understand what a waste would be to censor this person for a second time in his life. I hope you can help me bring back the page to its recent state, so I can continue working on implementing your suggestions.
I can help a little; I do read Russian, fluently. However Soviet economics are not really my area of interest. Where do you suggest we start? I don't think restoring the version dominated by the big block quotes is a great idea. You can copy that one into your own user space, and work there. I often do that, for one thing it lets me push a fairly completed version into main space all at once. Or you could work in the version in main space directly. I generally like to start from the sources - either by making a list of them, or merely by picking one - then summarizing the useful information from that source in my own words. Want to use the current sources on the article, or the ones from your last version, or ... ? --GRuban (talk) 17:10, 23 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks so much for the offering! I do need the help.
I was asking to revert the edit for two reasons, on one hand I could retrieve the text I had written (I do not have a copy on my computer) which was mostly written with my own words, this could allow me to rewrite the big block quotes without losing the other text that was already of my own summary.
The second reason are the sources, they were already made into Wikipedia style and properly quoted, having them could allow me to use them without having to search for the documents again. Basically, the ones that were in the article were the ones that I already translated and retrieved any mention to Gatovsky. I have another document with links of sources I know exist but I haven't been able to find or translate yet.
So as you can see, reverting the change is not a matter of wanting the article not to changed or be posted, but because of the quantity of time it could save me (us). At the moment I don't have any means to retrieve the text or the sources I had there.
As I said in the talk page, managing to make a proper article of this man would be like giving him a second life. As I understand, him and many others from the academy were removed for not having the same line of thought as the government!!
From the economic point of view, although it may appear very dense to understand (I will make an effort to simplify and summarize) he is also super interesting. Just as an example, he was one of the main editors of the first Political Economy manual of the USSR. Which at the same time was the first university manual existing at all for higher education students! It became so important that went on for many years with almost 8 editions if I remember correctly.
I would mainly need some help of detective work regarding his life. Most of the source for this are books in Russian (for example the Great Soviet Encyclopedia if I'm not mistaken). I think some of this sources that I needed help with I already posted them in the talk page, if not I could check my doc.
I think it could be a very interesting project to do, and it would be really sad to lose all the previous effort and start from scratch. I'm working and I definitely do not have the time...
this morning I had free time and I already started working on the article. I followed your advice and worked on it on my page before putting it on the main article. I managed to add quite some content already.
I changed the early life section to a biography section, which is still pretty empty but at least its not confusing, as you pointed out. I also added the jewish fact there, as I cannot add a religion parameter into the infobox.
I also worked in the economical part. Not only I took out most of the quote blocks by summarizing them with my own words, but I also explained them a bit more and with some extra context. You were right that there was no need to have it so dense (and with the classic jargon). I tried also to link most of the concepts to other wikipedia pages so it's easier to understand them in depth.
I think now looks more aesthetic and much more understandable. If it's not a bother could you take a look and give me some feedback so I don't waste time? Before adding more content (which will take more time I do not have now) I would like to ask you how to improve the technical issues of the page. How can I improve the cathegories or the stub parts? What can I do to enhance the page in order to get more people helping?
pd. Is there a place I can add the links and articles I need help with reviewing? So other people can check them out instead of having them only on my computer? I guess dumping links into the external links section would not be very proper. Maybe the talk page? FranGallego33 (talk) 10:50, 24 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hi! I did. Most of the text I added today I did on my user page. Most recently I realized that I had some mistakes and some sentences were not convincing me, for a matter of practicality I changed them directly in the article. FranGallego33 (talk) 11:22, 24 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Is there something I am not understanding about working on the user page? I searched online and it said to copy from the article to my user page, and when done, to copied back, so I was not working and making all the changes in the main page. That's what I did. Again, until the last hour when I was rechecking for mistakes. Sorry about that if it creates a problem. I think the problem may be that I did not publish the changes in my user page so maybe that's why it doesn't appear to you. Is that necessary to do then? FranGallego33 (talk) 11:28, 24 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I was using the master thesis format in which all quotations have to be before the punctuation sign, I did not know in Wikipedia was different. If you don't mind, I will change them in the main article so I dont have to copy the entire article back and forth. I will do it in a single edit and specify what I did.
Thanks for the help, I started very recently so I'm still learning. Also, English is not my main language, so if you find grammar or syntax errors please be patient with me.
I will look deeper into how the userpage works, and next time I want to add a big portion of text I will do it from there. But I dont get something. I edit, I post it in my user page, and then, what? How does this end up in the article? Will another editor check it before and then give me the ok?
Hey George. I hope you are well. I have forayed into foreign territory - mentoring someone on a FA nomination. In that regard, one of the images we've chosen has a blond lady who is to Adichie's right who looks to be photobombing. I am wondering if the image would look better with her cropped out, but you know I don't know how to do that. Would it be possible for you to do that? If you are too busy, no worries. SusunW (talk) 14:26, 24 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Choice of two different crops, original for comparison:
Can you help resolve the difficulties SafariScribe and I are having with the image review? I don't understand the issue on the 1st one, but figured out what she wanted on the 2nd one, just don't know how to fix it and am hoping you can help. I mean, how do you upload something that is on commons as fair use because it doesn't really qualify to be on commons. Life is crazy today, so ping me if you need me. SusunW (talk) 19:47, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hi @GRuban, SusunW has mentored me, and one of them is to always seek help. Hence I am here. Pls one of the images on David S. Shellabargerhere is slightly one coloured and the other shady. Can you help me make them the same, like of same coloring. Eitherway is good but I hope you'll help me with the best. Thanks and I wait patiently. You can also leave or delay it if you are very busy. Many thanks. Safari ScribeEdits!Talk!22:22, 1 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
1897 image of David S. Shellabarger's family
@Adam Cuerden: You're referring to this one, File:1897 image of David S. Shellabarger's family.jpg? You've actually got two issues there, most prominent is the dark line down the middle, but if you look more carefully, that line actually marks a fold where the right part is a couple of pixels mismatched from the left part. I'm guessing this is a scan of a photo that was printed across two facing pages of a book. So, this requires a bit of complex editing to get it right, and I'm not actually the ideal person you want to go to for help for this one. I'm usually the person Susun goes to for image copyright status. My image editing skills are weak - not nil, I was able to remove a tiny bit of a person's face from a cropped image a request or two above, using the Microsoft Photos AI tool, which I'm quite proud of - but that's about my limit. You want User:Adam Cuerden, he's the real image editing expert here, two orders of magnitude, if not three better than me. I'm going to ping him to get his attention, and he may show up here, and may volunteer his services, as this is an historical image of the type that tends to draw his interest. If he doesn't, or is too busy, I will give it a try myself, but it will take me a while, and won't be as good. --GRuban (talk) 14:34, 2 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Oh exactly. You're right. Looking at the user page explains all. Welp, I am not also good at copyright of images and being honest, most of the images I want to use in the articles are usually deleted. Thank God I found you, I will always be willing to as out when necessary. Let me wait patiently for Adam. Safari ScribeEdits!Talk!18:39, 2 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
(0. Make sure this is a free image. Honestly, when I saw this file, I was worried it wasn't, it's a high quality image at low resolution; but it seems to be made by a professional cartographer who contributes many maps to us, https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Benutzer:Domenico-de-ga)
Thanks for your part in Art Bridges Foundation. My first thoughts when I saw it were all reflexively negative, but I see your earnest efforts to help an openly coi somebody trying to do the right thing. I worked with User:CorporateM a number of years ago, a PR professional who demonstrated he could be trusted. So long as they follow all of our pillars, policies, and guidelines, I'm often willing to observe and assist. I likewise appreciate your facilitation. BusterD (talk) 14:17, 6 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Can you crop this photo to show only the redheaded lady for me? I am sure it is her because a google image search shows that she has red hair, looks the same, and there don't appear to be any other red-heads in the photograph. Thanks! SusunW (talk) 18:43, 10 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
On 10 July 2024, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Pascal Maynard, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that the Magic: The Gathering player Pascal Maynard was criticized for selecting a valuable card over a competitive one in a tournament? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Pascal Maynard. You are welcome to check how many pageviews the nominated article or articles got while on the front page (here's how, Pascal Maynard), and the hook may be added to the statistics page after its run on the Main Page has completed. 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 looked into the dancer more, and found links. The only sourcs, however, are so far from the Bolshoi, and we have users who think that what her (former) employer writes is promotional and not ethical to use. Would you find other refs, perhaps? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 10:10, 10 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Specifically, one fact in her article was marked as needing a citation, In 2013, Kondratyeva was appointed a member of the artistic council of the Bolshoi Ballet troupe." --Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:35, 15 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
On 17 July 2024, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Nathan Steuer, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that Magic: The Gathering world champion Nathan Steuer(pictured) started tournament-level play as a pre-teen, saying that the "13 and up" label on Magic packaging was "just recommended"? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Nathan Steuer. You are welcome to check how many pageviews the nominated article or articles got while on the front page (here's how, Nathan Steuer), and the hook may be added to the statistics page after its run on the Main Page has completed. 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.
No, sorry. I wrote Yoruba literature because it was requested in WP:CSB when that was still active, and I wanted to help out, but I'm not really specifically interested in either Yoruba literature or the oral tradition. Best of luck to you, though! --GRuban (talk) 19:38, 25 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Can you tell if figure 1 in [4] is public domain? If you click on view PDF, it states "FIGURE 1 Janina Wójcicka Hoskins. Source: Janina Wójcicka Hoskins, Library of Congress Information Bulletin, no. 9 (1991), cover page." I am guessing it could be PD-USGov because she was an employee of the LOC. TJMSmith (talk) 02:20, 11 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
That says "Photo by Jim Higgins" on the back of the cover page. If we can show that Jim Higgins is a Library of Congress photographer, as opposed to, say, Hoskins's nephew, or a photographer for some non-government agency that would do. Unfortunately "Jim Higgins" is a really common name. Looking ...--GRuban (talk) 14:25, 12 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Aha. First, Jim Higgins's name is all over that issue. I see his photos on p. 162, 169, 172, and 173. In each case they are photos of events of that year, 1991, in the Library of Congress, except 173 which is a display from the LoC. It looks like the images throughout the whole magazine are only of LoC events, and really old items, so quite likely the whole thing is in the public domain; "quite likely" wouldn't be enough by itself, of course, but it helps. Second, here are a few LoC pages that say that Jim Higgins is a photographer of the Library of Congress Photoduplication Section:
https://www.loc.gov/item/2022653386/ 11 November 1985; Photograph taken by Marita Stamey, Jim Higgins or Reid Baker for Library of Congress Photoduplication Section.
So there was a Jim Higgins working for the Library of Congress Photoduplication Section at least from 1985 through 1994, and we have a photo from Jim Higgins in the 1991 LoC Information Bulletin, that also has 4 other photos from him. I'm going to say that this is good evidence that was him, and he was an LoC employee, so works by him as part of his duties are in the public domain. We should be good. --GRuban (talk) 14:49, 12 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, GRuban. I noticed this edit of yours at Yuan dynasty, in particular, the edit summary, where you said: Wikipedia:Red link - since another Wikipedia has these articles, it's very likely we should too. You might very well be right that this would be a good article for English Wikipedia, but not for the reason you gave in the summary. English Wikipedia requires a topic to be WP:Notable before an article can be created for it, and other wikipedias have varying requirements, sometimes very lax ones. Just because an article exists somewhere else, that is no indication it would be acceptable here, as our notability standards may be stricter than elsewhere. By all means, continue to add red links to encourage growth of the encyclopedia, but please don't use the fact that it exists somewhere else as justification for it, because often, it isn't. Cheers, Mathglot (talk) 10:55, 30 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the comment. I must respectfully disagree, however. In my experience, whether another Wikipedia has an article on the subject or not is both often cited in AFD discussions, and quite useful in filling out local copies. There is an entire template, extensively used, Template:Interlanguage link, dedicated to exactly this, creating a red link with blue link(s) to articles on other language Wikipedias. It is not a conclusive proof that the subject qualifies for an article, but it is a strong indicator. --GRuban (talk) 02:51, 1 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I understand your point of view, and we agree to the extent that {{ill}} is a useful template; I have used it as much as any editor I know, often when I do translations, and links that are blue elsewhere end up red here. If you like that template, you might be interested in {{Further ill}} as well, which is similar to {{ill}}, and which I use when applicable. However, the presence of template {{ill}} in an article is merely an indication that a single editor thinks the red link might make a good article here, nothing more; you might agree with them, you might not; they are just one person who might or might not know the policies regarding article creation. Different Wikipedias have different sets of rules, and what might work and be fine at some other Wikipedia, doesn't mean it would make it here. I do some cross-wiki work and have a decent sense of the culture clash that hits German and French editors when they get here, and sometimes get all bent out of shape because their beautiful article they translated from de-wiki or fr-wiki gets declined at WP:Afc. That said, if you enjoy bringing over articles from other Wikipedias, there is a toolforge tool where you can get a list of articles that exist in the Wikipedia language of your choice but that do not exist in English Wikipedia. Lmk if you are interested, and I will find it. Mathglot (talk) 04:26, 1 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
On 16 September 2024, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Homer House, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that the cupola of Homer House is part of a 19th-century cooling system? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Homer House. You are welcome to check how many pageviews the nominated article or articles got while on the front page (here's how, Homer House), and the hook may be added to the statistics page after its run on the Main Page has completed. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page.
Thank you great work on images! - My story today is a cantata 300 years old, based on a hymn 200 years old when the cantata was composed, based on a psalm some thousand years old, - so said the 2015 DYK hook. I had forgotten the discussion on the talk. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 17:03, 20 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, this is an automated reminder as part of Global reminder bot to let you know that your WP:IPBE right which gave you the ability to bypass IP address blocks will expire on 00:00, 3 October 2024 (UTC). If your IP is still blocked (which you can test by trying to edit when logged-out), please renew by following the instructions at the IPBE page; otherwise, you do not need to do anything. To opt out of user right expiry notifications, add yourself to m:Global reminder bot/Exclusion. Leaderbot (talk) 07:21, 2 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hello GRuban, a few months ago, you shared some suggestions for improving the article on Lore Maria Peschel-Gutzeit. Since then, I have spent quite a bit of time to researching her and digging up various sources about her life. However, I have run into a few challenges, mainly due to limited resources and my not-so-great knowledge of German. I can read and understand it reasonably well, but it still has its hurdles. If you have some free time, I would really appreciate your help in improving the article based on your suggestions. Thank you! – DreamRimmer (talk) 12:59, 12 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Sure. I can't read German either, but in general the way I fix that is to avoid writing articles based mostly on German sources. But I can try to help. Which points have you already tried to fix? I see the article no longer says "impoverished merchant family Brüggmann". It still says "In her autobiography/biological father/However". I clicked into the source by that, https://www.deutschlandfunk.de/ehemalige-justizsenatorin-peschel-gutzeit-so-was-macht-man-100.html and, with the caveat of relying on Edge automatic translation, I don't see her saying "biological" anywhere there; she seems to just say "father". Also it doesn't say that she said that in her autobiography. So I'd remove that "biological/autobiography" bit entirely. --GRuban (talk) 13:25, 21 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hello! Voting in the 2024 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 2 December 2024. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.
The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.
My only regret is that I couldn't get in touch with him (or, more likely, his mother, Carol Hafner) by email; all ther email addresses are dead, and she didn't respond to two queries on her web page form. They are remarkable people. --GRuban (talk) 02:14, 25 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I teach civics to high school seniors. Not that I endorse what the Hafners do, but I did appreciate having them to serve as a case study for my students as they study elections. They are quite interesting examples of US election peculiarities! ~ Pbritti (talk) 02:48, 25 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Pbritti: I have written another article about another remarkable person that may be of related interest. Please see Chaz Stevens. I was able to get in touch with him while writing it, so he gave me lots of great photos I put in the article. I admit I can't read either one of these articles without smiling. --GRuban (talk) 17:11, 25 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Speakers in Marti Park, Marianao, May 20, 1960
Candelaria Rodríguez in Marti Park, Marianao
Maybe crop even further?
.jpg){kind=small}
Candelaria Rodríguez at FDMC Second Congress.jpg
cropped
FDMC Second Congress
.jpg)
Marcela Pérez de Cuéllar speaks at the United Nations in 1987
Marcela Pérez de Cuéllar with Nancy Reagan speaking at the United Nations in 1987
1987 Reagan Trip to New York, Nancy Reagan attending private lunch hosted by Marcela Perez de Cuellar
Marcela Perez de Cuellar and Nancy Reagan listening at UN General Assembly, 1988
Nancy and Ronald Reagan, Javier and Marcela Perez de Cuellar in 1988
Nancy and Ronald Reagan, Javier and Marcela Perez de Cuellar in 1988
Marcela Perez de Cuellar with UN and US flags in 1988
Nancy Reagan, Marcela Perez de Cuellar, seated, 1988
Marcela Perez de Cuellar, Nancy Reagan, speaking at the United Nations in 1987
Nancy Reagan, Marcela Perez de Cuellar, standing, 1987
Women at Marcela Perez de Cuellar Luncheon, 1987
Nancy Reagan and Marcela Perez de Cuellar seated, 1984
Reagans and Perez de Cuellars at United Nations, 1984
Paul Lusaka with Perez de Cuellars and Reagans, 1984
Nancy Reagan and Maria Pia Fanfani in Washington D.C. in 1981
Marcela Perez de Cuellar and Barbara Bush at the United Nations in 1990
Barbara Bush, Marcela Pérez de Cuéllar, Mila Mulroney at the United Nations in 1990
_(cropped).jpg)
Aww, that's wonderful! OK, that's another reason I write articles, to hear that they bring someone joy. Thank you so much!
I guess I can't say much about that except that I do the best I can, and in my opinion at least, whatever that's worth, Kessel Run is a solid B-class article, as much so as any of the other solid B-class articles that I've been writing in the past few years and list on my user page. --GRuban (talk) 14:00, 26 February 2024 (UTC)
Want me to find an image for a Wikipedia article for you? Can't guarantee, my "hit rate" is only about 10-20%, but that's not nothing, will gladly try! May even write an article on a Wikipedia-notable topic for you, if you want, though as above, I'm slow. But, anyway, time to come back to earth.
But, back to the sources:
Monika Kehoe as 13-year-old musician, from Fort Wayne Journal
Monika Kehoe as 13-year-old musician, from Fort Wayne Journal, brightened
Dr. Monika Kehoe in 1940 in Windsor Star article
Dr. Monika Kehoe in 1940 in Windsor Star article, brightened
Dr. Monika (or Monica) Kehoe, professor at the University of Guam, in 1974
Dr. Monika (or Monica) Kehoe, professor at the University of Guam, in 1974
Dr. Monika (or Monica) Kehoe, professor at the University of Guam, in 1974
(He like me, said the best one is this one, but alas, I cannot find that it was published in the US.) I'd love it for the lead photo. *sigh* SusunW (talk) 21:21, 27 April 2024 (UTC)
.jpg)
_2.jpg)
.png)
Cropped
Cropped, background blurred
Done --GRuban (talk) 21:42, 16 July 2024 (UTC)
and 
please. Many thanks. 2A00:23EE:1628:1626:A1C8:C7C7:9375:4CBC (talk) 03:35, 7 August 2024 (UTC)
.webp)
_links_zijn,_Bestanddeelnr_932-2442.jpg){kind=link}
