User talk:GRuban

A favour

I'm working on The Vertiginous Thrill of Exactitude, about a ballet. I found a couple of images ([1] and [2]) on Flickr that I thought is useful, but they were deleted from Commons a few years ago. Both are indicated to be in the public domain, and I believe they are uploaded by the press office of Liceu, an opera house in Barcelona. I'm wondering what exactly was the problem and whether you can help with that. Thanks. Corachow (talk) 20:50, 29 June 2022 (UTC)

I can't find the deletion discussion on Commons, I'm afraid. Do you know where that might be, or who deleted them, or anything of the sort? I admit, at first glance they seem like they would be all right. --GRuban (talk) 21:26, 29 June 2022 (UTC)

According to this, it seems like there was a "Missing license" issue. Corachow (talk) 12:10, 30 June 2022 (UTC)

Hmm. That was in 2016, maybe it was different then? Will ask Jcb the deleting admin. --GRuban (talk) 14:41, 30 June 2022 (UTC)

Oops. I just realized that Jcb has only edited two times in 2022, and less than 10 times in the last two years. So it's quite possible he won't respond. Let's give him a day or two, then ask someone else. --GRuban (talk) 16:43, 30 June 2022 (UTC)

It's been a few days. I guess we should ask someone else. Corachow (talk) 19:15, 4 July 2022 (UTC)

https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Administrators%27_noticeboard#File:4726-_008_-%C2%AE_A_Bofill_(25464967025).jpg --GRuban (talk) 21:55, 4 July 2022 (UTC)

Thank you! Corachow (talk) 22:03, 4 July 2022 (UTC)

Got a response, you can read it there. Sigh. Do you write Portuguese? Here's what I wrote to RGPD@liceubarcelona.cat, but in English, because I don't, and didn't want to risk automatic translation. If you can write a similar email in Portuguese, that might be more effective.

I'm a volunteer editor for Wikipedia, the free online encyclopedia. We'd like to use some of the beautiful images on your Flickr account, such as https://www.flickr.com/photos/premsaliceu/25464967025/ that you have licensed with Public Domain Mark, but an editor has brought up that you might not actually mean the images to be public domain. Can you please confirm, in an email to permissions-commons@wikimedia.org (cc me), that:

• you own the copyright to the images on your Flickr account, such as that one, and
• that when you put the Public Domain Mark on them, that is because you want to put them into the public domain?

Thank you,

George Ruban

https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:GRuban

--GRuban (talk) 15:07, 8 July 2022 (UTC)

Thank you for that. Unfortunately, I can't write in Portuguese, so I can't help on that front. Corachow (talk) 15:52, 8 July 2022 (UTC)

@Corachow: Woo! Due to the kindness of User:Yann and User:RP88 and User:De728631, at https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Commons:Undeletion_requests/Current_requests&oldid=683329019#Two_Flickr_PDMark_owner_images_from_Premsa_Liceu the images have been undeleted! --GRuban (talk) 14:33, 20 August 2022 (UTC)

• 
• 

Thank you to all! I'll add the images to the article. Corachow (talk) 15:11, 20 August 2022 (UTC)

Ashley Ellis

Hello, I created the article Ashley Ellis a few days ago, and there's a YouTube video of her dancing with Creative Commons license ([3]), would you mind making a screenshot of the video? Corachow (talk) 13:49, 8 August 2022 (UTC)

 Done No one frame was ideal, so I grabbed three hoping the combination would suffice. Pick one or all, as you choose. If you have the energy, could you rename the images? Right now they're just 01, 02, 03, but I imagine those poses each have specific names. I did a quick search, but only found first position, second, position, etc., which seem to be separate for feet and arms, and the more interesting names, like arabesque, plie, don't seem to apply. --GRuban (talk) 13:48, 10 August 2022 (UTC)

• 
• 
• 

Thank you very much! I picked the second one for the article. I'm not very well-versed in ballet steps names beyond the basics so I can't tell what the steps are at first glance, and I'm too busy to look up the glossary. Will do that if I remember and have time. Corachow (talk) 08:23, 11 August 2022 (UTC)

DYK for Olena Shevchenko

On 30 June 2022, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Olena Shevchenko, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that a journalist dubbed Olena Shevchenko (pictured) as "probably the most famous lesbian in Ukraine"? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Olena Shevchenko. You are welcome to check how many pageviews the nominated article or articles got while on the front page (here's how, Olena Shevchenko), and if they received a combined total of at least 416.7 views per hour (i.e., 5,000 views in 12 hours or 10,000 in 24), the hook may be added to the statistics page. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page.

Cwmhiraeth (talk) 00:02, 30 June 2022 (UTC)

Did we really get more than 20,000 views on this? SusunW (talk) 14:38, 1 July 2022 (UTC)

Probably the most famous lesbian on Wikipedia! (For this month, at least.) --GRuban (talk) 14:47, 1 July 2022 (UTC)

!!! SusunW (talk) 14:55, 1 July 2022 (UTC)

FYI, I have taken the liberty of e-mailing you on another article I'm working on...because we work well together :) and you have skills I don't. SusunW (talk) 16:32, 1 July 2022 (UTC)

DYK for Pat Gozemba

On 1 July 2022, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Pat Gozemba, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that Pat Gozemba married her wife while researching a book about the history of the struggle for equal marriage in Massachusetts? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Pat Gozemba. You are welcome to check how many pageviews the nominated article or articles got while on the front page (here's how, Pat Gozemba), and if they received a combined total of at least 416.7 views per hour (i.e., 5,000 views in 12 hours or 10,000 in 24), the hook may be added to the statistics page. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page.

 — Amakuru (talk) 00:03, 1 July 2022 (UTC)

NPP July 2022 backlog drive is on!

New Page Patrol | July 2022 Backlog Drive
On 1 July, a one-month backlog drive for New Page Patrol will begin. Barnstars will be awarded based on the number of articles patrolled. Barnstars will also be granted for re-reviewing articles previously reviewed by other patrollers during the drive. Redirect patrolling is not part of the drive. Interested in taking part? Sign up here.
You're receiving this message because you are a new page patroller. To opt-out of future mailings, please remove yourself here.

(t · c) buidhe 20:25, 1 July 2022 (UTC)

Ukrainian Melody

July songs

today: violin solo and you can listen Gerda Arendt (talk) 14:24, 5 July 2022 (UTC)

yesterday I attended a unique concert - the 18th Thomaskantor after Bach conducting - and with some good luck caught him happy afterwards! - I'm less happy with the green-haired Alfred Koerppen image, - any help? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 18:50, 9 July 2022 (UTC)

... and another 14 July: Voces8, pictured - I have a FAC open, in case of interest --Gerda Arendt (talk) 21:21, 15 July 2022 (UTC)

more July songs, from Swiss Alps and a funeral --Gerda Arendt (talk) 12:55, 29 July 2022 (UTC)

Elizabeth Wagner Reed

Makio, the Ohio State University yearbook, for 1933, page 89

Makio, the Ohio State University yearbook, for 1933, page 151

This says her photo is in the 1933 edition of the Makio Yearbook of Ohio State University. I can't find it on archives.org, but possibly on your side of the pond, or possibly her daughter http://catherinecreed.com would give us one? I've been working on Eunice Foote for GA and possibly FA and I just could not pass up the irony that the woman who rediscovered Foote's contributions also lost her own record of contributions. I've asked Ian to look it over, but I'd like to nominate it for GA fairly quickly and do a double DYK hook for them. SusunW (talk) 21:39, 17 July 2022 (UTC)

So the 1933 Makio yearbook is online at https://kb.osu.edu/handle/1811/72657, beautiful scan, color and everything. Her photo seems to be on page 89, 3rd from top, rightmost column, profile; not the greatest photo, but much better than nothing. There may be an even worse one on page 151. The Makio does, however, say "Copyright" on page 4 or so. Now, technically that might not good enough, per Copyright notice#Form of notice for visually perceptible copies since it needs the date, which isn't anywhere on that page, and since it's not or likely that the next name on that page, the editor, is the copyright holder ... but that's a rather fine point. We'd be in easier shape if the copyright wasn't renewed, which is possible. I can see at least one "Makio" registered at https://archive.org/details/catalogofcopyrig361lib/page/1050/mode/2up?q=makio which isn't the same year and isn't a renewal, but makes me worry slightly, we do need to do a thorough search. Renewal would likely be about 28 years later, so something like 1951. Looking ... --GRuban (talk) 15:36, 18 July 2022 (UTC)

You're the best! Thank you. Was at a doctor's appointment for my husband, but back now. Will see if I can find anything. SusunW (talk) 16:24, 18 July 2022 (UTC)

Since I can never figure out if Yearbooks are classed as "books" or "periodicals", I searched both. 1950 books no "makio"; 1950 periodicals, nada; 1951 books, nothing; and 1951 periodicals, zip. SusunW (talk) 16:50, 18 July 2022 (UTC)

Renewals were also printed separately.

• https://archive.org/details/catalogofcopyri3414libr/ : 1950 renewals at the Internet Archive
• https://onlinebooks.library.upenn.edu/cce/1951r.html : 1951 (all the books, including 2 or even 4 of renewals) at University of Pennsylvania

I did look and couldn't find, but if you would search as well it would make me feel better. Meanwhile I'll start cropping the image. --GRuban (talk) 16:59, 18 July 2022 (UTC)

Ok, there's an identification problem. Please zoom in on these images. Page 89 seems to identify Wagner as the third from the top, right column, correct? And Page 151 seems to identify Wagner as first row, third from the right, correct? Well, those look like different people to me, most obviously the one in 151 is wearing glasses. The one identified as Wagner on page 151 seems a lot closer to the fourth from the top right column on page 89. Any chance the page 89 switched the pictures of Wagner, Elizabeth and Waite, Margaret Louise? Do you know whether Wagner wore glasses in college? --GRuban (talk) 17:22, 18 July 2022 (UTC)

There's photos of her published in 2020 in the PDF version of EBSCOhost 143003976. pp294 (1936) and 297 (1956), neither with glasses. Do they help? I'll look through the renewal catalogs and get back to you. SusunW (talk) 17:37, 18 July 2022 (UTC)

I find no renewals in either of your links, so the good news is if we can figure out who she is, we can use the photo. We need facial recognition software. LOL. I agree that the photo on 89 of Waite looks more like the photo identified as Wagner on 151. All so confusing. But, I note that Wagner in the 1936 image in Velasco has a squarer chin and more prominent eyebrows than Waite to my eye. Perhaps we have to ask Catherine anyway? SusunW (talk) 17:56, 18 July 2022 (UTC)

Probably Elizabeth Cleland Wagner in 1933

No glasses in http://catherinecreed.com/wp-content/uploads/2019/04/women_in_science.pdf page 205 either. OK, I'll go with the profile image from page 89, barring any other information. Do you want to mail Catherine Reed or should I? --GRuban (talk) 19:06, 18 July 2022 (UTC)

That works. I thought about emailing Catherine, but it occurred to me if she said she had a better image I would still have to ask you. Sorry but you know I rely on you for this, so if you could send it, that'd be great. SusunW (talk) 19:12, 18 July 2022 (UTC)

A cup of tea for you!

Thanks again for your empathy and understanding - I look forward to continuing to work with you, and very much appreciate your image-finding skills. Beccaynr (talk) 15:12, 21 July 2022 (UTC)

Another "not-Russian"

My goal was to do 5 articles for Women in Green's editathon this month and since it looks like Max won't get me the info on Miller in time for the end of the month, I decided to do one more. She's Ukrainian. (I googled variations of her name and the most frequent citation is Evdokia Reshetnik. Would you be willing to look it over before it is published to check on the transliterations of names etc? I am doubtful that we have any usable photographs, but both p 19 and page 143 have photos that apparently were provided by her son. The 143 one is used as "fair use" on uk.WP. If you're too busy, no worries. I appreciate you and your skills, very much, and am thankful that you are so willing to collaborate. SusunW (talk) 17:26, 21 July 2022 (UTC)

Thank you so much. So question, is there a way to transfer the fair use image from uk.WP to a fair use image on en.wp? or do I need to re-upload it? If it must be re-uploaded, maybe I want to load the one from page 19, as she doesn't look quite so angry in it to me. Your thoughts? SusunW (talk) 13:19, 22 July 2022 (UTC)

File:Evdokia_Reshetnik_c._1945.jpg uploaded as fair use. --GRuban (talk) 14:06, 22 July 2022 (UTC)

Image

Hey, I wanted to ask you if I am wrong here. You are now my resident image expert. lol I de-blurred the image of Amund Dietzel with Remini software, but one editor has twice reverted back to the blurry image. Is the other editor correct? Should I upload the new version of the file separately or should I leave it be? Thanks! Bruxton (talk) 15:45, 23 July 2022 (UTC)

Upload the new version separately. The old one is a historical image (for some values of historical!) and maybe someone will want it for some reason. Meanwhile the sharpened version is probably better for the article. I too used to just overwrite images when I was sure the new version was better, but was then convinced to leave the old version as well. For example, many of the images in https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Category:PD-Gotfryd I made an obviously better version for use, but left the old one for historical purposes.

• 
• 

Thanks much! I will take your advice! Bruxton (talk) 21:58, 23 July 2022 (UTC)

--GRuban (talk) 17:30, 23 July 2022 (UTC)

Mary Amelia Swift /Litchfield Female Academy

As far as I can tell, there are no photos of Mary, but I found a drawing of the academy which could be used for both articles. As far as I can tell first published in 1903, but this version is terrible. Published again in 1927, with a better version. I have no idea how to flip it. Can you help? Off to a check up for my husband's ear infection, but will be back. SusunW (talk) 14:35, 1 August 2022 (UTC)

• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 

With or without caption. Or I can turn the sepia tones black and white, if you prefer. Text says it was originally a watercolor, drawn circa 1830, and there is an 1856 color copy at https://connecticuthistory.org/sarah-pierces-litchfield-female-academy/ here is that as well, which I uploaded, then cropped and brightened. From there, there is a picture of Academy founder Sarah Pierce, which we already had a version of, but I think this one is better, being straight rather than a bit off center with borders. I also cropped and brightened it to more human rather than orcish skin colors, if you prefer. Here are all three versions of that picture as well for your discretion. --GRuban (talk) 14:53, 2 August 2022 (UTC)

I have no idea how you did that, but you are magic. Thank you so much! SusunW (talk) 15:33, 2 August 2022 (UTC)

And totally weird, and I have no idea where to notify anyone of this, but when I put the alt parameter into the info box for the academy, I got "Preview warning: Page using Template:Infobox university with unknown parameter "alt"." Because why? Why would any of our info boxes disallow an aid for people with sight impairments? If I even had a clue of who to notify, I would ask them to check every single info box for this issue, but I have no clue. Do you know? SusunW (talk) 15:55, 2 August 2022 (UTC)

Take a look at Template:Infobox_university - I think you want image_alt= . Yes, more consistency would be nice, but volunteer project, etc. --GRuban (talk) 15:58, 2 August 2022 (UTC)

I have no idea how you found that, but I truly appreciate your skills with this platform. That fixed the issue. Thank you so much. SusunW (talk) 16:04, 2 August 2022 (UTC)

Response to Fox news evidence

Can you please move your responses to the evidence to your own section entitled critique of evidence by yourself Andrevan@ 19:01, 1 August 2022 (UTC)

OK. --GRuban (talk) 19:12, 1 August 2022 (UTC)

@Andrevan:, it would probably be better to not separate the sources presented as evidence by who is presenting them + separate responses to those materials. That makes it very hard to follow replies to individual sources. Instead it would be better to present each source as perhaps it's own sub-sub section where people could then debate the merits of each. In addition to a risk of duplicate sources in multiple lists, if a source is clearly shown to be good/bad that can't be easily seen by other readers. Springee (talk) 19:34, 1 August 2022 (UTC)

I think GRuban's solution is fine, he copied my statements and the sources and responded to them. Thank you for doing that. Andrevan@ 19:43, 1 August 2022 (UTC)

@Andrevan: Except, of course, you're putting your responses to my responses in my section. I am trying to be flexible, but admit to being unclear on the general rule here. Why should my responses go in my section, not in yours, but then your responses also go in my section? Of course yet a third section "Andrevan's responses to GRuban's responses to Andrevan's evidence" would be absurd ... but that kind of goes to Springee's point, no? --GRuban (talk) 19:47, 1 August 2022 (UTC)

Ah, I'm sorry. I'll make another section. That's fair. Andrevan@ 19:51, 1 August 2022 (UTC)

@GRuban I am OK if you want to respond to me in the response to your criticism section. I'm mainly concerned about the original list of evidence since it's quite long already and I want people to be able to review all the links and respond to them without making it even more massive. Andrevan@ 19:57, 1 August 2022 (UTC)

I think the source and discussion should stay together. It's just too confusing when they are separated and editor may not see that many of the sources have been challenged. Springee (talk) 19:59, 1 August 2022 (UTC)

I disagree, it will make it very confusing and hard to read if we have inline threads between all of the sources. Please respond in separate discussion sections rather than interspersing commentary throughout the evidence list. Andrevan@ 20:06, 1 August 2022 (UTC)

@Springee, I understand your point. I'd like to keep the original list of evidence bare of the discussion threads. It will make it hard for new editors to come in and review the evidence. I am ok with having discussion sections be individualized or combined. Andrevan@ 19:56, 1 August 2022 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Photographer's Barnstar
	For a great eye in cropping a pic of Lemuel Diggs. Andrevan@ 18:16, 2 August 2022 (UTC)

New Page Patrol newsletter August 2022

New Page Review queue August 2022

Hello GRuban,

Backlog status

After the last newsletter (No.28, June 2022), the backlog declined another 1,000 to 13,000 in the last week of June. Then the July backlog drive began, during which 9,900 articles were reviewed and the backlog fell by 4,500 to just under 8,500 (these numbers illustrate how many new articles regularly flow into the queue). Thanks go to the coordinators Buidhe and Zippybonzo, as well as all the nearly 100 participants. Congratulations to Dr vulpes who led with 880 points. See this page for further details.

Unfortunately, most of the decline happened in the first half of the month, and the backlog has already risen to 9,600. Understandably, it seems many backlog drive participants are taking a break from reviewing and unfortunately, we are not even keeping up with the inflow let alone driving it lower. We need the other 600 reviewers to do more! Please try to do at least one a day.

Coordination

MB and Novem Linguae have taken on some of the coordination tasks. Please let them know if you are interested in helping out. MPGuy2824 will be handling recognition, and will be retroactively awarding the annual barnstars that have not been issued for a few years.

Open letter to the WMF

The Page Curation software needs urgent attention. There are dozens of bug fixes and enhancements that are stalled (listed at Suggested improvements). We have written a letter to be sent to the WMF and we encourage as many patrollers as possible to sign it here. We are also in negotiation with the Board of Trustees to press for assistance. Better software will make the active reviewers we have more productive.

TIP - Reviewing by subject

Reviewers who prefer to patrol new pages by their most familiar subjects can do so from the regularly updated sorted topic list.

New reviewers

The NPP School is being underused. The learning curve for NPP is quite steep, but a detailed and easy-to-read tutorial exists, and the Curation Tool's many features are fully described and illustrated on the updated page here.

Reminders

• Consider staying informed on project issues by putting the project discussion page on your watchlist.
• If you have noticed a user with a good understanding of Wikipedia notability and deletion, suggest they help the effort by placing {{subst:NPR invite}} on their talk page.
• If you are no longer very active on Wikipedia or you no longer wish to be part of the New Page Reviewer user group, please consider asking any admin to remove you from the list. This will enable NPP to have a better overview of its performance and what improvements need to be made to the process and its software.
• To opt-out of future mailings, please remove yourself here.

Delivered by: MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 21:24, 6 August 2022 (UTC)

Atalie Unkalunt

Once again, I need your help. Working on a bio of this Cherokee woman for Indiginous month at WIR. I think I do not want to use any of the "costume" photos in the lede, and thus it seems to me that the best photo for the lede would be the one on p 141 (Callam) (published 1925[4]). Supposedly there are a 75 photos at the Smithsonian, but the only ones I find are here (proof that the VP Curtis photo was published, but I can't find proof of publishing on any of the others.) This photo was widely used in newspapers, but I think a better copy can be found in Callam at page 85. There are 3 versions[5], [6],[7] of the portrait setting with Remington Schuyler. None are particularly good, but I think I would like to use one. On the other hand, the final portrait was produced on this magazine cover. Perhaps you have access to things I don't. Anyway, any help would be appreciated. SusunW (talk) 17:07, 9 August 2022 (UTC)

Looking... --GRuban (talk) 13:45, 11 August 2022 (UTC)

OK. Responding, finally.

• The picture on p141 of Callam ("Unkalunt circa 1924. Photograph taken by the Pierson Studio, Muskogee, Oklahoma. National Museum of the American Indian, Smithsonian Institution (P23848)") is not actually the same as the one published in the Daily News; for one thing, the Callam photo has her dark fur collar overlap the side of her chin, while the Daily News photo has a light collar, with no overlap over the chin. So we can use the Daily News photo, since it was published in 1925, but I agree it's nowhere near as good as the Callam photo, but we do not know when the Callam photo was originally published, possibly there was only the one copy that someone sat on until the NMAI got it.

• I'm buying all of that, but I really don't want to use the Daily News one. Let me do some work on the one of her with Charles Curtis. It was published a lot, not sure when the first publishing was, but I'll see if I can narrow it down. If I prove that it was not copyrighted, it would be a better image of her not in costume to use in the lede. SusunW (talk) 21:28, 13 August 2022 (UTC)

• More promising is that picture on p85, which says is the cover of a pamphlet, circa 1924. As a pamphlet, I'm going to argue it was published. It is also the same photo as you have in the Juvenile Instructor on the Internet Archive, which was definitely published in 1927 - that could be one year too late, currently the dividing line is end of 1926 - but I think we can take the "published in 1924" argument, and I doubt many people will argue the point since the 1927 date will work in 5 more months anyway, and quite possibly the Juvenile Instructor is PD-not-renewed or something anyway, I'm not even looking.
• The "Farm and Fireside" painted cover - heh! Honestly, if I didn't see the photo of it being painted, I would have bet money it was just a generic Indian Princess image, not a painting of anyone in particular, and would have sworn I'd seen a hundred images just like it from a hundred painters. But we have the photo of it being painted, so yes, it's definitely Unkalunt! And it's a 1923 cover, so it's public domain. We'll probably want to upload one of the photos of it being painted, but just as evidence, not to use it in the article, since the photo is pretty poor quality, but we can use the painting.
• The "Atalie Unkalunt [Iva J. Rider], postcard photo in Y.M.C.A uniform, circa 1918. Princess Atalie Unkalunt Collection, NMAI.AC.117, P23895" from the Smithsonian Blog is also reasonable. Again, we can argue that it's a postcard, so published, and 1918 is easily public domain. Now maybe someone could argue that we don't actually have proof the postcard was mass reproduced, since we only have the one copy ... but I think that's stretching the bounds of probability.

  Aha, I see User:Victuallers already uploaded that one. Good for him. We should probably specify on the image that it was specifically a postcard, though, in other words, published, not just a family image that someone sat on for 50 years.

• I also like your proof that the Charles Curtis photo from the same blog was published - but what's the date on that Brownsville Herald page? If it is either before 1927 then it's public domain, or if not we can search for copyright renewal for the Brownsville Herald, and if we don't find it, we can likely use that one.

• It seems likely Unkalunt/Curtis first appeared on 9 January 1929 in multiple papers:
• Lancaster New Era, masthead, publishing data, no marks or copyright noted on any pages
• New Britain Herald, masthead, publishing data no marks or copyright noted on any pages
• Plainfield Courier-News, masthead, publishing data, no marks or copyright noted on any pages
• The North Adams Transcript, masthead, publishing data, no marks or copyright noted on any pages
• Searching periodicals for 1929, there are no entries for any of the following: International Newsreel, International News Photos, International News Service, Hearst Metrotone News (didn’t check UPI, as that didn’t come into being until 1958); Courier News, Courier-News, Plainfield; New Britain Herald; Lancaster (only appears in relationship with Armstrong Cork Company), New Era; North Adams Transcript. Searching works of art for 1929 There is 1 entry for International Newsreel, "7153 for Salm's (Millicent) second child April 4, 1929: 2 C. April 5: J 28" p.7126; nothing at all for International News Photos, International News Service, or Hearst Metrotone News. SusunW (talk) 22:41, 13 August 2022 (UTC)

• Finally we should see if The Earth Speaks was copyright renewed. Odds are good that it wasn't, as a fairly obscure book, which would let use the cover.

• Wasn't copyrighted in 1939, but was in 1940, #6420. Jan-June renewals 1968 and July-December renewals 1968, nothing for Atalie, Unkalunt, or "The Earth Speaks". SusunW (talk) 23:01, 13 August 2022 (UTC)

I'll upload the easy ones at least, if you want any of the slightly harder ones that require searching please say. --GRuban (talk) 21:46, 13 August 2022 (UTC)

• Thank you. As always, I appreciate your help. I'll work on the Curtis photo and let you know what I find. SusunW (talk) 21:28, 13 August 2022 (UTC)

• I'll check back. My husband is "starving", so I must feed him. SusunW (talk) 23:02, 13 August 2022 (UTC)

Aha! I found this 1926 photo from the New York Daily News. Could be useful if you don't want more Native American costume images. Also made a Commons category for the images, https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Category:Atalie_Unkalunt --GRuban (talk) 00:49, 14 August 2022 (UTC)

• 
  Miss Iva Ryder, known as Princess Atalie Unkalunt, 1926
• 
  I rotated the postcard just a bit and cropped it a lot, 1918
• 
  Princess Atalie Unkalunt having her portrait painted by Remington Schuyler
• 
  The painting, 1923
• 
  Curtis photo, cropped, brightened.
• 
  I also uploaded the original from the Smithsonian blog, and this is actually a historical enough photo you may want to ask User:Adam Cuerden to see if he could restore the damage to it, which is beyond my ability, but am pretty sure not beyond his. Or I could take one of the newspaper photos, which would be lower resolution, but not missing random bits.
• 
• 
• 
  The Earth Speaks cover

I love the 1926 photo! These are all fabulous. Do you think we can get the Curtis photo, and the book, and the Callam picture on p85 (it was the most widely used photo of her and reprinted from 1924 through the 1940s.) I'll let you make the call of whether we need to upload one of the pictures of Remington Schuyler painting the portrait. I wish we had a better copy of it, but it definitely does prove that the magazine cover is her and not some other "princess". You are the magic man and I really appreciate your help. SusunW (talk) 03:37, 14 August 2022 (UTC)

I asked Adam Cuerden and pointed him to our discussion here noting that the newspapers show the missing bits. We'll see what he says. I've added what we have so far to the article and think I can fit the book and the Callam photo into the article without overloading it. I do appreciate your help so much. SusunW (talk) 15:56, 14 August 2022 (UTC)

 Done, I think, in the gallery above, including the Schuyler painting image. --GRuban (talk) 02:17, 15 August 2022 (UTC)

You are amazing and I so appreciate your skills. Thank you so very much. SusunW (talk) 05:42, 15 August 2022 (UTC)

"Playing Indian"?

@SusunW: I'm afraid that I'm reading our article and am troubled by the strong focus on discrimination being definitely what stopped her from non-Amerindian opera success, and forced her into "playing Indian". I'm not finding it nearly as strongly stated in the sources. I'm reading the sources that say that Unkalunt was quite focused on her Amerind identity before, during, and after her opera work. She may have invented the word Amerind, she wrote books and poetry with Amerind focus, she did political lobbying for Amerinds, etc. This part in your article is sourced mostly to Callam, who doesn't come out and say that Unkalunt was really interested in European opera, and only did Amerind work due to discrimination. In fact, she says "Much of what Unkalunt truly thought – about her repertoire, about being expected to “play Indian,” to use Deloria’s phrase – is absent from the archival record." (In fact, Callam seems to be sucking up to Deloria here, who is very focused on "playing Indian", but wasn't writing about Unkalunt specifically! Deloria seems to have been Callam's advisor or something? Here's what Deloria had to say about Unkalunt: https://uwpressblog.com/2019/05/28/bringing-indigenous-artists-to-the-forefront/ He had never even heard of her! I'm pretty sure he means Callam as the student here, and seems somewhat condescending about Callam's work, though that's just my impression from reading that.)

The most that I can find in Callam to support that is

"... the mid 1920s, with the failure of Nitana, the demise of her own operatic endeavor, and possibly other undocumented obstacles, Unkalunt “found herself a full-fledged opera singer with nine operas at her command, but no chance to sing in her own country.”125 This statement seems to suggest hurdles including racism and financial obstacles kept Unkalunt from an operatic career, barriers which European or European-trained singers were less likely to encounter. The wording is certainly striking, particularly “in her own country”: white society in the U.S. was most eager to claim Unkalunt as she fit into the idealized past, much more eager than it was to support a Cherokee soprano in her quest to sing opera."

That's a noticeably weaker statement than the ones in our article, either "By 1921, she was living in New York City and hopeful of becoming an opera performer. Unable to break through the color bar, she performed as an "Indian princess"" or "Unkalunt's musical career and dreams of performing as an operatic soprano, were thwarted by the public demand for her to promote Native American culture and perform Indianist music.". Even Callam only says "the wording is striking" and "seems to suggest", and I don't see any other sources we're citing that use stronger terms about Unkalunt specifically; we're citing sources about how other Amerind performers hit the color bar, but not Unkalunt specifically. Note that even Callam focuses on Nitana, the opera that Unkalunt worked hardest at, which is specifically about performing as an "Indian princess". Yes, it's possible that actually Unkalunt really wanted to play Brunhilde and only played Nitana because she had to, but our sources need to actually say that. Instead I'm reading them to say she was quite proud of trying to bring Amerind culture to white American culture. We shouldn't go beyond our sources, and we shouldn't deprive Unkalunt of agency in her own life choices unless we have to. I think we should weaken our statements, and remove the "playing Indian" bit entirely. I would not be surprised if Unkalunt would have found it offensive. She was quite proud of being Indian, or as she would have put it, Amerind. --GRuban (talk) 12:33, 15 August 2022 (UTC)

Sorry, I've been at a doctor's appointment for my husband all morning. I appreciate your review. It is entirely possible that I am too close to the subject, having read multitudes of the invented nonsense written about her in newspapers. Calam says "classically trained Cherokee soprano went unfilled; instead, she navigated meeting white audience demand and promoting Native culture in her concerts of Indianist music", "faced assumptions that American Indians were a “dying race” while she performed versions of American Indian music harmonized by white composers","Unkalunt, due to stereotypes of American Indians in white society, had less freedom than the other three curators regarding whether or not even to engage with the past." "Unkalunt had to perform her Indianness in the face of white expectations and stereotypes. Though her dream was to be an opera star, Unkalunt spent her career performing works by white Indianist composers, who forced Native melodies into the Western harmonic system as a way to “preserve” supposedly disappearing repertoire.", "Unkalunt 'found herself a full-fledged opera singer with nine operas at her command, but no chance to sing in her own country'. This statement seems to suggest hurdles including racism and financial obstacles kept Unkalunt from an operatic career, barriers which European or European-trained singers were less likely to encounter", "Benedict also claimed that Unkalunt stole seven bottles of whiskey to sell at $20 each, and by doing so she played on the trope of Indians as alcoholics". In addition, I read hundreds of articles to write this and I can assure you I am not reading anything into the discrimination she faced. Then there are newspaper clippings like this, this, this and this to name a few and I didn't even save most of the truly offensive ones. I am sure all of the Native people who had to play a part found it offensive, but they did what they had to do to earn a living, which Unkalunt acknowledges. I read the bit from Deloria, and he admits he couldn't possibly know every Native person, so I don't really see how the fact that he didn't know of her is any big deal. All of that said, feel free to edit it any way you want. I truly mean that. SusunW (talk) 16:12, 15 August 2022 (UTC)

Thank you, will edit. I do like pointing out that she faced discrimination, and that she wanted to be an opera star. That said, those two statements don't quite add up to either of that she was only not an opera star due to that discrimination (lots of aspiring opera stars don't make it); or that she only played Indianist roles due to that discrimination. We should state those facts, and leave the possible, but not definite, conclusion to the reader, without stating it outright in Wikipedia's voice. --GRuban (talk) 16:26, 15 August 2022 (UTC)

I get it. I really do, but I also have a lived experience about discrimination towards women and Native people. We can read the same sources and come to different conclusions because of our lived knowledge, which is why collaboration is always a good thing. As for role-playing, she was, and she never denied it. She didn't label herself as princess, the press did. She never claimed to be full-blooded, instead highlighted her attributes as being mixed, but the press did. She said her dad was a politician, the press called him a chief. And yet, then that same press reported that she perpetrated a hoax. I didn't want to load the article with photographs of her in costume, as her Plains Indian costumes aren't remotely similar to Cherokee traditional dress. Anyway, I am always extremely thankful for your input and assistance. SusunW (talk) 16:54, 15 August 2022 (UTC)

OK, I think I weakened the focus sufficiently, also made a few other tweaks. I actually left much of the "playing Indian" paragraph in. Take a look, and if you don't like the end result, we can try again. Thank you for encouraging me to edit! --GRuban (talk) 12:33, 16 August 2022 (UTC)

You did a good job. Thank you! (And for the record, I am always appreciative when you edit, otherwise we might have dice rather than roster ) Perhaps someday someone will write explicitly about the discrimination I know she faced. It will be a victory when her story won't be able to be taught in Florida. I noticed something reading through that I didn't before. She studied in Boston with Millie Ryan and then in New York with a Millie Ryan. I searched for the name in quotes in Newspapers.com and come up with no hits for Boston, but this which shows that Ryan in Omaha, Nebraska had a studio in NYC. There does not appear to be any other Millie Ryan except a vocal coach who is covered in the news between 1900 and 1920. Do we think we should say she resumed studying with Ryan and refer to her by her surname or leave it as is? Oh and two final questions, "Indian female lead", while it would have been proper at that time, perhaps would be better to be Native now? Do you think we are ready to nominate it for GA? SusunW (talk) 16:07, 16 August 2022 (UTC)

Thank you! I'd leave the Ryan(s) alone since we don't have any evidence she's the one in Boston. Especially since our recent episode with a certain pair of Greek immigrants to Mexico![ [8] It's not the most uncommon name, so while it's possible they're the same it's also possible they aren't. At worst, we have a single word of redundancy, which is better that writing something incorrect. I was torn about the "Indian female lead" - that is the wording our sources use, and it's by no means the only "Indian" in the article. If you strongly want to change it to "Native", I won't oppose, but is there another way to hint that "The Dying Race" is almost certainly referring to specifically the "dying" American Indian race, which seems relevant? I am hardly an expert on GA, you write one every week if not several every week, while I don't have any listed on my user page, so whatever you think is right. It's certainly a "good article" in my opinion... ah, sure, go for it! --GRuban (talk) 17:10, 16 August 2022 (UTC)

I haven't actually found any description of the film other than it's name and date in sources. (Callam even thought it was produced in 1915, but I can't find record of anything other than 1916.) I know it was produced because of the inclusion of it in the archives of John R. Freuler. You have definitely been credited on a whole slew of GAs, which you could claim, because they wouldn't have been nominated or reached that point without your help: 20108, 2020, 2021, 2022 I'll nominate it now. SusunW (talk) 19:57, 16 August 2022 (UTC)

Article Review

Hello, Can you please review Draft:Sruthy Sithara? Thanks -Imperfect Boy (talk) 07:06, 12 August 2022 (UTC)

Should be fine, Vice is an in-depth international source, and she's got a bit more coverage than just for winning one contest, but I seem to have been removed from the list of WP:AfC reviewers. Let me look into that. --GRuban (talk) 11:42, 12 August 2022 (UTC)

 Done --GRuban (talk) 14:26, 12 August 2022 (UTC)

List of Miss Supranational countries Edit Invitation

Hello, I'm User:Canny Yeohmanly. I invite you to edit List of Miss Supranational countries page, because I see many of your contributions to editing articles related to beauty pageants. The page table has not been updated to the last version, after the Miss Supranational 2022 competition. Hope your contribution can help...--Canny Yeohmanly (talk) 12:40, 13 August 2022 (UTC)

Sorry, while I did create Miss and Mister Supranational (and defended it through quite a few deletion attempts!), that's pretty much my only beauty pageant article, and it's been mostly rewritten by other eager contributors. I may appear to edit many beauty pageant articles, but that's mostly to add images, I'm not that interested in them otherwise. See, I like adding images to articles. I also, for example, add quite a few images to articles about female and minority scientists, but don't actually write very many of those either. And as it happens, there are quite a few more images of beauty pageant contestants than of scientists on the Internet! Yes, I'm shocked too, I have no idea why that would be ... --GRuban (talk) 15:29, 16 August 2022 (UTC)

August songs

August songs

pics and thoughts on 13 August -- Gerda Arendt (talk) 12:56, 13 August 2022 (UTC)

Look at the church where I heard VOCES8, look for blue for it's interior, second in blue light. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 14:43, 30 August 2022 (UTC)

Thank you for the substantial help with the images of Ich will den Kreuzstab gerne tragen, BWV 56 , crucial on its way to featured article! - images of a rich summer, especially in music --Gerda Arendt (talk) 21:00, 31 August 2022 (UTC)

NPP message

Hi GRuban,

Invitation

For those who may have missed it in our last newsletter, here's a quick reminder to see the letter we have drafted, and if you support it, do please go ahead and sign it. If you already signed, thanks. Also, if you haven't noticed, the backlog has been trending up lately; all reviews are greatly appreciated.

To opt-out of future mailings, please remove yourself here.

MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 23:10, 20 August 2022 (UTC)

DYK for Eunice Newton Foote

On 22 August 2022, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Eunice Newton Foote, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that the unacknowledged contributions of Eunice Newton Foote to climate change research were recovered by Elizabeth Wagner Reed, whose research in genetics were also obscured? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Eunice Newton Foote. You are welcome to check how many pageviews the nominated article or articles got while on the front page (here's how, Eunice Newton Foote), and if they received a combined total of at least 416.7 views per hour (i.e., 5,000 views in 12 hours or 10,000 in 24), the hook may be added to the statistics page. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page.

— Maile (talk) 00:03, 22 August 2022 (UTC)

DYK for Elizabeth Wagner Reed

On 22 August 2022, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Elizabeth Wagner Reed, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that the unacknowledged contributions of Eunice Newton Foote to climate change research were recovered by Elizabeth Wagner Reed, whose research in genetics were also obscured? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Eunice Newton Foote. You are welcome to check how many pageviews the nominated article or articles got while on the front page (here's how, Elizabeth Wagner Reed), and if they received a combined total of at least 416.7 views per hour (i.e., 5,000 views in 12 hours or 10,000 in 24), the hook may be added to the statistics page. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page.

— Maile (talk) 00:03, 22 August 2022 (UTC)

DYK for Chaz Stevens

On 22 August 2022, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Chaz Stevens, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that after Florida schools banned 54 mathematics books, Chaz Stevens petitioned that they also ban the Bible? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Chaz Stevens. You are welcome to check how many pageviews the nominated article or articles got while on the front page (here's how, Chaz Stevens), and if they received a combined total of at least 416.7 views per hour (i.e., 5,000 views in 12 hours or 10,000 in 24), the hook may be added to the statistics page. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page.

— Maile (talk) 00:04, 22 August 2022 (UTC)

		Hook update
		Your hook reached 14,261 views (594.2 per hour), making it one of the most viewed hooks of August 2022 – nice work!

theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/they) 06:26, 23 August 2022 (UTC)

Emma Kickapoo

Just started on this, but I would like photos. This photograph was taken in 1913. The photos from the Wanamaker expeditions are credited to Joseph K. Dixon but he was the leader of the expedition, not the photographers, according to this. The book says the photographs were located in the American Museum of Natural History, but I cannot figure out how to search their catalog[9] and have been unable to locate a publication date prior to this book. It was copyrighted in 1971 by Charles R. Reynolds Jr. on the acknowledgements page. There is no record of same in the 1971 books and pamphlets nor art. It is however, in the 1972 books as A321921 filed 17 November 1971. Searching on-line catalog for renewals of title "American Indian Portraits from the Wannamaker Expedition of 1913" nada; for the name "Charles R. Reynolds Jr. nada'; for registration number A321921, nada. The photo was probably sent out as PR, as it is shown in numerous newspapers, the first of which was masthead, publishing data,photo none of which contain any marks, but I am always nervous as to whether I searched the database correctly. (Much easier for me to be sure if it is in print .)

If you don't think this is sufficient for commons, I suppose we could upload it fair use, when the article is done. But, if we do that, then the question becomes which is the better photo? This one, or this one. The quilt was made for FDR during his first presidential run, so is dated to 1931 or 1932 and per this p 666 was made by Brooks Studio, Shawnee, Oklahoma. Unfortunately, that book was published in 1978, so I am fairly sure it is copyrighted still. (Note that the comment thread on Flickr says there were actually 3 quilts made.) As always, your help would be greatly appreciated. SusunW (talk) 14:31, 22 August 2022 (UTC)

Okay, a teeny bit more, but I still can't find her. This photo says it was from the 1913 expedition and came from the Library of Congress. I found this listing but have no idea how or if the images can be viewed. SusunW (talk) 20:52, 22 August 2022 (UTC)

OK, the book specifically says "... [these] portraits ... most of which are first published in this book ... are nearly sixty years old. Taken in 1913, they were filed, and in effect, forgotten, until 1965." If they had been forgotten for 70 years they would have fallen into the public domain, but they weren't. It looks like the originals were donated to the American Museum of National History... presumably with their copyrights, and presumably the museum gave Charles R. Reynolds who compiled the book, the right to publish them. The book does have a noticeable copyright 1971 statement, you found it registered, and after 1964, US books don't need to have their copyrights renewed. So looks like the book images are in copyright in general. But since this particular image was published in multiple newspapers without a copyright notice, it is probably good. It might be slightly debatable whether we can use the better quality image from the book scan, or would need to use the poorer quality image from the newspaper scan. I'm going to argue that the image from the book was sent out by Reynolds's publishers in multiple copies for reproduction ("published") in at least the resolution as printed on the cover and frontispiece of the book, since the Albuquerque Journal printed it rather large, but someone could nitpick and say we don't have absolute proof of that and ask we use the Journal scan. (They could even say we don't have absolute proof the publishers even sent it out as a PR photo, but the multiple newspapers does make it likely.) --GRuban (talk) 19:54, 24 August 2022 (UTC)

I so appreciate you. I was hopeful, but unsure, especially since I couldn't even find them on the museum page. There were lots of "buy this book for Christmas" articles that came out at the end of 1971 featuring the photo. It seems weird to me that I also couldn't find the commissioned medal for the Smithsonian, but I am happy if we even have one photo. SusunW (talk) 21:52, 24 August 2022 (UTC)

Here is the "original" scan, and an attempt at cropping and brightening. I'm less sure about the medallion, here is a rather long list of Sawyer's medals, https://medalblog.wordpress.com/2010/07/05/sawyer%E2%80%99s-indians/ and she doesn't show on it. --GRuban (talk) 23:31, 24 August 2022 (UTC)

• 
  Internet Archive book scan
• 
  Cropped, brightened

Weird that none of the 3 Mexican Kickapoo listed in the newspaper article are listed on the list. From the article, it's pretty clear the Smithsonian commissioned them and at least one was cast while he was in Oklahoma, otherwise, how would anyone know it resembled the person? Hmmmmm. SusunW (talk) 01:51, 25 August 2022 (UTC)

Article Review

Hello, can you please review Draft:Mallu Traveler. He's a YouTuber from Kerala. Hope the subjects meet GNG. Thank you 117.230.19.104 (talk) 04:47, 1 September 2022 (UTC)