User talk:Richard Arthur Norton (1958- )

American League Owners photo

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

I'm off to bed soon, here's the reddit post I made, the responses are slowly coming in. https://www.reddit.com/r/baseball/comments/osdwf1/wikipedia_photo/ Oaktree b (talk) 03:14, 27 July 2021 (UTC)

Excellent, I also wrote SABR, but they rarely respond. --RAN (talk) 03:17, 27 July 2021 (UTC)

Methodologies

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

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

Dragsholm castle

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

Pskov is Pleskow in archaic english and the "battle of Pitzur" would most probably be Battle of Petschora -- Sturban (talk) 11:11, 10 November 2021 (UTC)

And the "battle of Lakowitz" is probably the siege of Lachowicze. -- Sturban (talk) 11:24, 10 November 2021 (UTC)

• Thanks again! I will make the changes and merge the duplicates. --RAN (talk) 14:36, 10 November 2021 (UTC)

Yes, you "have brought this up ... before"

Greetings Richard:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Your second warning on this topic is at Commons:Deletion requests/File:La porallée en 1230.jpg. Ellin Beltz (talk) 02:01, 26 January 2022 (UTC)

Explaining

Greetings: I have been on the project for 15 years, the majority of that time actively in Commons. I am sorry that you do not understand how the system can work to the advantage of saving images which some have marked for deletion. That you continually act as if I am trying to have images deleted which instead I have taken from the Delete pile to try to save completely puzzles me. We are on the same side here, we are trying to save every image which can be saved. But you keep picking at me as if you don't understand this. Sometimes things are sent to DN which are to Document the Situation. There is no documenting No License, No Source and No Permission. Perhaps instead of criticizing you would be so kind as to help with constructive commentary suggesting proper license. I do not send things to Deletion Nomination due to incompetence, but rather due to this project being a community and cooperative project - our work is constantly reviewing images and attempting to save as many as possible. I am fairly certain you were not here or part of the discussion when a former administrator was removed for "changing tags instead of sending it to DN" as one item of their removal. I do not follow that person's method of work - did not at the time - and still do not. I seek consensus among our community to save certain images. It would be helpful to me and to the project if you would be so kind as to cooperate and not argue. Certainly we discuss the fine points of copyright - but I am sure you can see the difference. Sincerely yours, Ellin Beltz (talk) 19:01, 16 March 2022 (UTC) PS. Admin and bureaucrat - both elected by the community.

Question on Unattributed Derivative Files deletion page

I am answering your question in the Unattributed Derivative Files deletion page here because I consider inappropriate to use that page for questions and answers of a personal nature.

I'm not the one who has to fix the files deficiencies of attribution of their original authors, but the user who uploaded them must attribute the authorship. He has been asked this several times, explicitly refusing to do so because he doesn't see the need to do something so "crazy" for something small («no veo la necesidad de hacer algo tan "loco" por algo pequeño»). So, in this case, it being a violation of all the files' copyright, I have proceeded to put the case in the librarians' within the established procedure.

Regards; Macucal (talk) 11:52, 21 May 2022 (UTC)

• You must be referring to Commons:Deletion requests/Unattributed Derivative Files where you are demanding that derivative copies of images you created MUST be deleted, rather than just add the one line of text attributing the new image to the original image. I stand by my statement, fix deficiencies, rather than delete. --RAN (talk) 16:16, 21 May 2022 (UTC)

Notification about possible deletion

Some contents have been listed at Commons:Deletion requests so that the community can discuss whether they should be kept or not. We would appreciate it if you could go to voice your opinion about this at their entry. If you created these pages, please note that the fact that they have been proposed for deletion does not necessarily mean that we do not value your kind contribution. It simply means that one person believes that there is some specific problem with them, such as a copyright issue. Please see Commons:But it's my own work! for a guide on how to address these issues. Please remember to respond to and – if appropriate – contradict the arguments supporting deletion. Arguments which focus on the nominator will not affect the result of the nomination. Thank you!

Affected:

• File:Anthony LeRoy Winblad (1912-1970) at the wedding of Paul John Schwendel I (1941-1996) and Joan Elizabeth Van Deusen (1941- ) on 27 May 1961 in New Jersey.png

And also:

• File:Arthur Oscar Freudenberg (1891-1968) and family on Easter Sunday, 1960.jpg
• File:Arthur Oscar Freudenberg (1891-1968) on Easter Sunday in 1960 in Jersey City, New Jersey.jpg
• File:Paul John Schwendel I (1941-1996) at 268 Gorden Drive in Paramus, New Jersey for Christmas, 1960.png
• File:Thomas Patrick Norton II (1920-2011) and family on September 28, 1958 at 268 Gordon Drive in Paramus, New Jersey for Lutheran baptism of their child.jpg
• File:Thomas Patrick Norton II (1920-2011) and James Joseph Norton II (1929-2011) and Judith Elizabeth Norton in 1953.jpg

Yours sincerely, — Racconish ^💬 05:55, 30 May 2022 (UTC)

Commons: Request for Review

Hello goodnight you could give your opinion in my request of Image Reviewer I count on your help Image Reviewer Request - LeonaardoG (talk) 00:50, 9 June 2022 (UTC)

I look forward to your response on the matter. - LeonaardoG (talk) 00:51, 9 June 2022 (UTC)

Frederick Wolf

Hello again. I just noticed that the man in the photo is wearing Brigadier General's insignia rather than those of a Colonel. Also I at least could not find a Frederick Wolf in the Civil War Photo Sleuth search. However, I'll also keep searching for this particular portrait. De728631 (talk) 07:58, 12 June 2022 (UTC)

• @De728631: Hello! I was working on him last night till 2:00 am, and like you I have extreme doubts. All the documents I find list him as a farmer. I think the best action will be to deprecate all the facts about a military career in his Wikidata entry and remove the image from Wikidata. Then we can write a short paragraph explaining how the image is most likely not Frederick Wolf because the uploader is known for manufacturing fake biographies. We can then label the image as "unknown American Civil War Brigadier General" temporarily. Did you submit the image for AI recognition, or just look through the index like I did at Civil War Photo Sleuth? I believe the database has almost every General and should find an AI match if we submit it. I also don't think we should delete the image because someone in the future may come across the bad information and we need to counter the bad with what we can forensically determine. Any thoughts? --RAN (talk) 16:09, 12 June 2022 (UTC)
  • Yes, we should eventually rename the image and adjust the description. I did not yet try the AI recognition though, I only looked for the name and browsed the generals and colonels from Michigan. On that note, there is also no such entry at en:List of American Civil War generals (Union). Another photo detail that struck me as peculiar is that the uniform coat does not have the typical shoulder patches but has the stars mounted on the lower sleeves. I will now try to find this guy through AI recognition. A reverse image search with TinEye didn't come up with a result though. De728631 (talk) 17:01, 12 June 2022 (UTC)
    • We should probably migrate this thread over to the discussion page for the image when we are done. Do you have a subscription to newspapers.com or genealogybank? I am looking for an obituary for Frederick Wolf. I found an obit for the other fake biography, showing he was a farmer, and not a senator. --RAN (talk) 17:16, 12 June 2022 (UTC)
      • Agreed, we can move this to the image talk page. I am very positive now, however, that this is John F. Pierson. I just signed up at the Civil War Photo Sleuth and ran this through the facial recognition tool. Regarding Wolf, I have no accounts at those other websites though. De728631 (talk) 17:25, 12 June 2022 (UTC)

Excellent! I wonder how he found a previously unknown image of someone not in his family.

This section has been moved to File talk:Colonel Frederick Wolf.jpg#Identity — De728631 (talk) 17:39, 12 June 2022 (UTC)

Category:Illustations by Jo Spier

Category:Illustations by Jo Spier is considered to fulfill the criteria for speedy deletion and has been marked on its page. The following reason has been specified: Misspelling in category name. Empty category. If you believe the content does not meet the criteria for speedy deletion, you may replace the speedy deletion tag with a regular deletion request (if the content has not been deleted) or request undeletion (if the content has already been deleted). All your uploads, including deleted ones, are listed in your upload log. If you need help, please read our frequently asked questions or visit the help desk. Please do not remove this message from your talk page. You may set up archiving instead.

 

Senator2029 21:45, 7 July 2022 (UTC)