Open main menu
Warning: this page is watched over by ancient and powerful spirits. Be civil, or you will invoke their wrath.


Contents

DYK for Criminal-justice financial obligations in the United StatesEdit

 On 7 April 2019, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Criminal-justice financial obligations in the United States, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that fees and penalties charged as part of criminal-justice financial obligations in the United States may lead to the justice system becoming both a result and a cause of poverty? You are welcome to check how many page hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, Criminal-justice financial obligations in the United States), and it may be added to the statistics page if the total is over 5,000. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page.

Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 00:02, 7 April 2019 (UTC)

Your e-mailEdit

I'm sorry, but policy prohibits me from disclosing that information to you.--Bbb23 (talk) 14:56, 18 April 2019 (UTC)

Yes, I believe we've found ourselves on opposite ends of this predicament previously, regarding the partitioning of information between OTRS and functionaries. It is unfortunate. GMGtalk 15:09, 18 April 2019 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:Husky-logo-Black 2017.jpgEdit

 

Thanks for uploading File:Husky-logo-Black 2017.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in section F5 of the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 21:13, 19 April 2019 (UTC)

Alexis HermanEdit

Hi, you added Alexis Herman to Wikipedia:Selected anniversaries/May 9 with the text Alexis Herman was sworn in as the first female U.S. Secretary of Labor, but that was Frances Perkins. She wasn't even the first African American woman appointed to a Cabinet position (Carla Anderson Hills). As such, I don't see that article as a good fit for that date. However, the article is in good shape so I will be happy to put her on her birthday instead. Thanks. howcheng {chat} 23:28, 22 April 2019 (UTC)

Hmm? I'd totally forgotten about that article. Thanks for catching my error. Much appreciated. GMGtalk 23:49, 22 April 2019 (UTC)

CommentEdit

- Very few people to possibly no one should be ever negatively judged regarding their behavior resulting from being savagely tortured daily in a POW camp. While a select few may be able to "hold out," suggesting that this is a reasonable expectation for a human in this situation is profoundly unjust and inappropriate. This is particularly true of anyone who hasn't been through such a situation. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2603:3016:204:B1E0:3D2F:5F38:1955:BFBB (talk) 13:46, 24 April 2019 (UTC) 2603:3016:204:B1E0:3D2F:5F38:1955:BFBB (talk) Shannon @ mccoven.com Shannon McCoven, MA

Hello Shannon. I'm afraid you're going to have to provide a bit more context here. As far as I am aware, I have not been involved in any recent discussions regarding prisoners of war. GMGtalk 14:05, 24 April 2019 (UTC)

Sorry, my bad. - - > Allegations from POWs about McCain providing Intel to captors. I'm curious to see that there is no mention at all of the very numerous allegations from fellow POWs in Vietnam that Mr. McCain supplied the VC with Intel on US air sorties. I've noticed other political figures have numerous mentions of disputed allegations in their bio. Is this a normal degree of bias in Wikipedia? Lakeraider01 (talk) 20:14, 9 April 2019 (UTC)

Source? GMGtalk 20:16, 9 April 2019 (UTC)

And if this was an inappropriate place to comment, feel free to delete it. I have a master's in clinical psychology (undergrad in Sociology and Philosophy). It really bothers me when people criticize other humans for possibly lack of courage (that law enforcement officer that didn't immediately charge into that school shooting) or some prison of war that signed some statement under torture, or disclosed military information under torture, especially relentless torture over the course of years. I don't believe that anyone knows what they will do in those kinds of situations. Hat's off to people who can "hold out," but I believe that expecting humans to do so is unfair. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2603:3016:204:B1E0:3D2F:5F38:1955:BFBB (talk) 15:31, 24 April 2019 (UTC)

Hey, I hear you. My Masters is in Social Work, and I've been in or around the military my whole life. As far as I'm aware, the whole thing about McCain is a bit of a fringe theory. That's why I asked for a source, because I suspected they couldn't provide one that was reliable. GMGtalk 15:34, 24 April 2019 (UTC)

I'm a complete idiot. I thought were you promoting or wanted to put that in. I apologize profoundly. - Shannon

Hey no worries at all. If I can ever be of any help feel free to drop by any time. GMGtalk 15:37, 24 April 2019 (UTC)

Aletta JacobsEdit

Okay, so all the photos we have of her are not stellar and I have been searching for months for a better one. I think I have finally hit paydirt, but you know, copyright makes me nervous and I doubt myself. I found this image. And then going through Atria's files, I found this 1915 visa which was issued with the same photo. So my question is does publication of a passport constitute publication for our purposes? If so, as it was published prior to 1923, even though it was outside of the US, I think I should be fine, but wanted other eyes to tell me that. Thanks! SusunW (talk) 18:02, 27 April 2019 (UTC)

Ah ha Susun! It took about an hour but I believe I've found some actionable information here. According to der Groninger Archieven the author of the image was the German photographer Max Büttinghausen (died 25 December 1906). So it seems that (in an era when access to photography was still comparatively rare) this was a professional photograph she had done previously, and which she later provided to the Dutch government for the purposes of printing her passport. So to heck with the three paragraphs I just wrote and deleted on the definition of publication, we can just slap on a judicious {{PD-old-100}} and call it a day. GMGtalk 12:23, 28 April 2019 (UTC)
Yippee! Except for the three paragraphs you deleted about publication. (I really do need an answer on the passport thingy, as I find passports a lot and never know if that constitutes "publication". My thought is that it is a government publication and I know mine has been seen by people in over 100 countries ;) .) How you found that Groninger Archieven link I do not know, but I am sooo excited because I think that means that @Adam Cuerden: now has an image to use for our effort to take suffragettes' photos to featured pictures. So far every Jacobs' picture I have asked him about has been of too poor a quality. I am stoked that he might finally say he can work with this one! I totally appreciate your help. As always, you are amazing! SusunW (talk) 14:09, 28 April 2019 (UTC)
@SusunW: The answer to the "publish" question is..."I don't know". I didn't find any court case or any other precedent regarding either the EU or the Netherlands regarding whether a passport qualifies as "a publication". I could make a good argument one way or the other as far as the Berne Convention goes. I didn't really find any information at all regarding either pre-1950 passports, or non-US passports. Round about the turn of the century, cameras were pretty specialized, which is why you still often see etchings from this era (although they were falling out of style).
As always, my door is open. Feel free to stop by for any reason or no reason at all. Thanks for all your work in helping us build the encyclopedia my daughter will read. GMGtalk 17:28, 28 April 2019 (UTC)
Well, I stuck the passport use on as "other information" in the upload. Not sure I used the right US tag, as it should be published outside the US prior to 1923, but in any case, someone will surely come along and fix it. Thank you so much for your always helpful open door policy. My sincere hope is that we will continue to build a more diverse encyclopedia for all of our daughters (and sons) no matter if they live in the Global South (or north). I strive to add women because our representation is so imbalanced, but am always also aware and most interested in those who worked internationally to build our global "village". SusunW (talk) 17:50, 28 April 2019 (UTC)
Feel free to help out on our sister projects too. Only a few days ago I made q:Myla Goldberg and q:Jessica Meir. I often find that it's hard to write a new article without finding enough quotes to make a Wikiquote page to accompany it. Digging gets all kinds of dirt. GMGtalk 18:27, 28 April 2019 (UTC)

gun, crime and weightEdit

GMG, a while back you weighed in on the topic of guns and crime [[1]]. Do you have a feel for when you think a crime should be included in an article about a rifle? I discussed this to some extent here but was interested in someone else's thoughts to perhaps clarify my own. [[2]] Thanks (and thanks for your previous thoughts in the Signpost article) Springee (talk) 17:19, 29 April 2019 (UTC)

I think it's easier to get your head around if you put it in terms of something that isn't politically contentious. Suppose we were writing (for whatever reason) an encyclopedia article on Red Chevrolet pickup truck. I guarantee you can find a nearly endless number of sources where red Chevrolet pickup trucks were stolen, used in crimes, or involved in fatal crashes (e.g., [3], [4], [5], [6], [7]...and all from the first page of Google news results). That doesn't mean that any of that figures into our WEIGHT calculation on Wikipedia, because none of those sources are about red Chevrolet pickup trucks, which is the subject we're writing about.
If any of those crashes or thefts or what-have-you turn out to be independently notable, then we should probably look at including details about the red Chevrolet pickup truck in the article about the event. But unless the preponderance of sources specifically about red Chevrolet pickup trucks feels the need to mention a particular event from the news, then it doesn't meet WEIGHT. That's why "Ford Bronco" is mentioned four times in O. J. Simpson murder case, but OJ Simpson doesn't even get passing mention in Ford_Bronco (except in a category that probably shouldn't be there). GMGtalk 17:52, 29 April 2019 (UTC)
OK, I think I'm seeing this the same way you are. My view is that we follow what WEIGHT tells us to do and look at articles about the subject of the Wikipedia entry. RSs about the Browning BAR do mention Bonnie and Clyde so we include that in the article here. But in most cases RS's about the firearm don't. Really the generic AR-15/assault weapon articles seem to be the most common cases where an article "about the gun" talks about the crimes. I also agree about the abstraction. I wish I could think of some examples beyond the automotive world since these discussions keep coming up. Springee (talk) 20:47, 29 April 2019 (UTC)
Well, most people are probably going to miss the point anyway. It's an argument that is liable to be effective for someone who can play the Martian scientist and try to find a set of principles that can be applied consistently across topics; not necessarily an argument for someone who sees gun control in a vacuum primarily through the lens of contemporary politics. That's a big reason why I've almost entirely stopped contributing in contemporary politics. It's not a terribly productive use of time sitting around all centrist-like advocating for nuance and amoral consistency while half the folks call you a libtard and the other half call you a wingnut. I find I'm more productive and less frustrated, when working with people who are on average more collaborative, on things that happened and people that died a hundred years ago. GMGtalk 21:46, 29 April 2019 (UTC)

Daniella van GraasEdit

We have done a 5X expansion. I intend to submit a WP:DYK. I will include all the contributors. Any suggestions for a hook? 7&6=thirteen () 11:33, 30 April 2019 (UTC)

Well...not to be unduly harsh, but I'm not entirely sure what bits of the article are well sourced enough to make it to the main page. I removed the worst offenders, but that wasn't an endorsement of the rest; those were just the bits I was unequivocally willing to claim a 3RR exemption from if I was reverted. GMGtalk 12:24, 30 April 2019 (UTC)
Thanks. Think about it. If you have suggestions, they would be appreciated. 7&6=thirteen () 12:27, 30 April 2019 (UTC)

barnstarEdit

  The Barnstar of Integrity
for being willing to insist on significant coverage in reliable sources valereee (talk) 17:32, 30 April 2019 (UTC)
Meh. They'll always be a significant grey area where reasonable people can disagree. Won't hurt my feelings one way or the other. I would normally be a great deal more eager to AGF and accept pay-walled non-English sources, without (last time I looked) either a unique identifier or a named author, but having to remove things like this gives me serious pause that at least one editor there egregiously does not understand sourcing for BLPs. I figure it's not worth breaking out the WP:BLAME and finding out who it was. It'd probably just make things worse anyway. GMGtalk 19:56, 30 April 2019 (UTC)
Agreed on all counts --valereee (talk) 20:06, 30 April 2019 (UTC)

The Signpost: 30 April 2019Edit

Precious anniversaryEdit

Precious
 
Two years!

--Gerda Arendt (talk) 06:33, 1 May 2019 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of User talk:ActormonuEdit

 

A tag has been placed on User talk:Actormonu requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section U5 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the page appears to consist of writings, information, discussions, and/or activities not closely related to Wikipedia's goals. Please note that Wikipedia is not a free web hosting service. Under the criteria for speedy deletion, such pages may be deleted at any time.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, and you wish to retrieve the deleted material for future reference or improvement, then please contact the deleting administrator, or if you have already done so, you can place a request here. QueerEcofeminist "cite! even if you fight"!!! [they/them/their] 12:41, 8 May 2019 (UTC)

Oh noes. I challenge your speedy deletion! You shant delete my semi-automatically generated warning message! Tyranny! GMGtalk 13:12, 8 May 2019 (UTC)

Inter-Allied Women's ConferenceEdit

I found a picture published in 1919 that depicts women who attended this conference. A much clearer image can be found here. Is this one of those companies like Getty that tries to make you pay for images already in the public domain? Can I use it? SusunW (talk) 22:53, 10 May 2019 (UTC)

Hey Susun. Yeeeah, there's a special place in copyright hell for sites like those. I'll do you one better. Here is what looks to be the original without the annoying watermarks. But the good stuff is that the Minneapolis newspaper means we know it was published in the US before 1923. So you should be good to go. You can just cite the newspaper link in the file description as evidence of the date of publication. GMGtalk 00:20, 11 May 2019 (UTC)
Woo hoo! I still don't know how you find these originals, but I don't care. I know enough to ask you and that works for me. Gracias mi amigo! SusunW (talk) 04:58, 11 May 2019 (UTC)
Hey Susun. As far as I can tell, a lot of these public-domain-scam sites are bot generated using existing information from public archives. So other than the annoying watermark, everything else is often unchanged, meaning you can usually search for the file name verbatim and find where files by that exact name exist elsewhere. GMGtalk 12:49, 11 May 2019 (UTC)
Good to know. I truly do appreciate your skills! On that note, can I get you to double-check the tags I put on the images mentioned at the GA review on the Inter-Allied Women's Conference? Just want to make sure I didn't screw any of them up. SusunW (talk) 13:19, 11 May 2019 (UTC)
Hey Susun. Poking around they look pretty good. i would caution one thing though: it's good to keep in mind mobile viewers and people with different monitors when arranging images (project wide, half or more of our readers are using mobile). So the long string of vertical images you have on the right probably looks fine on narrower resolution monitors, but it's going to probably be format breaking on ultra-wide monitors, and on mobile view it stacks about 20 inches of single vertical images in the background section that you have to scroll through before you get to any text. (You can check what it looks like on mobile devices by using the developer tools in Google Chrome.) I would recommend instead to go with the type of formatting I used at Indian Peace Commission. It still stacks them at the top of the section on mobile, but will stack them horizontally as much as it can depending on the screen width, and narrow or wide screen monitors are unaffected in the article display. GMGtalk 14:05, 11 May 2019 (UTC)
LOL, as if I have any idea what "You can check what it looks like on mobile devices by using the developer tools in Google Chrome" means. I can barely use my phone as a phone (Swiping is virtuall impossible, making answering a call fraught with difficulty. Don't even get me started on the excruciating frustration of typing one letter at a time, when on a keyboard I type 120 words per minute). Would it make more sense to list them in "gallery" format at the bottom? There are so many that horizontally in the middle seems like it would be disruptive to the article flow. SusunW (talk) 16:01, 11 May 2019 (UTC)
Well, the easiest way to check what it looks like on mobile is probably just to use a phone I guess. I'm not super tech savvy either. (I'm reminded of this recent thread on Wikidata, where I just vomited a little bit and ran away.) It's not going to fail your GA review or anything. It should fail an FA review but I don't have supreme confidence that it would either, since reviewers rarely check for that kind of thing. There are probably a number of solutions, and a gallery is probably one. Just something to keep in mind with regard to our readership. GMGtalk 01:18, 12 May 2019 (UTC)
I'm kind of slow, but I get stuff done ;) We passed GA and Adam Cuerden, who beautifully restored the image on Aletta Jacobs, has agreed to try to work on cleaning up this image too. On your advice, I moved the photos from a vertical list to a gallery at the bottom of the article. SusunW (talk) 18:16, 20 May 2019 (UTC)
Awesome sauce. You are a GA machine. Also I envy Adam's excellent photoshop skills. I did work a little bit on a picture on my plane ride the other day. Will hopefully finish it eventually and maybe get a second FP. At least that's what I've been telling myself :P GMGtalk 14:28, 21 May 2019 (UTC)

───────────────────────── I need another favor, sorry if I am asking too much. At the suggestion of the GA reviewer, I submitted the article for Class-A review by the Military Project. One of the reviewers has asked that the signature be cropped from the photo of Lady Ishbel Aberdeen.[8] 1) I have no idea how to crop a photo which has already been uploaded, 2) I think both the photo *with* the signature (for her article) and *without* the signature (for my article) need to be available for use. (Is this even possible?) Can you crop it for me and advise when it is done? As always, thank you for your help. SusunW (talk) 15:37, 22 May 2019 (UTC)

You can do it fairly easily using c:COM:CROPTOOL. But I'll give it a look tonight when I can get off mobile and back on PC for a minute. GMGtalk 18:45, 22 May 2019 (UTC)
@SusunW:   Done See File:Lady Ishbel Aberdeen 1899 IIAV 15541 (cropped).jpg. GMGtalk 01:50, 23 May 2019 (UTC)
Once again you saved the day. Thank you so very much :) SusunW (talk) 04:28, 23 May 2019 (UTC)

Incomplete DYK nominationEdit

  Hello! Your submission of Template:Did you know nominations/Nujeen Mustafa at the Did You Know nominations page is not complete; if you would like to continue, please link the nomination to the nominations page as described in step 3 of the nomination procedure. If you do not want to continue with the nomination, tag the nomination page with {{db-g7}}, or ask a DYK admin. Thank you. DYKHousekeepingBot (talk) 06:15, 11 May 2019 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:Surviving Mars logo 2017.pngEdit

 

Thanks for uploading File:Surviving Mars logo 2017.png. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in section F5 of the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 17:51, 17 May 2019 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:Monster Boy video game logo 2017.pngEdit

 

Thanks for uploading File:Monster Boy video game logo 2017.png. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in section F5 of the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 02:42, 23 May 2019 (UTC)

Return to the user page of "GreenMeansGo".