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)

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)

• Note: I keep this message to show how angry people get when you challenge their deletions by pointing out the errors in their deletion argument. As of 2023 EugeneZelensko is facing sanctions for their frivolous deletion nominations that Ellin Beltz supported. Especially egregious is the use of the term "warning", implying that some punishment is intended in the future for disagreeing with her. People use the term "warning" as intimidation when they cannot win an argument by logic or persuasion. The nomination was for an engraving first made public in the year 1650, yet she still argued for deletion of the image. --RAN (talk) 19:31, 22 December 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.

• Note: I keep this message to show how angry people get when you challenge their deletions by pointing out the errors in their deletion argument. Ellin Beltz converts speedy nominations to regular deletion nominations, even when the evidence is clear that the images are in the public domain. Instead she should just remove the speedy tag and explain why in the edit summary. Sometimes the nomination is because the uploader used the upload date, rather than the date the image was first created. --RAN (talk) 19:31, 22 December 2022 (UTC)-

Contested PD-US-Gov..

I've typically put things at DR, to get an opinion so that I can use those opinions (when the DR) is decided as a basis for making the kind of license changes you have been. This was because I got told off for making unilateral license changes in the past.

You seem to have considereable expertise in this area.

I have no objections to other contributors like yourself, working though categories like the FEDLINK and Naval Postgraduate School categories, to review licenses (and re-categorise works) appropriately.

The relevant categories:-

Category:FEDLINK_-_United_States_Federal_Collection which needs dispersal anyway..

And more specfically:-

FEDLINK_items_for_license_review Documents from the US Naval Postgraduate School Library Documents from the US Naval Postgraduate School Library for license review‎ Category:Academic_theses_and_dissertations_of_the_Naval_Postgraduate_School

If interested you may also wish to resolve items in :- Category:FEDLINK - Henry G. Gilbert Nursery and Seed Trade Catalog Collection Documents from the USPTO Scientific and Technical Center IA_books_copyright_review_automatically_suggested Category:Internet Archive (renewal check needed) Category:Academic theses and dissertations

ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 10:58, 16 December 2022 (UTC)

CAB Accident Reports

Hi, you left a message on PeterWD's user talk page in December of 2020 asking for a source for online CAB accident reports. I don't know if you found your answer, but I just found a US govt site for the DOT's Repository and Open Science Access Portal (ROSAP). The reports are scanned, and I don't know how complete the collection is. The site says it contains "Digitized copies of United States 'Civil Aeronautics Board Aircraft Accident Reports,' dating from 1934 to 1965. Incident reports are searchable by airline name (at time of incident), site of incident, and date of incident." There are 791 investigation reports available. For my own interest I searched for the Buddy Holly crash (which I know they investigated - I found that report elsewhere) but could not find it. There are 31 reports from 1959 incidents, including a single-occupant Mooney M-18, but not Buddy Holly's Bonanza N3794N. You were specifically looking for a certain midair collision in 1940, and I didn't notice it among the 11 reports from that year. (If it was at a military airfield, would the CAB have investigated it?) It's a great resource though, if somewhat incomplete. Dcs002 (talk) 23:38, 6 March 2023 (UTC)

• @Dcs002: Yea, I found a person that wrote back at NARA and they explained that the CAB has only scanned a small portion of their reports, and they have plans to digitize more, but no budget for it. I watched a video of NARA digitizing Civil War widow pension records, and it will take them 30 years to complete, at their current pace. Just indexing and reboxing the records took a decade. See this video --RAN (talk) 00:07, 7 March 2023 (UTC)

  Thanks for the link! They have 1.28 million case files to digitize in that project. The CAB accident reports must be a fraction of a percent of that total, and all they've done is photo-scanning them, not fully digitize them with OCR & formatting or translating hand-written forms into digital text. One college I worked at until 2004 had a machine that could automate that process in seconds to minutes, depending on the document size, and that was just for office use. It made a pdf file of the document and delivered it to any computer in the network. A machine like that could do those 791 reports in a few days, as long as the original paper is intact. I bet they'd have no trouble finding volunteers for a project like that either, even if it meant hand scanning them on a flatbed scanner. I'd do it! Dcs002 (talk) 00:25, 7 March 2023 (UTC)

Discussion at COM:HD#Allentown discussion resumed

 You are invited to join the discussion at COM:HD#Allentown discussion resumed. -- Marchjuly (talk) 00:47, 29 March 2023 (UTC)

Just notifying you as a courtesy since you were a participant in the previous discussion. -- Marchjuly (talk) 00:48, 29 March 2023 (UTC)

I'm wondering if you'd mind applying your research skills yet again

Hi Richard. Would you mind taking a look at File:1942 - Dresher - Martin Home - Allentown PA.jpg, File:Dick Powell as Richard Diamond, Private Decetive.jpg, File:1980 - The Shanty - 4 May MC - Allentown PA.jpg, File:1976 - The Shanty - 16 Feb MC - Allentown PA.jpg, File:1969 - Leon Furniture Fire - 9 Feb MC 3 - Allentown PA.jpg, File:1953 - Dresher - Martin Home - Allentown PA.jpg, File:1964 - Cloverleaf Motel - Fogelsville - Postcard - Allentown PA.jpg and File:1965 - Christmas Shopping - Hess Brothers - Allentown PA.jpg. There are many more as well this user has uploaded that might need assessing, but this seems to be a representative sample of the rest. Many of the scans of The Morning Call images might be OK as {{PD-US-not renewed}} and the restaurant ads might be OK as is (though I think separate copyright notices for ads stopped being required in 1978). The other post cards and photos might also be OK, but just in need of tweaking. -- Marchjuly (talk) 21:45, 16 July 2023 (UTC)

• Sure! You can do it too, we added all the newspapers. See: The Morning Call and then scroll to "Online Books Page publication ID" and click on that link, it takes you to the copyright history of the paper. It reads: "no issue renewals found", so all are PD up to 1964. If a paper doesn't have an entry for Online Books, it means there are no renewals, but the guy that runs the database hasn't added that paper as a negative yet. All the renewals for magazines and newspapers are already loaded in the database. Eventually I will migrate the renewal data directly into Wikidata. For all the above entries I have not found any copyright registration or renewals, and there is no visible copyright symbol on the advertisement flyers. It appears the uploader has been paying attention and adding the proper licenses except File:1969 - Leon Furniture Fire - 9 Feb MC 3 - Allentown PA.jpg, since the image came from the paper, the paper had a copyright symbol covering all images within. --RAN (talk) 22:24, 16 July 2023 (UTC)

  Thank you for looking at these. -- Marchjuly (talk) 05:34, 17 July 2023 (UTC)

  @Marchjuly: It is still frustrating that they do not answer in a reasonable amount of time, or return emails, or take advice. They should really start a Fandom wiki for Allentown, Pennsylvania and migrate all their long form research that was not welcome at Wikipedia and not welcome on Commons. Fandom accepts fair use imagery. --RAN (talk) 16:54, 13 August 2023 (UTC)

  The uploader hasn't logged into Commons since the beginning of June; so, it's quite possible they're just busy with real world stuff (they previously mentioned they had some health problems) or have otherwise decided to take a bit of a break from Commons. Their last Commons edit bascially created another quasi-like article in a Commons category page despite the fact that they were aware that this is not really considered acceptable. So, either they didn't quite get what that discussion related to their quasi-articles was about, don't really care what anyone else thinks, or a combination of the two. My take is that the uploader isn't really too concerned with things like COM:SCOPE and just sees Commons as a free website to post their original research or images they want to keep, and they haven't really given me any cause to think otherwise. I tried at the beginning to explain on their user talk page how Commons kind of works early on, but the response I got was Whatever babe. How much additional time you devote to cleaning up after this person is entirely up to you. At some point, though, it might just be necessary to assume that they're en:WP:NOTHERE for Commons and just work around them and do what's best for Commons. -- Marchjuly (talk) 03:03, 16 August 2023 (UTC)

File:Three portraits of an unknown girl.jpg

Hi, Thanks for adding the category "Candlestick telephones", but what makes you think it is from around 1915? IMO I would rather say "between 1920 and 1945", but I am not an expert. Regards, Yann (talk) 08:55, 1 November 2023 (UTC)

Morning Call copyrights

Hi RAN. Since you added this to Category:The Morning Call (Allentown, Pennsylvania), I wondering if you have any information on the copyright status of the paper from January 1, 1964, onward. Given that 1964 + 28 years brings us all the way up to the en:Copyright Renewal Act of 1992, which made renewal no longer required, I'm wondering whether any issues of the paper published from 1964 to 1977 (inclusive) would still be eligible for copyright protection, assuming they were published with a notice, and whether anything published from 1978 onward (even without a notice) would be still be protected. -- Marchjuly (talk) 00:35, 2 November 2023 (UTC)

• @Marchjuly: Let me look at their front page from a 1965 issue and see if they had a proper copyright notice and then I will check a 1988 issue, my guess is they would have the word "copyright" on the front page, but you never know until you check. We have a full page of movies and books that never bothered or were improperly formatted, and had their copyright invalidated. I will check later tonight at newspapers.com. --RAN (talk) 00:41, 2 November 2023 (UTC)
• Ha! It looks like they did not have a copyright notice in 1967 and they had one by 1988. Let me check to see when they started adding a copyright notice, remember from 1977 to 1989, they still had to register for a copyright as well have "copyrighted" on the front page. Are there specific years you are interested in, otherwise I will have to check each year for 10 years, it will take about 30 minutes, and I will have to do it Thursday. --RAN (talk) 03:14, 2 November 2023 (UTC)
  • Thank you for doing all of this RAN. There's no rush. The files that made me start to wonder about this are being discussed at COM:VPC#1969 and 1971 US newspaper clippings. -- Marchjuly (talk) 06:01, 2 November 2023 (UTC)