GRuban

Candelaria Rodríguez

I find the Cuban copyright page extremely confusing. I mean by that, does - "The period of validity of the copyright in a work created by a procedure analogous to that of the photograph, or on a work of the applied arts, extends to twenty-five years from the use of the work" - mean that the term for a photograph is 25 years? And then there is this "Photographs are in the public domain in the United States if first published in Cuba without compliance with US copyright formalities and used in Cuba before 20 February 1972". Does that mean that they had no mark and weren't copyrighted in the US? What I have found are:

• Group Photo 1952, p 1. I don't see any copyright mark on the page 1 masthead, nothing on the publishing notice on page 2 either. It says it was made by "Foto Raú", but a google search doesn't tell me anything about that studio. The photograph was first published in Cuba and I find no photographs of her whatsoever in any time period published in newspapers.com, newspaperarchive.com, or the LOC Chronicling America collection. The 1952 US copyright catalog for artwork shows no registration for Foto Rau or Raú or Noticias de Hoy and the periodicals doesn't either.
• Microphone photo 1960 p 7. I don't see any copyright mark on the page 1 masthead, nothing on the publishing notice on page 4 either. As per above search no photos in US newspapers. Neither the 1960 US catalog for Artwork or Periodicals shows anything for Noticias de Hoy.

Neither of them are fabulous, but they are what I could find. Any help you can give will be greatly appreciated. SusunW (talk) 17:49, 29 December 2023 (UTC)

Template:PD-Cuba makes it clearer. 25 years for photos in Cuba, and then before 20 Feb 1972 for the US because Cuba joined the Berne Convention on February 20, 1997 (25 years after 20 Feb 1972). So both those photos should be good. Uploading... --GRuban (talk) 15:41, 2 January 2024 (UTC)

Muchas gracias, mi amigo! I appreciate you. SusunW (talk) 15:51, 2 January 2024 (UTC)

• 
  Speakers in Marti Park, Marianao, May 20, 1960
• 
  Candelaria Rodríguez in Marti Park, Marianao
• 
  Maybe crop even further?

I apologize, but am not sure which of the photos in the 1952 link you want. Is she the leftmost of the two female speaker images in the middle of the page? Or do you just want the top image of a dozen or so women? (And if so, which one is she?) --GRuban (talk) 16:56, 2 January 2024 (UTC)

I like the last one for the lede photo. On the other one she is indeed the leftmost woman in the middle of the page. I'd like it, but also the top one "Congreso de FDMC" if that's possible. SusunW (talk) 17:08, 2 January 2024 (UTC)

• 
  Candelaria Rodríguez at FDMC Second Congress.jpg
• 
  cropped
• 
  FDMC Second Congress

Uploaded. Where in the newspaper does it say that this is her, though? I admit it might be, it looks similar to the other image, but since neither one is the clearest... --GRuban (talk) 20:43, 2 January 2024 (UTC)

Look at the very last sentence above "Foto Raú". It says "En el centro, una vista de la masa asistente [illegible word]. Más abajo, las oradoras Dra. Candelaria Rodríguez y la Dra. Caridad Sánchez". Basically in the lower photo Rodríguez and Sánchez. SusunW (talk) 21:37, 2 January 2024 (UTC)

2024

Die Zeit, die Tag und Jahre macht

Happy New Year

2024

Same location pictured as 2019. -- Gerda Arendt (talk) 20:54, 2 January 2024 (UTC)

Can you help me updating Tamara Milashkina? Anything else in Russian? Some review perhaps? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 17:53, 15 January 2024 (UTC)

Thank you for the image for the person who made the pictured festival possible! - In the singer's article, two 1973 performances at La Scala are commented out for lack of a reference. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 19:40, 16 January 2024 (UTC)

story · music · places

Today a friend's birthday, with related music and new vacation pics --Gerda Arendt (talk) 22:41, 30 January 2024 (UTC)

A challenge

I am working on a series of biographies on African women and am hoping you can help me with photos. Ruth Neto and her sister-in-law Maria Eugénia Neto are both still living. As the sister and wife of Angola's first president, it seems to me that having their photographs would be extremely beneficial for the encyclopedia. Sources say Ruth has not been in the best of health for the last few years, but "Jenny" is globe trotting. Since she is a writer I wonder if a publisher could get us in touch with her to get photos of them both? I also know that Jenny's daughter Irene Alexandra Neto lives in Lisbon and possibly could help. Any help you can give will be greatly appreciated. SusunW (talk) 22:27, 13 January 2024 (UTC)

And if I haven't already imposed on you too much, what is the status of UN photos? I just finished Marcela Pérez de Cuéllar who served two terms as first lady of the UN. There are photos of her on their website and perhaps there might be photos on the US government site of the infamous luncheon? SusunW (talk) 18:12, 16 January 2024 (UTC)

No good news about UN photos, https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Copyright_rules_by_territory/United_Nations says their photographs are restricted. Similarly I couldn't find any free images of the Netos. I don't even see contact information for Maria Eugenia, her foundation URL http://www.agostinhoneto.org/ seems dead. I do see some photos for Marcela Pérez de Cuéllar on Commons, https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Category:Marcela_P%C3%A9rez_de_Cu%C3%A9llar and there is more from the Reagan library, give me a few hours... --GRuban (talk) 15:00, 17 January 2024 (UTC)

I couldn't find any free images of them either. Drat! On the facebook page for Fundação Dr. António Agostinho Neto it gives an email "fundagostinhoneto@gmail.com", but I have no idea if it works? I like this one of Pérez de Cuéllar and her husband, but who is the dude on the right? I thought there might be images in the presidential collections, but wasn't sure. Thank you SOOOOOO much for helping. I appreciate you. SusunW (talk) 17:41, 17 January 2024 (UTC)

• 
  Marcela Pérez de Cuéllar speaks at the United Nations in 1987
• 
  Marcela Pérez de Cuéllar with Nancy Reagan speaking at the United Nations in 1987
• 
  1987 Reagan Trip to New York, Nancy Reagan attending private lunch hosted by Marcela Perez de Cuellar

Got the last image (though now see it might not be as useful as I thought). You'll need to click through to see it at full magnification for its full glory. At first I thought the upper right hand image would be perfect, but now see our subject has her eyes closed. The three in the second row center could be good, if we can figure out who the short blonde lady in the checked coat is; I don't think it's either Leonora Annenberg or Helena Shultz, but could be wrong. One more reason you might like one of these is that they're by Mary Anne Fackelman, first ever female White House photographer. --GRuban (talk) 21:53, 17 January 2024 (UTC)

These are great and I'd love to have photos by Fackelman! The green dress one is perfect for the lede. I had the same thought about the blond in the coat. Maybe someone on WIR will know? I am not good at identifying people by sight. I also like the one with the blue square around it which gives the whole group. I truly appreciate you and your skills. SusunW (talk) 15:10, 18 January 2024 (UTC)

So the Ronald Reagan photosheets are not the highest resolution, but very varied in terms of images. --GRuban (talk) 21:46, 23 January 2024 (UTC)

Muchas gracias, mi amigo. You are truly magic. SusunW (talk) 22:25, 23 January 2024 (UTC)

• 
  Marcela Perez de Cuellar and Nancy Reagan listening at UN General Assembly, 1988
• 
  Nancy and Ronald Reagan, Javier and Marcela Perez de Cuellar in 1988
• 
  Nancy and Ronald Reagan, Javier and Marcela Perez de Cuellar in 1988
• 
  Marcela Perez de Cuellar with UN and US flags in 1988
• 
  Nancy Reagan, Marcela Perez de Cuellar, seated, 1988
• 
  Marcela Perez de Cuellar, Nancy Reagan, speaking at the United Nations in 1987
• 
  Nancy Reagan, Marcela Perez de Cuellar, standing, 1987
• 
  Women at Marcela Perez de Cuellar Luncheon, 1987
• 
  Nancy Reagan and Marcela Perez de Cuellar seated, 1984
• 
  Reagans and Perez de Cuellars at United Nations, 1984
• 
  Paul Lusaka with Perez de Cuellars and Reagans, 1984

Maria Pia Fanfani

It'd be lovely to know if any of them identify Maria Pia Fanfani. She looks like this p. 1 but I don't think I'll be able to use the US flipped version because it would be a derivative work first published abroad and not out of copyright. Sigh. SusunW (talk) 13:47, 19 January 2024 (UTC)

I finished Maria Pia Fanfani. I am thinking that if none of the white house photos can be identified as her I am probably going to have to go with fair use because of the time period in which she lived. SusunW (talk) 19:36, 20 January 2024 (UTC)

Ian found this lovely photo of Fanfani, which I don't know how to crop since it's already on WP. My concern is that it is marked author unknown and for the life of me, I cannot figure out then, how it can be CC 4.0 as who gave permission and regular copyright requires 70 years from publication, i.e. 70 + 1980 = 2050. The uploader seems to have found a photo album of pictures of Giuseppe Manacchini and uploaded all of them and then ceased to be active. But that said, can it be cropped and used as fair use even if it is on commons? SusunW (talk) 16:06, 23 January 2024 (UTC)

• 
  Nancy Reagan and Maria Pia Fanfani in Washington D.C. in 1981

Again, low resolution I'm afraid. There should be more, but I haven't found better yet. --GRuban (talk) 23:56, 23 January 2024 (UTC)

Thank you. I wonder if either Perez de Cuellar or Fanfani have images in the George H. W. Bush collections too? I have no idea how you found these, but you are magic and I appreciate the help. SusunW (talk) 05:49, 24 January 2024 (UTC)

Same resolution problems. No luck for Fanfani yet. --GRuban (talk) 19:15, 24 January 2024 (UTC)

Thank you so much! You are amazing. SusunW (talk) 21:48, 24 January 2024 (UTC)

• 
  Marcela Perez de Cuellar and Barbara Bush at the United Nations in 1990
• 
  Barbara Bush, Marcela Pérez de Cuéllar, Mila Mulroney at the United Nations in 1990

A Stupid Tagging Dispute?

That looks like a tagging dispute, and tagging disputes are fundamentally stupid. Robert McClenon (talk) 22:24, 6 February 2024 (UTC)

No harm, no foul. That basketball bounced off the board and through the hoop six months ago, and the two points should be left on the scoreboard. Robert McClenon (talk) 22:26, 6 February 2024 (UTC)

Oda Gasinzigwa

Madame Gasinzigwa Oda, President of the Rwanda National Women Council, at the Women’s Legal Rights Initiative conference, 2006

I've copied you in on an email I sent to her, as if she asks me any questions about adding a photo to her article I will likely not know the answer. I appreciate your magic. Hope all is well with you. SusunW (talk) 17:01, 7 February 2024 (UTC)

Ala-kazam! Of course if she responds, she will probably have a better quality image, but if not, this is from a document by the USAID. --GRuban (talk) 14:51, 8 February 2024 (UTC)

You are magic. Sorry, I've been struggling lately with pretty severe allergies and have only been working a little bit each day. That and the million messages that are popping up on my watchlist because of that project to reconfigure all the WIR templates have made me miss a lot of messages. Just saw that you found this. I appreciate you. Don't suppose your magic could find images of Scholastica Kimaryo, Anne Shongwe or her sister-in-law of Susan Wakhungu-Githuku? Perhaps it is best to ping me until they finish this template project, at least. SusunW (talk) 16:17, 21 February 2024 (UTC)

Anne Shongwe in 2012

Nothing for Kimaryo, but plenty for Shongwe: however, for some reason UploadWizard is not letting me upload them all at once. Looking for alternative methods. Here's probably the best one. --GRuban (talk) 01:52, 22 February 2024 (UTC)

You are the best. Thank you sooooo much! I pinged you on the GA review on Gasinzigwa. All I found as other images were literally crap. LOL Mayhaps your magic will work better. SusunW (talk) 14:58, 22 February 2024 (UTC)

February music

story · music · places

The image, taken on a cemetery last year after the funeral of a distant but dear family member, commemorates today, with thanks for their achievements, four subjects mentioned on the Main page and Vami_IV, a friend here. Listen to music by Tchaikovsky (an article where one of the four is pictured), sung by today's subject (whose performance on stage I enjoyed two days ago). -- Gerda Arendt (talk) 18:16, 20 February 2024 (UTC)

more music and flowers on Rossini's rare birthday --Gerda Arendt (talk) 15:16, 29 February 2024 (UTC)

COI

To keep the metaphor going, you joined the dark side, and you don't even get paid for it. Please come back. Polygnotus (talk) 12:26, 25 February 2024 (UTC)

Er... I never left. What would "coming back" entail in your metaphor? GRuban (talk) 13:53, 25 February 2024 (UTC)

Stop doing COI work. Join the light side. We are your friends; not your corporate overlords. Consider it a failed experiment and move on. Polygnotus (talk) 14:01, 25 February 2024 (UTC)

I appreciate your friendship, but if you have the impression that I somehow "left" to become a primarily COI editor, I don't think you read that page you linked to. --GRuban (talk) 15:05, 25 February 2024 (UTC)

@Polygnotus: That was unintentionally curt, sorry, I had a limited Internet connection. Let me expand, besides the explanation on the COI page you linked to. (I admit I had written specifically to explain just such questions, but I guess it didn't work; if you can explain why it didn't work, and how I could rephrase it so it does, that would be great!) Anyway, if you look above you on this talk page, you will see me helping out a much better and more prolific editor with her articles (I seem to have gotten good at finding free licensed images over my years here). If you check my talk page article archives, linked to above, last year's for example, or any of the several before that, you will see that has been going on for some time. If you check that same Wikimedia Commons page I link to, you'll see I found and uploaded just under 1000 images in 2023, for other people's articles, as I come across them. No different. No move to any dark side. But if you ask about articles, I guess that's less clear, but only because I'm not a very fast editor. In the 16 or so years I've been here, I've been the primary author of just over 100 real articles. Here are the last 5, all in 2023:

• Sarah Jane Baker - British exconvict and transgender activist
• Kessel Run - US Air Force software lab - presumably the one you're referring to
• Ky Schevers - American transgender activist
• Maya and Yehuda Devir - Israeli cartoonist couple
• Iszac Henig - American transgender swimmer

(Come to mention it, it's early 2024, and it's about time to write another; I have some ideas, but not actualized yet.) No change to any dark side. I wrote them because I ran across news about them in one way or another, realized they didn't have Wikipedia articles, and thought they would qualify; be interesting; and be fun to write. I write articles strictly for that reason. Any COI makes them more difficult to write, which does, I admit, reduce the fun, but no less - or more - inherent interest. OK? Again, thanks for your interest and concern - and nice to meet you! I could always use more wiki-friends. --GRuban (talk) 02:30, 26 February 2024 (UTC)

Your articles are a joy to read, and well-written and researched.

Only a sociopath could write a neutral article in an dry dispassionate impartial encyclopedic tone about something he/she cares about. You are clearly not a sociopath.

What makes this worse, in the case of Kessel Run, is that this success-story was created for political/commercial/PR reasons and has little to do with reality.

The claimed justification for the hype, that they introduced agile to the DoD, is not true (and not supported by sources). But even if that was the case it would not justify the hype because everyone was using agile & scrum at that time. Something like the Fast Company will publish any press release you throw at it, provided you have enough money. "Smaller team is faster and more flexible than giant bureaucratic corporation" is a great underdog story. It is also utterly banal.

Usually I don't mind scrapping and rewriting parts of an article when its badly written/sourced, but here that feels almost like vandalism. Like demolishing part of something you like.

Problem is, the article isn't great, even though it is well-written, and in an ideal world it would be returned to draft status and rewritten by someone who doesn't care about the topic and does not believe in the hype.

Please don't let this discourage you, it is great that you are not some unfeeling robot. But please don't do COI articles. Polygnotus (talk) 05:57, 26 February 2024 (UTC)

Aww, that's wonderful! OK, that's another reason I write articles, to hear that they bring someone joy. Thank you so much!

But I'm not sure for the reason for what seems to be your main objection, that Kessel Run did not essentially introduce agile software development to the DoD, despite the extensive references. Why do you think so? Your own knowledge? If so, I'm afraid we aren't able to write articles based on that. We are supposed to write articles based on reliable sources. And the sources aren't just Fast Company, [1] though that is the first and probably the greatest used single source in the article, there is also the second one, the NPR article,[2] which is only slightly smaller, and says exactly the same story, and the many, many other reliable sources in the article, like the 3rd one, the MIT paper, also generally considered a very respected reliable source ... I'm just going down the list of references in the article now. And there are 74 of them. And they do all say essentially that same thing. I can't vouch that it's true personally, I wasn't there in 2016, I was at either Microsoft or Google then, I had only been at Kessel Run a few months when I wrote most of the article, and have been there less than a year now. I can, however, tell you that Kessel Run goes deeper into Agile than either Microsoft or Google, stricter sprint periods, more formal scrums, formal pair programming, less upfront design. And I can also tell you that in the months I've spent there, that the old guard at the DoD is still, even now, fighting tooth and nail against it, as multiple higher ups that get brought in from the Air Force military and civilians have been regularly trying to cut away at bits and pieces of the culture, get back into big design upfront, enough so that I would not be surprised if it were only a hollow shell of its original premise soon. Really. But, again, all that's just me. We at Wikipedia aren't supposed to write articles from personal experience, only from sources, and all the sources do say that same thing, which is why I wrote it that way. I did look, honest. You can see that in the history of the article, I found the sources first, and wrote the text from what they said.

Ah, you can see that there, the first source I used for the first text I wrote wasn't any of Fast Company, or NPR, or MIT, it was The Boston Globe, and it says "Typically, it can take five years for a branch of the US military to develop and deploy new software. The Air Force-Pivotal team built the refueling app in four months."[3] That's what the sources say, all of them, in their own words each time, but basically that same thing, every time, so unless we find better sources saying different, that's what we have to say. I could not find sources saying different, and I looked. Hard. I would welcome a partner in finding those sources. Please.

You may also have a philosophical objection to anyone writing WP:COI articles. Which is certainly a point of view, but it is not our, Wikipedia, policy, which allows it, though making it difficult with many hoops to jump through. Which hoops I tried really hard to jump through! (I imagine that's because people thought that if it were banned outright, it would still happen, just this time without the writers revealing their COI. In any case, that's what the policy is.) Or maybe you're just saying, I, George, should not write COI articles because I, personally, am terrible at it. In which case, ouch. I guess I can't say much about that except that I do the best I can, and in my opinion at least, whatever that's worth, Kessel Run is a solid B-class article, as much so as any of the other solid B-class articles that I've been writing in the past few years and list on my user page. --GRuban (talk) 14:00, 26 February 2024 (UTC)

@Polygnotus: All that said, I will be happy to address the specific issues you seem to mention, one at a time. Since I can't edit the page, I'll suggest things, and you'll need to put them in. We won't reach "perfect", but that's not the standard; hopefully we'll meet halfway. Thanks! --GRuban (talk) 21:55, 26 February 2024 (UTC)

Arbitrary break

What I am saying is that you should not write COI articles because you are good at writing articles and I feel bad when I have to remove parts of a well written article because of undue weight, pov, lack of proper sourcing and attribution, promo et cetera.

Which exact quotes from the Fast Company, NPR and MIT links do you think support the claim that Kessel Run introduced agile software development to the DoD (more than 15 years after the Agile Manifesto)?

I know about WP:NOTTRUTH but I also know you are not stupid. When you started the article you were already working there. It would really surprise me if you did not know when you read some sources before writing the article that this was going to look bad for a COI editor because all the sources are extremely positive. It is surprising to me that you decided to go through with it; it is clearly a notable topic so someone without a COI would've written it anyway. Every code monkey knows that the hype surrounding agile & scrum is 95% cargo cult and the remaining 5% is based on plagiarism or common sense. You also know that these stories were planted in the media for a reason. Those media companies aren't going to send a jaded senior dev to debunk the claims made; they just publish what amounts to little more than a press release. Journalists are underpaid and spread thin so they don't have time to do serious research and they lack the decades of experience in IT required to ask the hard questions and discover what is actually happening. People in IT can fool any journalist with Star Trek level techno-babble. The DoD employs quite a few people, including 100,000 software devs. I know that you know that the DoD was familiar with agile before 2017; no matter what the press releases/planted "news" articles say. Am I wrong? Before you answer, google it and you'll find documents like 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10. Polygnotus (talk) 02:37, 28 February 2024 (UTC)

Thank you! I admit it, compliments are nice, and I'm floating on air here. Great to meet you! Want me to find an image for a Wikipedia article for you? Can't guarantee, my "hit rate" is only about 10-20%, but that's not nothing, will gladly try! May even write an article on a Wikipedia-notable topic for you, if you want, though as above, I'm slow. But, anyway, time to come back to earth.

"Introduced" doesn't mean "DoD, this is Agile, Agile this is DoD, shake hands". It means "added to the system from another place": https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/introduced; https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/introduce#English, meaning 3. It doesn't mean the DoD hadn't ever heard of Agile. It means the DoD wasn't using Agile in any reasonable way before Kessel Run. I'm sure many hackers in the DoD had heard of Agile, played with it in their spare time, maybe even used it before coming to the DoD; they just didn't use it in the DoD at any level anyone decided was worth writing about. The DoD has also heard of catapults, and war elephants, and longbows, but it isn't using them at any reasonable scale. Many military have historical weapons as their hobby, so I'm quite sure there is a military engineer setting up a catapult somewhere for fun, and several soldiers shooting longbows at targets in their spare time, and yet if a US Army troop starts officially using catapults and longbows or riding on war elephants in combat, not just as a hobby, people will also consider that very notable and will write about that!

Specific quotes that Kessel Run essentially introduced the multiple modern software industry practices generally referred to as "Agile" to the DoD, which hadn't really been using them before, are basically throughout the sources, on nearly every page.

• Fast Company "...But can’t you just go fix this? And the answer was basically, no.” ... Standard DoD procedure requires systems like the AOC software to be competitively bid, and for the winning contractor to design, build, certify, and test the entire system before delivering it to users—and then to go through the entire process again each time any appreciable amount of code needed to be changed."

"The latest in U.S. Air Force technological advances can be found in an unlikely place: the WeWork coworking space on Portland Street in downtown Boston. "

" “Four months from start to in production, in use in combat operations,” Oti says. The average DoD software project takes almost three years, according to a recent study."

"The name Kessel Run has now become part of a culture that the team’s leaders knew would have to differ markedly from how the military normally does business. ... “we have these natural tendencies around command-and-control style organization, and we need the exact opposite of that.” In addition to the name, the team chose a hashtag for its project that is a nod to both agile software development, and the fact that Kessel Run’s culture is more startup than strictly military: #agileAF"

"That’s nothing more than best practices for modern software development, but at the DoD, such agility would normally be impossible. Specifications commonly take years to write and then more years to deliver on before code can even be tested in the field—often making systems obsolete by the time they’re delivered. “The DoD violates pretty much every rule in modern product development,” Schmidt told U.S. Congress recently." (Note that's Eric Schmidt there, chairman of Google, not benefiting from the KR project in any way, and often considered rather knowledgeable on modern software development projects. Also, of course, one of the wealthiest people in the country, so not someone who can be influenced by any amount of money that could be conceivably thrown around by a small military detachment's public relations department.)

• NPR (click the Transcript button, hamburger-ish menu to the right) "He gives me this example. ... Look, there has been no progress in nine months. We could have built, deployed and had this thing scaled across your whole enterprise in, like, a month. This is just not going anywhere. And quite frankly, after the 10th meeting, we just stopped taking meetings. The Pentagon was just too hard of a customer."

"Enrique leads them into an office unlike any Air Force office Steve has ever been to. ... Beyond the blue hair, he sees a team that's doing so much less advanced planning and so much more just making things and patching up vulnerabilities quickly. WERT: And it took me, I would say, less than an hour to realize that this is what we should be doing for software, not what the Department of Defense have been doing for many, many years. LAWRENCE: He was sold. He went back to his air base a convert. WERT: Two weeks later, I'm back here in the office, and a software program's in front of me telling me, we're going to do a year or two of development followed by a year or two of tests. And four years from now, we'll deliver something. And my answer was, no, we're not going to do it that way anymore."

"And Kessel Run has inspired spinoffs in other parts of the Air Force and other branches of the military. Steve Wert now runs Kessel Run, and when people from the Pentagon come to visit, he's the one who gives them the tour.... And then, invariably, those tech tourists leave, and they don't necessarily support the budget. Kessel Run's been nearly zeroed out a couple times. WERT: That's the frustrating thing, is realizing how much visibility it's getting and how supportive senior leaders are versus the sort of budget process. That disconnect is frustrating. LAWRENCE: The old way of acquiring software is still the norm in the military. That disconnect between the military and Big Tech...OTI: I'll be honest - I don't think we've crossed that divide yet."

That last thing - it's something I've seen personally in the last months, as I wrote a few days ago, just above. Not only is KR's agile strategy innovative in the military, it may well not be around forever, there is noticeable ongoing pushback from the military higher-ups. But, back to the sources:

• MIT paper page 3 "...‘Kessel Run,’ the U.S. Air Force’s novel approach to software acquisition, which resulted in a hybrid acquisitions and internal software operations capable organization. In short, Kessel Run began acquiring and internally building software solutions using modern industry practices. Kessel Run adopted methods and practices that MIT refers to as stages of experimentation, including agile principles, user�centered design (UCD), lean product management, and DevOps."

page 6-7 "This research illustrates the struggle of the Air Force’s predominantly waterfall acquisition methodology.16 Its rigid, requirements-based approach often results in solutions and systems that do not meet their original intent, or are no longer fit for purpose. More ‘agile’ techniques are better designed for rapid software development."

"The story of ‘Kessel Run’ is also about how tackling one small operational element (in this case refuelling as part of wider air operations) can introduce innovation – even if only of a little ‘i’ type – and expose an organization to new ways of doing things, changing the organization, its staff and its ‘culture’. "

That last bit even uses "introduce". But if that word, "introduced", is what troubles you, and you want to change it to something that says "made it so that the USAF starting using Agile modern software development at any reasonable scale", without also having the "handshaking" meaning, please do. I couldn't think of another single word that means that other than "introduced", but maybe you can.

Or, if you want to write a section that says "However, other sources say the DOD used Agile before", using the sources you found, feel free to do so. You're right, I didn't find them, because I was looking for "Kessel Run", and those sources don't mention it. I do notice that they each say "DoD now using Agile" and they are over a span of years, and don't really mention each other, so I suspect they may have all been test projects that went nowhere. The military is known for doing that. But, again, that's not a reason to put a bias tag on the Kessel Run article because there are sources that disagree, that's a reason to write the alternate point of view into the article. That's what we do at Wikipedia when there is a disagreement, we write what the sources say, all the sources. --GRuban (talk) 18:41, 28 February 2024 (UTC)

No, we write what reliable sources say.

They didn't introduce agile to the DoD; at most you can say they used it. But that is not a bragworthy achievement to include in the lead section.

That is 8,900 bytes in response to 2 pretty simple questions I know that you know that the DoD was familiar with agile before 2017; no matter what the press releases/planted "news" articles say. Am I wrong?

and Which exact quotes from the Fast Company, NPR and MIT links do you think support the claim that Kessel Run introduced agile software development to the DoD (more than 15 years after the Agile Manifesto)?

I don't like WP:WEASEL words (e.g. "essentially introduced" which is a very weird way of saying "didn't").

It means the DoD wasn't using Agile in any reasonable way before Kessel Run. That's not how the average reader would interpret that sentence. And it is also incorrect, the 10 sources I posted are clear about that. If you wanted to make that claim you would've googled it.

FC, NPR and MIT also do not claim that KR introduced Agile to the DoD. I had read those sources before asking for the quotes, so I knew you would not be able to provide me with quotes that support the claim you made in the article.

want to write a section that says "However, other sources say the DOD used Agile before" No, that is not how it works. The reason I asked you is because I wanted you to confirm that you knew you were writing something that is not true and not supported by the sources you mentioned. Thank you, Polygnotus (talk) 19:03, 28 February 2024 (UTC)

OK. Do you agree that the sources say that the Pentagon was not using Agile? And that Kessel Run used Agile? And that this was the KR secret sauce, the KR golden bullet, the KR value added, the KR overused mixed metaphor? --GRuban (talk) 22:03, 28 February 2024 (UTC)

I'm pretty damn nitpicky with sourcing (can you tell?) and I believe the only creative license we have is avoiding copyright problems by reordering words a bit as long as the meaning stays the exact same. The sources I've read say that the DoD used agile before KR existed. There is no evidence to believe that agile was KRs secret sauce. "Smaller team is faster and more flexible than giant bureaucratic corporation" is a great underdog story. It is also utterly banal. As a code monkey, I know not to trust "%current buzzword% gave me superpowers". Polygnotus (talk) 22:12, 28 February 2024 (UTC)

Unfortunately, you'll have a strict disagreement from the plagiarism enforcers on your first sentence. They will specifically say that reordering words is still a violation. But OK. Give me a few days (I'm slow) and I will try to come up with an alternative phrasing that includes the first two statements, and strict source for the third, and we'll see if we can reach agreement. --GRuban (talk) 22:58, 28 February 2024 (UTC)

I cut this article in half and I didn't feel bad because the article was not well-written. But I feel bad when I criticize and scrap a bunch of text on a well-written article because I know how demoralising it can be when someone takes an axe to something you worked hard on.

Perhaps a bizarre counterproposal but, instead of trying to "undo the damage" I've done (aka the improvements I made), we could work together to get rid of everything that could even remotely be considered promotional and create a boring but well-sourced and factually correct article. There are already quite a few webpages trying to promote KR. Polygnotus (talk) 23:59, 28 February 2024 (UTC)

Sure, give it a shot. (When I say I'm slow, that could also be pronounced "lazy"!) As you know, my COI means I have severe issues editing the article, so if you go and delete things, I can't very well revert you. I do admit, I would prefer it if you kept in the funny parts - the agileAF (did you notice that's not just a double but a triple meaning?), the "never name child Alice" - but that's just me, they probably aren't that necessary to the article as such. Among the articles I enjoyed writing most of all are Cthulhu for President, and Chaz Stevens, because they were inherently funny; I didn't need to look for humor, I just told the facts straight and they were funny. Well, I think they're funny; many of my best friends think I'm just strange. (It's also not at all the request of my "corporate overlords" - who are, of course, not corporate but military overlords, and so notoriously lack any sense of humor; and honestly, they don't care that much about the article, no one has mentioned it to me in months.) Anyway, take out what you need to take out to make you feel comfortable removing the promotional tags, and if there's something that truly rips at my soul, I'll say, and maybe we'll work it out. At worst, I'll say "so it goes". The offer to help you with an article you are interested in still stands; it's not a bribe as much as a recognition that you're a well meaning fellow editor, even if you do sacrifice my deathless prose. --GRuban (talk) 02:39, 29 February 2024 (UTC)

Code monkeys are never lazy, we spend days automating tasks that could be done in a couple of hours. I am also working on another article Efrat (organization) and it is so deeply unfunny that it may be wise to collaborate on something patafysical after that. Do you have anything in mind that is funnier than the Chair Force? Polygnotus (talk) 10:21, 29 February 2024 (UTC)

Arbitrary break #2

Looking at the "Background"-section; it is basically just dunking on the competition right? If that information should be on Wikipedia, it should be elsewhere ("company x sucks" should not be on company y's article). Do you agree that that section can be removed? If not, what information do you think should be preserved? Can we replace it with, for example, "Kessel Run started as an aerial refueling management application which was developed by a joint Air Force Defense Innovation Unit and Pivotal Software team starting in 2016."? Polygnotus (talk) 22:42, 4 March 2024 (UTC)

No; that's the origin of the company, and basically the interesting part of the story. You'll notice the two main sources, Fast Company and NPR, are basically that story, it would be out of proportion to the sources (WP:UNDUE) to remove that section. There is no "company X sucks", because there is no "company X" unless you mean the Defense Department, which KR is part of. Both Lockheed Martin and Northrop Grumman are mentioned once only, this is not about them. --GRuban (talk) 23:28, 4 March 2024 (UTC)

The interesting part of the story is about when Kessel Run did not exist? We can't start every article at the Big Bang/creation. It makes more sense to start an article when its subject starts existing.

"A Northrop Grumman project to modernize AOC software was commissioned in 2013 for $374 million for development, and $3.5 billion for lifetime maintenance.[4] By 2016, when the Defense Innovation Board was touring Al Udeid, nothing had been delivered.[2] The development price eventually grew to $745 million, and was three years behind schedule, with an estimated launch date of December 2019, when the project was eventually cancelled in July 2017.[4]" is dunking on Northrop Grumman, a company in direct competition with Pivotal Software, right? Polygnotus (talk) 23:31, 4 March 2024 (UTC)

Pivotal Software is not Kessel Run. Kessel Run is an Air Force department: it is made of Air Force military, Air Force civilians, and contractors, in vaguely equal proportions. Out of the three groups, the contractors often last the shortest period, as is the way of contractors. Pivotal is a private software development company that happened to be the first contractors, and that trained the first KR military coders, but it could have been any of a number of software development companies; as you yourself write, in 2016 there were plenty of Agile "code monkey" companies. For what it's worth, I don't know any current Pivotal contractors at Kessel Run, though possibly there still are some; there are quite a few contracting companies supplying contractors there now. GRuban (talk) 00:06, 5 March 2024 (UTC)

I'm not sure you answered the question. Polygnotus (talk) 00:17, 5 March 2024 (UTC)

If you want to remove the words "Northrop Grumman" and replace them with "large defense contractor", go ahead. Or "Pivotal Software" with "smaller California software company". I still think being more specific is better, but given the circumstances, am not going to (or able to) fight to the death to keep either company name. --GRuban (talk) 01:44, 5 March 2024 (UTC)

You didn't start the Alina Morse article with a paragraph about how much other candy manufacturers suck. Polygnotus (talk) 00:03, 5 March 2024 (UTC)

That's because the sources didn't say that! I write from the sources. You will, however, note that in the beginning it starts about the tooth decay qualities of other lollipops and in the middle it gets to where Zollipops are the most popular Lollipops on Amazon in various categores. Because that's what the sources say! Also, I must say, sucking is exactly the point of lollipops. --GRuban (talk) 00:09, 5 March 2024 (UTC)

The point is that we should start the article when its subject starts existing. And we shouldn't use an article about X to make Y look bad. Polygnotus (talk) 00:14, 5 March 2024 (UTC)

First part, absolutely not. Could not disagree more. An article about the United States that doesn't start before 1789 is a criminal disservice to the reader. Or even 1776. Ours (checks the link) starts in 11,000 BC! Go try and delete that part, see how far you get!

Second part, somewhat agree, except that we shouldn't use the article about Y to make Y look bad either. We shouldn't write articles with the intent of making anyone look bad. Or good! We should write articles to tell what the world knows about X primarily; hopefully in a way that will be interesting to read, secondarily; and to get to have fun ourselves, tertiarily (this is a volunteer project, after all, we do this because we enjoy it). Whether what the world knows about Y makes them look bad, or good, we should still write that. --GRuban (talk) 02:06, 5 March 2024 (UTC)

The AgileAF section can basically be replaced with "By April 2017, the aerial refueling tanker application, named Jigsaw, was in use at the CAOC. The total cost was reported at $1.5 million.", right? If you really want to we can mention that they use agile of course, but in a neutrally worded way. Something like "The speed of development was credited to the Agile software development process" is fine I think. What do you think? Polygnotus (talk) 22:47, 4 March 2024 (UTC)

Again, we need to write what the source say, in proportion to the sources. GRuban (talk) 23:29, 4 March 2024 (UTC)

Cherrypicking promotional content is not encyclopedic. Polygnotus (talk) 23:30, 4 March 2024 (UTC)

What if we replace the Background and AgileAF sections with:

Project Kessel Run started as a group of approximately 70 employees of the Air Force Life Cycle Management Center. They partnered with Pivotal Software, the United States Air Force Academy and United States Air Forces Central.

The name "Kessel Run" came from a line in the 1977 film Star Wars, and represented the project's intent to "smuggle" new software development capability into the Air Force and use it to set new speed records.

Their first project, an aerial refueling management application named Jigsaw, was in use at the CAOC by April 2017. The total cost was reported at $1.5 million. The speed of development was credited to the Agile software development process. Polygnotus (talk) 23:30, 4 March 2024 (UTC)

That is basically taking out the most interesting part of the story, which is what the sources focus on. That's like taking article I wrote about Alina Morse and removing the part that she was a kid when she founded her company. That's like taking the article I wrote about Modest Stein and taking out the part about his anarchism. That's like taking the article about the assassination of Abe Lincoln (I assume we have one?) and focusing on the play. --GRuban (talk) 23:34, 4 March 2024 (UTC)

If a source talks about all animals, and our article is about one animal, we have to stick to the part of the source that actually deals with the subject of the article, right? Fast Company can write about whatever it wants to, as an encyclopedia we are more limited in that aspect. The text in the article has to be about the subject of the article. Polygnotus (talk) 23:38, 4 March 2024 (UTC)

Which important and relevant information do you think is missing from the proposal above (as a replacement of those 2 sections)? Polygnotus (talk) 23:58, 4 March 2024 (UTC)

All of it! The part about what's-his-name, the Google bigwig, touring the CAOC with a bunch of other software bigwigs and being met with guys in a room with a whiteboard and rulers and magnets. The part where they tell him "yes we have more modern software - but it doesn't work". The part that they wrote code in a few months that paid for itself in a few weeks, as opposed to code that did not succeed after years and the expenditure of millions. The part that they took their name and motivation from a (arguably the) fan favorite sci fi movie. That's the interesting part. Honestly the projects since then were fine, but downright paled relative to that.

Yes, it's a David and Goliath story; and the reason that is such a metaphor is that is the interesting part of the story about King David. The part about him maneuvering against Saul and then running the country is boring, and the part about him becoming a nasty raping, murdering SOB is downright sad. The KR hasn't hit the sad part yet, thank goodness, but it's well on the way to the boring part. We still need to write the boring part, but we shouldn't take out the interesting part. Because the sources don't. It is our job to write the truth, as related by reliable sources, in proportion to those sources. It is not our job to cherry pick them to be exciting, but it is similarly not our job to cherry pick them to be boring.

Anyway, there is only so much I can do, as I wrote, I can't actually edit the article any more. If you rip its guts out, the most I can do is start an RfC or something, and honestly I don't know if I will even have the energy to do that. I have started to hack on the article you pointed to Efrat (organization), and will continue to do that whatever you choose, because it's not a quid pro quo, but because you are a well intentioned Wikipedia editor, whether or not you agree with me about KR, and because the Efrat article needs help, and because that's what I do here, I try to make articles just a little better to my limited ability. Do what you have to do. Thank you, friend. GRuban (talk) 00:38, 5 March 2024 (UTC)

Side collab possibility

Yeah I am working on Efrat (as you can tell from the talkpage), and I was hoping to just copypaste my version over the current one because it is far from perfect, so maybe we can collaborate on something else; something more fun? Do you have any proposals for a lighthearted article? For example, something like Oakland Buddha. Polygnotus (talk) 00:41, 5 March 2024 (UTC)

Eh - Oakland Buddha seems pretty nice already, I don't see much improving that can be done without taking it to GA or something else that I'm not sure I could manage; I'm not that good a writer. Efrat (organization) seems like it would be much easier to improve, it's got short sections, repetitive sections, citation needed tags, debatable sources for obviously controversial issues - a fertile field on which improvements will be clearly noticeable. Can you read Hebrew? To my Rebbitzin's lasting sorrow, I can't any more, so I'm stuck with reading English sources, which seem to mostly be American Christian Religious and/or Conservative, which are less than ideal for obvious bias reasons. But better than nothing, and there are a number of English language Israeli papers. Are you doing a complete rewrite somewhere that I can't see? If so, point me to it, and I can try to make changes there instead of in mainspace. As you prefer. As before, fair warning, I can be slow. This is a hobby, I do it when I get around to it... --GRuban (talk) 01:04, 5 March 2024 (UTC)

Yeah, when I first read it it was so bad that I have started an entire rewrite from scratch in a MediaWiki install in Docker. I will try to find something fun to write for us. Unfortunately I cannot read Hebrew, but I can read Dutch which is nearly as impressive (I am sure your Rebbitzin agrees with me here). I have found a SPARQL query that can be used to find articles that don't exist here but do exist in other languages so I might be able to use that to find us a decent topic. I'll let you know when and if I find something. Polygnotus (talk) 01:11, 5 March 2024 (UTC)

If you want me to help on your rewrite, put it on Wikipedia somewhere, either Draft space or your User space, and I will help. I normally use my User space for something like that which is not ready for prime time. Here are two articles I'm currently working on like that:

• User:GRuban/Jean-Emmanuel Depraz is likely more than half done
• User:GRuban/Nathan Steuer is barely started, sources no text

Both are Magic: The Gathering players I ran into a few days ago at the second gaming convention I've ever been to, and asked, "Would you mind if I took a photo of you for Wikipedia?" I've written one previous MtG article like that (with her and her Dad's permission of course): Dana Fischer She's not nearly as much of a champion, but actually has more reliable third party sources writing about her, because, no offense to the champs, the reliable sources likely thought her story was more interesting. I certainly did. --GRuban (talk) 01:52, 5 March 2024 (UTC)

What do you think about nl:Graf met de handjes which is also on simple:Grave with the little hands but not the English Wikipedia (yet)? Polygnotus (talk) 02:23, 5 March 2024 (UTC)

Sure, as you like. Seems a singularly appropriate subject for peace making! Again, I urge doing it in User or Draft space here; Wikipedia is a fine place to do collaborative editing. --GRuban (talk) 02:29, 5 March 2024 (UTC)

User:GRuban/Grave with the little hands Polygnotus (talk) 02:41, 5 March 2024 (UTC)

Grave with the hands

Editing. A few questions:

• Are you sure that "handjes" means "little hands", and not just "hands"? I mean, I'll trust you as a human speaker, but automatic translations all say just "hands", as well as most English language sources I've found.
• Is his name properly written "Van Gorkum" or "van Gorkum"? --GRuban (talk) 16:18, 8 March 2024 (UTC)

• I am (thank god) not a human speaker. I consider myself artificial unintelligence. "handjes" is the diminutive form of hands, but "little hands" sounds incredibly clunky so perhaps Grave with the Hands is better (tombstones with the hands?). Or perhaps just use the Dutch name? Near the bottom of https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User:GRuban/Grave_with_the_little_hands&diff=prev&oldid=1212081044 you can see I was wondering about that.
• His last name is van Gorkum, see Tussenvoegsel. It means, "from/of Gorinchem" (like Jesus of Nazareth). So the tussenvoegsel would not be capitalised unless it is at the beginning of a sentence. Polygnotus (talk) 17:11, 8 March 2024 (UTC)

  @Polygnotus: "Two of Josephina's brothers, Albertus (1808-1892) and Felix (1871-1842)" ... er? how does someone become born in 1871 and die in 1842? The Curious Case of Benjamin Button (short story), perhaps? I even doubt he was born in 1842, since he could hardly have raised troops for a war from 1831-1839. --GRuban (talk) 22:33, 11 March 2024 (UTC)

Must've been Before Christ. Polygnotus (talk) 22:36, 11 March 2024 (UTC)

Sources seem to agree on Albertus Petrus Josephus van Aefferden (February 1st 1808 - October 14th 1892) who the archives also call "Albert Pierre Joseph van Aefferden". The other brother is probably Francis Adam Ernest Felix van Aefferden (aka François Adam Ernest Felix van Aefferden January 12th 1806 - January 29th 1838). Hmmmm. The difference is probably explained by baptismal names being different from official names which are different from given names. Polygnotus (talk) 23:16, 11 March 2024 (UTC)

I can accept that Albert could be Albertus, that seems perfectly likely. But 1871-1842 doesn't easily translate into 1806-1838. So I think we should remove the 1871-1842 dates from our article (and possibly even the 1808-1892; even though we're pretty sure of those, putting them in for one brother but not the other seems unbalanced). I think we should leave the brothers' names in, since the fact that he married the sister whose brothers were recently trying to kill him is a notable line. --GRuban (talk) 00:18, 12 March 2024 (UTC)

I think the birth and death date of Felix can be replaced with 1806-1838, those make sense in the context of his brothers DOB and are from reliable sources. I am emailing the municipal archive to have them fix the mistake. I wanted to email the guy who wrote the article but he is very old so I am not sure I can contact him by email. Polygnotus (talk) 00:25, 12 March 2024 (UTC)

https://www.dbnl.org/tekst/molh003nieu09_01/molh003nieu09_01_0018.php

https://resources.huygens.knaw.nl/retroboeken/nnbw/#source=9&page=10&view=imagePane

This confirms that Albert Pierre Joseph received the "kruis van de Leopoldsorde" (transl: cross of the Leopoldsorde) because of his war service at the head of his regiment in August 1831, in Belgian service. He also raised an army of volunteers, and paid for their weaponry, outfit/gear and salaries.

https://www.historieroermond.nl/kaart/munsterkerk/munsterkerkgraven.htm A.P.J was even involved in the excavations in a church 2 kilometers from the location of the graf met de handjes, in his role as viscount. They found the body of this guy (probably) and he still had some hair. How delightful. Polygnotus (talk) 03:05, 12 March 2024 (UTC)

Plot twist, it was Felix Hendrik Johannes Hubertus van Aefferden, born Roermond may 24th 1811, 1st luitenant artillery, died in Uccle October 29th 1842. Polygnotus (talk) 03:14, 12 March 2024 (UTC)

And we even got the advertisement in the local newspaper https://blog.myheritage.nl/2014/02/hand-in-hand-tot-in-de-eeuwigheid/ Polygnotus (talk) 03:18, 12 March 2024 (UTC)

The mistake happened because OCR software (or the person transcribing) assumed that the 1 was a 7. Polygnotus (talk) 03:19, 12 March 2024 (UTC)

Uploaded the death notice. Where's the source for Felix's birth/death dates? I can believe the OCR error, and we can put them back if we have a source. Other than that, I think we're mostly done - I can't see much of anything we should really add, can you? Maybe one more pass over all the sources from all the other language Wikis? --GRuban (talk) 01:57, 21 March 2024 (UTC)

I'll take a quick look to see if there is anything we missed. The archives are massive and I keep getting distracted by juicy details (e.g. "Documents regarding Alexander Scott's request to ensure the release of the adult Ernestine van Aefferden and to instruct her father to grant him access to her, 1782-1783.").

If you Google you'll find a bunch of usergenerated content, but I found the source they use: Nederland's adelsboek page 71:

Jonkheer Felix Hendrik Johannes Hubertus van Aefferden, born Roermond May 24th 1811, 1st lieutenant artillery. Died in Uccle, October 29th 1842. Polygnotus (talk) 03:35, 21 March 2024 (UTC)

We could probably cut the bottom sentence off of File:Overlijdensadvertentie-Josephine-van-Aefferden-echte-van-wijlen-JWC-van-Gorkum.png because that is a later addition and not part of the original ad. The word Advertentiën is just the header "Advertisements" that the newspaper put the ad under, so we could chop that off too. Polygnotus (talk) 03:56, 21 March 2024 (UTC)

The last sentence of the first alinea ("divided after death") and the last sentence of the article ("connection between the spouses across the boundaries") seem to contradict eachother a bit (they don't, but seem to). Let's emphasize the connection. Polygnotus (talk) 06:56, 21 March 2024 (UTC)

https://roermond.x-cago.com/kranten/page.do?code=MAR&date=18881201&id=MAR-18881201-002 The newspaper is still available on the municipal newspaper archive (4th column), we can probably use that as a source instead of myheritage.nl. Polygnotus (talk) 08:54, 21 March 2024 (UTC)

Cropped and re-credited. What does "gep. Kolonel." mean there? Kolonel means Colonel, his title, but Google translate didn't handle the "gep." abbreviation. GRuban (talk) 16:13, 21 March 2024 (UTC)

"gepensioneerd" (retired). In English you would use (ret.). "Uit aller naam" is literally "in the name of all", I used "On behalf of everyone" because that felt closer to what a modern speaker would say. Polygnotus (talk) 01:25, 22 March 2024 (UTC)

I think this is "done", in the sense that nothing is ever done and certainly not on Wikipedia. But I believe we can release it into the mainspace. Polygnotus (talk) 14:53, 22 March 2024 (UTC)

@Polygnotus: Doing final cleanup. I think I got everything you asked for, restored brothers full names and dates, please take a look that the last sentence of the lead about "after death" is good, if not, please fix it. I am going down all the sources listed in all the other language Wikipedia versions, and found this one https://libreriamo.it/societa/lamore-e-piu-forte-di-tutto-religione/ in Italian. It has a couple of colorful details that I would love to put in, but am worried that I don't see elsewhere

• that their house was set on fire and their dog killed
• that the two clasped hands were actually commissioned by the Catholic parish priest, at his own expense.

I don't know how reliable Libreriamo is, since these are very juicy details, that would seem strange not to mention if true. What do you think, should we use this? --GRuban (talk) 19:13, 25 March 2024 (UTC)

I'm just going to push it live now, without the Libreriamo source. Feel free to edit further. Also, I would like to nominate it for WP:DYK, since it is an interesting article. Any ideas for a hook? "...that the Grave with the Hands marks a married couple joined across different cemeteries?" "... divided by society and religion, clasping hands after death?" --GRuban (talk) 22:04, 25 March 2024 (UTC)

Its a bit late here, go ahead I'll take a look tomorrow. Polygnotus (talk) 22:11, 25 March 2024 (UTC)

I searched for their last name and the word "hond" (dog), the word viervoeter (quadruped), and various words relating to fire (vuur, fik, brand, brandstichting, afgebrand et cetera) but I can't find the source for those claims. In the same article another claim is made, Between the 4th and 6th centuries, all of Europe was invaded by the barbarians, and the Celtic-German-Roman peoples of the Netherlands were replaced by the Franks, Frisian and the Saxons. which is not something that actually happened. We were, and are, barbarians (they used that word to refer to basically all foreigners). Only the southern half of the Netherlands was incorporated into the Roman Empire. Demographic shifts certainly did happen of course. It is also a bit vague what Libreriamo actually is, but it is something similar to a webzine. Unfortunately I think we need to err on the side of caution and not use it. For reasons beyond my understanding my library card is blocked (despite not having any outstanding fines) so I will try to get it unblocked and ask if I can borrow "Dood, maar niet vergeten" (Dead, but not forgotten) by John Vaessen (the local historian who wrote about this double grave). Polygnotus (talk) 09:16, 26 March 2024 (UTC)

This family was rather rich and influental. Why would they need a priest to pay for (part of) their tombstones? It doesn't make sense. Priests don't spend their time upgrading tombstones. Polygnotus (talk) 10:47, 26 March 2024 (UTC)

I have requested the book but it may take a while because it is somewhere else in the country and the interlibrary loan system is down. Polygnotus (talk) 13:49, 26 March 2024 (UTC)

DYK nom

(at Template_talk:Did_you_know#Articles_created/expanded_on_March_25)

That is really cool! I got the administrators of the municipal website to fix the mistake there. Feel free to take the credit, the hardest part of what I did was actually finding an interesting topic that did not have an article on the English Wikipedia. Polygnotus (talk) 21:14, 27 March 2024 (UTC)

I think it would be "on" not "in May 27, 2002". I would probably leave out the date when it was listed as a rijksmonument because the lead section is already pretty densely packed with information. Polygnotus (talk)

At first we are talking about "separating the Catholic from the Protestant part of a cemetery", and then we say "separate graveyards". I think it is one graveyard divided in sections. Polygnotus (talk) 21:32, 27 March 2024 (UTC)

It is possibly a good idea to mention verzuiling ([Pillarisation]]) Polygnotus (talk) 09:15, 29 March 2024 (UTC)

@Polygnotus: I'll get some of those, but you should probably just edit the article to make the changes you really care about, to do it right. In fact, can I ask you to cite the two sentences that User:BeanieFan11 is talking about in the DYK review, above there? I think you wrote them originally, presumably you had a source. I will do the second QPQ. Thanks! --GRuban (talk) 13:18, 29 March 2024 (UTC)

Did the second QPQ and sourced the two sentences as best I could with my lack of Dutch language and/or history knowledge. --GRuban (talk) 02:52, 5 April 2024 (UTC)

@Polygnotus: Did you see? We're quite probably going to be in the next DYK, and getting the image slot! Wikipedia:Main Page alternatives/(Queue 1) Woo! --GRuban (talk) 22:47, 12 April 2024 (UTC)

@GRuban: Awesome! We also got another important milestone. When (and if) I receive the book I may be able to add some info. Polygnotus (talk) 00:14, 13 April 2024 (UTC)

Valerie Nyirahabineza

You know I don't understand CC by whatever licenses, so I am hoping you can help. This image was uploaded in 2021 and the uploader says "own work". But that seems pretty impossible, since it was Nyirahabineza's official photo for the East African Legislative Assembly for her term from 2007 to 2012. I don't see any marking at all on the legislative site saying that it isn't copyrighted and while I cannot find out if the East African Community has a statute, Rwanda does. According to our commons page it's 50 years, which clearly hasn't lapsed. I know when you have people send photos you have them send an authorization somewhere but I have no idea where that is, nor any clue if there is a list somewhere to confirm that copyright has been released. If not, I'm thinking we really shouldn't have this photo on commons, but I don't know what to do about that either. Can you help? SusunW (talk) 22:33, 15 March 2024 (UTC)

Yes, that does look questionable. Unfortunately, I think we need to nominate it for deletion. --GRuban (talk) 03:16, 17 March 2024 (UTC)

Thanks for your response. I have no clue how to do that. SusunW (talk) 05:33, 17 March 2024 (UTC)

Help with a photo.

I'm in the middle of a GA review on Edith García Buchaca. A family member uploaded a photograph and I need help fixing the licensing. See discussion. Can you help? SusunW (talk) 14:18, 23 March 2024 (UTC)

email

Hello, GRuban. Please check your email; you've got mail!
It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template.

Polygnotus (talk) 00:45, 29 March 2024 (UTC)

New Pages Patrol newsletter April 2024

Hello GRuban,

New Page Review queue January to March 2024

Backlog update: The October drive reduced the article backlog from 11,626 to 7,609 and the redirect backlog from 16,985 to 6,431! Congratulations to Schminnte, who led with over 2,300 points.

Following that, New Page Patrol organized another backlog drive for articles in January 2024. The January drive started with 13,650 articles and reduced the backlog to 7,430 articles. Congratulations to JTtheOG, who achieved first place with 1,340 points in this drive.

Looking at the graph, it seems like backlog drives are one of the only things keeping the backlog under control. Another backlog drive is being planned for May. Feel free to participate in the May backlog drive planning discussion.

It's worth noting that both queues are gradually increasing again and are nearing 14,034 articles and 22,540 redirects. We encourage you to keep contributing, even if it's just a single patrol per day. Your support is greatly appreciated!

2023 Awards

Onel5969 won the 2023 cup with 17,761 article reviews last year - that's an average of nearly 50/day. There was one Platinum Award (10,000+ reviews), 2 Gold Awards (5000+ reviews), 6 Silver (2000+), 8 Bronze (1000+), 30 Iron (360+) and 70 more for the 100+ barnstar. Hey man im josh led on redirect reviews by clearing 36,175 of them. For the full details, see the Awards page and the Hall of Fame. Congratulations everyone for their efforts in reviewing!

WMF work on PageTriage: The WMF Moderator Tools team and volunteer software developers deployed the rewritten NewPagesFeed in October, and then gave the NewPagesFeed a slight visual facelift in November. This concludes most major work to Special:NewPagesFeed, and most major work by the WMF Moderator Tools team, who wrapped up their major work on PageTriage in October. The WMF Moderator Tools team and volunteer software developers will continue small work on PageTriage as time permits.

Recruitment: A couple of the coordinators have been inviting editors to become reviewers, via mass-messages to their talk pages. If you know someone who you'd think would make a good reviewer, then a personal invitation to them would be great. Additionally, if there are Wikiprojects that you are active on, then you can add a post there asking participants to join NPP. Please be careful not to double invite folks that have already been invited.

Reviewing tip: Reviewers who prefer to patrol new pages within their most familiar subjects can use the regularly updated NPP Browser tool.

Reminders:

• You can access live chat with patrollers on the New Pages Patrol Discord.
• Consider adding the project discussion page to your watchlist.
• To opt out of future mailings, please remove yourself here.

MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 16:27, 2 April 2024 (UTC)

DYK for Jean-Emmanuel Depraz

On 5 April 2024, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Jean-Emmanuel Depraz, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that Jean-Emmanuel Depraz (pictured) won a Magic: The Gathering world championship using three cards depicting the player who beat him in 2021? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Jean-Emmanuel Depraz. You are welcome to check how many pageviews the nominated article or articles got while on the front page (here's how, Jean-Emmanuel Depraz), and the hook may be added to the statistics page after its run on the Main Page has completed. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page.

Cwmhiraeth (talk) 12:02, 5 April 2024 (UTC)

		Hook update
		Your hook reached 13,782 views (1,148.5 per hour), making it one of the most viewed hooks of April 2024 – nice work!

GalliumBot (talk • contribs) (he/it) 03:27, 6 April 2024 (UTC)

Create page?

Hey there! Pascal Maynard here. Im extremely unfamiliar with how Wikipedia works, but Ive been asked a million times by people in the Magic community why I didnt have a Wikipedia page while other personalities of the game had one.

I see that you created this page for JED, so I was wondering if you'd be able to make one for me (Pascal Maynard) or could point in the right direction? Thank you and sorry if this is a bit intrusive! PascalMaynard (talk) 17:55, 5 April 2024 (UTC)

Maybe! Let me investigate; the main issue is the Wikipedia:General notability guideline; basically, how much has been written about you by uninvolved reliable sources? Could you send me an email? Click on the "Tools" menu at the top corner of somewhere on this page, and select "Email this user", if you've got your own email set up. If you can include in that email links to any and all such sources - ideally newspapers, magazines, books, but major websites can also often work - that write in-depth pieces about you (not just casual mentions in "a list of the top 8 at this event"), that would help, as I might miss some investigating. I'm pretty good finding sources, but not perfect. If they're on paper, rather than electrons, I can accept scans. Fair warning:

• We do need sources, JED had a number, world champion and all; if there aren't multiple in-depth articles about you from third party sources (see that link in my first sentence), this won't work
• I am not fast; this is a hobby and I write whenever I feel like it. The Jean-Emmanuel Depraz article took most of a month, and I'm now working on User:GRuban/Nathan Steuer, who is another person you may be acquainted with, another world champion.

(It just seems like I'm a MtG article writing specialist recently, but I'm really not; you can see I write all sorts of things from my user page. I just happened to attend the second Magic conference of my life, in Chicago, and each of them was kind enough to stand there and smile nicely for a photo, so I thought... my only other MtG article is Dana Fischer, who isn't quite a world champion; I met her at the very first Magic conference I ever attended...) --GRuban (talk) 18:33, 5 April 2024 (UTC)

Here are the sources I found; a fair number of them, actually. Strangely enough, they don't actually cover any of your wins, only your games store and a Tarmagoyf you raredrafted: User:GRuban/Pascal Maynard. --GRuban (talk) 00:02, 6 April 2024 (UTC)

Hello! Sorry for the late reply. It doesnt let me email an user for some reason.

Thank you so much to even bother to reply to me. I certainly appreciate it and appreciate that you put time in building these wiki pages for MTG people, its awesome.

Yeah I don't play magic professionally anymore since I opened my store. I do play competitively more as a hobby now, which may lead me to qualify for the Pro Tour again, but it's not as much a priority anymore. I appear on content creator stuff sometimes, recently I appeared on a Tolarian Community College episode:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-adOmMegMQc

For my pro results, I have 13 Grand Prix Top 8s and 2 Pro Tour Top 8's. Magic deleted all of their Pro Tour/Grand Prix coverage pages a few years ago, it's a shame because it would have been much easier to use these as sources ... You can find the results in other places though. If you use this page:

https://magic.gg/events/event-archive and research Pascal Maynard, you will have info.

Here are more links:

https://mtg.fandom.com/wiki/Pascal_Maynard

https://www.mtgeloproject.net/index.php?search=Search&id=7252

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HFR6Yq9i82k

Let me know if that works! PascalMaynard (talk) 15:39, 8 April 2024 (UTC)

s

Someone created an archive for the coverage pages that were deleted:

https://github.com/maxmakesmagic/ormos PascalMaynard (talk) 18:01, 8 April 2024 (UTC)

Thanks. I'll email you at the store contact email. --GRuban (talk) 19:47, 8 April 2024 (UTC)

Ukrainian orchestra

story · music · places

plum tree blossom for Kalevi Kiviniemi in the snow - see my talk

I began an article Youth Symphony Orchestra of Ukraine, and the DYK reviewer wants better sources. Is there something in Ukrainian, perhaps? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 21:49, 11 April 2024 (UTC)

While it would still be nice, reviewer accepted what we have so far. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 22:53, 12 April 2024 (UTC)

DYK for Grave with the Hands

On 13 April 2024, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Grave with the Hands, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that the Grave with the Hands (pictured) commemorates a married couple, divided by society and religion, clasping hands between cemeteries after death? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Grave with the Hands. You are welcome to check how many pageviews the nominated article or articles got while on the front page (here's how, Grave with the Hands), and the hook may be added to the statistics page after its run on the Main Page has completed. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page.

—Kusma (talk) 00:02, 13 April 2024 (UTC)

		Hook update
		Your hook reached 15,818 views (1,318.2 per hour), making it one of the most viewed hooks of April 2024 – nice work!

GalliumBot (talk • contribs) (he/it) 03:28, 14 April 2024 (UTC)

New page patrol May 2024 Backlog drive

New Page Patrol | May 2024 Articles Backlog Drive
On 1 May 2024, 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. Each review will earn 1 point. 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.

MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 16:14, 17 April 2024 (UTC)

Neuma Aguiar

I need your skills, if I may trouble you. So I found This article and photo of a Brazilian academic from 1963. The Masthead for volume 183, issue 48 of the Boston Sunday Globe has a © mark. Periodicals catalog shows it was registered as B20658. When I go to the catalog website and search I get nothing for the registration number and only 1 article "Children of the revolution / (In The Boston globe, Aug. 20, 1978, p. A-1)", for the Boston Sunday Globe, which is how the original registration was listed. That makes me fairly sure that it was not renewed. Your thoughts? SusunW (talk) 17:42, 17 April 2024 (UTC)