Jump to content

User talk:SusunW/Archive 35

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 30←Archive 33Archive 34Archive 35Archive 36Archive 37→Archive 40

April 2019

April 2019, Volume 5, Issue 4, Numbers 107, 108, 114, 115, 116, 117


Hello and welcome to the April events of Women in Red!

Please join us for these virtual events:


Other ways you can participate:


Subscription options: Opt-in (EN-WP) / Opt-in (international) / Unsubscribe

--Megalibrarygirl (talk) 16:02, 25 March 2019 (UTC) via MassMessaging

(Please excuse this post if it is a duplicate!)

/Ljudmila Plesničar Gec listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect /Ljudmila Plesničar Gec. Since you had some involvement with the /Ljudmila Plesničar Gec redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion if you wish to do so. UnitedStatesian (talk) 15:05, 10 April 2019 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Aletta Jacobs

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Aletta Jacobs you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Valereee -- Valereee (talk) 19:20, 25 April 2019 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Aletta Jacobs

The article Aletta Jacobs you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Aletta Jacobs for comments about the article. Well done! If the article has not already been on the main page as an "In the news" or "Did you know" item, you can nominate it to appear in Did you know. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Valereee -- Valereee (talk) 13:22, 27 April 2019 (UTC)

Thank you for the review Valereee. Totally appreciate it. I'm thinking that it might run on 18 September 1919, 100 years from the day Dutch women officially got suffrage. SusunW (talk) 14:02, 27 April 2019 (UTC)
I was happy to do it, she was a fascinating read, and from the talk page it looked like the article had been in pretty rough shape before you and Ipigott got to work on it! --valereee (talk) 14:40, 27 April 2019 (UTC)
It was atrocious. One of those that are so bad you just cringe, and for such an important feminist it just seemed so sad. Ian is a jewel, he always copyedits my work on GA nominations. I get tunnel vision trying to get the facts in, he works through the prose and fixes my grammar and clarity issues. We're a good team. :) SusunW (talk) 14:44, 27 April 2019 (UTC)

May you join this month's editathons from WiR!

May 2019, Volume 5, Issue 5, Numbers 107, 108, 118, 119, 120, 121


Hello and welcome to the May events of Women in Red!

Please join us for these virtual events:


Other ways you can participate:


Subscription options: Opt-in/Opt-out

--Megalibrarygirl (talk) 16:17, 27 April 2019 (UTC) via MassMessaging

Orphaned non-free image File:Argentina Díaz Lozano.jpg

⚠
⚠

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

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in section F5 of the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 02:22, 28 April 2019 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:Ashraf os-Saltaneh.png

⚠
⚠

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

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in section F5 of the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 17:24, 29 April 2019 (UTC)

Women in Red - Malta

Hi, I'm writing as a member of Wikimedia Community Malta, a Wiki User Group that is working to improve Wikipedia content on Maltese subjects. We are hoping to contribute to the Women in Red project, which has a geo-focus on the Mediterranean region coming up in June. We noticed that you wrote an article on a notable Maltese woman back in October 2018 (Irene Condachi) and were hoping that you could give us some pointers on how to go about identifying more notable Maltese women and working on their pages.

We have some experience with organising editathons and workshops, and recently ran a successful Art+Feminism editathon in early March on the occasion of International Women's Day. We would like to keep this momentum going through the Women in Red project, so any help or tips you could give us would be greatly appreciated! Thanks! --Nevborg (talk) 19:01, 25 March 2019 (UTC)

Nevborg Tough question, but I'll try to help. The WiR project list for Malta is here. I never google notable women (you end up with a bunch of celebrities), instead try historic Maltese women, 19th-century Maltese women, etc. Sources there which you might use include this thesis, Malta: Women, History, Books and Places, or on the web this, but a cursory glance of this last one indicates only Vanessa Frazier does not appear to have an article. Also look at articles about other Maltese women or women's roles, like Women in Malta, Women in Maltese general elections for red links. Once you have identified the names, finding sources is always the biggest issue, because women simply were not written about prior to the 1970s in any great detail. I have no idea if you are located where there are libraries or not. I am not, so use lots of creative ways to find sources, e-mailing authors, universities, etc. Hope this helps. Please feel free to ask any time and I will be glad to try to help. SusunW (talk) 20:21, 25 March 2019 (UTC)
April
... with thanks from QAI
Good advice! Thank you for improving articles in April! I managed one dancer so far, - two more planned. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 20:26, 22 April 2019 (UTC)
Thanks Gerda Arendt! I am much better this month. Finally finished with the rounds of doctors and my broken toes (did I tell you I broke my toes the 1st day I was in Berlin?) are mostly healed. I have managed two Portuguese speakers (one was also a dancer) and two gender academics, so not a lot of production, but much more than the last several months ;) SusunW (talk) 13:56, 23 April 2019 (UTC)
No, I knew nothing about your toes! O dear!! - Jennifer Holloway who also did some dancing in her role was "approved" but when I looked closer I didn't like what was approved. Don't miss the trailer mentioned in the nom, - a few minutes worth spending. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 09:13, 28 April 2019 (UTC)
Gerda Arendt sorry, I am slow, but I wanted to give it good thought. Taking into consideration your concerns voiced on the nomination, how would you feel about: that Jennifer Holloway was critically applauded for her performance in the lead role in The Distant Sound, which required her to convincingly morph from a young girl to an old woman? SusunW (talk) 13:30, 30 April 2019 (UTC)
Thanks for asking. The "critically applauded" is actually of no interest to me. "morph" seems wrong because - in that staging - the character is on stage the same young (the singer) and old, just in the last scene the singer is the old. It's three different stages, no morphing. I really don't see the problem with the original hook, mentioning the three stages distinctly, also her interesting voice, both mezzo and soprano (I tried to avoid these technical terms). Invitation: see and hear the singer in the trailer for the opera, on stage and in interview, and understand perhaps better why I want to say more about her than that she came from Georgia and made a career in Germany. - Did you see that our cat (for Hedi Schoop) is threatened with deletion? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 14:08, 30 April 2019 (UTC)
Gerda Arendt in the trailer it says 4 phases of life metaphorically representing the "seasons", so I was trying to avoid a specific number. I could have used "change" but "morph" seemed hookier (doesn't necessarily mean instantaneous). Maybe transition? I am afraid that since the original hook was rejected by two different editors it would create problems/drama to override them. I find DYK a difficult venue, as it is so much subject to opinion as to what is interesting or not. I pretty much just let whoever reviews it dictate what is approved and appreciate that it will appear on the front page. I don't always like the changes they make and sometimes find them tedious, but I just let it go. SusunW (talk) 16:29, 30 April 2019 (UTC)
The seasons is her metapher, but the number of acts - distinct scenes - is three, also there's no number in the original hook, but three stages, - "demimonde" should be more attractive even than young and old, and certainly was unusual in 1912. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 16:39, 30 April 2019 (UTC)

DYK for Aletta Jacobs

Hi, I was just wondering why you nominated this now and asked to run it five months from now? I don't know if that's going to go over with the rules guys at DYK. Yoninah (talk) 17:51, 30 April 2019 (UTC)

Yoninah, that's my fault...I reviewed it for GA probably a lot faster than SusunW expected. If I'd known, I'd have dragged my feet lol! --valereee (talk) 18:03, 30 April 2019 (UTC)
Oh, now I get it :) Yoninah (talk) 18:12, 30 April 2019 (UTC)
Yoninah I'm not blaming valereee at all. The DYK rules of nom in 7 days meant that once it was approved it had to be nominated. I mean if someone had approved the GA in January, I'd've still had the dilemma of waiting to run it. SusunW (talk) 18:28, 30 April 2019 (UTC)
As I said in the nom, we make an exception for the space jubileee, - why not here as well? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 18:47, 30 April 2019 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Inter-Allied Women's Conference

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Inter-Allied Women's Conference you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Gog the Mild -- Gog the Mild (talk) 17:01, 10 May 2019 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Inter-Allied Women's Conference

The article Inter-Allied Women's Conference you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Inter-Allied Women's Conference for comments about the article. Well done! If the article has not already been on the main page as an "In the news" or "Did you know" item, you can nominate it to appear in Did you know. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Gog the Mild -- Gog the Mild (talk) 19:02, 12 May 2019 (UTC)

For making women green

The Good Article Barnstar
By the authority vested in me by myself it gives me great pleasure to present you with this barnstar in recognition of the impressive flow of high quality articles you have generated on women and their struggles. Please keep them coming. Gog the Mild (talk) 19:14, 12 May 2019 (UTC)
Gog the Mild Thank you so very much! It was a pleasure working with you on it and I appreciate your help in making it better. SusunW (talk) 19:25, 12 May 2019 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:Amarilis Fuentes Alcívar.jpg

⚠
⚠

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

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in section F5 of the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 02:24, 17 May 2019 (UTC)

Adam Cuerden (talk)Has about 6.5% of all FPs 06:53, 18 May 2019 (UTC)

Adam Cuerden, it is gorgeous! Even the scratches are gone. You are genius! I don't suppose you could help this one? [1] original is in bad shape [2] SusunW (talk) 15:25, 18 May 2019 (UTC)
I grabbed the larger-resolution copy from the site, and uploaded it to start. I think I can get this, but it'll be a while. Adam Cuerden (talk)Has about 6.5% of all FPs 21:19, 18 May 2019 (UTC)
Adam Cuerden, that would be so cool. As I said, it's in pretty rough shape, but a really important historical photo. Thank you so much. No rush for it. SusunW (talk) 21:41, 18 May 2019 (UTC)

Would another representative to the conference tide you over? Adam Cuerden (talk)Has about 6.5% of all FPs 00:42, 19 May 2019 (UTC)

Adam Cuerden I am truly so thrilled that you are working on these women. So hard to find good images. Strachey's photo is fabulous! SusunW (talk) 04:15, 19 May 2019 (UTC)

By the way

Have a look at User:Adam Cuerden/Suffragette image list sometime. I ran through all of User:Stinglehammer/List of Suffragettes to see which of the images on it were good enough to be featured. I may have missed some, but it's a decent start. Adam Cuerden (talk)Has about 6.5% of all FPs 06:38, 21 May 2019 (UTC)

You've done really well with them. One year in March I focused on international suffrage and tried to do at least one suffragette from each country. That's how I discovered Františka Plamínková. I still haven't figured out if the photo was published, but am still looking ;) SusunW (talk) 13:19, 21 May 2019 (UTC)

Inter-Allied Women's Conference

'I have no earthly idea how to "nominate it for an A class review" or do a FA.'

I have always found A class review (ACR) to be a useful stepping stone to FA. It sorts out most of the issues before you push an article forward proclaiming that it "represents the best of Wikipedia". You may find it useful to skim the comments in an ACR I currently have underway to get a feel for what happens. (FACs: this is one I have currently underway and this gives an idea of the full process.)

IMO Inter-Allied Women's Conference has the potential to get to FA, but it is a lot of work, especially your first one. Gog the Mild (talk) 19:33, 12 May 2019 (UTC)

Gog the Mild thank you for your insights. @Ipigott, Rosiestep, and Tagishsimon: do any of you think we can do this and are you willing to help? SusunW (talk) 20:01, 12 May 2019 (UTC)
I don't know that I'm skillful enough to be of help but I'd love to see this eventually become an FA. --Rosiestep (talk) 20:31, 12 May 2019 (UTC)
I don't know that I am either, Rosiestep, but I'm willing to try if I don't have to go it alone. I want Siegel's book and wish we knew how to purchase it for our library. SusunW (talk) 20:43, 12 May 2019 (UTC)
Is it available through archive.org?[3] --Rosiestep (talk) 21:04, 12 May 2019 (UTC)
Nope. Just published this year and the release isn't scheduled until January of next year. SusunW (talk) 21:12, 12 May 2019 (UTC)
First of all, congratulations, Susun, on the GA. Quite an achievement, as this was a difficult one to develop and also to assess. You were lucky to have such a competent and helpful reviewer. (It's the first time I've seen 80% of anyone's articles rated FA or A.) I was nevertheless rather surprised by the changes from -ize to -ise. I am British and always use the -ize forms as they are fully acceptable on both sides of the Atlantic. For future reference, Gog the Mild might be interested in this.
As you know, I'm always happy to help but for your first FA you might find it easier to promote one of your biographies. It looks to me as if Inter-Allied Women's Conference would need a lot more work for FA. The lead needs to be carefully expanded and the list of conference participants would have to be transformed from a list into running prose with short descriptions of most of the individuals concerned. Alternatively, a separate article listing the participants with short descriptions of each could be created, backed by a summary in the main article. It looks to me as if all that would be quite a lot of work. In any case, for your first FA, I would recommend you try to promote one of your biographies, several of which look pretty close to making the mark. I don't really see the advantage of going for A first. The whole purpose of FA is to attract wide interest in articles by featuring them on the main page.--Ipigott (talk) 07:23, 13 May 2019 (UTC)
Ipigott Thank you for your input and insights. You know how much I rely on your expertise. I do see a value in trying for A, as according to the review page, the article is reviewed by 3 people and the Military Project is often held as one of WP's best examples. To me, that would be both a valuable learning process and would expose the article to a wider audience, which for women's history is always needed. As for FA, I agree with your comments on the complicated nature of promoting this one in particular. So many components, so much information yet to be evaluated and scholarship on the event is literally just emerging, though it occurred 100 years ago. Besides which, you all know what my year has entailed and I am not sure that I have the time to focus on shepherding an article through the FA process yet. Maybe in a few more months things will be different, but for now, I have to be realistic on how much time I have available. SusunW (talk) 15:28, 13 May 2019 (UTC)
Then I think you should go for the A review. As you say, Military history is a good project with lots of competent editors. They will no doubt come up with useful recommendations. On that basis, you will be in a better position to see whether it is worthwhile aiming for FA.--Ipigott (talk) 08:22, 14 May 2019 (UTC)
Gog the Mild, holding my breath, I pushed the button to nominate it for A-class. SusunW (talk) 17:08, 21 May 2019 (UTC)

Thank you ...

May
Rapeseed
... with thanks from QAI

... for improving article quality in May! --Gerda Arendt (talk) 15:11, 21 May 2019 (UTC)

Thank you Gerda Arendt for your efforts to make WP a better place. Your encouragement is so appreciated. SusunW (talk) 22:40, 21 May 2019 (UTC)

June events with WIR

June 2019, Volume 5, Issue 6, Numbers 107, 108, 122, 123, 124, 125


Check out what's happening in June at Women in Red:

Virtual events:


Other ways you can participate:


Subscription options: Opt-in/Opt-out

--Megalibrarygirl (talk) 17:43, 22 May 2019 (UTC) via MassMessaging

Help?

@Fæ and Another Believer: could either or both of you take a look at an article I am working on?[4] It is especially difficult because 1) all the sources have to be translated, thus words that might be acceptable in Spanish, might not be culturally accepted in English. (I avoided clearly derogatory terms in use at the time, but am not really sure on some of the others.); 2) the period of time is in the early years of defining gender and sexuality, so terms have significantly changed; and 3) I felt that I needed to describe the legal situation at the time to give context. (Not sure whether there is too much off-topic discussion and should be added to the country specific article or whether it is on-balance to give a frame of reference to this article). Any help you can give would be appreciated before I take it to mainspace. Thanks! SusunW (talk) 20:45, 27 May 2019 (UTC)

SusunW, I you're willing, you might ask for feedback at WikiProject LGBT studies as well. There have been several related discussions lately, so folks might be interested to weigh in. ---Another Believer (Talk) 21:52, 27 May 2019 (UTC)
Another Believer I will post it there as well, thanks for the input. SusunW (talk) 22:23, 27 May 2019 (UTC)
Hi, I have only read it once through. Per AB, worth getting some general feedback before going live. I normally use the {{Under construction}} template to avoid getting lots of tags on the first day too.
It reads with a lot of narrative, so I suspect others might help trim down the text once it goes live. You have to be extra cautious about opinions and how much narrative or explanatory text exists without direct sources. As you mention, terminology has changed a lot since the 1970s, it remains an issue of debate as to whether older terms ought to apply to articles set in the 1970s. I tend to stick to modern terms as they more often convey encyclopaedic meaning to the reader, so though 'gender corrective' surgery is a recent term, it could be used in this article even if the sources use other terms. However nothing jumped out at me as being potentially offensive.
After a few more comments by others, I suggest getting it to mainspace, there is no doubt that it is of value to the encyclopaedia. If there are debates and criticism after going live, take it as a good sign that the article is of interest. --Fæ (talk) 07:55, 28 May 2019 (UTC)
Thank you Fæ. Everything in the article is cited to a direct source. As a former academic, I am a stickler for that. I never put something in an article that I cannot reference and if it is contentious, that I cannot find more than one reference for. I wasn't sure if I should do a note that addressed the change in terms or not. But I trust you and Another Believer's judgment. If y'all didn't see something glaringly offensive, then we're probably good. SusunW (talk) 13:01, 28 May 2019 (UTC)

Draft:Elisabeth Kossecka

Incidentally, do you review drafts? I think this passes NPROF and is ready for mainspace, but I am not very familiar with draft review procedure. (I've been asked for help with this by the creator, and if it was a regular sandbox I'd just mainspace it but drafts confuse me...). --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 03:33, 30 May 2019 (UTC)

I went ahead and moved it to mainspace. She may be notable, especially after receiving that award! All drafts where the subject might pass an AFD should can be moved to mainspace. Thsmi002 (talk) 04:11, 30 May 2019 (UTC) (talk page watcher)
Thanks Thsmi002! SusunW (talk) 12:54, 30 May 2019 (UTC)

Inter-Allied Women's Conference review

I've been following with interest the 'A' review. You've certainly been receiving some excellent suggestions for improvement and the article is coming on very well. The only thing I find rather strange is "posted invitations" -- certainly no improvement on "mailed". To me that suggests they pinned the invitations on notice boards or sent posters around. I suggest simply "sent invitations". But maybe you should wait until the review has been completed.--Ipigott (talk) 08:04, 24 May 2019 (UTC)

Thank you Ipigott. Truth be told, I pulled up the Collins dictionary and checked it, because I really did have no idea. It had mailed, but said usually in Britain it is posted. I agree that to me, posted would mean put on a board in a public place. But I do think the changes they have suggested, and the links have been beneficial to improving the piece. SusunW (talk) 15:24, 24 May 2019 (UTC)
Maybe "mailed" is more common in America than "posted" but we would never say "posted invitations". We simply send them (and that of course means we mail them.--Ipigott (talk) 15:32, 24 May 2019 (UTC)
Isn't it funny that when your brain is stuck on a word, you don't think of the simplest alternative? Sent works in either (maybe all) versions of English and to my mind won't cause confusion of the meaning. I'll take your advice and change it after. SusunW (talk) 15:48, 24 May 2019 (UTC)
Hi SusunW. How is the review going for you? Regretting it/cursing me yet? If there are any issues you get stuck on or reviewers you get frustrated with, give me a ping and I’ll see if I can help. Gog the Mild (talk) 21:23, 24 May 2019 (UTC)
It's actually going well, I think. I much prefer a detailed reviewer than someone who seems to just pass over the article. The point, to my mind is to improve it. The only issue so far seems to be the hullabaloo over which version of English. To me, it makes no difference and is pretty funny. Here in the Caribbean, we take the motto, "no worries, be happy" to heart. It matters not which version of English you use, as long as every time you use a word its spelling is consistent, thus you are likely to see all manner of English in a single document, you know, globalization :D. I may well need you to crop the other image, if it is truly necessary, as Adam's notes, says he will crop one when he is finished with the restoration and I have no idea how that will impact the review. SusunW (talk) 21:34, 24 May 2019 (UTC)
Done. See what you think. Gog the Mild (talk) 22:19, 24 May 2019 (UTC)
Gog the Mild Looks fine to me. We can always replace it with the restored one once it is finished. Thanks for your help! SusunW (talk) 22:39, 24 May 2019 (UTC)
No worries . . . Gog the Mild (talk) 22:43, 24 May 2019 (UTC)
Gog the Mild Spoke too soon. I'm drowning in a sea of unanswered questions and no direction. Is it appropriate to ask someone else to help, or is that not allowed? SusunW (talk) 15:43, 9 June 2019 (UTC)

No. Ask anyone and everyone. This is Wikipedia. Sadly my internet is down. Sending this from a wonky connection on my phone. Engineer promised for Tuesday. If they fix it I will have a look at the issues. Meanwhile, feel free to shout for help. Posting a plea on the MilHist discussion page may work. Gog the Mild (talk) 16:29, 9 June 2019 (UTC)

Thanks, Gog the Mild. I don't want to cross swords with anyone, but am clearly in over my head. SusunW (talk) 16:57, 9 June 2019 (UTC)

DYK for Aletta Jacobs

On 11 June 2019, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Aletta Jacobs, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that Dutch physician Aletta Jacobs's legal challenge to be added to the Amsterdam electoral rolls backfired, leading to a constitutional amendment granting voting rights to men only? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Aletta Jacobs. You are welcome to check how many page hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, Aletta Jacobs), and it may be added to the statistics page if the total is over 5,000. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page.

 — Amakuru (talk) 00:02, 11 June 2019 (UTC)

Thanks! Emma Brossard

Thanks for your help earlier today with the Emma Brossard article! I am frequently amazed how what first appears to be an article that may be a dead end for reliable sources, comes to life as more and more citations turn up. I may have inadvertently stepped on your edits earlier by editing in the middle of your edits, if so, apologies. The article is looking not too bad at the moment. One can perhaps now read between the lines of Brossard's career - interrupted for 20 years for the kids, PhD dissertation at 40, then fighting age and gender discrimination in the early 70s to get a decent position. I have still not found a proper obituary... The article may well be skirting the boundaries of original research (bringing together tidbits of information from primary sources), but I think it is OK. Cheers, Bdushaw (talk) 22:19, 11 June 2019 (UTC)

Bdushaw de nada. I'm good with research. I don't think OR is an issue, at least on any of the material I added. First, it isn't improper to use them. One cannot draw conclusions from them. Second, her birth record, death record, and burial records all state when and where, i.e. no interpretation needed. (The birth record also states her maternal grandparents names and where they were from, again, no conclusions drawn.) Third, as long as notability is verified with sufficient independent RS, using primary sources or non-independent sources to flesh-out the bio is also acceptable. And you are right, the bio looks good. SusunW (talk) 22:30, 11 June 2019 (UTC)

Replaceable fair use File:Concha Michel in 1930.jpg

Thanks for uploading File:Concha Michel in 1930.jpg. I noticed that this file is being used under a claim of fair use. However, I think that the way it is being used fails the first non-free content criterion. This criterion states that files used under claims of fair use may have no free equivalent; in other words, if the file could be adequately covered by a freely-licensed file or by text alone, then it may not be used on Wikipedia. If you believe this file is not replaceable, please:

  1. Go to the file description page and add the text {{Di-replaceable fair use disputed|<your reason>}} below the original replaceable fair use template, replacing <your reason> with a short explanation of why the file is not replaceable.
  2. On the file discussion page, write a full explanation of why you believe the file is not replaceable.

Alternatively, you can also choose to replace this non-free media item by finding freely licensed media of the same subject, requesting that the copyright holder release this (or similar) media under a free license, or by creating new media yourself (for example, by taking your own photograph of the subject).

If you have uploaded other non-free media, consider checking that you have specified how these media fully satisfy our non-free content criteria. You can find a list of description pages you have edited by clicking on this link. Note that even if you follow steps 1 and 2 above, non-free media which could be replaced by freely licensed alternatives will be deleted 2 days after this notification (7 days if uploaded before 13 July 2006), per the non-free content policy. If you have any questions, please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Magog the Ogre (t • c) 23:36, 11 June 2019 (UTC)

Magog the Ogre I am no expert in photographs, but since Mexico is where the image is from and their PD is life + 100 years, I am at a loss as to how the image which replaced it can be in the PD. SusunW (talk) 01:55, 12 June 2019 (UTC)
Photographer is Italian, which.... maybe works? I've never been 100% sure how it works when an image is generated by a national of one country in a different country. Especially as she lived in Mexico from 1922 to her death. Adam Cuerden (talk)Has about 6.7% of all FPs 04:24, 12 June 2019 (UTC)
Ah, found it: commons:Commons:Copyright_rules_by_territory/Mexico "Generally speaking, that means works created by someone who had died before 1952 are in the public domain, since they died 30 years before the non-retroactive extension to life plus 50 years was implemented on 12 January 1982"

Mind you, it's a terrible, terrible photo to identify her with from which no real details of her appearance can be seen. I'd challenge it. Adam Cuerden (talk)Has about 6.7% of all FPs 04:39, 12 June 2019 (UTC)

Adam Cuerden thanks! That caveat on Mexican law is important to know. She was Italian, but by marrying a US citizen she lost her Italian citizenship. Since she was avoiding Italian fascist authorities and US authorities refused to let her enter the US, it is unlikely that Modotti filed for copyright in either of those places. From my understanding, it doesn't matter where it was made unless they filed for copyright protection. It only matters where it was first published. In both cases, that was Mexico. I've not found any images published in the US for Michel. SusunW (talk) 05:03, 12 June 2019 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:Emma Catalina Encinas Aguayo (aka Emma Gutiérrez Suárez).jpg

⚠
⚠

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

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in section F5 of the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 17:43, 12 June 2019 (UTC)

File:Concha Michel in 1930.jpg listed for discussion

A file that you uploaded or altered, File:Concha Michel in 1930.jpg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Files for discussion. Please see the discussion to see why it has been listed (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry). Feel free to add your opinion on the matter below the nomination. Thank you. ℯxplicit 23:44, 13 June 2019 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:Concha Michel in 1930.jpg

⚠
⚠

Thanks for uploading File:Concha Michel in 1930.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in section F5 of the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 17:31, 14 June 2019 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:SusunW/Archive_35&oldid=906333859"