Archives

1

This page has archives. Sections older than 14 days may be automatically archived by ClueBot III when more than 10 sections are present.

This Month in GLAM – Volume VII, Issue X, October 2017 Headlines Australia and New Zealand report: Adding Australian women in research to Wikipedia Brazil report: Integrating Wikimedia projects into the Brazilian National Archives GLAM Bulgaria report: Botevgrad became the first wikitown in Bulgaria France report: Wiki Loves Monuments; Opérations Libres Germany report: GLAMorous activities in October Italy report: Experts training on GLAM projects Serbia report: Wikipedian in residence at Historical Archives of Subotica; Model of a grain of wheat exlusivly digitized for Wikimedia Commons; Cooperation of the Ministry of Culture and Information and Wikimedia Serbia - GLAM presentations and workshops for museums, archives and libraries Spain report: Women Writers Day Sweden report: Swedish Performing Arts Agency; Connected Open Heritage; Internetmuseum; More Working life museums UK report: Scotland's Libraries & Hidden Gems Ukraine report: Wikitraining for Librarians; Library Donation USA report: trick or treat Wikidata report: WikidataCon & Birthday WMF GLAM report: News about Structured Commons! Calendar: November's GLAM events Read this edition in full • Single-page To assist with preparing the newsletter, please visit the newsroom. Past editions may be viewed here.

Your recent editing history shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you are reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. The best practice at this stage is to discuss, not edit-war. See BRD for how this is done. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection.

Being involved in an edit war can result in your being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you don't violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly.
That is NOT his official link, it is the official link for Noma (restaurant), which is linked in the article. Please read WP:EL/WP:NOT Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 05:13, 13 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I see you persists in avoidance of WP:ELBURDEN, please see Wikipedia_talk:External_links#Official_website for a discussion on this type of linking. --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 08:21, 13 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

If the goal here is to discourage me from working on improving both of these pages — two pages that need updating and cleanup desperately and which I had only started working on — then the remit you are following is successful. I will abandon this attempt to clean them up and update and improve the pages. I will unhappily stop editing here. So well done YOU for both being a deletionist and willfully harassing and obstructing a fellow editor. Congratulations. — BrillLyle (talk) 12:05, 13 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

BrillLyle, you have greatly improved the articles, you have added a lot of information. But that does not mean that that all needs to stay. The moment you save, anything can, and will, be mercilessly edited. There is nothing 'obstructing' you, and nothing 'harassing' - if you think that it is pertinent, then please start a discussion to assess that consensus. For now, we do not seem to have that consensus. --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 13:45, 13 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for taking zero responsibility for your actions here. The fact is there’s no “we” here. It’s you as one editor jumping all over the edits I was making in very preliminary work to clean up and add to the page — which it was becoming obvious would need to happen to both pages as they are intermingled, another issue that will now not be addressed. But instead of allowing that process to happen, you instead fixated on being obstructive and unhelpful re: minor concerns, bullying me off the pages. If you don’t see this cause and effect as a direct result of your behavior well that’s feedback that I hope you might learn from. The fact is I do BLPs all the time, and know what I’m doing here. I’ve also got over 50,000 edits. So instead of treating me like a pillock and allowing me the space and time to shape the pages and add content, which by the way is a difficult thing to do — and doesn’t seem to be what you spend your time doing on Wikipedia — instead you have fixated on a pre-existing link and have indicated by deleting the added see also content that you were going to be like a 500 lb. gorilla on further edits I was in the process of making. Who knows if I would have removed those links myself as I worked to improve and reshape the page. Now we will never know because I am not going to edit under these conditions. No Wikipedia editor should have to edit under these conditions. It was obvious from the editing I was doing and the comments I was making in the edit summary that I was just beginning to update one (and most likely two pages). But now that’s not going to happen. Well done on “protecting” the encyclopedia. Your behavior here has a direct consequence, and is why people stop editing Wikipedia. If you don’t understand this again that’s your problem. I hope when you congratulate yourself for a job well done that there is at least a basic question in your mind that hey maybe this was not helpful. And that your behavior here may have constituted crawling up an editor’s ass who was in progress on a page / pages. But I suspect you don’t care and don’t think you’ve done anything wrong. The end result is two pages that are not developed properly — and who would try to do significant editing now following this? I’m moving on now. Please get some help and learn from this maybe. BrillLyle (talk) 15:21, 13 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hi! If you need help, please reach out to me, or any of the editors on Wikipedia: WikiProject Women in Red on our talkpage. We have a good community and may be able to help or support your work. Megalibrarygirl (talk) 15:01, 13 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there. Thanks for your kind offer and support. If this subject was a woman or person from an underserved community I might fight harder but he’s a famous chef whose fans should have addressed the cleanup of the pages — and hopefully at some point might still do that. But I am having PTSD from this now so might need to take a wiki break. Directly as a result Of this experience. Again thanks for your kindness. It means a lot and I appreciate it. BrillLyle (talk) 15:28, 13 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

19:19, 13 November 2017 (UTC)

Hi Erika/BrillLyle, I apologize for deleting the catalog tag from the Kay Brown (Artist) Wikidata item (and thanks for assuming I probably did it in good faith). Since I had just written the article about her, I wanted to see if she had a Wikidata item and if it had anything I could add or fix. Because there was the "potential issues" symbol next to "catalog", I tried to figure out what had happened to trigger that. It seemed to me that this was possibly a garbled reference to an exhibition catalog which I couldn't find a record of, and since it didn't make sense to me I deleted it. After your explanation, I understand that you've been using it as a collocating tag for your Black Lunch Table project so it's definitely valid. I wonder if there's a way to fix the "catalog" tag so it's not getting that "potential issues" warning since well meaning folks might, like me, think it was an error. Anyway, thanks for the explanation, and I applaud the work that you, the Black Lunch Table group, and the Brooklyn Museum are doing! Best wishes, Diane Uncommon fritillary (talk) 15:03, 20 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

19:19, 20 November 2017 (UTC)

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article List of Women of Rock Oral History Project interviews is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Women of Rock Oral History Project interviews until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. Bearcat (talk) 00:15, 26 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

20:30, 27 November 2017 (UTC)

I would gladly change my vote on Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Women of Rock Oral History Project interviews to 'keep' if the list were removed and replaced by a link to http://www.womenofrock.org/videos/ — the topic of interviews has received some coverage so it may be notable independent from the Women of Rock Oral History Project. That would bring the article into compliance with Wikipedia policies and guidelines. The list itself is the problem, not the introductory prose. It would have to be renamed also, probably just removing the "List of" from the title. ~Anachronist (talk) 18:05, 29 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Really? Is this so-called "olive branch" anything more than a patronizing approach to stifle addressing the gender gap and a misunderstanding of the potential outreach possible for a GLAM project?!? I think this is all just hugely problematic and unhelpful. The agenda here is to establish notability and add content to the projects. I am not hurting Wikipedia here, but by your actions you are. It's baffling and more than a little sad. Wikipedia needs to innovate. If something as conservative and actually constructive is so problematic, that's on you all. -- BrillLyle (talk) 20:07, 29 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I'm offering constructive ways to keep the article. Having a big directory listing of external links isn't acceptable. If you want to change that policy, the place to do it is over at Wikipedia talk:What Wikipedia is not, not in a deletion discussion. I'm interested to know why you would object to keeping the article with the list residing on the Rock Oral History Project's external page. ~Anachronist (talk) 22:29, 29 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Ugh. You keep describing this information as a directory of external links. That's inaccurate. They are citations, just like a publication list, or a discography. All acceptable on Wikipedia. But you don't seem to be able to hear this information, or see the innovation that is possible here, of value to editors. So I give up. Delete away. That seems to be the goal here, not actually facilitating adding content. -- BrillLyle (talk) 06:35, 30 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]