User talk:1bandsaw/Archives/2015/December

You're invited! Women in Red World Virtual Edit-a-thon on Women in Religion

You are invited! Join us remotely! World Virtual Edit-a-thon on Women in Religion

Dates: 5 to 15 December 2015 Location: Worldwide/virtual/online event Host: Women in Red (WiR): Did you know that only 15% of the biographies on Wikipedia are about women? WiR focuses on "content gender gap". If you'd like to help contribute articles on women and women's works, we warmly welcome you! Event details: This is a virtual edit-a-thon hosted by WiR. It will allow all those keen to improve Wikipedia's coverage of women in religion to participate. All levels of Wikipedia editing experience are welcome. RSVP and learn more: →here←--Ipigott (talk) 10:14, 4 December 2015 (UTC)

Ann Allebach

Is this the photo? [1] The problem is that it appeared in a Mennonite yearbook, so they may or may not have renewed copyright on it. It's doubtful, but unless you can prove it, it cannot go on commons. You can do it one of two ways. Look on Hathitrust.org and see if they have any public domain articles (long tedious search) or you can upload the photo as "fair use". To do that, you clip it (search for the snipping tool on your computer and just snip away). Then press on the link on the left margin on any WP page that says "upload file". Then click "Click here to start the Upload Wizard" and fill out the spaces. You want to mark it as fair use of a deceased person. You can use similar logic to the image I uploaded here [2]. It you get stuck, ping me and I'll help. But, I am one of those who learns by doing, so I always assume it's better to let you try and jump in if I'm needed. SusunW (talk) 04:53, 7 December 2015 (UTC)

SusunW Thanks for your advice on this, that'll be helpful the next time. By the time I saw your note here, someone else had already done as you instruct for Rev. Allebach. Thanks! 1bandsaw (talk) 17:52, 7 December 2015 (UTC)

Yes, I saw that Ian had done it this morning. As long as your biography subject is deceased, "fair use" is the easiest way to go. It can always be replaced if a free image becomes available. SusunW (talk) 17:55, 7 December 2015 (UTC)

Rucellai

Hi! Thanks for your edits, it looks as if you are doing all sorts of good stuff. I don't want to be a pain, but I thought I'd mention a few points arising from your edits to Bernardo Rucellai (a page which clearly needs all the help it can get). First, just for your info, the Italian word "accademia" is spelt with a double c; second, if you add a reference to an article, please try to conform with the referencing system already in use – so if it is list-defined (as there), it's better to add additional references in that format. What's been bothering me slightly more is that you seem to be particularly attached to a book called The Medici Women: Gender and Power in Renaissance Florence by Natalie R. Tomas, and seem to have added it to a number of articles. Could I ask you read a bit about WP:BOOKSPAM and why it is discouraged? This edit, for example, is pretty much a textbook example – you've added a new "source", but in a way that could give the impression that this was done solely in order to increase exposure of the book (not saying that's how it is, just that it's how it could appear). Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 18:39, 12 December 2015 (UTC)

Justlettersandnumbers, I did read the bookspam part, but it talks about adding a book without using it in the article. I admit that the first time I added the source to those two articles, I only added the book. I hadn't yet added the material and citations from it, when I was called away by real life to do other things. I didn't get back to edit the articles further until the next day, whereupon I was discouraged by your reversions. As for appearing 'attached' to a book, I'm most comfortable editing following WP:SOURCEMINE, where I find a good source (not easy in my local library), and extract as much value from it as I can. My goal is to take articles which have few or no sources and at least try to provide some sourcing as I can with the sources I have available. 1bandsaw (talk) 22:02, 13 December 2015 (UTC)

Well fair enough, and please excuse my suspicions (though that publishing house is a perfectly reputable one, we had a good deal of trouble with exactly this kind of spam from them a year or more ago). Discouraging productive editors is about the last thing I'm interested in doing. As to whether it's a reliable source, I think there's no doubt that it is (reputable publisher, author not totally unkown to Google Scholar though her cites are not impressive, reviews in serious journals). Whether it should be used extensively in the article is a different question; in my (strictly personal) opinion, agenda-driven texts need to be evaluated with particular care, and inclusion of the word "gender" in the title surely marks this as one – intentionally so, I imagine. Since there appear to be other easily-accessible sources which discuss Rucellai in considerable detail (this article in the Journal of the Warburg and Courtauld Institutes and the biographical introduction to this book are two that I found very quickly yesterday), it might be perhaps be better to work from those and make use of the Tomas source only if it contains information not available elsewhere. Always assuming, that is, that you plan to work on the page. If you do, I'll be happy to offer what help I can. Regards, Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 22:31, 13 December 2015 (UTC)

Rucellai

Hi! Thanks for your edits, it looks as if you are doing all sorts of good stuff. I don't want to be a pain, but I thought I'd mention a few points arising from your edits to Bernardo Rucellai (a page which clearly needs all the help it can get). First, just for your info, the Italian word "accademia" is spelt with a double c; second, if you add a reference to an article, please try to conform with the referencing system already in use – so if it is list-defined (as there), it's better to add additional references in that format. What's been bothering me slightly more is that you seem to be particularly attached to a book called The Medici Women: Gender and Power in Renaissance Florence by Natalie R. Tomas, and seem to have added it to a number of articles. Could I ask you read a bit about WP:BOOKSPAM and why it is discouraged? This edit, for example, is pretty much a textbook example – you've added a new "source", but in a way that could give the impression that this was done solely in order to increase exposure of the book (not saying that's how it is, just that it's how it could appear). Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 18:39, 12 December 2015 (UTC)

Justlettersandnumbers, I did read the bookspam part, but it talks about adding a book without using it in the article. I admit that the first time I added the source to those two articles, I only added the book. I hadn't yet added the material and citations from it, when I was called away by real life to do other things. I didn't get back to edit the articles further until the next day, whereupon I was discouraged by your reversions. As for appearing 'attached' to a book, I'm most comfortable editing following WP:SOURCEMINE, where I find a good source (not easy in my local library), and extract as much value from it as I can. My goal is to take articles which have few or no sources and at least try to provide some sourcing as I can with the sources I have available. 1bandsaw (talk) 22:02, 13 December 2015 (UTC)

Well fair enough, and please excuse my suspicions (though that publishing house is a perfectly reputable one, we had a good deal of trouble with exactly this kind of spam from them a year or more ago). Discouraging productive editors is about the last thing I'm interested in doing. As to whether it's a reliable source, I think there's no doubt that it is (reputable publisher, author not totally unkown to Google Scholar though her cites are not impressive, reviews in serious journals). Whether it should be used extensively in the article is a different question; in my (strictly personal) opinion, agenda-driven texts need to be evaluated with particular care, and inclusion of the word "gender" in the title surely marks this as one – intentionally so, I imagine. Since there appear to be other easily-accessible sources which discuss Rucellai in considerable detail (this article in the Journal of the Warburg and Courtauld Institutes and the biographical introduction to this book are two that I found very quickly yesterday), it might be perhaps be better to work from those and make use of the Tomas source only if it contains information not available elsewhere. Always assuming, that is, that you plan to work on the page. If you do, I'll be happy to offer what help I can. Regards, Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 22:31, 13 December 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for your participation

Thanks for joining the Women in Religion Virtual Edit-a-thon, 5 to 15 December 2015, hosted by Women in Red. Over 125 articles were created or expanded. Your contributions are appreciated! Hope you will also join us for the WiR Women in Music Virtual Edit-a-thon from 10 to 31 January.

--Ipigott (talk) 14:12, 18 December 2015 (UTC)

WikiCup 2016 is just around the corner...

Hello everyone, and we would like to wish you all a happy holiday season. As you will probably already know, the 2016 WikiCup begins in the new year; there is still time to sign up. There are some changes we'd like to announce before the competition begins.

After two years of serving as WikiCup judge, User:Miyagawa has stepped down as judge. He deserves great thanks and recognition for his dedication and hard work, and for providing necessary transition for a new group of judges in last year's Cup. Joining Christine (User:Figureskatingfan) and Jason (User:Sturmvogel 66) is Andrew (User:Godot13), a very successful WikiCup competitor and expert in Featured Pictures; he won the two previous competitions. This is a strong judging team, and we anticipate lots of enjoyment and good work coming from our 2016 competitors.

We would also like to announce one change in how this year's WikiCup will be run. In the spirit of sportsmanship, Godot13 and Cwmhiraeth have chosen to limit their participation. See here for the announcement and a complete explanation of why. They and the judges feel that it will make for a more exciting, enjoyable, and productive competition.

The discussions/polls concerning the next competition's rules will be closed soon, and rules changes will be made clear on Wikipedia:WikiCup/Scoring and talk pages. The judges are committed to not repeating the confusion that occurred last year and to ensuring that the new rules are both fair and in the best interests of the competition, which is, first and foremost, about improving Wikipedia.

If you have any questions or concerns, the judges can be reached on Wikipedia talk:WikiCup, on their talk pages, or by email. We hope you will all join us in trying to make the 2015 WikiCup the most productive and enjoyable yet. You are receiving this message because you are listed on Wikipedia:WikiCup/Newsletter/Send. Sturmvogel 66 (talk), Figureskatingfan (talk), and Godot13 (talk).--MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 06:46, 22 December 2015 (UTC)

DYK for Ann Allebach

Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 00:02, 27 December 2015 (UTC)

DYK for Ann Allebach

Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 00:02, 27 December 2015 (UTC)