User talk:Arcadia616

Hello

Hi and welcome, Arcadia. Here at Wikipedia we're very interested in collaboration with the academic community. Please be aware, though, that contributions which solely consist of adding external links to a website might be perceived as spamming by the community. We would very much welcome content contributions within the article body. I'd like to follow up with you specifically, if that's possible, because I do a lot of media editing and it would be good to establish a relationship with your institution. Regards, Durova³³² 23:14, 20 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hello and thanks for the message. Thanks too for the reminder that links can be perceived as spamming -- I'm going to review the edits I've made so far and see where I can add content as well. I'd appreciate further information as to how to contribute archival resources to Wikipedia in a useful and respectful way. Best, Arcadia616 (talk) 23:31, 20 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Would you consider possibly uploading images from your archive to our sister site Wikimedia Commons? It would be perfectly legitimate to link to the hosting page of your own site from each upload there, as a source. All material uploaded to Commons must be either in public domain or under copyleft license (would be glad to discuss the latter with you in more detail). Also, if you're willing to provide high resolution historic files--10MB or more in uncompressed format such as PNG or TIFF--some of our volunteers may perform digital restoration on highlights from your collection. In some instances high resolution and high quality material may be selected for "featured picture" status and spend a day on the site's main page. See here for a gallery of my work. Best regards, Durova³³² 00:04, 21 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, would like to follow up with you. Would you consider email? Durova³³³ 20:07, 23 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Link to lcweb2.loc.go

Hi, thanks for your contributions. I noticed your link additions and the text on your userpage (may I say, that the text has changed a bit, though your edits are still well within what the guideline now says). Small questions/thoughts though:

You added here a link to http://www.oac.cdlib.org/findaid/ark:/13030/tf509nb66b/, which redirects to http://lcweb2.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/r?pp/PPALL:@field(NUMBER+@(ca2284)). The external link guideline discourages redirect sites, should such links not be directly to the second place?
here a small linkfarm starts to develop (we can't possibly link to everything that is available on the web, and at a certain point it does not add anymore). Not saying that the link you added is in excess here, may I ask you to consider that when adding links (it may be that some other links can go, or that the whole series of links needs a small discussion on the talkpage or with a WikiProject).
I saw somewhere that you created a section 'research resources' or something similar, while there was also a Gutenberg link visible in the same diff (will have a second look, may appear here). IIRC then Gutenberg would then also qualify as a research resource in some cases? Would it be necessary in such cases to 'group' these links into a 'research resources' section?

Just as a question, Jewett W. Adams is unreferenced, would material from your archive be useful to expand the document and/or to reference information in the document?

By the way, talking about WikiProjects, you might want to team up with some which are of interest, they may give you some hints, or be able to help you. And, if they 'know' you, they might quicker come to you and ask you to take one of the 'boxes of the shelves' and ask you about the contents or something similar. Happy editing! --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 08:12, 6 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Adding to the last point, what I forgot to consider at that point: I am sure that your database contains information on notable people, who nonetheless don't have a Wikipedia article. I am sure that certain WikiProjects are interested in those, as they might want to create such articles. I could suggest that you start with User:Arcadia616/Redlinks (or something similar), where you record 'missing' articles. A second thing may be that they could help you create a template, e.g. {{BancroftLibrary}}, which gets as parameters 'ark:/13030/tf509nb66b/' or '13030/tf509nb66b/', and which then creates the full line for you. That may have several advantages later (easy formatting changes or link changes throughout without having to edit all hundreds of pages and machine readability (though I would not worry about the latter)). Regards, --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 08:28, 6 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Pflueger

Is there a collection of Timothy L. Pflueger materials at Bancroft? Binksternet (talk) 20:21, 9 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Check with the Bancroft reference desk: bancref@library.berkeley.edu. Arcadia616 (talk) 23:53, 9 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. I may do that, next time I'm there to look up books about the U.S. – Mexico border friction of 1919. Cheers! Binksternet (talk) 00:33, 10 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom elections are now open!

Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 14:14, 24 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]