Jump to content

User talk:BrillLyle/Archives/ 1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Tech News: 2015-12

Latest tech news from the Wikimedia technical community. Please tell other users about these changes. Not all changes will affect you. Translations are available.

Recent changes

  • The servers that resize images are using new software. You should report new problems that you notice with images. [1]
  • You can now see lists of bugs about Commons, Wikisource and Wiktionary. [2]
  • It is now easier to add special characters in VisualEditor. You can edit the list of characters for your wiki. [3] [4]

Problems

  • Wikis were broken for a few minutes on Thursday due to a code error.

Changes this week

  • The new version of MediaWiki has been on test wikis and MediaWiki.org since March 11. It will be on non-Wikipedia wikis from March 17. It will be on all Wikipedias from March 18 (calendar).
  • A puzzle piece icon (icon) now shows hidden templates in VisualEditor. You can edit the template by clicking the icon. For example, you can now edit anchor templates. [5] [6]
  • You can now add examples, and details about old parameters, in TemplateData. [7] [8]

Meetings

  • You can read the notes from the last meeting with the VisualEditor team.
  • You can join the next weekly meeting with the VisualEditor team. During the meetings you can tell developers which bugs are the most important. The meeting will be on March 18 at 23:00 (UTC). See how to join.

Future changes

  • The list of bad user names on your wiki will no longer work. The global list will replace it. You can ask to add rules for bad user names on Meta. [9] [10]
  • You can comment on how you want to see Wikidata edits in your watchlist on other wikis. [11]
  • The final steps of single user login (SUL) will happen in April. You can see the rules to rename accounts. [12]

Tech news prepared by tech ambassadors and posted by bot • Contribute • Translate • Get help • Give feedback • Subscribe or unsubscribe.

15:16, 16 March 2015 (UTC)

Co-op mentor

ClueBot

Hey Brill, I'm Jethro, one of the mentors at The Co-op. You've been around for a little while, and I'm glad you're interested in learning about templates and some of the automated tools and editing techniques you mentioned on your profile. In terms of editing tools, were there any editing tasks you do that you'd like to find a script or tool for? If you're just curious about different scripts and tools in general, I can also talk a little bit about that as well. I think one thing we can start with is archiving your talk page here using ClueBot III (talk · contribs). Here's the exact templates I use on my talk page to archive: {{User:ClueBot III/ArchiveThis | age=336 | archiveprefix=User talk:I JethroBT/Archive | numberstart=1 | maxarchsize=100000 | maxkeepthreads=30 | header={{Automatic archive navigator}} | minkeepthreads=10 | minarchthreads=1 | format= %%i }} {{archive box|auto=yes|search=yes}}

The top part instructs ClueBot to archive with certain parameters about when to archive (age, in hours) and how large a single page can get (maxarchsize), amongst others. Give that a try here and feel free to play around with some of these parameters. The documentation for these parameters. can be found here. And let me know below what kinds of editing tasks I can help you identify tools for. I, JethroBT drop me a line 05:48, 16 March 2015 (UTC)

Hi I JethroBT. Thanks for the quick response to my mentorship request. I'm very happy to meet you.
During the recent Art+Feminism 2015 at MoMA event I was trying to update the Imogen Cunningham Works and publications section with a link to a digitized asset at the Met. I went on the IRC channel and Mdann52 (talk) helped by building this template for me: Template:MetMuseum. I saw that there is a category that collocates these direct links to digitized assets here Category:Museums external links templates. I wanted to try and add more of these templates, but I don't have much experience with templates and template building except as an end user, using them.
I have applied for a grant to possibly work on this as a project, but it has also led me to the realization that I would like to improve my technical skills in editing so I can be a better editor.
I archived my Talk page but now the TOC is gone from the talk page. And I'm not sure if I did it correctly, as I just did a cut and paste -- my impression of ClueBot is that it's more automated than that. I found the instructions a bit confusing.
My background is that I was a word processor at an investment bank for over 15 years, so my formatting skills in a very basic way I think are solid. But again, I think it's time to skill up and learn to be more technically proficient with some of the built in templates and tools. I also graduated from grad school in Library Science a few years back, which has made me especially enthusiastic about Authority Control, which I apply to all of the pages I work on.
I guess that's a start... Thanks again! -- Erika aka BrillLyle (talk) 09:10, 16 March 2015 (UTC)
The content box only appears if there are more than 3 headings on the page, so this is normal behaviour, nothing you or CB could have done would have changed that. Mdann52 (talk) 10:38, 16 March 2015 (UTC)
Ah, thank you. Another thing I am learning. Thanks again for writing that template for me. I am going to try to build more and populate that category, if possible. I am grateful for your help on the IRC. :-) -- Erika aka BrillLyle (talk) 13:35, 16 March 2015 (UTC)
Wow. It's great to have someone with your background editing here. Thanks for contributing your time, especially in this kind of technical work. In terms of the archiving templates, everything looks good from here. Cluebot III is indeed automated, so it's the kind of thing you can just let run on its own once you've set the parameters you want.
I think this is an excellent project to work on, and I think once we start looking over Template:MetMuseum a little bit, you'll understand how it works and be able to build other ones based the resource you want to link to.
Thanks so much for your kind words and encouragement, Jethro. Hope I wasn't being too braggy about my skills and experience. I miss word processing so much (weird, eh?) so I do Wikipedia editing to relax -- and reconnect with my prior life. And any more concentrated librarian-type work I really also enjoy a lot, as I wish I could do more of this in my job. I also love the quick publish aspect of Wikipedia -- and when a page has lots of nicely sourced citations and standard format elements it makes me really happy. So....
Good to know the Cluebot auto-refreshes. I'll be very interested to see how it works as the page populates. Thanks so much for helping me with this.

Reviewing the MetMuseum template

So, to get us started, I want you to go into your preferences, look for the "gadgets" tab, look under the "Editing" header, and check off the "Syntax highlighter" option. This is going to make your life much easier-- it will detect different kinds of syntax while you're editing and highlight it appropriately. This way, you can know right away whether something is raw text or if it is syntax of one kind or another. It just makes looking at complicated syntax or large pages much easier.
Now, let's take a look at that template. Let me start by putting out the syntax for it here:
<i>[http://libmma.contentdm.oclc.org/cdm/ref/collection/p15324coll10/id/{{{1}}} {{#if:{{{2|}}}|{{{2}}}|{{PAGENAME}}}}]</i> at the [[Metropolitan Museum of Art]]
There are a couple of different kinds of syntax being used here. The <i> </i> is HTML, and it italicizes everything in between. You might have seen this kind of syntax before on Wikipedia or elsewhere. Pretty much everything else is wiki markup, the syntax specific to Wikipedia projects. In a nutshell, what the template is doing is that it produces a link given an ID and a link label and displays it on the article with some additional text. As you know, the way the ID and link label are supplied is through the parameters in the usage template, {{MMoAobject|id|link label}}. Let's break the full template down a little bit:
You'll note that in http://libmma.contentdm.oclc.org/cdm/ref/collection/p15324coll10/id/{{{1}}}, there's a 1 surrounded by three curly braces. {{{1}}} is the first parameter, and it is replaced by whatever someone puts into the first parameter of the usage template, {{MMoAobject|id|link label}}, which is id in this case. (Note: The name of the parameter in the usage template is important for readability's sake, but the name actually doesn't matter. It could be called "number" and would work just the same.)
The next part is a little more tricky: {{#if:{{{2|}}}|{{{2}}}|{{PAGENAME}}}}. This is a conditional statement for the second parameter, and in this case, it acts like a fail-safe if the parameter is not provided in the usage template. This piece of syntax basically says, "Check whether someone put in something for the in the usage template (i.e. link label). If they did, use that exact text. If they didn't, just use the title of the article." The title of the article is provided automatically by the {{PAGENAME}} template— it's one of the templates we call our magic words.
The rest of it I'm sure you're familiar with. The two open brackets [ ] that enclose the above pieces of syntax creates an external link, and the remaining raw text and wikilink to the MMA article are generated as they normally do.
So, after reading this over and digesting it, what questions do you have about this particular template? Template:MetMuseum is a good example to evaluate to get you started, so I think we'll get familiar with this one before we starting building one. I, JethroBT drop me a line 05:27, 17 March 2015 (UTC)
OMG I just opened this up and love love love the new shading with the Syntax highlighter. Thanks for the tip on turning this preference on! It's sort of like working from the Command Line -- where difference elements are highlighted like this. So great!
This is a great explanation. Thank you. I understand from your description how the template is built in terms of the code of the template -- and Mdann52 (talk) was really clear and helpful in explaining that the template is built so if a description / link label isn't inserted that it defaults to the page name.
I guess my question might be more basic than this. How do I start a template page correctly? And I was trying, with the MetMuseum example, to put an example in the template to assist end users, but I kept editing the /doc part, not the main part.... I suspect Mdann52 (talk) had to fix this -- or I possibly screwed up the /doc section of the template page? I'd like to fix this if I did indeed screw this up.
I may be jumping the gun here, but I also wanted to figure out a way to systematically make a list of GLAM entities who might have similar digitized collections. And see if there's a way to collocate their unique IDs / permanent URLs -- and then automate the process of creating these templates so it's not a hugely manual process. This template seems very elegant and mighty, and would be great for the institutions to be able to have connections between Wikipedia and their digitized assets, which might also be either part of the Works and publications sections and/or might be actual citations.
I haven't yet dug around for a comprehensive list of GLAM members (which I know is probably within the GLAM project parameters under members) but it's really the automation that I would like to figure out -- in addition to first step of learning more and getting comfortable with templates.... :-) -- Erika aka BrillLyle (talk) 23:11, 17 March 2015 (UTC)
I suspect you are clicking the "edit" link in the green box (which edits the documentation), as opposed to the "edit source" button at the top of the page that allows you to edit the template... Don't worry, we've all been there ;) Mdann52 (talk) 13:42, 18 March 2015 (UTC)
Yes, that's it! File under end-user issue... :-) Thanks! -- Erika aka BrillLyle (talk) 17:13, 18 March 2015 (UTC)
I guess my question might be more basic than this. How do I start a template page correctly?
Whether it's a new article or a new template, you type out the name you want to call the template in the search bar (e.g. Template:MOMA Link). You'll be prompted to start that page if it doesn't exist yet. Once you've got the name, I think your next step should be to figure out how the institution links to its resources, and what in its URL is changing, so you know what part of it to make into a parameter. And honestly, it might be helpful just to copy the content of Template:MetMuseum and change it as needed for another institution. Editors do this sort of thing all the time (because the content of Wikipedia is free to use!)
Got it. This makes sense. Thank you! -- Erika aka BrillLyle (talk) 17:20, 18 March 2015 (UTC)


I may be jumping the gun here, but I also wanted to figure out a way to systematically make a list of GLAM entities who might have similar digitized collections
Interesting idea-- unfortunately I do not have the appropriate background to help you with this one! I also do GLAM work with the Pritzker Military Museum & Library in Chicago, and this is something volunteers and I have been doing manually for some time now. Automation would require a bot to pull content from these websites of digitized collections and post it to appropriate Wikipedia pages-- and that requires approval from the bot approvals group. Bots that do any kind of article work, let alone post external links (for which we have limitations), are pretty highly scrutinized, so whatever bot does this needs to work well. I, JethroBT drop me a line 16:56, 18 March 2015 (UTC)
I noticed you do GLAM work with the Pritzker Military Museum & Library in Chicago on your user page. Very cool.
I guess what I'm thinking is some sort of spreadsheet that I will keep off-Wikipedia, where I can work through it systematically to add these links. I understand that this is not something to be abused or anything but I think within the spirit of GLAM and forging pathways -- especially if they are linked in service of citations and bibliographies (i.e., Works and publications sections) -- that this would be a really helpful enhancement.
So I could make the tools in case entities would want to use them in citations and bib sections, right? Like have them ready to be deployed? Or should I be creating them on a case by case basis?
It just seems like this is a very powerful thing, and would be useful to both Wikipedia and the organization that has the digitized assets that would enhance the Wikipedia entries. So I wanted to somewhat have a framework and/or organized approach to this as a project. -- Erika aka BrillLyle (talk) 17:20, 18 March 2015 (UTC)
I think I understand your idea a little better. Getting something started off-wiki to organize this information would work well to get started, and I think starting with a small set of collections makes sense to start for your grant. I think the idea of making these resources accessible on articles is a good one. At the same time, there are a few editing principles that I think you should keep in mind moving forward with this project:
  1. External links in an article should be kept minimal and should be directly relevant to the article. (i.e. An article does not need external links to every digital collection available on it and a link should not be added on every article for which the topic is mentioned.)
  2. The editing community generally prefers contributions to be in the form of cited text, not just links to external websites. (That link talks about spamming in a commercial sense, which is clearly not what you're doing, but some of the principles apply). Wikipedia is an encyclopedia at the end of the day, not just a collection of links, even ones from reputable institutions. So, I think the idea to provide links to these collections need to be balanced by the potential for improvements to the article. Your goal to include these collections in the refToolbar cite option is, therefore, a fantastic direction to go in for this project. I, JethroBT drop me a line 20:20, 18 March 2015 (UTC)
So, given all that, I think you're good to go and get started on this project. Is there anything else I can help you with? I, JethroBT drop me a line 20:20, 18 March 2015 (UTC)
I'm glad you're enjoying the syntax highlighter. I also had one of those OMG moments when I first started using it.  :) I, JethroBT drop me a line 16:56, 18 March 2015 (UTC)
Thanks again, Jethro! -- Erika aka BrillLyle (talk) 17:20, 18 March 2015 (UTC)
I understand that the linking is not to be done en masse / against Wikipedia policy. I refer to the Imogen Cunningham usage, where the work was cited in the Works and publications section, along with its ISBN number and OCLC number -- but as a secondary sub-bullet, a direct link for end users to be able to access the digitized work. Which I think is within the scheme of GLAM-Wiki cooperation. So this template tool would be used in service of Works and publications, and/or as part of citations and references, and would support the GLAM-Wiki endeavor. Thanks for explaining this, Jethro... -- Erika aka BrillLyle (talk) 20:50, 18 March 2015 (UTC)

Template category

Hi Jethro. The next thing I would like to do is change the name of the category Category:Museums external links templates to be more inclusive, as actually even right now not all of these entities are Museums. I was thinking GLAM might be a better option, i.e., Category:GLAM external links templates or even Category:GLAM digitized resource links templates -- something that would include all GLAM (galleries, libraries, archives, museums) entities, not be specific to only one. Especially because the distinction is often overlapping. I went on the IRC channel and they said only an Admin could delete the category -- that I would have to change each one manually. Would you be able to help me with this? -- Erika aka BrillLyle (talk) 20:35, 18 March 2015 (UTC)

Hey Erika. There's actually another avenue we can take here that doesn't require deletion. Once you've finalized a title for the category and created it (e.g. Category:GLAM digitized resource templates), we can setup what is called a "soft redirect" on Category:Museums external links templates. Articles in the old category will get moved to the new one with the help of bots who periodically check for these instances. So, on the old category, you would put the following syntax:
{{Category redirect|GLAM digitized resource templates}}
Once you put the code on there, a bot will be along within the next day or two and will move the articles over appropriately. You could do it manually, but I'm always a fan when there's a program doing the work for you. I'm reluctant to outright delete the old category, even if it is inaccurate, in case there are folks still using it. In time, it can be deleted, but this way, we can fix the problem without disrupting anybody else. By the way, another note on categories: I'd suggest getting HotCat, which allows you to add categories to Wikipedia pages much easier.  :) I, JethroBT drop me a line 21:42, 18 March 2015 (UTC)
Hi Jethro -- I think I may wait on doing anything this "big" until I talk with some of the local Wikimedia NYC folks (Pharos and Dorothy Howard) to see if this would be a disruptive thing. We have an event on Sunday at Barnard so I will report back what they say.... Thanks again for all of your help with this. I know I have already learned so much in this short time. Best to you -- Erika aka BrillLyle (talk) 21:35, 20 March 2015 (UTC)

"Live" usage of MetMuseum template

Hi Jethro -- I wanted to let you know that I have been using the MetMuseum template in another live test on the following pages:

I think the next step I would like to take is to find another institutions with digitized assets that have a similar "permanent" URLs and/or Unique Identifiers -- so I can do a version of the template myself.

Are there any resources at the Pritzker Military Museum & Library that would benefit from this template? Or another GLAM entity that either you or I might have an invested interest in -- where it is part of one of our Watchlist or Contributions? I could go through NYC assets but thought I'd offer.... :-) -- Erika aka BrillLyle (talk) 22:41, 20 March 2015 (UTC)

@BrillLyle: sounds promising - drop me a line if I could be any assistance, either on my talk page or Email me, and I'll see what I can do. Mdann52 (talk) 18:41, 21 March 2015 (UTC)
@Mdann52: I definitely will -- thanks so much! -- Erika aka BrillLyle (talk) 19:04, 21 March 2015 (UTC)
@BrillLyle: These look like solid additions to those article. Your offer is awfully kind. The Pritzker does indeed maintain some digital collections and named collections on some topics. I'm also currently working with the Special Collections Research Center at Regenstein Library at the University of Chicago, which maintains digital collections here. I, JethroBT drop me a line 22:30, 21 March 2015 (UTC)
Very cool. It looks with the Pritzker links you shared, there's a webpage that's tied to an OCLC number -- but opening the digitized object, it is a CONTENTdm interface. This was also the interface for the MetMuseum digitized assets. Interesting....
Wondering if there should be separate templates for digitized books vs. images. Any thoughts on this? I guess I am more interested in focusing on the books and documents here because they naturally dovetail into references and citations and works & publications / bibliographies. If the images are old enough and in the public domain they might be a great project to add them to Wikimedia Commons, perhaps? An additional note, the MoMA templates in this category has separate templates for artist and object. Hmmm...
The U of Chicago assets are a lot more dense and complicated. Wow. I need to dig around there.... It looks deceptively small from that first landing page. -- Erika aka BrillLyle (talk) 22:57, 21 March 2015 (UTC)

Barnstar

Co-op Technical Barnstar
Hey Erika, your initiative in moving your digital collections project idea forward is pretty amazing, and I thought that merited a little recognition. Thanks for your enthusiasm and hard work right off the bat. I, JethroBT drop me a line 20:23, 20 March 2015 (UTC)
Thanks so much Jethro! :-) -- Erika aka BrillLyle (talk) 21:35, 20 March 2015 (UTC)

Co-op Mentoring - Barnstormer

Hi I JethroBT (talk) -- Starting a new section to maybe enhance readability (hope that's okay)....

I wanted to send you a Mentor Barnstormer. It is great as a Mentee to receive one but I would like to be able to reciprocate.

Is this difficult to create -- and would it be a welcome addition to the current set of Barnstormers?

I dug around a little and it looks like it is a template -- so that sort of fits perfectly with what we are doing here.

Just an idea. No worries if it's too much and not wanted. Best -- Erika aka BrillLyle (talk) 22:59, 20 March 2015 (UTC)

That's very generous of you, thanks! Making the barnstars like the one above took quite a lot of time to do from scratch. They were specifically made for The Co-op, but there are tons of barnstars already available on Wikipedia already-- you can check some of them out here. :) I, JethroBT drop me a line 22:34, 21 March 2015 (UTC)
Ah, it's the graphics part of it, eh? All of the graphics for the Co-op are very cool. I wish I could do that but I'm a Luddite when it comes to graphics. Well, maybe it could be something in the future as the Co-op program expands. I am super grateful for your patience and help. So instead of a Barnstormer, I will just thank you! :-) Thanks again, Jethro. -- Erika aka BrillLyle (talk) 22:46, 21 March 2015 (UTC)

bot importing pictures from open access journal PDFs

commons:User:Open Access Media Importer Bot cc: Rhododendrites --Jeremyb (talk) 21:07, 22 March 2015 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

The Random Acts of Kindness Barnstar
so nice to meet you! thanks for your contributions to the cause. -jmm Failedprojects (talk) 22:17, 22 March 2015 (UTC)

Tech News: 2015-13

Latest tech news from the Wikimedia technical community. Please tell other users about these changes. Not all changes will affect you. Translations are available.

Changes this week

  • The new version of MediaWiki has been on test wikis and MediaWiki.org since March 18. It will be on non-Wikipedia wikis from March 24. It will be on all Wikipedias from March 25 (calendar).
  • The text of a reference is now more visible when you click on it. It has a blue background. Many wikis already have the blue color. Those wikis can now remove it from their CSS page. [13]
  • VisualEditor is now much faster. For many users it is now at least as fast as the wikitext editor. [14] [15] [16]
  • When you add a list of references in VisualEditor, you now see it right away. You can still change its group by editing it. [17]

Meetings

  • You can read the notes from the last meeting with the VisualEditor team.
  • You can join the next weekly meeting with the VisualEditor team. During the meetings you can tell developers which bugs are the most important. The meeting will be on March 25 at 19:00 (UTC). See how to join.

Future changes

  • Talk pages using "LiquidThreads" on mediawiki.org will soon use the new system. [18]

Tech news prepared by tech ambassadors and posted by bot • Contribute • Translate • Get help • Give feedback • Subscribe or unsubscribe.

15:10, 23 March 2015 (UTC)

Thanks!

It was great to talk with you at Wikipedia Day NYC 2015! Thank you for working on templates --Mozucat (talk) 17:02, 23 March 2015 (UTC)

Minor and otherwise edits

I see that you've recently done a series of edits on Ernie Chambers. I've got no complaints to make about the content of the edits. However, all of them are marked as minor, although many of them do not meet the criteria for a minor edit at all.

Please see WP:MINOR for these criteria. Note, in particular, the first item in the list "When not to mark an edit as a minor edit", which is "Adding or removing content in an article". Several of your edits, such as this one, did just that.

This is more than a mere quibble. Many editors have their watchlists set to exclude minor edits; marking a non-minor edit as minor means that such article-watchers won't see it and won't know to check up on it. Although I'm sure it was inadvertent on your part, marking a non-minor edit as minor can look like an attempt to sneak a content change past article-watchers.

It never hurts not to mark an edit as a minor one. I'd suggest that you leave the "minor edit" box unchecked, unless you're doing something like correcting an obvious spelling error or the like. Thanks. — Ammodramus (talk) 03:08, 26 March 2015 (UTC)

Hi Ammodramus. Thanks so much for the feedback. I have been editing quite a few pages over the last year and a half and have never had this information. I tend to edit in small bits and it seemed to me that the cumulative effect might be minor, which was why I was marking the edits as minor -- although to your point, the overall effect of the edits is not minor. I usually leave the box unchecked if I move huge sections or add something significant like an infobox or works and publications area.
This is difficult for me, as I would be leaving the minor box unchecked a lot. This seems a bit odd to me, as the edits do seem minor in each iteration. I am definitely not trying to "sneak" content change. If you see the pages I edit, I am obsessed and motivated to clean up and add legitimate citations and improve works and publications, general format structure, add authority control templates, etc. to pages. My intention is to leave pages in better shape than I find them.
It has been suggested that I work in a different way than the small edits, but I have found that doesn't work for me. I guess I could leave the box marked Minor unchecked but it seems a bit of an overreaction, as often and typically my edits are minor, although there might be a lot of iterations of the edits. It's one less box for me to check -- and you can see I'm pretty conscientious in making an edit summary comment, so again, my intentions here I think are above-board.... Thanks for the info. It is something I will definitely consider. -- Erika aka BrillLyle (talk) 03:30, 26 March 2015 (UTC)
p.s. I like The Way We Live Now too! Trollope is great... And I was born and grew up in Nebraska as well. -- Erika aka BrillLyle (talk) 03:32, 26 March 2015 (UTC)
Hello Erika! I sympathize with, and share your preference for, editing incrementally. Not only does it reduce the likelihood that I'll screw something up and have to start a big multi-part edit over again, but it seems courteous to other editors to enable them to revert one edit at a time. I never like it when somebody does a complex edit to an article on my watchlist in which they mix useful material with problematic stuff; I can't just revert the bad, and it's a headache to go through and try to fix it all manually. I have to assume that fellow editors will occasionally take exception to one of my edits, so I should make it as easy as possible for them to launch the revert-discuss process.
I don't think it hurts at all to leave the minor-edit box unchecked, even if the edit qualifies as a minor one. I've currently got 1800 pages on my watchlist, and my preferences set so that I see all changes, minor and otherwise. Checking the watchlist doesn't generally take that much time, and I wouldn't save much by excluding the minor edits. For my part, the only time I check the box is for indisputable spelling and punctuation errors (e.g. missing periods at the ends of sentences) or formatting fixes (e.g. removing extra vertical spaces between paragraphs). I don't even like to use it when I'm reverting obvious vandalism.
Trollope is great, but I don't like The Way We Live Now quite as much as some of his other novels. One of the things that I like about his work is that he doesn't go in for pure-good or pure-evil characters: even bad guys like Ferdinand Lopez or George Vavasor have some good qualities, and when they meet unpleasant ends, it comes across as a regrettable waste of someone who, under other circumstances, might've been good. The reader doesn't feel a sense of outrage when Mr. Emilius escapes the gallows, the way one would if, say, Quilp had got off with community service. But in TWWLN, Felix Carbury is thoroughly rotten, with no redeeming qualities; and I can't help thinking that Trollope was pandering to a readership that wanted a Dickens villain. But that's just one reader's opinion... Ammodramus (talk) 04:15, 26 March 2015 (UTC)
Sorry to revert to the subject so quickly, but your most recent edit to Ernie Chambers was anything but a minor one, and should certainly not have been marked thus.
Indeed, the whole section is problematic under WP:NOTNEWS: I think it'd be better to leave the matter out unless and until we've seen whether it figures as important in Chambers's whole career. Unfortunately, WP articles about politicians and other current controversial figures often go that way: paragraphs about issues that were hot for a few news cycles get added, and over time the article becomes a higgledy-piggledy mass of such material. I think it'd be wiser to wait and see if the controversy du jour is still considered important weeks or months from now.
But I'm wandering from my point. May I earnestly (no pun intended) suggest that you default to leaving the minor-edit box unchecked? As I said, it does little or no harm to leave a minor edit unmarked; and WP:MINOR expressly states "Marking a major change as a minor one is considered poor etiquette". Thanks. — Ammodramus (talk) 13:06, 26 March 2015 (UTC)
Hey there. This is a brand new concept for me. So it is taking me a lot of adjustment in editing to NOT check the box. It's actually an ingrained reflex at this point, so the fact it was checked for that edit was just a mistake on my part, not me actively disregarding your suggestion. I understand the concept now -- it is a matter of muscle memory retraining. My editing was really disrupted by this change/suggestion. I am now super paranoid and stressed out about whether or not to check the box. I would also prefer not to have the sense that someone is viewing edits with an eye if I have remembered to not check the box constantly. It also seems like a minor thing, as I am not harming the pages I am editing, but am adding a lot of value added things I mentioned above. So if you can just sort of bear with me, I'd appreciate it. -- Erika aka BrillLyle (talk) 14:18, 26 March 2015 (UTC)
I don't mean to hector you about this, and I'm not watching your edit history for Wikisolecisms. The Chambers article is on my watchlist, and when I see an edit on the watchlist with a boldfaced "m" and a green "+1,196", it sets off alarms.
I'd suggest: don't stress at all; just leave the box unchecked all the time. Among other things, it'll save you a second or so every time you make an edit, since you won't have to take the extra step of checking the box. It certainly doesn't hurt to leave the box unchecked.
Good luck with the muscle-memory retraining. I sympathize with you on that, since I switch back and forth between Windows and Linux machines, and I invariably hit the wrong key sequence when I want a special character like an em-dash — Ammodramus (talk) 00:41, 27 March 2015 (UTC)

WikiProject Haiti

You are invited to join WikiProject Haiti, an outreach effort which aims to support development of Haiti related articles in Wikipedia. We thought you might be interested, and hope that you will join us. If you'd like to join, please sign up here. L'union fait la force! Thanks!

Hi BrillLyle, I saw your participation in the "Meetup/NYC/AfroCrowd/HaitiCROWD" and thought I'd extend the invite to a completely revamped WikiProject Haiti. Cheers! Savvyjack23 (talk) 05:07, 27 March 2015 (UTC)

Co-op Survey

Hi there! Thanks for contributing your time to learning contributing to Wikipedia through mentorship at The Co-op. The Co-op is actually a very new project on Wikipedia, and you've been a great help in helping us improve it so far. We want to get your feedback on your use of the Co-op in addition to your experience with your mentor and editing Wikipedia generally. When you are able, please take the Qualtrics survey here to give us your feedback. With your help, we can make the Co-op and mentorship helpful for different needs, and expand the space for many editors to use. Thanks for your help, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 21:44, 27 March 2015 (UTC)

Tech News: 2015-14

Latest tech news from the Wikimedia technical community. Please tell other users about these changes. Not all changes will affect you. Translations are available.

Recent changes

  • You can now hide site banners even if you don't have an account. [19]
  • You can now add citations more easily with VisualEditor on the French and Italian Wikipedia. The tool adds the information when you add some types of links. In the future you will be able to add this tool to your wiki. [20] [21] [22]
  • All sites should now be faster if you have a recent browser. [23]
  • You could see a serious bug when editing some templates with VisualEditor. It was fixed quickly. [24]
  • VisualEditor could break when you edited an image. The issue was fixed quickly. [25]

Changes this week

  • The new version of MediaWiki has been on test wikis and MediaWiki.org since March 25. It will be on non-Wikipedia wikis from March 31. It will be on all Wikipedias from April 1 (calendar).
  • VisualEditor is now the main editing tool on 53 more Wikipedias. [26]
  • You can now edit the mobile site of all wikis without an account. [27]
  • You can test a new tool on the beta mobile site on the English Wikipedia. With the new tool, you can create lists of articles. [28]
  • You can now see that VisualEditor is opening even if you're not looking at the top of the page. [29]
  • VisualEditor doesn't leave empty titles with just nowiki tags any more. [30] [31] [32] [33]

Meetings

Tech news prepared by tech ambassadors and posted by bot • Contribute • Translate • Get help • Give feedback • Subscribe or unsubscribe.

15:19, 30 March 2015 (UTC)

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Walter Liedtke, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page King Albert II. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 08:56, 5 April 2015 (UTC)

Tech News: 2015-15

Latest tech news from the Wikimedia technical community. Please tell other users about these changes. Not all changes will affect you. Translations are available.

Recent changes

Problems

  • The import tool was broken for a few days. Imports didn't add log entries. You can delete and import pages again if necessary. [40]
  • Labs was broken several times this week. [41] [42] [43] [44]

Changes this week

  • The new version of MediaWiki has been on test wikis and MediaWiki.org since April 1. It will be on non-Wikipedia wikis from April 7. It will be on all Wikipedias from April 8 (calendar).
  • You can now add the same special characters with VisualEditor as with the wikitext editor. [45]
  • Many bugs around copy-paste in VisualEditor are now fixed. [46] [47]
  • You can now use basic tools of VisualEditor in the new talk tool. You can add links, bold and italics. You can also mention people. [48]

Meetings

  • You can join the next weekly meeting with the Editing team. During the meetings you can tell developers which bugs are the most important. The meeting will be on April 8 at 18:00 (UTC). See how to join.

Future changes

  • You can again comment on how you want to see Wikidata edits in your watchlist on other wikis. [49]

Tech news prepared by tech ambassadors and posted by bot • Contribute • Translate • Get help • Give feedback • Subscribe or unsubscribe.

15:42, 6 April 2015 (UTC)

This Month in GLAM: March 2015



Headlines


Read this edition in full • Single-page

To assist with preparing the newsletter, please visit the newsroom. Past editions may be viewed here.

A new reference tool

Hello Books & Bytes subscribers. There is a new Visual Editor reference feature in development called Citoid. It is designed to "auto-fill" references using a URL or DOI. We would really appreciate you testing whether TWL partners' references work in Citoid. Sharing your results will help the developers fix bugs and improve the system. If you have a few minutes, please visit the testing page for simple instructions on how to try this new tool. Regards, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:47, 10 April 2015 (UTC)

A new reference tool

Hello Books & Bytes subscribers. There is a new Visual Editor reference feature in development called Citoid. It is designed to "auto-fill" references using a URL or DOI. We would really appreciate you testing whether TWL partners' references work in Citoid. Sharing your results will help the developers fix bugs and improve the system. If you have a few minutes, please visit the testing page for simple instructions on how to try this new tool. Regards, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 19:47, 10 April 2015 (UTC)

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Jesse Sykes, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Altar (band). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:09, 12 April 2015 (UTC)

Rabbi Malcolm H. Stern

This is an automated message from CorenSearchBot. I have performed a web search with the contents of Rabbi Malcolm H. Stern, and it appears to include material copied directly from http://americanjewisharchives.org/publications/fajf/about.php.

It is possible that the bot is confused and found similarity where none actually exists. If that is the case, you can remove the tag from the article. The article will be reviewed to determine if there are any copyright issues.

If substantial content is duplicated and it is not public domain or available under a compatible license, it will be deleted. For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or printed material. You may use such publications as a source of information, but not as a source of sentences. See our copyright policy for further details. (If you own the copyright to the previously published content and wish to donate it, see Wikipedia:Donating copyrighted materials for the procedure.) CorenSearchBot (talk) 22:10, 12 April 2015 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of Rabbi Malcolm H. Stern

If this is the first article that you have created, you may want to read the guide to writing your first article.

You may want to consider using the Article Wizard to help you create articles.

A tag has been placed on Rabbi Malcolm H. Stern requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section G12 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the article or image appears to be a clear copyright infringement. This article or image appears to be a direct copy from http://americanjewisharchives.org/publications/fajf/about.php. For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or printed material, and as a consequence, your addition will most likely be deleted. You may use external websites as a source of information, but not as a source of sentences. This part is crucial: say it in your own words. Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously and persistent violators will be blocked from editing.

If the external website or image belongs to you, and you want to allow Wikipedia to use the text or image — which means allowing other people to modify it — then you must verify that externally by one of the processes explained at Wikipedia:Donating copyrighted materials. If you are not the owner of the external website or image but have permission from that owner, see Wikipedia:Requesting copyright permission. You might want to look at Wikipedia's policies and guidelines for more details, or ask a question here.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Click here to contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be removed without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Nolelover Talk·Contribs 23:11, 12 April 2015 (UTC)

Add template to top of article

When you are working on an article affix the { {Template:In use} } to the top of the page. See Template:In use. Thanks. BeenAroundAWhile (talk) 05:49, 13 April 2015 (UTC)

Thanks, BeenAroundAWhile -- Erika aka BrillLyle (talk) 06:10, 13 April 2015 (UTC)

April 2015

Information icon Welcome to Wikipedia. It might not have been your intention, but you removed a speedy deletion tag from Malcolm H. Stern, a page you have created yourself. If you believe the page should not be deleted, you may contest the deletion by clicking on the button that says: Contest this speedy deletion which appears inside the speedy deletion notice. This will allow you to make your case on the article's talk page. Administrators will consider your reasoning before deciding what to do with the page. Thank you. BeenAroundAWhile (talk) 05:51, 13 April 2015 (UTC)

Hello [User:BeenAroundAWhile|BeenAroundAWhile]]. I did not delete that tag, another editor reviewed the page at that point and removed it. See https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Malcolm_H._Stern&oldid=656204450 -- I think that this discussion might need to be moved to the Talk page of the entry. I will respond further over there. Thanks, Erika aka BrillLyle (talk) 05:56, 13 April 2015 (UTC)

A belated welcome!

Sorry for the belated welcome, but the cookies are still warm!

Here's wishing you a belated welcome to Wikipedia, BrillLyle. I see that you've already been around a while and wanted to thank you for your contributions. Though you seem to have been successful in finding your way around, you may benefit from following some of the links below, which help editors get the most out of Wikipedia:

Also, when you post on talk pages you should sign your name using four tildes (~~~~); that should automatically produce your username and the date after your post.

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! If you have any questions, feel free to leave me a message on my talk page, consult Wikipedia:Questions, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and ask your question there.

Again, welcome! BeenAroundAWhile (talk) 05:58, 13 April 2015 (UTC)

Thanks, BeenAroundAWhile. I am familiar with the introductory information. I have also created a handful of pages, and have been heavily editing for a while now. The copyright information was a mistake / misunderstanding. Another editor resolved the problem, I took my edits off line to delete the information. The entry, I believe, is in good shape now. Please see the Talk page of the page. Thanks! -- Erika aka BrillLyle (talk) 06:12, 13 April 2015 (UTC)

Co-op mentor (cont'd)

Hi I JethroBT -- Just wanted to check in with you and see if you have any suggestions on any other Wikipedia editing/tech skills I should learn? All the best -- Erika aka BrillLyle (talk) 04:15, 7 April 2015 (UTC)

Hey Erika. Sorry for the late reply-- I've been pretty busy lately and have recently had my home computer completely crash on me which has been a pretty big life disruption. Another interesting place you can check out is Wikipedia:User scripts. These are little bits of code that help quicken certain tasks during editing. The syntax highlighter was a userscript at one time before it was made into a formal gadget. If something looks useful, click on the page, and you'll be able to learn more about it and how to add them, which usually requires you to add some syntax to your common.js page. You can also check out the user scripts that I maintain and you can copy over any script that looks interesting to you. For instance, if you wanted the script that adds a link on your sidebar under "tools" that detects duplicate wikilinks in the articles, you just need to add this line to your common.js page:
importScript('User:Ucucha/duplinks.js')
Check those out, and let me know if you run into any issues. Have fun exploring, I, JethroBT drop me a line 19:45, 13 April 2015 (UTC)
@I JethroBT: OMG we were just talking about these user scripts at the Wikipedia Day 2015 the local NYC Wikimedia chapter held. Very cool. I will dig around. Thanks so much! -- Erika aka BrillLyle (talk) 19:38, 22 April 2015 (UTC)

Tech News: 2015-16

Latest tech news from the Wikimedia technical community. Please tell other users about these changes. Not all changes will affect you. Translations are available.

Recent changes

Problems

  • Some wikis had issues on Wednesday. [53] [54]

Changes this week

  • The new version of MediaWiki has been on test wikis and MediaWiki.org since April 8. It will be on non-Wikipedia wikis from April 14. It will be on all Wikipedias from April 15 (calendar).
  • Developers will start to rename 1.5 million accounts on Wednesday. After that all accounts will be unique and will work on all wikis. [55] [56]
  • All users can now test link previews ("Hovercards") on several Wikipedias. [57]

Meetings

  • You can join the next weekly meeting with the Editing team. During the meetings you can tell developers which bugs are the most important. The meeting will be on April 15 at 18:00 (UTC). See how to join.

Tech news prepared by tech ambassadors and posted by bot • Contribute • Translate • Get help • Give feedback • Subscribe or unsubscribe.

16:41, 13 April 2015 (UTC)

April 29: WikiWednesday Salon and Skill-Share NYC

Wednesday April 29, 7pm: WikiWednesday Salon and Skill-Share NYC

You are invited to join the Wikimedia NYC community for our inaugural evening "WikiWednesday" salon and knowledge-sharing workshop by 14th Street / Union Square in Manhattan.

We also hope for the participation of our friends from the Free Culture movement and from educational and cultural institutions interested in developing free knowledge projects. We will also follow up on plans for recent and upcoming editathons, and other outreach activities.

After the main meeting, pizza and refreshments and video games in the gallery!

7:00pm - 9:00 pm at Babycastles, 137 West 14th Street

Featuring a keynote talk this month on Lady Librarians & Feminist Epistemologies! We especially encourage folks to add your 5-minute lightning talks to our roster, and otherwise join in the "open space" experience! Newcomers are very welcome! Bring your friends and colleagues! --Pharos (talk) 18:28, 14 April 2015 (UTC)

(You can subscribe/unsubscribe from future notifications for NYC-area events by adding or removing your name from this list.)

Thanks Pharos (talk) -- Looking forward to it! -- Erika aka BrillLyle (talk) 18:38, 14 April 2015 (UTC)

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Malcolm H. Stern, you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages Posthumously and Norfolk Symphony. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 08:58, 19 April 2015 (UTC)

Tech News: 2015-17

Latest tech news from the Wikimedia technical community. Please tell other users about these changes. Not all changes will affect you. Translations are available.

Recent changes

  • There was sometimes a problem when saving a page in VisualEditor. It is now fixed on all wikis. [58]
  • VisualEditor sometimes showed empty warnings for wikis using Flagged Revisions. This is now fixed on all wikis. [59]
  • You can get the new version of the Wikipedia app for iOS. With it you can share facts with your friends. [60]
  • If you write JavaScript, you should stop using importScript and importStylesheet. [61]

Problems

  • There was a problem with Labs on Monday. [62]

Changes this week

  • The new version of MediaWiki has been on test wikis and MediaWiki.org since April 15. It will be on non-Wikipedia wikis from April 21. It will be on all Wikipedias from April 22 (calendar).
  • Developers are renaming 1.5 million accounts. After that all accounts will be unique and will work on all wikis. [63] [64] [65]
  • If your wiki has the auto-fill tool for citations, you can now use it when you edit a reference. [66]
  • You can now give examples for template options in TemplateData. [67]

Meetings

  • You can join the next weekly meeting with the Editing team. During the meeting, you can tell developers which bugs are the most important. The meeting will be on April 22 at 18:00 (UTC). See how to join.

Future changes

  • You will soon be able to add and remove tags on edits. [68] [69]

Tech news prepared by tech ambassadors and posted by bot • Contribute • Translate • Get help • Give feedback • Subscribe or unsubscribe.

15:31, 20 April 2015 (UTC)

Hi! I see that you have been through the mill at Malcolm H. Stern. I'm afraid I'm here to tell you that it isn't over: that article still has copyright problems, and I have now blanked it and listed it at Copyright problems. I've left a note of explanation on the talk page there. I've also blanked and listed Sophia Wallace because your initial version seemed to be copied with minimal changes from http://www.sophiawallace.com/about. That just is not OK, I'm afraid. I'm leaving you this short note instead of the usual large template, so please see the template on those articles for some guidance on what to do next (there's no obligation to do anything). If you ask questions here I will see them, and will try to answer. Or you could perhaps visit the Teahouse for guidance. The really important question is this: do you think there might be other articles that you have started in the same way? If so, please mention them here. Regards, Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 18:10, 21 April 2015 (UTC)

You know what, this is EXACTLY the way to drive new editors off Wikipedia. I am beyond upset. Are you going to go through all of my edits and delete the work I have contributed to Wikipedia?!? Your actions are both aggressive, and not helpful in an instructive way. I don't understand why this is acceptable, after how much time and effort I have contributed to Wikipedia. -- Erika aka BrillLyle (talk) 18:17, 21 April 2015 (UTC)
Moved from my talk page
 – Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 20:29, 21 April 2015 (UTC)
If you had bothered to talk with me about it, you would know that I made a mistake initially, and immediately addressed the issue and rewrote the article. I have also cited heavily in an effort to address this issue. An Admin, which I understand you are not, okayed the article, based on me making further edits. Which I happily did. I am dismayed with the approach of blanking the article versus removing the text in question, putting it on the talk page and letting the editor fix the issues. There is no space in your approach for an editor to fix the issue. It is instantly punitive. I also resent the fact that you are again threatening to go back into my edit history and look at my contributions to Wikipedia. Are you trying to be needlessly aggressive and drive editors off Wikipedia? I am mystified you think this kind of behavior is okay. You also blanked another page Sophia Wallace without giving cause. If this is an issue with the cited quotations in the article, let me know on the talk page and I will fix it. But blanking pages should be done judiciously. I don't believe you have done that in these instances. -- Erika aka BrillLyle (talk) 20:07, 21 April 2015 (UTC)
BrillLyle, it seems that DragonflySixtyseven, who unlike me is an administrator, has already sorted out at least some of the remaining problems at Malcolm H. Stern. Citations are great, but do nothing to improve an existing copyright infringement.
I blanked Sophia Wallace because you copy-pasted your initial version from http://www.sophiawallace.com/about; the problem is not with the quotes, but with the illegal copying of other people's text.
Someone, not necessarily me, will now look at some or all of your other edits to be sure that there are not further problems of the same sort; that's not a threat, it's routine when we come across someone who seems not to have a clear grasp of our copyright policy.
If you copy and then translate material from fr.wp, as you did at Alice Winocour, you must provide attribution of the source; you can easily do so by placing a {{Translated page}} template on the talk page.
Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 20:29, 21 April 2015 (UTC)
I resent the fact you are going over other pages I have made edits to. I am learning about what to do here and you are giving me no recourse. I am also feeling singled out here. I would really appreciate it if you moved on and left me alone here. You are not helping me learn to be a better editor here, there is no value add to your blanking of these pages besides needlessly deleting entire pages. I think you need to re-evaluate your behavior in this situation. And leave me ALONE. Erika
I would NEVER do to you what you are doing here. I find this aggressive, troublesome behavior. You are making me want to stop editing Wikipedia and I love editing. Please really re-think your approach -- and your behavior in going over my contributions. It's bad will towards a fellow editor. I have a graduate degree in library science and am not a total idiot. I don't appreciate being made to feel like one. - Erika

WikiProject Haiti

You are invited to join WikiProject Haiti, an outreach effort which aims to support development of Haiti related articles in Wikipedia. We thought you might be interested, and hope that you will join us. If you'd like to join, please sign up here. L'union fait la force! Thanks!

Hi BrillLyle, I saw your participation in the "Meetup/NYC/AfroCrowd/HaitiCROWD" and thought I'd extend the invite to a completely revamped WikiProject Haiti. Cheers! Savvyjack23 (talk) 19:35, 22 April 2015 (UTC)

Tech News: 2015-18

Latest tech news from the Wikimedia technical community. Please tell other users about these changes. Not all changes will affect you. Translations are available.

Recent changes

  • All accounts are now unique and work on all wikis. [70] [71]
  • You can read a report from experts who tested the security of MediaWiki. [72]
  • There was a problem between VisualEditor and an antivirus software. It is now fixed. [73]
  • You can help test VisualEditor to see if it works in your language. [74]

Problems

  • Some Labs tools had problems due to a software bug. [75]

Changes this week

  • The new version of MediaWiki has been on test wikis and MediaWiki.org since April 22. It will be on non-Wikipedia wikis from April 28. It will be on all Wikipedias from April 29 (calendar).
  • It is now clearer that you can delete several rows and columns when you edit tables in VisualEditor. [76]
  • You now see more information when you search for a template in VisualEditor. [77]
  • You can now cancel when you add citations on desktop, or edit links on mobile, in VisualEditor. [78]
  • You can now see the list of other formats for videos only after they're ready. [79]

Meetings

  • You can join the next weekly meeting with the Editing team. During the meeting, you can tell developers which bugs are the most important. The meeting will be on April 29 at 18:00 (UTC). See how to join.

Tech news prepared by tech ambassadors and posted by bot • Contribute • Translate • Get help • Give feedback • Subscribe or unsubscribe.

15:11, 27 April 2015 (UTC)

Support request with team editing experiment project

Dear tech ambassadors, instead of spamming the Village Pump of each Wikipedia about my tiny project proposal for researching team editing (see here: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Grants:IdeaLab/Research_team_editing), I have decided to leave to your own discretion if the matter is relevant enough to inform a wider audience already. I would appreciate if you could appraise if the Wikipedia community you are more familiar with could have interest in testing group editing "on their own grounds" and with their own guidance. In a nutshell: it consists in editing pages as a group instead of as an individual. This social experiment might involve redefining some aspects of the workflow we are all used to, with the hope of creating a more friendly and collaborative environment since editing under a group umbrella creates less social exposure than traditional "individual editing". I send you this message also as a proof that the Inspire Campaign is already gearing up. As said I would appreciate of *you* just a comment on the talk page/endorsement of my project noting your general perception about the idea. Nothing else. Your contribution helps to shape the future! (which I hope it will be very bright, with colors, and Wikipedia everywhere) Regards from User:Micru on meta.

Hello, BrillLyle.

As an administrator who handles copyright issues, I've had a look at the listing for several articles to which you contributed at Wikipedia:Copyright problems/2015 April 21, and I have as requested reviewed some of your other work.

I need to be sure that you're aware of the way we handle information from copyrighted sources on Wikipedia, as I do see some issues in your work. For instance, in the first article I glanced at, randomly checking a passage, I found the following:

Source text Article text
Back in 2000, the Alabama Department of Transportation decided to widen Highway 280, but doing so through the center of Waverly would have destroyed the town. Ultimately, the road was re-routed to the south, and the first Old 280 Boogie was held in April 2001 to celebrate the preservation of Waverly. [80] Widening the highway through the center of Waverly would have destroyed the town. Ultimately, the road was re-routed to the south, and the first Old 280 Boogie was held in April 2001 to celebrate the preservation of Waverly.Standard_Deluxe

I have bolded here to highlight where you have copied content precisely from your source. The source is attributed, but I'm afraid that does not permit us to copy their content with no alteration.

Our policies on Wikipedia require that any information we take from copyrighted sourced - the bulk of sources are copyrighted - be written in our own language and structure with the exception of brief quotations used for good reasons such as those set out at our non-free content policy and guideline. What you have in this example is very close paraphrasing; certainly far too close for our copyright policies, and also a problem under our definition of Wikipedia:Plagiarism. It's obvious that you meant no issue, as you cited your source, but citation is not sufficient. Such content must be written from scratch or, when appropriate, quoted.

In Myer S. Kripke and Marthe Armitage, you seem to have gone to great lengths to mark the material you've copied with quotation marks, but I'm afraid that this is not enough to conform with our approach to using copyrighted content. Our goal here is to remain well within the confines of fair use, and fair use requires that content be used transformatively. We cannot, for instance, take content from a source just because we want to communicate the information; we need to be attributing a point of view, for instance. Quotes such as this one are not transformative: "Armitage makes "a lino-cut for each design and, using an old iron press, prints these onto paper with the help of her daughter," Joanna Broadhurst." Material such as that needs to be written in your own language. The bulk of your articles should be your own words, not quotations from copyrighted sources.

Please see Wikipedia:Copy-paste and Wikipedia:Close paraphrasing. Content such as the first example needs rather urgently to be repaired, as policy requires that anything that violates copyright policy should be blanked or removed immediately. Putting quotation marks around it will not repair it; it needs to be rewritten. If you don't have time to rewrite it now, it's fine to remove it (and any other similarly copied content) until you do.

As to the extensive quotations, these should where possible be converted to paraphrase (but not close paraphrase) with limited quotation in accordance with WP:NFC. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 21:42, 2 May 2015 (UTC)

I would like to know who asked you to do this, and what the motivation is. Is your goal to discourage people from editing Wikipedia? It seems like I am being specifically targeted, and I do not appreciate it.
I would be happy to fix the quotations, as I was recently made aware that that is not a good approach to editing articles. Indeed I would be happy to address any issues that might exist on articles that I have contributed content to and/or have written, edited, and created.
But really, I am so flipping discouraged at what has become a continuous review of content I am contributing. I made a mistake, it was instantly resolved, I have made every effort when editing to do a thorough job. I thought quotes were okay. I am finding they are not. But I have also done so much voluntary editing, I just wish that counted towards this to show that my efforts have only been to assist in making Wikipedia better. I have no ulterior motive to insert copyrighted content onto Wikipedia.
I really think this is not fair or the best approach here. I guess I will just need to accept that Wikipedian editors will now view me as a copyright violator with evil intentions. It is so far from the truth it makes me sad. BrillLyle (talk)
I made edits to the Standard Deluxe page which I hope will pass muster. I will edit the Kripke and Armitage pages as well. But really I want it known that it appears I am being targeted and I don't appreciate this. I am reconsidering contributing to Wikipedia because of this. This is no way to guide and nurture editors. It's just awful. I don't get it at all. I will fix things if there are errors but really this is targeted and unpleasant. BrillLyle (talk) 22:12, 2 May 2015 (UTC)
(edit conflict) I gave you a link to where I was asked to do this, BrillLyle, in the first paragraph of my post. You can read it yourself. My motivation is to ensure that contributors to Wikipedia are familiar with our copyright policies and practices and that content complies. As our policy on assuming good faith notes, good faith corrective action on discovering such issues includes making sure you are aware of these problems, and reviewing your edits is standard in such cases. We have an entire process devoted to it, at WP:CCI.
I'm a bit taken aback by your response here; what do you think is the "fair and best approach" to resolve such problems? You have, undoubtedly in good faith, introduced some issues to Wikipedia. How can we identify and address them without review? --Moonriddengirl (talk) 22:15, 2 May 2015 (UTC)
My initial question still stands. Who told you to evaluate my contributions? Was it the other editor who tried to take down a page I worked on because he didn't bother to take the time to read the history and see that the issue was resolved? Am I on some sort of blacklist now? You may not be aware of this but I have had another editor threaten to go over my contributions. Is that typical? It sure seems to not be the case.
I am really trying to stay on Wikipedia here but this kind of review, however well intentioned, is jarring and very unpleasant. Does someone go over your edits? It seems really not okay. BrillLyle (talk) 22:18, 2 May 2015 (UTC)
I read the report but you need to know that Justlettersandnumbers is the editor who stepped in and didn't do his due diligence on researching the issue on the Malcolm Stern page. He then targeted me, and you are just doing his dirty work here. This is ridiculous and unfair. He is wrong, he's not even an admin, and if I need to fix pages, I will, but I don't appreciate being targeted like this. It's not okay. BrillLyle (talk) 22:22, 2 May 2015 (UTC)
BrillLyle, everything we do - any of us - is publicly logged on Wikipedia, and any editor may review your contributions at any point. Transparency is one of the core values of Wikipedia. User:Justlettersandnumbers found the issues with your articles based on a bot review that disclosed copyright concerns. Human followup is part of the process there. Combing through people's edits looking for issues is not encouraged, as a general rule of thumb, but when there are demonstrable issues of this sort in one occasion, it is not only common but good practice to look further. Sometimes, further review shows no pattern of problem. In that case, the listing is closed without additional action. In this case, it turns out there is need for further work, so that process is valid here. Truly, I understand that it is unpleasant to find out that there are issues, but unfortunately copyright is an area where "eventualism" does not apply. We routinely run investigations on copyright concerns where repeated issues are discovered, and these are just as routinely courtesy blanked and filed when finished. I'm sorry if you find this discouraging and would myself prefer it were not necessary, but unfortunately it is. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 22:28, 2 May 2015 (UTC)
The issue with the Sophia Wallace page has since been corrected. The initial issue with the Malcolm Stern page was resolved, repeatedly, even after Justlettersandnumbers re-opened it after it was addressed satisfactorily by an editor who is an Admin and whose opinion I and others respect greatly. But because I have been tagged this review of my contributions is happening. I have been responsive and proactive in fixing errors. I will no longer use quotations, I understand the points of the problems, but now, a week later, I am encountering YET AGAIN a review. I don't think this is necessary and I just want it to stop. This is making me seriously consider leaving Wikipedia. Is that the objective here? I have contributed so much in terms of citations, authority control, content. I also have a graduate degree in Library Science so this is even more confounding. What is going to get this review to end? It seems very open-ended and extremely unnecessary. BrillLyle (talk) 22:55, 2 May 2015 (UTC)
And just to be clear, Justlettersandnumbers followed up on a Bot review that was outdated at the point he shut down my page. He didn't do his job by checking the history of the problem. And then he basically blacklisted me and did a minor mea culpa, but not really. It was unfair and wrong and just plain sloppy on his part. He is ruining Wikipedia for me and I have no good will towards him or his actions. He did not fix the problem -- he mishandled it, wildly. So forgive me for being upset about this when it is having negative repercussions. You are a pawn in his sloppy "administration" (I use that term loosely) and review of my work. Again, I will fix problems but this is outrageous and unacceptable. I would like you to stop, I would like it noted that I have fixed the problem areas on pages I have contributed so much work to. I believe in transparency and public logging. I used to really believe in Wikipedia. But I see a lot of "editors" who are only doing admin, who are not contributing content. It is not easy to contribute to Wikipedia. I am thinking it may be a fool's errand at this point. BrillLyle (talk) 23:00, 2 May 2015 (UTC)

The objective here is to (a) make sure that your approach is in line with our policies, and (2) make sure that any issues you've already created with regards to copyright are addressed. I'm happy to hear that the former has already been accomplished, but the latter, I'm afraid, has not. I have not reviewed all of your articles, but the three that I looked at were problematic. Such reviews end when problems are addressed, because as long as the problems still exist, work remains to be done. It is our policy that copyright problems must be rewritten or removed. I'd be quite happy to give you a full list so that you can complete the review yourself. If not, it is likely to continue until others do. You created some issues, even if inadvertently, and these have to be cleaned up. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 23:06, 2 May 2015 (UTC)

Fine. Let me know the problem articles and the areas and I will clean them up. But I am not happy. And can't guarantee I will continue to contribute under these conditions.
As far as being targeted, if I fix all issues will there be some sort of removal / resolution? Because I don't want to have this kind of constant review be an ongoing process. It is not necessary or fair. BrillLyle (talk) 23:17, 2 May 2015 (UTC)
I'm afraid that I can only give you a list of all articles for you to review for problems yourself or open a community review process for others who work in the copyright area to review. You have substantial contributions to around 250 articles, and that is more than I can review in the time I have. The bulk of these, particularly as you get further down the list, I imagine are likely to be fine.
I do see at a glance that there are additional issues, for instance with quotations in Somewhere Else (Lydia Loveless album). Those should be fairly easy to spot and address. It's more time consuming to identify copying issues of the sort I flagged in the table above.
As to resolution, yes, as I mentioned above, these investigations are routinely courtesy blanked when completed, although they can take some time to complete. In these cases, copyright issues are not likely to be evaluated again unless there are more problems in the future. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 23:27, 2 May 2015 (UTC)
I have fixed the Myer S. Kripke article, will work on the Marthe Armitage article. And will address the Loveless article. But your answer confuses me. I am going to be under constant review? I don't see a clear resolution or end to this. If I make these edits will you take me off the blacklist?!? This process is very unforgiving, is flawed, if I have no way to know this is going to end or be resolved at some point. BrillLyle (talk) 23:33, 2 May 2015 (UTC)
There are approximately 250 articles to which you have contributed substantial content that may be problematic. This list needs review. I am asking whether you would like to review and repair it yourself or if you would like me to open the list for others to find issues so you can repair the issues they find. If this list is opened for others to assess, it ends when the review is complete. You are not on a "blacklist," even if this review is opened. Your past work will be evaluated for a problem that we know has existed.
That said, we are all under constant review. There are bots, like the ones that flagged you to begin with, that comb our contributions looking for copyright or other issues. We are not reviewed because of some blacklist; this is universal. Some of these bot findings (if they flag problems) result in listings that are reviewed by other editors. If these bots find additional copyright problems with future edits you make, the review may resume.
Beyond that, every change we make is logged in the recent changes so that other editors may assess it for compliance with policies. By no means is every change assessed, but all are listed and may be. This is part of the critical system of checks and balances by which Wikipedia works, that allows it to remain a crowd-sourced project. You are welcome to join in reviewing others, just as you are yourself reviewed. Our goal is to communally monitor changes, to make sure they improve the project and, where they do not, to remove or repair them according to the specific issue introduced. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 23:42, 2 May 2015 (UTC)
This is a terrible solution. I don't want to be subjected to any review. If the articles are up and there are problems brought to me I am happy to proactively fix them, as I have proven today. But I have made a lot of edits, as you can see, and I am proud of these edits. I am not going to backtrack and review the work I have contributed to Wikipedia. It's unfair, and quite frankly by using quotes and citing conscientiously, which you will see I have done as much as possible, this should not be necessary. How do you know which edits are mine -- are you suggesting going over my edit history too?!? I just don't see the end of this, and I find it dismaying that my choices here are to either have constant reviews by editors -- which seems patently unfair and unnecessary (as well as being patronizing and wrongheaded) -- or I have to go through my edits myself, taking a huge amount of time I don't have, to go over articles that are in substantially better condition than when I edited them....? I mean if you look at my edits, that is what I have done: turned stubs into full articles, cleaned up citations that were deadlinks or added significant amounts of citations and edits to leave articles better than when I found them. Again, I think I have been sloppily accused by this editor who misused the system here. I need assurance this will be a resolvable situation. Or else what is the point of staying? BrillLyle (talk) 23:49, 2 May 2015 (UTC)

If you had been sloppily accused by somebody, then the preliminary review would have found no issues and this would have been closed down without your ever hearing another word about it. However, the concerns raised proved valid; some problems were found, including the copying without quotation marks detailed in the table above. Really, I'm very sorry that this is the situation, but when these problems exist, they need to be addressed. It doesn't have to be done in ten minutes, and it doesn't have to be done by you, although I'm offering you the opportunity to do so precisely because I believe you that you understand the issue and know how to fix it. This is not an offer I'd even make to people who copy-paste content in blatant disregard of policy. I do not doubt that you were working in good faith; you cited your sources very carefully.

Again, we are all constantly reviewed; this particular review will end when problems are identified and repaired. It's a cleanup process, plain and simple, and it was created in part because expecting somebody to do this in 10 minutes is not workable. It's anonymized - your username would not be included on it - and when it is complete it is blanked and delisted. It is marked so that bots do not index it.

Your edit history is public record and has already been compiled by our contribution survey bot. That's how I know how many articles are involved, although I say roughly because the last 50 or so are such minimal edits that they're likely to be very quickly cleared. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 00:00, 3 May 2015 (UTC)

Moonriddengirl: I have thought about the issues you have brought up here. I think that the issue of having quotations that are properly cited is separate from the allegations of copyright infringement. I am happy to reduce the amount of quotations I have used in entries, but I would rather focus on correcting any copyright, as I believe from the Wikipedia standpoint this is more of a concern. The quotations are not as critical as it is not ideal, but is not copyright violation. So if we could focus on these allegations, of which I believe there will be few instances and of which I believe if there are any concerns I can address proactively, that would be great. BrillLyle (talk) 15:42, 4 May 2015 (UTC)
Hello, BrillLyle. The quotations are a copyright issue as well. Our copyright policy permits brief quotations, as I mentioned above, according to WP:NFC, but the bulk of content must be written in your own words. They are, of course, much easier to identify and fix. I will be happy to supply you a list of your edits to review or create a CCI to facilitate that. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 16:10, 4 May 2015 (UTC)

Hello. I have started this in my own user space, although I may need to transfer it to the CCI workspace. I've done a few spot-checks and am mostly seeing overuse of quotations where problems exist; I have flagged several articles. However, I do find more copypasting and close paraphrasing that isn't marked in any way in Myer S. Kripke. My spot-check there disclosed the following:

Source Source text Article text
NY Times In a class on Jewish religion at the seminary, he met a student from Brooklyn named Dorothy Karp. They were married at the seminary in 1937, a week after he was ordained. In a class on Jewish religion at the seminary, he met a student from Brooklyn named Dorothy Karp (who later became his wife). The class was taught by Rabbi Mordecai Kaplan, founder of the Reconstructionist movement.[11] They were married at the seminary in 1937, a week after he was ordained
philly.com Susie Buffett was an admirer of Dorothy Kripke's book Let's Talk About God. When she discovered that the Kripkes lived nearby in Omaha, Susie Buffett introduced herself. A long friendship between the families began. Investor Warren Buffett's wife, Susie Buffett was an admirer of Dorothy Kripke's book Let's Talk About God.[13] When she discovered that the Kripkes lived nearby in Omaha, Susie Buffett introduced herself. A long friendship between the families began.[14]
Amerabbica The seminary hosted their wedding in the courtyard and Rabbi Kripke had said that the gift was to repay them for their kindness. The seminary hosted their wedding in the courtyard and Rabbi Kripke had said that the gift was to repay them for their kindness.

I have not blanked the article for processing at WP:CP at this point, but it is somewhat urgent that it be rewritten to address any copy-pasting. I only spot-checked. There may be additional issues. If you don't have time to look for those, I can go ahead and treat the article in the routine process.

The other issue I found is translating from other language Wikipedias without attribution. I don't know if you do a lot of translation, but the article Alice Winocour is translated from fr:Alice Winocour. Content on Wikipedia may be freely copied and modified, but only if you meet the terms of the license which require among other things attribution. Those other things are not an issue when copying from one Wikipedia article to another, but the attribution burden remains. To attribute a translation, you need to make an edit summary note with a direct link to your source article, explaining what you are doing. You may be aware of this requirement now, as this was evidently quite an early contribution of yours. I've provided the necessary attribution for this one: [81], [82]. If there are other articles that you have translated in this way, please provide the necessary attribution. WP:CWW talks a bit more about how and why. (Oh, I should add that I have cut down the list by removing more of your lighter contribs, as they are unlikely to be an issue.) --Moonriddengirl (talk) 12:53, 6 May 2015 (UTC)

Edits made to Kripke page. I don't remember the Winocour page at all. I was not the only editor on that page so do what you want.
While you may think that your reduction of the list of articles to review is a good thing, I continue to feel this is unjust. I strongly object to this whole process and will probably close my account shortly. So: GOOD JOB -- with a special callout to the incompetence and misguided zealotry of User:Justlettersandnumbers -- in driving an enthusiastic well-meaning Wikipedia off the encyclopedia. BrillLyle (talk) 14:03, 6 May 2015 (UTC)
It's not a question of whether there were other editors on the Winocour page; it's a simple matter that you translated content from the French Wikipedia without attribution. If you've done so on other articles, these will need to be repaired, as legally you are required to give this attribution. Failure to do so is a copyright violation. Do I understand you correctly, then, that you don't intend to review yourself? If not, then I will open the WP:CCI so that other editors can look for and repair issues especially of the copy-pasting of the sort flagged above. I'm afraid this is mandatory, to address copyright and plagiarism issues. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 16:16, 6 May 2015 (UTC)

Now that you are back, I will await your answer to this question to determine how best to proceed. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 10:42, 13 May 2015 (UTC)

Oh, nevermind. Seeing that you have gone back to working on new content without responding here or addressing existing issues, it seems that you're not interested in discussing this. I have therefore made a formal request for a contributor copyright investigation at Wikipedia:Contributor_copyright_investigations#Requests. Please see Wikipedia:Contributor_copyright_investigations#Responding_to_a_CCI_case if you would like to participate in that request. If the request is granted, a CCI will be opened so that the community can clean up any outstanding copyright issues with your previous edits. Please be careful going forward to fully comply with our copyright policies. If you have any questions about them, you are welcome to visit my talk page (I will not be watching yours any longer) or to seek assistance at the help desk or the teahouse. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 11:00, 13 May 2015 (UTC)
Moonriddengirl - I have been back on Wikipedia less than 12 hours. I decided to try and re-join Wikipedia. I had hoped that the responsiveness I have shown to fixing the issues you raised would reflect my willingness to address this in a productive way but it looks like you have pushed this into another administrative area that will further punish me as an editor. I am confused: The issue you describe on the Myer Kripke page was addressed right away by me so I am not sure what the CCI is all about. BrillLyle (talk) 11:16, 13 May 2015 (UTC)
I am sorry that you feel you have been punished as an editor; asking people to clean up copyright problems they create is not intended as punishment, but simply necessary corrective action. CCI is not a sanctioning board; it is a cleanup process. As I told you above, the demonstrated issue across multiple articles requires review to see what additional copyright problems may need to be addressed. On May 6th, I explained that if you did not intend to review yourself, I would open a WP:CCI so that others could. I have interpreted your return and return to editing without response as a decision not to review your edits, since there is nothing above that suggests otherwise. If you do intend to work on this, and a CCI is opened, your assistance will be most welcome. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 11:23, 13 May 2015 (UTC)

CCI, next steps

The CCI request has been reviewed by User:Diannaa, who is one of the real heroes in that area. She has extensive experience in CCIs. It has been opened at Wikipedia:Contributor copyright investigations/20150515. We anonymize the name in the page title, and the page is not indexed by search engines. It will furthermore be blanked as soon as the review is completed. In the meantime, it will serve as a workspace to note problems that may be found and how they are handled. To avoid inundating people who are the subject of CCIs with notices of issues they no longer need, it is the general practice at CCI to request that people doing cleanup there not leave notes on your talk page. Instead, you should watch that page if you wish to be alerted to any issues that are identified. This will give you an opportunity to help address any concerns.

Some of the standard language on the CCI page may be alarming to those who are not familiar with it, as it quotes policy especially permitting the indiscriminate removal of text. In fact, the CCI process was created to avoid that - rather than assuming that all edits are problematic, the process was created to allow human review and repair. It is typically a low-drama workflow. Sometimes it may result in the temporary blanking of pages, as you've already experienced, but that process in itself was created as an alternative to immediate deletion, to allow repair of problems that are not insurmountable.

There is a tremendous backlog at CCI, stretching back several years, but Diannaa has volunteered to help process this one more quickly, if you'd like, so you can put this behind you as rapidly as possible. Her note on the issue is well worth reading, I think - [83].

If you have questions about the CCI process, please let me know. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 11:16, 15 May 2015 (UTC)

All I see is User:Diannaa deleting content on the two items she has "fixed." It's really quite sad that instead of trying to fix how the information is communicated (i.e., finding better citations and/or rewriting) the information is just being removed. I am still appalled at this process. I see terrible Wikipedia editing all over the place and I always leave pages in better shape than when I see them. I think this is truly shameful. You should all be ashamed of yourselves for doing this. It's just wrong. I have proven I am happy to fix things. This is not a good solution. I continue to be disappointed by this process. I have been warned of the problems of Wikipedia and you and the team of people doing this have only reinforced this. I am active in my local Wikimedia NYC chapter, I have helped others edit Wikipedia, I have really tried to contribute citations and authority control (using my library science skills) -- if you look at these edits I am a valuable Wikipedia contributor. I just wonder how many editors' contributions would withstand such a thorough evaluation. And this evaluation seems wildly imbalanced, as I have made many edits that will not be challenged. It's throwing the baby out with the bathwater. And it is not pedagogic at all -- it's 100% punitive and is an overreaction to what was initially a complete misunderstanding that was resolved right away. You can go on and on and lecture me all you want Moonriddengirl, about how this is the way things are and you are only following guidelines, but really, come on, this is not the way to keep editors on Wikipedia. BrillLyle (talk) 02:36, 16 May 2015 (UTC)
And here's food for thought, I am going to volunteer at a Wikimedia Meetup and will be there to help other editors who are either brand new or somewhat new. I am conflicted now, to encourage them to contribute, as I suspect there will be situations like this that they may encounter if they decide to become an active editor and contribute to Wikipedia. Can I say to them, be bold, contribute!?!? At this point I can't honestly say that, as I know that the cost is that content will be deleted, you could end up in copyvio jail like me, or have pages blanked at random by careless editors (like I had happen). It's a bad precedent. Sadly I really love Wikipedia, but as I have said before, I am dismayed at this entire experience. BrillLyle (talk) 02:41, 16 May 2015 (UTC)
Every time you edit a page, it says at the top "Content that violates any copyrights will be deleted." That said, User:Diannaa would not remove content if she did not believe it qualified. You are welcome to fix problems after the content has been removed or even before. All the articles are laid out there for review, and you can review them as easily as anyone else. If the copyright issues are not in the current article, there will be no reason to remove content. You were offered the opportunity above to conduct this review for yourself; you can still assist, as I explained.
I am sorry that you are frustrated by your experience here, but you have copy-pasted content onto Wikipedia from your sources in a way that we cannot do. There's no desire to eliminate the good work you've done, but any lingering problems must be cleaned up--which may mean removal of existing material from an article, where it does not comply.
I hope you will encourage people to contribute, but also that you will introduce them to our core policies, including copyright, as they do so. People should be bold, but they should be familiar with policies as well, as this may help them avoid the problems you've encountered. Wikipedia:Plagiarism is a useful read as well, as many people are not as familiar with plagiarism, or unfamiliar with the Wikipedia community's standards there. Even more basic, Wikipedia:Copying text from other sources may communicate the necessary ideas - it explains that as a general rule of thumb content cannot be copy-pasted except in brief, clearly marked quotations and that these brief, clearly marked quotations must be used for valid reason as set out at WP:NFC. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 11:32, 16 May 2015 (UTC)
Great, another lecture. No acknowledgement of the fact that the majority of the edits I have made have been constructive, helpful, and have improved pages significantly. Another failure of communication. You are at least consistent in being like teflon and not addressing how messed up this is. BrillLyle (talk) 12:19, 16 May 2015 (UTC)
I have no interest in debating with you, BrillLyle, on what may be "messed up" in this situation. My intention here is to explain the process to you so that you can work within it. If you dislike the process itself, you're welcome to bring it up at WP:VP. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 12:29, 16 May 2015 (UTC)
Oh it's VERY clear you have no interest in having a discussion about how screwed up this is. You have only lectured and yammered on about this function you serve on Wikipedia. The basis of me being flagged was complete incompetence and you are the sockpuppet here. If this is your contributions to Wikipedia it's very sad. I KNOW that I have actually contributed content here, I have improved pages significantly, maybe imperfectly, but if I am supposed to be able to learn and/or take away something constructive here, well you have ALL failed. I am now bitter and am afraid to add content that I could add with citations because your team will just delete and blank the content with arrogant overzealotry. If you continue to say this is not targeted behavior on your part, then I call bullshit. It's not even defensible what you are doing here. Honestly, I don't know how you guys sleep at night. You should all be ashamed of yourselves for instituting this process. BrillLyle (talk) 13:29, 16 May 2015 (UTC)
I am truly sorry that you evidently were unaware of our copyright policies, but they exist and need to be enforced. I have done my best to work through this issue with you cordially, including offering you the option to do this review yourself, as I understand that this process can be distressing. This review process is many years old and dozens of editors have been through it, many continuing to edit without further issue; it is not targeted against you. If, however, you believe this is inappropriate, by all means, bring it up for review at WP:VP or WP:AN or the dispute resolution forum of your choice. This entire conversation is transparent, as is the history of the process and the body of your contributions to Wikipedia, and others may assess both this situation and the general process board for themselves. In the meantime, I'm going to unwatch your page again. If you have any further questions for me, you're welcome to address them civilly at my talk page, and I will respond. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 14:39, 16 May 2015 (UTC)

Tech News: 2015-19

Latest tech news from the Wikimedia technical community. Please tell other users about these changes. Not all changes will affect you. Translations are available.

Recent changes

  • You can now chat with other users in Phabricator. [84]
  • There was a rare problem with VisualEditor. The text of another wiki could be added to your edit. The issue is now fixed. [85] [86]

Changes this week

  • The new version of MediaWiki has been on test wikis and MediaWiki.org since April 29. It will be on non-Wikipedia wikis from May 5. It will be on all Wikipedias from May 6 (calendar).
  • It is now easier to add a link in VisualEditor. You can see an image and a description about the page. [87]

Meetings

  • You can join a meeting with the Language team. The meeting will be on May 5 at 14:30 (UTC). [88]
  • You can join the next meeting with the Editing team. During the meeting, you can tell developers which bugs are the most important. The meeting will be on May 6 at 18:00 (UTC). See how to join.
  • You can join an event in France on May 22−25. You need to sign up before May 8. [89]

Tech news prepared by tech ambassadors and posted by bot • Contribute • Translate • Get help • Give feedback • Subscribe or unsubscribe.

15:22, 4 May 2015 (UTC)

Books and Bytes - Issue 11

The Wikipedia Library

Books & Bytes
Issue 11, March-April 2015
by The Interior (talk · contribs), Ocaasi (talk · contribs), Sadads (talk · contribs), Nikkimaria (talk · contribs)

  • New donations - MIT Press Journals, Sage Stats, Hein Online and more
  • New TWL coordinators, conference news, and new reference projects
  • Spotlight: Two metadata librarians talk about how library professionals can work with Wikipedia

Read the full newsletter



MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 23:20, 4 May 2015 (UTC)

This Month in GLAM: April 2015



Headlines
Read this edition in full • Single-page

To assist with preparing the newsletter, please visit the newsroom. Past editions may be viewed here.

Tech News: 2015-20

Latest tech news from the Wikimedia technical community. Please tell other users about these changes. Not all changes will affect you. Translations are available.

Recent changes

  • You can now make charts and maps on your wiki with the new "graph" tool. If you have an old browser, you will see images instead. It uses a tool called Vega; you can learn how to use it and write help pages for your wiki. You can use the Vega edit tool to make charts and copy the code to your wiki. Charts and maps use complex code and you should put them into templates. In the future, you will be able to create charts with VisualEditor. [90] [91] [92]
  • You can apply for technical jobs to develop tools for the community. [93]
  • The logos of all wikis are now in a new place. It will make pages load faster. You can still ask to change the logo. You can also use local CSS for brief changes. [94] [95]

Problems

  • There was a problem that caused slow editing. [96]
  • Pages were sometimes removed from your watchlist in VisualEditor. This problem is now fixed. [97]

Changes this week

  • The new version of MediaWiki has been on test wikis and MediaWiki.org since May 6. It will be on non-Wikipedia wikis from May 12. It will be on all Wikipedias from May 13 (calendar).
  • You can now use data from Wikidata on more pages. The page doesn't need to be linked to the Wikidata item. It works on a few wikis and more wikis will be added soon. [98] [99]
  • You should get fewer errors when you add files to Commons. [100]
  • When you use an external link to link to a wiki page, VisualEditor now converts it to a wiki link. [101]
  • When you add a link in VisualEditor, you see pages that match what you type. It is now easier to see where they match. [102]

Meetings

  • You can join the next meeting with the Editing team. During the meeting, you can tell developers which bugs are the most important. The meeting will be on May 13 at 18:00 (UTC). See how to join.

Tech news prepared by tech ambassadors and posted by bot • Contribute • Translate • Get help • Give feedback • Subscribe or unsubscribe.

16:00, 11 May 2015 (UTC)

June 10: WikiWednesday Salon / Wikimedia NYC Annual Meeting

Wednesday June 10, 7pm: WikiWednesday Salon / Wikimedia NYC Annual Meeting

You are invited to join the Wikimedia NYC community for our next evening "WikiWednesday" salon and knowledge-sharing workshop by 14th Street / Union Square in Manhattan.

This month will also feature on our agenda: recent and upcoming editathons, the organization's Annual Meeting, and Chapter board elections.

We also hope for the participation of our friends from the Free Culture movement and from educational and cultural institutions interested in developing free knowledge projects. We will also follow up on plans for recent and upcoming editathons, and other outreach activities.

After the main meeting, pizza and refreshments and video games in the gallery!

7:00pm - 9:00 pm at Babycastles, 137 West 14th Street

Featuring a keynote talk this month to be determined! We especially encourage folks to add your 5-minute lightning talks to our roster, and otherwise join in the "open space" experience! Newcomers are very welcome! Bring your friends and colleagues! --Pharos (talk) 15:54, 12 May 2015 (UTC)

(You can subscribe/unsubscribe from future notifications for NYC-area events by adding or removing your name from this list.)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:BrillLyle/Archives/_1&oldid=1145833035"