User talk:NOLA Bee

Welcome!

Hello, NOLA Forever, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions, especially your edits to Anna Maria van Schurman. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few links to pages you might find helpful:

You may also want to complete the Wikipedia Adventure, an interactive tour that will help you learn the basics of editing Wikipedia. You can visit the Teahouse to ask questions or seek help.

Please remember to sign your messages on talk pages by typing four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask for help on your talk page, and a volunteer should respond shortly. Again, welcome! CLCStudent (talk) 20:48, 20 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Your submission at Articles for creation: Marie Rosalie Bertaud has been accepted

Marie Rosalie Bertaud, which you submitted to Articles for creation, has been created.

Congratulations, and thank you for helping expand the scope of Wikipedia! We hope you will continue making quality contributions.

The article has been assessed as Start-Class, which is recorded on its talk page. Most new articles start out as Stub-Class or Start-Class and then attain higher grades as they develop over time. You may like to take a look at the grading scheme to see how you can improve the article.

Since you have made at least 10 edits over more than four days, you can now create articles yourself without posting a request. However, you may continue submitting work to Articles for creation if you prefer.

If you have any questions, you are welcome to ask at the help desk. Once you have made at least 10 edits and had an account for at least four days, you will have the option to create articles yourself without posting a request to Articles for creation.

If you would like to help us improve this process, please consider leaving us some feedback.

Thanks again, and happy editing!

Theroadislong (talk) 18:01, 18 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2021 Elections voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2021 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 6 December 2021. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2021 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:56, 23 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

December 2021

Hello NOLA Bee. The nature of your edits gives the impression you have an undisclosed financial stake in promoting a topic, but you have not complied with Wikipedia's mandatory paid editing disclosure requirements. Paid advocacy is a category of conflict of interest (COI) editing that involves being compensated by a person, group, company or organization to use Wikipedia to promote their interests. Undisclosed paid advocacy is prohibited by our policies on neutral point of view and what Wikipedia is not, and is an especially serious type of COI; the Wikimedia Foundation regards it as a "black hat" practice akin to black-hat search-engine optimization.

Paid advocates are very strongly discouraged from direct article editing, and should instead propose changes on the talk page of the article in question if an article exists. If the article does not exist, paid advocates are extremely strongly discouraged from attempting to write an article at all. At best, any proposed article creation should be submitted through the articles for creation process, rather than directly.

Regardless, if you are receiving or expect to receive compensation for your edits, broadly construed, you are required by the Wikimedia Terms of Use to disclose your employer, client and affiliation. You can post such a mandatory disclosure to your user page at User:NOLA Bee. The template {{Paid}} can be used for this purpose – e.g. in the form: {{paid|user=NOLA Bee|employer=InsertName|client=InsertName}}. If I am mistaken – you are not being directly or indirectly compensated for your edits – please state that in response to this message. Otherwise, please provide the required disclosure. In either case, do not edit further until you answer this message. Beeblebrox (talk) 04:09, 16 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Beeblebrox. NOLA Bee has disclosed their GLAM affiliations on their user page and is editing in accordance with GLAM-Wiki. COI: GLAM states:

Museum curators, librarians, archivists, and similar are encouraged to help improve Wikipedia, or to share their information in the form of links to their resources. If a link cannot be used as a reliable source, it may be placed under further reading or external links if it complies with the external links guideline.

Ariel Cetrone (WMDC) (talk) 17:39, 16 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Would I then be safe in assuming it was you they are referring to in this edit summary [1]]? I assumed this was some sort of misunderstanding as to where authority over content derives on this project, I certainly hope you aren't actually advising them that you are able to somehow grant permission to force external links into image captions. Please tell me that is not what is going on here. Beeblebrox (talk) 18:00, 16 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Beeblebrox My comment above is a response to the blanket paid editing accusation against a GLAM partner. Now that I have the context, I can say that the external links in the captions were a result of a misunderstanding. They were placed there in hopes of being more transparent. The issue will be further addressed here.-Ariel Cetrone (WMDC) (talk) 18:39, 16 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

NOLA Bee I would like to add that my personal statement clearly states that I, NOLA Bee, am part of the GLAM community and my contributions are for educational purposes. The intention was to properly credit the photographs. Sincerely, NOLA Bee

We all appreciate GLAM and it's great that your organization wants to share resources with Wikipedia,, but when you say something like "We are working closely with the DC Wiki rep and we have received permission to include the credit line for our images" that seems to imply that your edit must be kept because you have cleared it with some sort of higher authority. That's not ok. I get that it was a misunderstanding, but I do hope you now understand the important point here is that assertions like that are not helpful and neither is edit warring. When you find yourself being reverted, you should discuss the matter, not just revert again. I'm aware there are a lot of things to learn when one is getting started on Wikipedia, so I apologize for picking one further nit here: when posting on talk pages, it is customary to sign your posts using four tildes, like this ~~~~. This automatically generates the user signatures you see on others' posts. There is also a button in the edit window toolbar that looks like a little squiggle that will do it for you. Beeblebrox (talk) 20:17, 17 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the advice. I am going to take a break from Wiki. The comments made by editors are not in the spirit of our contributions. <NOLA Bee>NOLA Bee (talk) 21:40, 17 December 2021 (UTC)</NOLA Bee>[reply]

ArbCom 2022 Elections voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2022 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 12 December 2022. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2022 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 01:43, 29 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2023 Elections voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2023 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 11 December 2023. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2023 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:58, 28 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Your submission at Articles for creation: Lillian M. Mosseller (September 26)

Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed. Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reason left by Greenman was:

This submission's references do not show that the subject qualifies for a Wikipedia article—that is, they do not show significant coverage (not just passing mentions) about the subject in published, reliable, secondary sources that are independent of the subject (see the guidelines on the notability of people). Before any resubmission, additional references meeting these criteria should be added (see technical help and learn about mistakes to avoid when addressing this issue). If no additional references exist, the subject is not suitable for Wikipedia.

Please check the submission for any additional comments left by the reviewer. You are encouraged to edit the submission to address the issues raised and resubmit after they have been resolved.

If you would like to continue working on the submission, go to Draft:Lillian M. Mosseller and click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window.
If you do not edit your draft in the next 6 months, it will be considered abandoned and may be deleted.
If you need any assistance, or have experienced any untoward behavior associated with this submission, you can ask for help at the Articles for creation help desk, on the reviewer's talk page or use Wikipedia's real-time chat help from experienced editors.

Greenman (talk) 07:28, 26 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, NOLA Bee! Having an article draft declined at Articles for Creation can be disappointing. If you are wondering why your article submission was declined, please post a question at the Articles for creation help desk. If you have any other questions about your editing experience, we'd love to help you at the Teahouse, a friendly space on Wikipedia where experienced editors lend a hand to help new editors like yourself! See you there! Greenman (talk) 07:28, 26 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]