User talk:Deisenbe/Archive 11
 | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
| Archive 5 | ← | Archive 9 | Archive 10 | Archive 11 | Archive 12 | Archive 13 | → | Archive 15 |
Books & Bytes – Issue 43
The Wikipedia Library
Books & Bytes
Issue 43, March – April 2021
- New Library Card designs
- 1Lib1Ref May
Sent by MediaWiki message delivery on behalf of The Wikipedia Library team --11:11, 10 May 2021 (UTC)
Hi! I have added Negro cloth in the clothing section of the subject, you are improving. Thanks and regards RV (talk) 14:18, 14 May 2021 (UTC)
May 2021
Hello, I'm CaroleHenson. I noticed that you added or changed content in an article, History of slavery in Virginia, but you didn't provide a reliable source. It's been removed and archived in the page history for now, but if you'd like to include a citation and re-add it, please do so. You can have a look at the tutorial on citing sources. If you think I made a mistake, you can leave me a message on my talk page. I have asked three times if you had sources for content that you're looking to add. And, after you made a series of edits, I asked please not to insert your own thoughts in the midst of well-cited content. –CaroleHenson (talk) 02:34, 15 May 2021 (UTC)
- @CaroleHenson: I'm going to work on other articles. I don't need insulting messages like this. deisenbe (talk) 10:27, 15 May 2021 (UTC)
- That's a shame.
- All you need to do is not add new unsourced content within cited content in the body of the article. That does two things, it confuses what actually came from the cited source - and there's no record of where it came from.
- I am not understanding the two paragraphs commented out, but I'll make a couple of comments since you did not remove it (i.e., it seems that you wanted me to see it): The paragraph without citations went into the introduction. If it summarizes cited content in the body of the article, sources are not needed WP:CITELEAD.
- The part about Blacks worshipping in secret in the woods: I have heard that for awhile, but most importantly,
it is summarizedthere is cited content in the section about religion... my experiences are that they became known from slave narratives and in biographies or narratives of freed men who became ministers. (See these articles) About the music, that's one of the most interesting section for me. It's been known for some time that African American musical traditions started during the colonial period and enslavement. (See this). I hope this helps make it clearer.–CaroleHenson (talk) 15:13, 15 May 2021 (UTC)
- The part about Blacks worshipping in secret in the woods: I have heard that for awhile, but most importantly,
- Clarified - cited content.–CaroleHenson (talk) 16:07, 15 May 2021 (UTC)
- First of all, thanks so much for your feedback about the article. It really helped make the article better - especially the content about Native Americans and Western Virginia. Such great points. I think I am finished with your comments unless I have missed something.
- Regarding your question, see this post to the talk page.–CaroleHenson (talk) 02:52, 16 May 2021 (UTC)
I just realized that if you could ask yourself when you are rewording something: Am I changing the meaning of the content?
If so, then you need to find a source - or not edit in such a way that the meaning is changed. As an FYI, citations are not needed in the intro if the verbiage summarizes cited content from the body of the article. If you are adding new content, then it needs to be cited.
I didn't post 2nd warning about adding uncited content this time, because I truly hope we can work this out. I know that you have incredibly great intentions and want to make the article the best you can. Adding uncited content, though, does not make the article better.–CaroleHenson (talk) 01:20, 17 May 2021 (UTC)
Please do not use styles that are nonstandard, unusual, inappropriate or difficult to understand in articles. There is a Manual of Style, and edits should not deliberately go against it without special reason. Thank you. 2600:8800:1880:68:5604:A6FF:FE38:4B26 (talk) 12:42, 25 May 2021 (UTC)
Speedy deletion nomination of Category:1941 musical instruments
A tag has been placed on Category:1941 musical instruments indicating that it is currently empty, and is not a disambiguation category, a category redirect, a featured topics category, under discussion at Categories for discussion, or a project category that by its nature may become empty on occasion. If it remains empty for seven days or more, it may be deleted under section C1 of the criteria for speedy deletion.
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 "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself. Liz Read! Talk! 16:41, 22 May 2021 (UTC)
A Barnstar for you!
|
The Epic Barnstar | |
| I have just come across Raising the Flag at Fort Sumter, a fantastic little article that might have been even further lost to history had you not written about it! I had no idea such an event ever occurred and was quite interested to read about it. Your work on the Civil War is beyond excellent :) CaptainEek Edits Ho Cap'n!⚓ 02:43, 26 May 2021 (UTC) |
Question for administrator
 | This request for help from administrators has been answered. If you need more help or have additional questions, please reapply the {{admin help}} template, or contact the responding user(s) directly on their own user talk page. |
The article Battle of Fort Pillow has such continual and one-sided disruptive modification, mostly deletions, that I'd suggest unregistered users be blocked from editing it. deisenbe (talk) 06:33, 8 June 2021 (UTC)
Question for administrator
| This request for help from administrators has been answered. If you need more help or have additional questions, please reapply the {{admin help}} template, or contact the responding user(s) directly on their own user talk page. |
@331dot: I have detected a significant instance of vandalism that went undetected for six months. How should I notify those that might be interested? It's at the end of Talk:Battle of Fort Pillow. This article has the designation of "vital". deisenbe (talk) 09:07, 8 June 2021 (UTC)
- While after six months there is little point in action against the account or IP responsible, you may bring it up on the article talk page or just remove it. 331dot (talk) 09:14, 8 June 2021 (UTC)
"Gender-neutrality in Spanish and Portuguese" listed at Redirects for discussion
A discussion is taking place to address the redirect Gender-neutrality in Spanish and Portuguese. The discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2021 June 12#Gender-neutrality in Spanish and Portuguese until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. — Wug·a·po·des 21:48, 12 June 2021 (UTC)
Nomination of The abolitionist Weld–Grimké wedding for deletion
The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The abolitionist Weld–Grimké wedding until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.
Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article.
Rublov (talk) 17:38, 15 June 2021 (UTC)
Disambiguation link notification for June 17
An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Storer College, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Henry McDonald.
(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 05:55, 17 June 2021 (UTC)
Disambiguation link notification for June 24
An automated process has detected that when you recently edited The abolitionist Weld–Grimké wedding, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Jane Smith.
(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 05:58, 24 June 2021 (UTC)
The Signpost: 27 June 2021
- News and notes: Elections, Wikimania, masking and more
- In the media: Boris and Joe, reliability, love, and money
- Disinformation report: Croatian Wikipedia: capture and release
- Recent research: Feminist critique of Wikipedia's epistemology, Black Americans vastly underrepresented among editors, Wiki Workshop report
- Traffic report: So no one told you life was gonna be this way
- News from the WMF: Searching for Wikipedia
- WikiProject report: WikiProject on open proxies interview
- Forum: Is WMF fundraising abusive?
- Discussion report: Reliability of WikiLeaks discussed
- Obituary: SarahSV
Help me!
 | This help request has been answered. If you need more help, you can , contact the responding user(s) directly on their user talk page, or consider visiting the Teahouse. |
Please help me with... {{subst:trim|1=
@Sandstein: I wrote a long article on The Abolitionist Grimké-Weld Wedding which now I have no access to. It was nominsted ror deletion. I contested the nomination and did a lot of work on the article. It's now 6 times as long (not that that in and of itself makes the case for non-deletion). Now, with not a word of warning, it has been deleted and replaced with a redirect to a tangential article. This step does not reflect the deletion discussion I saw and I believe it is not a fair or valid step, and not in the interest of Wikipedia users. I would like the Deletion process reopened and the article restored in the meantime.
I'm not a beginner, I have over 60,000 edits. deisenbe (talk) 11:19, 9 July 2021 (UTC)
}
- It would have helped had you more clearly indicated what article you were referring to. Having found that there has never been an article with the title The Abolitionist Grimké-Weld Wedding I wasted my time searching through the record of your deleted edits for something with a title similar to that, and found that you had never created, nor even edited, any article which has since been deleted and which had any title remotely resembling that. Eventually I managed to find the article in question, which has been redirected, not deleted, but I could have done so in a small fraction of the time and effort it took if the article title had been accurately given.
- Claiming that the replacement of the article with a redirect was done "with not a word of warning" is absurd, as anyone who has spent five seconds looking at the deletion discussion can plainly see.
- The closure of the discussion accurately reflects unambiguous consensus there.
- The editing history of the article hasn't been deleted. It's perfectly visible. JBW (talk) 12:54, 9 July 2021 (UTC)
@JBW: I apologize for my mistake and wasting your time. I put the bride's name first.
- Would you give me the link to the deletion discussion, since it's not where it was. Evidently I haven't read everything.
- Would you also please tell me where the editing history of the article is. Thank you. deisenbe (talk) 13:03, 9 July 2021 (UTC)
- Sorry for being expressing myself in a rather irritable way. I could and should have made the effort to me more friendly.
- The deletion discussion is at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The abolitionist Weld–Grimké wedding.
- If you go to that discussion, just below the heading with the title of the discussed article, there's a row of links, including "history", which will take you directly to the article's editing history, without having to fiddle around getting past the redirect. JBW (talk) 13:43, 9 July 2021 (UTC)
@JBW: Thank you. Now I see what has been going on. The process, as I see it, did not work correctly, and I'd value your assistance or advice on how to proceed.
- Once the Proposed Deletion was posted, I reread the article and decided it needed more work and that I could then make a good case for non-deletion.
- I posted an Under Construction template on the article. In the Proposed Deletion discussion, I mentioned that I had done so and requested a deletion decision be postponed until I had finished working on the article. At that time it was 3,491 bytes. Now, and I'm not finished, it's 31,861 bytes.
- I assumed, incorrectly, that the deletion discussion would be postponed until I'd finished working on it, as I requested. I stopped following the discussion, I checked a couple of times and nothing had happened. Therefore, I didn't see the latest comments or make the arguments that I'd planned to make for keeping it.
- This is not a full or footnoted argument, as I'm not finished, but it's the most important wedding in the United States in the nineteenth century. It was followed immediately (3 days later) by the biggest case of arson in the country up to that point (except when the British burned the Capitol and the White House during the War of 1812). The wedding and the arson are linked. The bride was the last speaker in the brand new building before it was destroyed.
- I would like at least to get the chance to finish my work and then put forth my reasons for non-deletion. I also think it is reasonable to request that my revisions at least be read before they are deleted.
- The proposed deletion has had an unexpected benefit: I had no idea of how rich a topic this is until I started going into it deeper.
- A previous case comes to mind: District of Columbia (until 1871), which I also wrote, and was proposed for deletion, which I contested successfully.
- Thank you for your help. deisenbe (talk) 14:26, 9 July 2021 (UTC)
@JBW: Are you going to reply, or should I pursue it elsewhere? deisenbe (talk) 16:56, 11 July 2021 (UTC)
- I somehow failed to see the notification of your ping at 14:26, 9 July, probably because I got several notifications in a short time, and yours got lost in the crowd. However, I did see your latest ping.
- If I have understood correctly, you think the decision at the deletion discussion should be overturned because you added a lot more material, which you think might have persuaded the participants in the discussion to take a different view if they had seen it. The proper way to seek review in this situation is to follow the instructions at Wikipedia:Deletion review. Mostly, deletion review is for situations where an editor thinks whoever closed a discussion did so wrongly, but Wikipedia:Deletion review#Purpose also includes "if significant new information has come to light since a deletion that would justify recreating the deleted page" as another use.
- As you know, I took no part in the deletion discussion, and I have no personal opinion on whether the article should be restored or not. However, I had a quick look at a sample of the references that you posted, and those that I saw didn't provide much evidence of satisfying Wikipedia's notability standards. Some of those that i saw didn't even mention the wedding. Since that impression was based on a small sample of the references, it can't be relied on, but it may be that this is one of the situations where it is best to cut one's losses, rather than throwing more time and effort into it. It is, of course, up to you to decide, but you may like to consider that.
- I hope that some or all of those comments may be helpful to you. JBW (talk) 22:22, 11 July 2021 (UTC)
Disambiguation link notification for July 15
An automated process has detected that when you recently edited John Brown Junior, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Owen Brown.
(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 05:59, 15 July 2021 (UTC)
The Signpost: 25 July 2021
- News and notes: Wikimania and a million other news stories
- Special report: Hardball in Hong Kong
- In the media: Larry is at it again
- Board of Trustees candidates: See the candidates
- Traffic report: Football, tennis and marveling at Loki
- News from the WMF: Uncapping our growth potential – interview with James Baldwin, Finance and Administration Department
- Humour: A little verse
Articles you might like to edit, from SuggestBot
Note: All columns in this table are sortable, allowing you to rearrange the table so the articles most interesting to you are shown at the top. All images have mouse-over popups with more information. For more information about the columns and categories, please consult the documentation and please get in touch on SuggestBot's talk page with any questions you might have.
SuggestBot picks articles in a number of ways based on other articles you've edited, including straight text similarity, following wikilinks, and matching your editing patterns against those of other Wikipedians. It tries to recommend only articles that other Wikipedians have marked as needing work. We appreciate that you have signed up to receive suggestions regularly; your contributions make Wikipedia better — thanks for helping!
If you have feedback on how to make SuggestBot better, please let us know on SuggestBot's talk page. -- SuggestBot (talk) 12:04, 28 May 2021 (UTC)
Articles you might like to edit, from SuggestBot
Note: All columns in this table are sortable, allowing you to rearrange the table so the articles most interesting to you are shown at the top. All images have mouse-over popups with more information. For more information about the columns and categories, please consult the documentation and please get in touch on SuggestBot's talk page with any questions you might have.
SuggestBot picks articles in a number of ways based on other articles you've edited, including straight text similarity, following wikilinks, and matching your editing patterns against those of other Wikipedians. It tries to recommend only articles that other Wikipedians have marked as needing work. We appreciate that you have signed up to receive suggestions regularly; your contributions make Wikipedia better — thanks for helping!
If you have feedback on how to make SuggestBot better, please let us know on SuggestBot's talk page. -- SuggestBot (talk) 11:47, 25 June 2021 (UTC)
Articles you might like to edit, from SuggestBot
Note: All columns in this table are sortable, allowing you to rearrange the table so the articles most interesting to you are shown at the top. All images have mouse-over popups with more information. For more information about the columns and categories, please consult the documentation and please get in touch on SuggestBot's talk page with any questions you might have.
SuggestBot picks articles in a number of ways based on other articles you've edited, including straight text similarity, following wikilinks, and matching your editing patterns against those of other Wikipedians. It tries to recommend only articles that other Wikipedians have marked as needing work. We appreciate that you have signed up to receive suggestions regularly; your contributions make Wikipedia better — thanks for helping!
If you have feedback on how to make SuggestBot better, please let us know on SuggestBot's talk page. -- SuggestBot (talk) 12:04, 23 July 2021 (UTC)
Books & Bytes – Issue 45
The Wikipedia Library
Books & Bytes
Issue 45, May – June 2021
- Library design improvements continue
- New partnerships
- 1Lib1Ref update
Sent by MediaWiki message delivery on behalf of The Wikipedia Library team --11:04, 30 July 2021 (UTC)
Phyllis Wheatley
The cateogry in question is an expatriates in the United Kingdom cateogry. The United Kingdom was not formed until 1801. No one who died before 1801 can possible be placed in such a category.John Pack Lambert (talk) 16:40, 18 August 2021 (UTC)
Re: Album era
Please do not add commentary, your own point of view, or your own personal analysis to Wikipedia articles, as you did to Album era. Doing so violates Wikipedia's policies on neutral point of view and verifiabiliy. The lead in particular should not introduce new information not sourced anywhere else in the article. Please discuss your changes at the article's talk page if you have any disagreement. Thank you. Piotr Jr. (talk) 17:05, 20 August 2021 (UTC)
The Signpost: 29 August 2021
- News and notes: Enough time left to vote! IP ban
- In the media: Vive la différence!
- Wikimedians of the year: Seven Wikimedians of the year
- Gallery: Our community in 20 graphs
- News from Wiki Education: Changing the face of Wikipedia
- Recent research: IP editors, inclusiveness and empathy, cyclones, and world heritage
- WikiProject report: WikiProject Days of the Year Interview
- Traffic report: Olympics, movies, and Afghanistan
- Community view: Making Olympic history on Wikipedia
Disambiguation link notification for September 10
An automated process has detected that when you recently edited History of Missouri, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page John Clark.
(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 05:54, 10 September 2021 (UTC)
Books & Bytes – Issue 46
The Wikipedia Library
Books & Bytes
Issue 46, July – August 2021
- Library design improvements deployed
- New collections available in English and German
- Wikimania presentation
Sent by MediaWiki message delivery on behalf of The Wikipedia Library team --11:14, 22 September 2021 (UTC)
The Signpost: 26 September 2021
- News and notes: New CEO, new board members, China bans
- In the media: The future of Wikipedia
- Op-Ed: I've been desysopped
- Disinformation report: Paid promotional paragraphs in German parliamentary pages
- Discussion report: Editors discuss Wikipedia's vetting process for administrators
- Recent research: Wikipedia images for machine learning; Experiment justifies Wikipedia's high search rankings
- Community view: Is writing Wikipedia like making a quilt?
- Traffic report: Kanye, Emma Raducanu and 9/11
- News from Diff: Welcome to the first grantees of the Knowledge Equity Fund
- WikiProject report: The Random and the Beautiful
Based on your work on Alexander H. Stephens, you might be interested in working on the draft for his younger brother, Linton Stephens. Cheers! BD2412 T 01:35, 2 October 2021 (UTC)
Help me - cross-reference
| This help request has been answered. If you need more help, you can , contact the responding user(s) directly on their user talk page, or consider visiting the Teahouse. |
In Edmonia Lewis, there is an internal cross-reference that I can't figure out how to format. It is in the section "Her most popular works - The Desth of Cleopatra". Thanks. deisenbe (talk) 09:52, 10 October 2021 (UTC)
- Hi @Deisenbe, the correct syntax for what you are trying to do is either
[[Pagename#section name]]for section links to another page, or[[#section name]]for sections links within the same page, which is what you appear to be trying. However, generally speaking you should not link like this. If one section already fully covers the subject the other is unnecessary. -- Asartea Talk | Contribs 10:10, 10 October 2021 (UTC)
Articles you might like to edit, from SuggestBot
Note: All columns in this table are sortable, allowing you to rearrange the table so the articles most interesting to you are shown at the top. All images have mouse-over popups with more information. For more information about the columns and categories, please consult the documentation and please get in touch on SuggestBot's talk page with any questions you might have.
SuggestBot picks articles in a number of ways based on other articles you've edited, including straight text similarity, following wikilinks, and matching your editing patterns against those of other Wikipedians. It tries to recommend only articles that other Wikipedians have marked as needing work. We appreciate that you have signed up to receive suggestions regularly; your contributions make Wikipedia better — thanks for helping!
If you have feedback on how to make SuggestBot better, please let us know on SuggestBot's talk page. -- SuggestBot (talk) 11:24, 20 August 2021 (UTC)
Articles you might like to edit, from SuggestBot
Note: All columns in this table are sortable, allowing you to rearrange the table so the articles most interesting to you are shown at the top. All images have mouse-over popups with more information. For more information about the columns and categories, please consult the documentation and please get in touch on SuggestBot's talk page with any questions you might have.
SuggestBot picks articles in a number of ways based on other articles you've edited, including straight text similarity, following wikilinks, and matching your editing patterns against those of other Wikipedians. It tries to recommend only articles that other Wikipedians have marked as needing work. We appreciate that you have signed up to receive suggestions regularly; your contributions make Wikipedia better — thanks for helping!
If you have feedback on how to make SuggestBot better, please let us know on SuggestBot's talk page. -- SuggestBot (talk) 11:36, 17 September 2021 (UTC)
Help me - Flickr
| This help request has been answered. If you need more help, you can , contact the responding user(s) directly on their user talk page, or consider visiting the Teahouse. |
I am working on some statues. If I find a picture of a statue on Flickr, can I cite it as documentation that the statue exists? Note that I am not seeking to upload the picture. Example: [1] Thanks. deisenbe (talk) 17:53, 11 October 2021 (UTC)
- In general, photos are not very good as references to attest to facts. If there are copyright considerations under Commons:freedom of panorama, our rules might not allow linking to the photo, even if you did not upload it. I suggest you find some other way to source the information about the statue. — jmcgnh(talk) (contribs) 18:38, 11 October 2021 (UTC)
- The person answering my inquiry above said "might". Is there a rule that says you can't link to a copyrighted picture, and where is that rule? Commons:freedom of panorama is all about uploading and does not say anything about links. deisenbe (talk) 20:02, 11 October 2021 (UTC)
- You could just have asked me for clarification instead of re-invoking the {{help me}} mechanism.
- I say 'might' because the copyright status of what appears in the photo is relevant, not just the copyright status of the photo. Linking to a site or photo that violates copyrights is not allowed. An example of such a violation would be a photograph of a publicly displayed sculpture in a country whose laws on freedom of panorama view such photos as copyright violations. Copyright is complicated and the status in the USA can depend on when the statue was first erected and whether or not there was a copyright notice attached to it. The people at Wikimedia Commons are much better at sorting these things out, which is why we feel okay about using their photos and are leery of other photos and don't allow direct image embedding in Wikipedia pages at all. — jmcgnh(talk) (contribs) 20:36, 11 October 2021 (UTC)
- The person answering my inquiry above said "might". Is there a rule that says you can't link to a copyrighted picture, and where is that rule? Commons:freedom of panorama is all about uploading and does not say anything about links. deisenbe (talk) 20:02, 11 October 2021 (UTC)
Articles you might like to edit, from SuggestBot
Note: All columns in this table are sortable, allowing you to rearrange the table so the articles most interesting to you are shown at the top. All images have mouse-over popups with more information. For more information about the columns and categories, please consult the documentation and please get in touch on SuggestBot's talk page with any questions you might have.
SuggestBot picks articles in a number of ways based on other articles you've edited, including straight text similarity, following wikilinks, and matching your editing patterns against those of other Wikipedians. It tries to recommend only articles that other Wikipedians have marked as needing work. We appreciate that you have signed up to receive suggestions regularly; your contributions make Wikipedia better — thanks for helping!
If you have feedback on how to make SuggestBot better, please let us know on SuggestBot's talk page. -- SuggestBot (talk) 12:27, 28 October 2021 (UTC)