User talk:Rosiestep
|
2007: 01 • 02 |
A barnstar for you!
|
The Barnstar of Diligence |
| Thanks for your many edits improving categorization of women writers! Grand'mere Eugene (talk) 22:20, 1 February 2021 (UTC) |
- Thanks, Grand'mere Eugene. I really appreciate that you noticed what I've been doing, and I love the barnstar! --Rosiestep (talk) 22:54, 1 February 2021 (UTC)
The article Camp Spaulding, California has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:
fails WP:GEOLAND, only references are GNIS which is known to be unreliable, and Durham which the person who added it to this article is known to have systematically misquoted.
While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages may be deleted for any of several reasons.
You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.
Please consider improving the page to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. — Preceding unsigned comment added by FOARP (talk • contribs) 11:55, February 2, 2021 (UTC)
Speedy deletion nomination of Elmina M. Roys Gavitt
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 Elmina M. Roys Gavitt requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section G12 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the page appears to be an unambiguous copyright infringement. This page appears to be a direct copy from https://archive.org/stream/womanofthecentur002516mbp/womanofthecentur002516mbp_djvu.txt. For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images taken from other web sites or printed material, and as a consequence, your addition will most likely be deleted. You may use external websites or other printed material 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 use it for any reason — then you must verify that externally by one of the processes explained at Wikipedia:Donating copyrighted materials. The same holds if you are not the owner but have their permission. If you are not the owner and do not have permission, see Wikipedia:Requesting copyright permission for how you may obtain it. You might want to look at Wikipedia's copyright policy 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 "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 deleted 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. User3749 (talk) 11:35, 6 February 2021 (UTC)
- Hi User3749 and thanks for stopping by. I'm trying to understand your Speedy Deletion Nomination of the Elmina M. Roys Gavitt biography on the grounds of "possible copyright infringement". The source you reference is in the Public domain. It was linked to the public domain document on Wikisource. The citation at the bottom of the article used the source-attribution template and contained the elements commonly included in a public domain citation (e.g. not a bare url). While I note that you removed the "possible copyright infringement" template 2 minutes after placing it, this note on my talkpage remains, so I wanted to respond and also to hear your perspective on the matter. --Rosiestep (talk) 16:55, 6 February 2021 (UTC)
- Rosiestep Hi, the ref is in the public domain and the edit has been undone already due to later seeing that it is in the public domatin. Thanks User3749 (talk) 04:32, 7 February 2021 (UTC)
- Thanks, User3749. That's what I needed... acknowledgement that the reference is PD as your Edit Summary on the article page (
Undid revision 1005185388 by User3749 (talk) not sure if it is in the public domain or not but just in case removing CSD
) was ambiguous. It's cool now.
--Rosiestep (talk) 16:35, 7 February 2021 (UTC)
- Thanks, User3749. That's what I needed... acknowledgement that the reference is PD as your Edit Summary on the article page (
Women in Red: Participants vs. Members
Hi Rosie. Hope things are improving for you in California. I'm a bit concerned about the replacement of Members by Participants on the main WiR page and on the "cards" people complete when they join the project. Maybe you've authorized the change but as far as I remember in our recent discussions in connection with the distorted membership list, we tried to keep the distinction between members and participants. If you think we should now call our members participants, then I won't pursue the matter further but at a time when we are insisting on membership for contests, etc., I personally think it would be better to maintain the distinction. Perhaps MarioGom has further information about all this.--Ipigott (talk) 09:34, 8 February 2021 (UTC)
- Hi Ipigott. Thanks for bringing this up. No, I wasn't involved with this change, and indeed, there is a difference between "members" and "participants". Hoping that MarioGom (or perhaps a pagestalker) has some insights. --Rosiestep (talk) 17:37, 8 February 2021 (UTC)
- Rosiestep, Ipigott: The change was done in the templates by SMcCandlish. There's further background about it here. We can probably add some parameter to these templates to use members instead of participants. --MarioGom (talk) 17:49, 8 February 2021 (UTC)
- In the light of the discussions we had with SMcCandlish earlier where I explained that for Women in Red there was a clear distinction between members and participants, I am surprised he simply went ahead and changed members to participants on the cards (Participant since...) and a few days later substituted "Participate" for "Join WikiProject" on the registration box. Unless we can restore the use of members, we're going to have to make a number of changes on our main page and on all other pages where we encourage people to join the project as well as in hundreds and hundreds of user boxes. And what about all those who "participate" regularly in the project without wishing to become members? Is it usual for background changes of this kind to be made without discussion with those concerned? It was my understanding that before such actions are undertaken, they should be clearly presented, discussed and ultimately voted for or against. Interestingly, the article on Wikipedia:WikiProject clearly refers to members (and has done so since 2012).--Ipigott (talk)
- SMcCandlish, please let us hear from you; thanks. Ipigott, can this conversation be transcluded or some such onto the WiR talkpage for greater visibility by our members, participants, and pagestalkers; thanks? --Rosiestep (talk) 14:41, 9 February 2021 (UTC)
- Oh, to catch up on this stuff: The general matter is that wikiprojects are not private membership organizations, and virtually all problems that have arisen in relation to them have stemmed from people trying to make them operate that way. So, we've been moving (not very programmatically) to "participate/participants" instead of "join/members" language. The fact that this has not proceeded at a lightning pace and changed every relevant page yet is immaterial. These things have been discussed before, at CfR and RM and so on, and we do not need to have a re-re-re-discussion of the matter on a page by page basis, because the problem remains the same (cf. WP:NOT#BUREAUCRACY and WP:EDITING policies; no one needs "permission" to make such conforming changes).
However, this particular project is doing something quite unusual and unanticipated, which is distinguishing between wikiproject participants and event participants. I think the solution to that is probably just spelling that out, in those words. (Or coming up with some other term for event participants – attendees, contributors, etc.). It would be best if "participant[s]" were reserved for the on-wiki sense, since when all projects are consistently using it, that will make for easier templating and bot behavior and so on. That is, the better of the two possible places for a wording divergence is in the odd case of the off-site events, not the standard case of on-site wikiproject participants. Anyway, there is no big hurry, especially if the WikiProject X code needs massaging to stop using "members" in the first place. That actually seems to be the primary vector by which "members" and "join" re-spread after years of shifting to "participants" and "participate" (or "sign up" or "add your username" or whatever). Given that it's a dead development project (i.e. something that did not get sufficient community consensus to survive), it's not dispositive of anything, just an aging problem to fix.
— SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼 05:51, 10 February 2021 (UTC)- Thanks for the update, SMcCandlish. Note, we're continuing the conversation on the Women in Red talkpage here. --Rosiestep (talk) 00:16, 11 February 2021 (UTC)
- Oh, to catch up on this stuff: The general matter is that wikiprojects are not private membership organizations, and virtually all problems that have arisen in relation to them have stemmed from people trying to make them operate that way. So, we've been moving (not very programmatically) to "participate/participants" instead of "join/members" language. The fact that this has not proceeded at a lightning pace and changed every relevant page yet is immaterial. These things have been discussed before, at CfR and RM and so on, and we do not need to have a re-re-re-discussion of the matter on a page by page basis, because the problem remains the same (cf. WP:NOT#BUREAUCRACY and WP:EDITING policies; no one needs "permission" to make such conforming changes).
- SMcCandlish, please let us hear from you; thanks. Ipigott, can this conversation be transcluded or some such onto the WiR talkpage for greater visibility by our members, participants, and pagestalkers; thanks? --Rosiestep (talk) 14:41, 9 February 2021 (UTC)
- In the light of the discussions we had with SMcCandlish earlier where I explained that for Women in Red there was a clear distinction between members and participants, I am surprised he simply went ahead and changed members to participants on the cards (Participant since...) and a few days later substituted "Participate" for "Join WikiProject" on the registration box. Unless we can restore the use of members, we're going to have to make a number of changes on our main page and on all other pages where we encourage people to join the project as well as in hundreds and hundreds of user boxes. And what about all those who "participate" regularly in the project without wishing to become members? Is it usual for background changes of this kind to be made without discussion with those concerned? It was my understanding that before such actions are undertaken, they should be clearly presented, discussed and ultimately voted for or against. Interestingly, the article on Wikipedia:WikiProject clearly refers to members (and has done so since 2012).--Ipigott (talk)
- Rosiestep, Ipigott: The change was done in the templates by SMcCandlish. There's further background about it here. We can probably add some parameter to these templates to use members instead of participants. --MarioGom (talk) 17:49, 8 February 2021 (UTC)
This Month in GLAM: January 2021
| ||||||
Hi can you please check
User:Vinod Aacharya created Aditya Gadhvi which was previously created by user:Sunilbutolia as per Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Aditya Gadhvi, the pattern of User:Vinod Aacharya is suspicious as a UPE as you can check his user page which is a copy paste of Barnstars and awards to create illusion, I would request you to have a look at this, Thanks Dtt1Talk 08:42, 11 February 2021 (UTC)