Jump to content

User talk:BrillLyle/Archives/ 10

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


Hello from Twitter

Hi BrillLyle!

Hello from Twitter, it's Caroline (the researcher from WMF). What is a good way to contact you? --CSinders (WMF) (talk) 20:56, 19 July 2017 (UTC)

Hi @CSinders (WMF): -- you can email me at WP.BrillLyle@gmail.com. I'm happy to talk on the phone too, if you have time. -- Best, Erika aka BrillLyle (talk) 00:58, 20 July 2017 (UTC)

15:58, 24 July 2017 (UTC)

Flo Steinberg

Hi, BrillLyle. I'd like to invite you to a discussion at Talk:Flo Steinberg#Is this Flo? since one or two of your edits ran afoul of WP:BLPPRIMARY. I've restored the status quo version, and per WP:BRD, ask you to join the discussion, which had been ongoing. Thanks. --Tenebrae (talk) 01:38, 25 July 2017 (UTC)

@Tenebrae: -- It's not like I haven't done BLPs before. I was not running afoul of BLP guidelines. I could have added citations but if you look at other entries they aren't nitpicking like this. I resent the fact that these edits, made in good faith, were reverted. I won't be editing the page -- well done for driving away an editor who was actually trying to improve the page. -- BrillLyle (talk) 02:37, 25 July 2017 (UTC)

21:45, 31 July 2017 (UTC)

Can you please explain why you created this redirect? Such redirects from projectspace to mainspace, where the article title has no relevance to the administration of the project, are normally deleted. – Train2104 (t • c) 23:25, 3 August 2017 (UTC)

Hi @Train2104: -- I added the redirect because the google search is pointing to this page. If the redirect is not there it makes it look like the En Wiki page does not exist. Do you have any ideas on how to fix this? I genuinely did not mean to do anything wrong but am confused about making sure the new En Wiki page for de Castro is discoverable via a Google search. Please let me know. Best, Erika aka BrillLyle (talk) 07:03, 6 August 2017 (UTC)
Google does not index new articles until they have been marked as reviewed by a new page patroller. Please do not create cross namespace redirects to bypass this as it can be seen as gaming the system. The redirect has been deleted, and I have patrolled the article, so it should start showing up correctly on Google soon. – Train2104 (t • c) 12:20, 6 August 2017 (UTC)
Thank you. I did not know any of this. I was not trying to game the system. Was just really confused and concerned the Google result was wrong. Thanks for the info. -- BrillLyle (talk) 13:20, 6 August 2017 (UTC)

The Signpost: 5 August 2017

This Month in GLAM: July 2017





Headlines

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

21:45, 7 August 2017 (UTC)

Collection Patricia Cisneros

Hi

I saw the Afd on the collection's publication list. Do you work at the collection, or known poeple there, or do contract work for them? Just curious.104.163.145.193 (talk) 20:38, 11 August 2017 (UTC)

Hi there. I met the wonderful folks at Colección Patricia Phelps de Cisneros at their first WIKIarte editathon at MoMA here in NYC they held in 2015 as part of my work in support of Wikimedia NYC. I then met them again at their follow-up event at MoMA in 2016. Like a few other local and non-local to NYC initiatives, I have helped them set up their name space at Wikipedia:GLAM/Colección Patricia Phelps de Cisneros as part of my work in support of Wikimedia NYC. I am not employed by or do not do contract work for them. Along with other initiatives there was an effort to provide post-editathon support on Wikipedia editing if they had questions and wanted to learn more. Along with another Wikidatan I have provided support to onboard them to Wikidata and see if it was possible to automate their task lists using Listeria. All of the assistance is being done on a collegial, supportive, volunteer-driven level. Curious, have we met? -- Best, Erika aka BrillLyle (talk) 20:59, 11 August 2017 (UTC)

23:29, 14 August 2017 (UTC)

A goat for you!

Thank you as usual!

Heathart (talk) 12:43, 21 August 2017 (UTC)

18:01, 21 August 2017 (UTC)

Books and Bytes - Issue 23

The Wikipedia Library

Books & Bytes
Issue 23, June-July 2017

  • Library card
  • User Group update
  • Global branches update
  • Spotlight: Combating misinformation, fake news, and censorship
  • Bytes in brief

Chinese, Arabic and Yoruba versions of Books & Bytes are now available in meta!

Read the full newsletter

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery on behalf of The Wikipedia Library team --MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 02:03, 23 August 2017 (UTC)

Stop it

  1. Open List of Colección Patricia Phelps de Cisneros publications in edit mode
  2. Press "show preview"

See the large red error message at the top of the page? I would hate to see you blocked because you don't know how to use "show preview". Frietjes (talk) 21:49, 25 August 2017 (UTC)

Edit warring

Stop icon

Your recent editing history at List of Colección Patricia Phelps de Cisneros publications shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you are reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. The best practice at this stage is to discuss, not edit-war. See BRD for how this is done. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection.

Being involved in an edit war can result in your being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you don't violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly. Frietjes (talk) 21:50, 25 August 2017 (UTC)

22:10, 28 August 2017 (UTC)

22:15, 4 September 2017 (UTC)

I'm not sure this is of interest to you, and I'm also not sure if my actions are all correct, so I'm looking for other eyes here. Doug Weller talk 13:20, 5 September 2017 (UTC)

  • Hi @Doug Weller: -- I'm not very comfortable on entries that aren't BLP but if I get a chance I'll take a look and see if I can add anything -- and can check out what you've done. I will also reach out to the Yazidi friend to get his thoughts. Thanks for thinking of me. -- Erika aka BrillLyle (talk) 13:28, 5 September 2017 (UTC)
Thanks. You may already have seen that I posted to his talk page. I'm not even sure that this is the right article for the new content but I don't know what is. Doug Weller talk 13:39, 5 September 2017 (UTC)
Weird, I don't see a post to his talk page, but we are probably talking about different people / editors here. My friend isn't very active on Wikipedia as he's working full time and going to school also full time, doesn't have a ton of bandwidth to edit unfortunately. We obviously need people who know this stuff to help us, right? :-) I'll let you know when he gets back to me. -- Best, Erika aka BrillLyle (talk) 13:42, 5 September 2017 (UTC)

The Signpost: 6 September 2017

A barnstar for you!

The Barnstar of Diligence
Thanks for cleaning up after T.J. Miller.and his brouhaha. Quis separabit? 11:20, 6 September 2017 (UTC)

Please use Show preview, and leave comprehensible Edit summary

Between September 2–3 you made several edits (approx. 50 edits) to Michael Rappaport in quick succession. Rather than making dozens of minute edits, please use the WP:REVIEW button:

Use preview during editing to check what the page will look like after saving and to check that you haven't made any errors. It also prevents the need for multiple saves. Saving the same article several times in quick succession makes it harder for people to check what changed, and clogs up the page history. When making major edits, consider copying the content into your clipboard. The Wikipedia servers sometimes have hiccups, and you could lose your work.

You have made similar edit patterns in several other articles. Even if your changes are helpful, they make it extremely difficult for other editors to compare edits or go through the page History with them being clogged with minor edits. DA1 (talk) 23:45, 6 September 2017 (UTC)

I am intrigued by your interpretation of the policies governing paid editing. I am a paid editor. Are you saying that if I was paid to edit a page but the person who paid me is not the subject of the article, I do not have to declare that I was paid? —አቤል ዳዊት?(Janweh64) (talk) 02:55, 7 September 2017 (UTC)

I don't actually know much about paid editing. I just know that in this instance, the editor flagged someone for paid editing who wasn't being paid.
That said, I think if you are making a significant contribution to Wikipedia on a consistent basis, it's incredibly problematic to provide that much free digital labor. It's actually unethical on some level.
Sorry I don't have much further to say.
Do you have problems with getting called out for being a paid editor? I am intrigued. -- Erika aka BrillLyle (talk) 03:06, 7 September 2017 (UTC)
Consistently! I try really hard to follow the rules. But as soon as I declare that I was paid which I am required to do, I am treated like a pariah.  —አቤል ዳዊት?(Janweh64) (talk) 03:23, 7 September 2017 (UTC)
I'm not surprised. Paid editing is a problem if not everyone contributing is being paid. Also, your edits will be heavily scrutinized and quite frankly if some asshat editor wants to throw WIKIRULEZ at you they can pretty much destroy ANY content creation. Plus doing a good job, especially on Biographies of Living People or organization pages, I get accused of being a sycophant and/or fangirl. Like god forbid the pages are good. I've also be accused of being too encyclopedic, which is also quite ridiculous. I get that they are trying to keep Wikipedia a solid reference, but oftentimes it is very disproportionate for women and people of color / diverse backgrounds. When there are tons and tons of pages on the Simpsons, Game of Thrones, etc. ad nauseum. It's an internet problem, but it is also a bad problem on Wikipedia.
Also, it's important to be able to learn. And to learn you need a safe space -- or kind editors to provide guidance. But more often than not there's just mansplaining / throwing around of WIKIRULEZ, etc. It makes me crazy. I help people edit at editathons and it's like night and day. But it is what it is I guess. Wikimedia Foundation (WMF) doesn't have the teeth or doesn't care enough to address these issues. So if you need help, the best advice I would give is to reach out to friendly editors like me. And or look at fellow editor edits and see what everyone else is doing, and then learn from that. Not sure this is helpful, but yeah... -- Erika aka BrillLyle (talk) 23:14, 8 September 2017 (UTC)
I would also reach out to other paid editors. There's a category I think. And ask them for advice. People are generally very nice. But to respond to your initial question, if you are being paid, stay on the safe side of the equation and disclose it. If you aren't up front about it people can tell and the negative blowback on the subject of the article can be very non-ideal. And you don't want to jeopardize your status on Wikipedia. You can get kicked off sometimes. -- Erika aka BrillLyle (talk) 23:21, 8 September 2017 (UTC)

19:16, 11 September 2017 (UTC)

This Month in GLAM: August 2017





Headlines

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

15:32, 18 September 2017 (UTC)

Advice

You are going to need to tone down responses that include language like "How dare you" and labeling other editors "glib and dismissive". This comes across as shrill and not appropriate for a collaborative environment. I'll just say this: it is attracting attention that is not in your favor. ☆ Bri (talk) 12:39, 24 September 2017 (UTC)

Hi there, I'm HasteurBot. I just wanted to let you know that Draft:James Dybas, a page you created, has not been edited in 5 months. The Articles for Creation space is not an indefinite storage location for content that is not appropriate for articlespace.

If your submission is not edited soon, it could be nominated for deletion. If you would like to attempt to save it, you will need to improve it.

You may request Userfication of the content if it meets requirements.

If the deletion has already occured, instructions on how you may be able to retrieve it are available at WP:REFUND/G13.

Thank you for your attention. HasteurBot (talk) 20:59, 24 September 2017 (UTC)

The Signpost: 25 September 2017

16:00, 25 September 2017 (UTC)

Edit war warning

Stop icon

Your recent editing history at Adam Conover shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you are reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. The best practice at this stage is to discuss, not edit-war. See BRD for how this is done. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection.

Being involved in an edit war can result in your being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you don't violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly. Jytdog (talk) 22:52, 1 October 2017 (UTC)

@Jytdog: Why are you deleting a citation that is from a legit news source. This is YOU doing an edit war. Not me. It is also constituting harassment of my edits. It's not okay. You need to stop. -- BrillLyle (talk) 22:55, 1 October 2017 (UTC)
Please use the article talk page; that is what its for. Jytdog (talk) 22:55, 1 October 2017 (UTC)

23:25, 2 October 2017 (UTC)

Concerns

I am very concerned that you are doing things like running Editathons and trying to be some kind of formal Twitterpedian-in-Residence when you misunderstand BLP so badly.

What you wrote here (And actually per BPL isn't the subject of the article allowed to choose what is in their entry?) and here (Just because this has to do with celebrities doesn't mean that the celebrity has less rights to control or say over what is in their article. This is their right under BLP,...) is deeply wrong -- and if it were correct, it would mean that Wikipedia pages about living people are not independent encyclopedia articles providing the public with NPOV well-sourced content, but are just public relations pieces controlled by their subjects.

I appreciate your effort to grow the movement but it is really a bad thing if you are propagating these wrong notions. Will you please listen to what other people are telling you about this at the various boards? I am also pinging User:SlimVirgin here -- she and I often clash so you don't have to worry that I am calling in my "buddy" or something; she has been around a long time and helped shape the BLP policy and perhaps she would be willing to help you understand what BLP is about. (You are not wrong that BLP is meant to be protective, but you are wrong that it gives article subjects control over articles about them) Jytdog (talk) 20:29, 24 September 2017 (UTC)

Hi Brill (responding to the ping), Jytdog is correct that we don't allow BLP subjects to control their articles. They may be extended significant influence over more personal issues in the article, and the more borderline-notable the BLP is, the more influence they may be given. But control, no. SarahSV (talk) 05:28, 25 September 2017 (UTC)
Thanks for acknowledging here that you read this, where you wrote I did not respond to the comment you and the other editor made (at your prompt) because it is clear that engaging with you feeds the behavior you are exhibiting, and you always have to have the final word.. I pinged SlimVirgin because we are not "buddies" by any means (we often clash) but I respect her understanding of BLP very much. I do encourage you to reach out to her. You persist in this error that article subjects get to control their articles, even adding the editing comment about that here and restoring it here. Please bring your understanding of BLP into line with the en-WP's community's view of it.
I understand that you don't want to hear from me, so I won't follow up here further. Jytdog (talk) 15:53, 2 October 2017 (UTC)
This constitutes slander.
I understand the BLP policy. You misunderstood anything I said. My edits are clear. I don't need you especially Jytdog to instruct me on this.
Please stop your pattern of harassment. You are OUT OF CONTROL and your behavior is unacceptable. -- BrillLyle (talk) 05:17, 8 October 2017 (UTC)

Edit war warning: T.J. Miller ‎

Stop icon

Your recent editing history at T.J. Miller shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you are reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. The best practice at this stage is to discuss, not edit-war. See BRD for how this is done. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection.

Being involved in an edit war can result in your being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you don't violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly. Jytdog (talk) 04:12, 8 October 2017 (UTC)

Adding unsourced content to a BLP article

Please stop adding unreferenced or poorly referenced biographical content, especially if controversial, to articles or any other Wikipedia page. Content of this nature could be regarded as defamatory and is in violation of Wikipedia policy. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing Wikipedia. Jytdog (talk) 04:12, 8 October 2017 (UTC)

Spam

Information icon Please do not add promotional material to Wikipedia. While objective prose about beliefs, organisations, people, products or services is acceptable, Wikipedia is not intended to be a vehicle for soapboxing, advertising or promotion. Thank you. Jytdog (talk) 04:13, 8 October 2017 (UTC)

  • You don't seem to understand what spam is: to call established magazines spam is just wrong. Not factual.
  • Request:
    • Stop posting notices on my Talk page like this. It is yet another form of harassment and bullying, tactics that you seem to derive pleasure from. It needs to stop. -- 05:03, 8 October 2017 (UTC)

Notice of Edit warring noticeboard discussion

Information icon Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion involving you at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring regarding a possible violation of Wikipedia's policy on edit warring. Thank you. Jytdog (talk) 05:10, 8 October 2017 (UTC)

Please go away Jytdog. You win. I lose. Enjoy it. Just stop posting on my Talk page. I want nothing to do with you and your problems. -- BrillLyle (talk) 06:04, 8 October 2017 (UTC)

IMDb external link on John Landgraf

I’m not sure why you consider it important that the John Landgraf article links to IMDb? IMDb is not a reliable source as it is user generated and it has no content that isn’t already in the article, what does it add to the article? Your addition of the John Landgraf at 21st Century Fox link was excellent by the way.Theroadislong (talk) 19:03, 8 October 2017 (UTC)


@Theroadislong: Hi there.
Thanks! I was sort of chuffed that it occurred to me he probably had a solid bio link in the investor relations or somewhere like that....
IMDb is moderated to some degree, and the database features of interconnctedness is something I don't think anyone in the industry -- or any end-user -- would dispute. It's not perfect but what online resource is? :-)
I think the issue is that to omit the IMDb template would be extremely odd given his elevated position within the community. Plus he has credits. I see the IMDb link as establishing the subject of the Wikipedia entry is part of the industry. It seems very incorrect to delete the link. Maybe I am not explaining this clearly. But I strongly advocate that the link should be there.
Also, the Variety link / executive profile, I think also has meaning, as well. It maybe needs to have context and more information pulled from it. But it's a legit thing.
Landgraf's entry is still not good enough in my opinion, and I come back to it often and gnash my teeth. I am a huge fan of his perspective on the industry. He is smart, has common sense, and is willing to discuss his concerns and his ideas publicly. All things rare.
Best, -- BrillLyle (talk) 19:19, 8 October 2017 (UTC)
Ok I won't edit war over it but I think you are placing rather too much importance on IMDb, which is considered to be generally rather poor quality as it is user generated, it contributes nothing in establishing his obvious notability. Cheers. Theroadislong (talk) 19:23, 8 October 2017 (UTC)
Agree it's not perfect and is sometimes poor quality but it _is_ industry standard. And I don't see other alternatives that are as updated and stuff. So... Thanks for the discussion. Appreciate it. -- BrillLyle (talk) 20:40, 8 October 2017 (UTC)

This Month in GLAM: September 2017





Headlines

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

14:21, 9 October 2017 (UTC)

Greetings!

You are a great editor. Please email me.

Best Regards, Barbara (WVS)   19:31, 9 October 2017 (UTC)

Assistance

I need some help on finding sources on the following individuals:

  • Charles Hamm
  • Fred Wright (cartoonist)
  • Fedelis Zitterbart (composer)
  • Charles McGovern (politician)

Also, though I wrote the biography on Martha Farkas Glaser, I can find nothing online.

Best Regards, Barbara (WVS)   12:02, 16 October 2017 (UTC)

15:31, 16 October 2017 (UTC)

Books and Bytes - Issue 24

The Wikipedia Library

Books & Bytes
Issue 24, August-September 2017

  • User Group update
  • Global branches update
    • Star Coordinator Award - last quarter's star coordinator: User:Csisc
  • Wikimania Birds of a Feather session roundup
  • Spotlight: Wiki Loves Archives
  • Bytes in brief

Arabic, Kiswahili and Yoruba versions of Books & Bytes are now available in meta!

Read the full newsletter

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery on behalf of The Wikipedia Library team --MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 04:53, 21 October 2017 (UTC)

The Signpost: 23 October 2017

18:18, 23 October 2017 (UTC)