User talk:Csldigicol
Please feel free to leave me any message you'd like.
Csldigicol, you are invited to the Teahouse!
[edit]
|
Hi Csldigicol! Thanks for contributing to Wikipedia. Be our guest at the Teahouse! The Teahouse is a friendly space where new editors can ask questions about contributing to Wikipedia and get help from peers and experienced editors. I hope to see you there! Dathus (I'm a Teahouse host) This message was delivered automatically by your robot friend, HostBot (talk) 17:31, 17 June 2015 (UTC) |
User:CsldigicolWorking_page_2015
[edit]Greetings, I've moved User:CsldigicolWorking_page_2015 to User:Csldigicol/Working_page_2015 since it's the right userspace (yours). The former would have corresponded to a nonexistent user. Cheers! Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 19:31, 18 June 2015 (UTC)
Problematic Link Additions
[edit]Hello, your link additions to pages like Anglo-Saxon weaponry are inappropriate for best practices in External linking, and WP:GLAM. Please follow the advise laid out at Wikipedia:The_Wikipedia_Library/Cultural_Professionals. Thank you, Sadads (talk) 14:54, 27 July 2015 (UTC)
- Just seen this Sadads. Actually, this long-running project involves pre-approval of links at the working page, and has been the subject of a case study, and presented at GLAM conferences. See Wikipedia:GLAM/TJWL, the project page. The Met Library policy of placing full PDFs for their out of print books online gives the world a so far unrivalled body of accessible knowledge on art. You did realize this is what was linked to I hope? More Wikipedian help assessing proposed links would be welcome, and if local editors don't like them they are of course free to remove them. Johnbod (talk) 11:32, 24 September 2015 (UTC)
- @Johnbod: I had realized that at the time, and we resolved it (I think) via User_talk:WilliamDigiCol#Latest_batch_of_edits_from_User:Csldigicol. It was more a matter of where the link/reference was living, and the lack of specificity of the relevance of those sources. It was a batch of edits with the same source, without a significant improvement of the article content, Sadads (talk) 12:24, 24 September 2015 (UTC)
- Ok, so long as you are aware. The project often does "a batch of edits with the same source", and always "without a significant improvement of the article content" other than by linking to an online book that could be used as a good reference. But those were early days for Csldigicol, & I see William adjusted them. Thanks, Johnbod (talk) 12:29, 24 September 2015 (UTC)
- I totally support that kind of strategy, its just the links need to be thinking about the sections (and I would recommend adding citations to other books at the same time they are adding the first). Just having a batch of "further reading" references at the bottom of an article, is a value added, and much less promotional than just adding links to your own digital books collection - when I talk to librarians, I usually suggest adding 2-3 other/external citations. Its a little bit more work, but a lot more value added for the next editor/reader of the article, Sadads (talk) 12:38, 24 September 2015 (UTC)
- They do one book at a time, understandably, & are not subject experts in the great range of subjects covered. The difference to other library links is that these are to fully online PDFs - especially on obscure topics, the content of a book that is actually online is much more useful to most editors than a mere link to a book that has more relevant content, but isn't online. Johnbod (talk) 12:59, 24 September 2015 (UTC)
- I totally support that kind of strategy, its just the links need to be thinking about the sections (and I would recommend adding citations to other books at the same time they are adding the first). Just having a batch of "further reading" references at the bottom of an article, is a value added, and much less promotional than just adding links to your own digital books collection - when I talk to librarians, I usually suggest adding 2-3 other/external citations. Its a little bit more work, but a lot more value added for the next editor/reader of the article, Sadads (talk) 12:38, 24 September 2015 (UTC)
- Ok, so long as you are aware. The project often does "a batch of edits with the same source", and always "without a significant improvement of the article content" other than by linking to an online book that could be used as a good reference. But those were early days for Csldigicol, & I see William adjusted them. Thanks, Johnbod (talk) 12:29, 24 September 2015 (UTC)
- @Johnbod: I had realized that at the time, and we resolved it (I think) via User_talk:WilliamDigiCol#Latest_batch_of_edits_from_User:Csldigicol. It was more a matter of where the link/reference was living, and the lack of specificity of the relevance of those sources. It was a batch of edits with the same source, without a significant improvement of the article content, Sadads (talk) 12:24, 24 September 2015 (UTC)
- Just seen this Sadads. Actually, this long-running project involves pre-approval of links at the working page, and has been the subject of a case study, and presented at GLAM conferences. See Wikipedia:GLAM/TJWL, the project page. The Met Library policy of placing full PDFs for their out of print books online gives the world a so far unrivalled body of accessible knowledge on art. You did realize this is what was linked to I hope? More Wikipedian help assessing proposed links would be welcome, and if local editors don't like them they are of course free to remove them. Johnbod (talk) 11:32, 24 September 2015 (UTC)
The Art of Chivalry
[edit]I see you're adding a lot of external links to the The Art of Chivalry website. Could you possibly add page numbers to these, or even better to link directly to the relevant pages? The site is poorly navigable and its hard to find relevant content within the two hundred pages there. Thanks Andy Dingley (talk) 15:06, 27 July 2015 (UTC)
- @Andy Dingley: Here is advise we have been sharing with cultural professionals doing this kind of work: WP:TWL/CP. Sadads (talk) 15:15, 27 July 2015 (UTC)
Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability 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, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 17:11, 24 November 2015 (UTC)
December 2015
[edit]
Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Jean-Auguste-Dominique Ingres may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 "[]"s. If you have, don't worry: just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.
- List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:
- *{{cite book | title=''French painting 1774-1830: the Age of Revolution ''] | location=New York; Detroit | publisher=The Metropolitan Museum of Art; The Detroit Institute of
It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 15:34, 14 December 2015 (UTC)
Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Visual art of the United States may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 "[]"s. If you have, don't worry: just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.
- List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:
- *{{cite book | title=''American paradise: the world of the Hudson River school''] | location=New York | publisher=The Metropolitan Museum of Art | year=1987 | isbn=9780870994968 |
It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 16:42, 14 December 2015 (UTC)
Looks like Spam
[edit]I consider the links you have lately added to your employer's product in a number of articles on fables by Aesop are inappropriate examples of WP:LINKSPAM. I see others on WP have complained about your inadequacies. In this case I am considering bringing your name to the notice of administrators with a recommendation that your account should be blocked. Mzilikazi1939 (talk) 20:11, 26 February 2016 (UTC)
I apologise, Chantal. I see that your links have been to an online book, although not the most user-friendly in form. It's fine for the Further Reading section of the Aesop's Fables article, although I have now indicated that it's an online version. However, because of the difficulty in navigating the book, I think you need to give a URL to the pages in question if you leave a reference in articles about individual fables, and also to put it in an appropriate section. A freshly created Further Reading section is not too useful; that's used too frequently by real spammers, which is why I mistook you for one at first. In the fable articles there is most often an External Links section where you might most usefully place yours for that book. Mzilikazi1939 (talk) 17:52, 27 February 2016 (UTC)
Hi Mzilikazi1939, sorry for the tardy response-- I missed this message somehow. Will certainly edit by putting in the specific page numbers for each of the fables, and transfer the link to External Links section. The online resource is downloadable as a PDF, which I can also indicate so as to make it easier to navigate the book. I won't be able to get to this until Friday however! Will do so in the early afternoon. Csldigicol (talk) 16:08, 9 March 2016 (UTC)
Hi Chantal, I need to cover some housekeeping points by email. Is Will B still the main contact, or you, or someone else? Can you send me the right person(s) by "email this user" (left of my user page)? Thanks Johnbod (talk) 15:26, 8 March 2016 (UTC)
ArbCom Elections 2016: Voting now open!
[edit]
Hello, Csldigicol. Voting in the 2016 Arbitration Committee elections is open from Monday, 00:00, 21 November through Sunday, 23:59, 4 December to all unblocked users who have registered an account before Wednesday, 00:00, 28 October 2016 and have made at least 150 mainspace edits before Sunday, 00:00, 1 November 2016.
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 2016 election, please review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 22:08, 21 November 2016 (UTC)