User talk:Billinghurst/Archives/2023

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

The Signpost: 1 January 2023

The Signpost: 16 January 2023

The Signpost: 4 February 2023

The Signpost: 20 February 2023

The Signpost: 9 March 2023

The Signpost: 20 March 2023

The Signpost: 03 April 2023

The Signpost: 26 April 2023

The Signpost: 8 May 2023

The Signpost: 22 May 2023

Happy Adminship Anniversary!

The Signpost: 5 June 2023

The Signpost: 19 June 2023

The Signpost: 3 July 2023

The Signpost: 17 July 2023

Precious anniversary

Precious
Five years!

--Gerda Arendt (talk) 06:56, 22 July 2023 (UTC)

The Signpost: 1 August 2023

The Signpost: 15 August 2023

Kittehs

Are we sure this is link spam and not a legit citation? I'm not Italian-fluent and don't really know much about the site.  — SMcCandlish ¢ 😼  08:25, 30 August 2023 (UTC)

@SMcCandlish: I am pretty sure that it is conflict of interest editing and we have no guarantee that a link to an Italian language site is relevant or pertinent (m:User:COIBot/XWiki/gattofili.net). I am more than happy to challenge that level of 1-to-1 editing to domain addition, esp. crosswiki. — billinghurst sDrewth 08:41, 30 August 2023 (UTC)
Fair enough. I like that tool; wasn't aware of it before.  — SMcCandlish ¢ 😼  08:47, 30 August 2023 (UTC)

The Signpost: 31 August 2023

The Signpost: 16 September 2023

Wallace Heard Goldsmith

Hi, I wanted to thank you for your Category:Wallace Heard Goldsmith. Have you thought about writing a Wikipedia article on him? Greg Henderson (talk) 22:17, 16 September 2023 (UTC)

@Greghenderson2006: Less into writing articles these days. Happy to do the research and transcriptions at enWS, as interest exists. You can see I did a few basics at s:en:Author talk:Wallace Heard Goldsmith. I was establishing the basics of their life for the birth and deth information. — billinghurst sDrewth 09:52, 17 September 2023 (UTC)
As a further note, you would be welcome over at enWS for transcriptions, our difference is that if it is credibly published it is suitable notable, so all the articles that you cited for Charles O. Beebe would all be able to be reproduced. Identifying obscure writers, and collating basic details and pushing that data to WD is of value IMNSHO. — billinghurst sDrewth 10:04, 17 September 2023 (UTC)
Thanks! I appreciate your response and info for WP:WD and WP:Wikisource. That is where I found you when doing research for Delos Goldsmith the father of Wallace Heard Goldsmith. It is amazing how Wikipedia can tie these facts together to understand how the Goldsmiths, for the most part stayed east, whereas Delos Goldsmith and his niece Abbie Jane Hunter-Goldmsith came to the west looking for new opportunities. However, I am having some problems with WP:N issues and the high mark some editors the notability of some of my articles. Your suggestion to move items to WD and Wikisource is good. Wikimedia Commons is another way to preserve a lot of informatioin and images about someone. I hope you are doing well and moved on to other areas that interest you. Greg Henderson (talk) 15:59, 17 September 2023 (UTC)

The Signpost: 3 October 2023

The Signpost: 23 October 2023

Restoring links to new scholarship that were erroneously taken down

Hello. A number of edits (often to the "Further reading" section) were just made to pages related to some major British poets of the Romantic era. The edits announced and linked to brand new original essays by major international scholars on those poets, which constitutes new and significant contributions to the important literary field and to these poets. We believe that these were very wrongly (and for unsupportably reasons) removed by--perhaps the moderator did not get what wa going on. We hope these can be restored as soon as possible. Thank you for your prompt attention. Gkblank (talk) 04:11, 2 November 2023 (UTC)

@Gkblank: Yes, indeed they were taken down. This is an wp:encyclopaedia not a WP:directory. Please read WP:External links to better understand the purpose of that section. I also think that you would do well to read WP:conflict of interest and how to manage it. It seems that you are here primarily to point to your work; and I should add that we especially do not need further links to EB1911 versions via your site, as the work which already exists within the WMF set of wikis. — billinghurst sDrewth 09:13, 2 November 2023 (UTC)
To repeat: these are brand new essays by leading international scholars, who are critically commenting on the respective entry in EB1911; so what is being pointed to with the links I made is to THEIR work, NOT to my work, as you say ("primarily to your work"--so that is wrong, if not not perhaps insulting). The point of the new site (did you look at it?) is to place the new commentary about these major poets beside the old commentary about these poets, and this is extremely valuable new knowledge. It if is the case that links to the respective essays by these scholars (NOT to my work) should not be in "External links," that is actually a useful comment.
There are NOT links to EB1911 versions via the site--the only links are to the "Then & Now" site itself!
Please advise: should I just remove those links that are in "External links" section and place them elsewhere on the respective Wikipedia pages on these poets? Gkblank (talk) 17:09, 2 November 2023 (UTC)
I read what you said, and I most certainly reviewed the linked pages before doing any link removals. Have you read the links to which you were pointed? Those written articles are simply not fitting the criteria of external links, as what was written by EB1911 is just one component for the basis of these articles, and the articles are written from the pantheon of available sources not directly EB1911. The only place that I can see relevance would be in a commentary about the EB1911 itself, though it would still have be in context that EB1911 is built on the 10th, 9th, 8th, 7th, ... editions and the articles in those may or may not have had any variation when published in the 11th ed.

You still have not directly addressed the component about an association with the site, in fact you avoided any such commentary.

If you are needing guidance on how to edit on enWP, then please use the Teahousebillinghurst sDrewth 10:28, 5 November 2023 (UTC)

The Signpost: 6 November 2023

Block needed

User:Hasnainbv seems to be continuing to add irrelevant cites ([1]). -- Ssilvers (talk) 08:11, 13 November 2023 (UTC)

@Ssilvers: Yep, saw that. Blocked and globally blacklisted m:special:diff/25862626 He cannot say he wasn't told, and we didn't create monitoring bots for no reason at all. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯ — billinghurst sDrewth 08:16, 13 November 2023 (UTC)
Thanks. I can't imagine why someone would come here so determined to make a mess. -- Ssilvers (talk) 08:27, 13 November 2023 (UTC)

The Signpost: 20 November 2023

The Signpost: 4 December 2023

LLaMA version

Thanks for your restoration. I believe unfortunately we have the wrong version of the page now. There has been an IP editor edit warring to blank a number of references on this page and we now have their preferred version again. This is the difference between the state of the page before the vandalism and now, in other words this revision of Nov 9 is the preferred one. Thank you. —DIYeditor (talk) 22:11, 7 December 2023 (UTC)

I went back to a version with the known references intact, and happy for the community work out whatever else needs to be done. That was the intent of my commentary. — billinghurst sDrewth 23:31, 8 December 2023 (UTC)
Your edit confirmed the vandal's version and removed links other than the 4channel link, which I still cannot restore. If you would, restore this version from before the vandalism. I am still waiting on a whitelist request here at en.wiki. —DIYeditor (talk) 14:13, 9 December 2023 (UTC)
I have recovered your specified version. — billinghurst sDrewth 23:14, 9 December 2023 (UTC)

The Signpost: 24 December 2023