User talk:BrillLyle

This Month in GLAM: October 2017

This Month in GLAM – Volume VII, Issue X, October 2017 Headlines Australia and New Zealand report: Adding Australian women in research to Wikipedia Brazil report: Integrating Wikimedia projects into the Brazilian National Archives GLAM Bulgaria report: Botevgrad became the first wikitown in Bulgaria France report: Wiki Loves Monuments; Opérations Libres Germany report: GLAMorous activities in October Italy report: Experts training on GLAM projects Serbia report: Wikipedian in residence at Historical Archives of Subotica; Model of a grain of wheat exlusivly digitized for Wikimedia Commons; Cooperation of the Ministry of Culture and Information and Wikimedia Serbia - GLAM presentations and workshops for museums, archives and libraries Spain report: Women Writers Day Sweden report: Swedish Performing Arts Agency; Connected Open Heritage; Internetmuseum; More Working life museums UK report: Scotland's Libraries & Hidden Gems Ukraine report: Wikitraining for Librarians; Library Donation USA report: trick or treat Wikidata report: WikidataCon & Birthday WMF GLAM report: News about Structured Commons! Calendar: November's GLAM events Read this edition in full • Single-page To assist with preparing the newsletter, please visit the newsroom. Past editions may be viewed here.

About This Month in GLAM · Subscribe/Unsubscribe · Global message delivery · Romaine 02:18, 9 November 2017 (UTC)

November 2017

Your recent editing history 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.
That is NOT his official link, it is the official link for Noma (restaurant), which is linked in the article. Please read WP:EL/WP:NOT Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 05:13, 13 November 2017 (UTC)

I see you persists in avoidance of WP:ELBURDEN, please see Wikipedia_talk:External_links#Official_website for a discussion on this type of linking. --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 08:21, 13 November 2017 (UTC)

If the goal here is to discourage me from working on improving both of these pages — two pages that need updating and cleanup desperately and which I had only started working on — then the remit you are following is successful. I will abandon this attempt to clean them up and update and improve the pages. I will unhappily stop editing here. So well done YOU for both being a deletionist and willfully harassing and obstructing a fellow editor. Congratulations. — BrillLyle (talk) 12:05, 13 November 2017 (UTC)

BrillLyle, you have greatly improved the articles, you have added a lot of information. But that does not mean that that all needs to stay. The moment you save, anything can, and will, be mercilessly edited. There is nothing 'obstructing' you, and nothing 'harassing' - if you think that it is pertinent, then please start a discussion to assess that consensus. For now, we do not seem to have that consensus. --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 13:45, 13 November 2017 (UTC)

Thank you for taking zero responsibility for your actions here. The fact is there’s no “we” here. It’s you as one editor jumping all over the edits I was making in very preliminary work to clean up and add to the page — which it was becoming obvious would need to happen to both pages as they are intermingled, another issue that will now not be addressed. But instead of allowing that process to happen, you instead fixated on being obstructive and unhelpful re: minor concerns, bullying me off the pages. If you don’t see this cause and effect as a direct result of your behavior well that’s feedback that I hope you might learn from. The fact is I do BLPs all the time, and know what I’m doing here. I’ve also got over 50,000 edits. So instead of treating me like a pillock and allowing me the space and time to shape the pages and add content, which by the way is a difficult thing to do — and doesn’t seem to be what you spend your time doing on Wikipedia — instead you have fixated on a pre-existing link and have indicated by deleting the added see also content that you were going to be like a 500 lb. gorilla on further edits I was in the process of making. Who knows if I would have removed those links myself as I worked to improve and reshape the page. Now we will never know because I am not going to edit under these conditions. No Wikipedia editor should have to edit under these conditions. It was obvious from the editing I was doing and the comments I was making in the edit summary that I was just beginning to update one (and most likely two pages). But now that’s not going to happen. Well done on “protecting” the encyclopedia. Your behavior here has a direct consequence, and is why people stop editing Wikipedia. If you don’t understand this again that’s your problem. I hope when you congratulate yourself for a job well done that there is at least a basic question in your mind that hey maybe this was not helpful. And that your behavior here may have constituted crawling up an editor’s ass who was in progress on a page / pages. But I suspect you don’t care and don’t think you’ve done anything wrong. The end result is two pages that are not developed properly — and who would try to do significant editing now following this? I’m moving on now. Please get some help and learn from this maybe. BrillLyle (talk) 15:21, 13 November 2017 (UTC)

Editing frustration

Hi! If you need help, please reach out to me, or any of the editors on Wikipedia: WikiProject Women in Red on our talkpage. We have a good community and may be able to help or support your work. Megalibrarygirl (talk) 15:01, 13 November 2017 (UTC)

Hi there. Thanks for your kind offer and support. If this subject was a woman or person from an underserved community I might fight harder but he’s a famous chef whose fans should have addressed the cleanup of the pages — and hopefully at some point might still do that. But I am having PTSD from this now so might need to take a wiki break. Directly as a result Of this experience. Again thanks for your kindness. It means a lot and I appreciate it. BrillLyle (talk) 15:28, 13 November 2017 (UTC)

Tech News: 2017-46

Latest tech news from the Wikimedia technical community. Please tell other users about these changes. Not all changes will affect you. Translations are available.

Changes later this week

• The diff you see when you compare two different versions of a page has changed on MediaWiki.org and the test wiki. This is to make it easier to find a text change in a moved paragraph. It will hopefully soon come to more wikis. You can report bugs in Phabricator. [1]
• A new user group on Commons will be able to upload MP3 files. The plan is to have this user group from 17 November. [2]
• Wikis using Flagged Revisions will get the New filters for Edit Review by default on the recent changes pages. It will be possible to opt-out in user preferences. [3]
• The new version of MediaWiki will be on test wikis and MediaWiki.org from 14 November. It will be on non-Wikipedia wikis and some Wikipedias from 15 November. It will be on all wikis from 16 November (calendar).

Meetings

• You can join the technical advice meeting on IRC. During the meeting, volunteer developers can ask for advice. The meeting will be on 15 November at 16:00 (UTC). See how to join.

Future changes

• Support for uploading and viewing 3D models is coming soon to Wikimedia Commons. The feature will support the .STL file format. You can see an example on the test wiki. [4]

Tech news prepared by Tech News writers and posted by bot • Contribute • Translate • Get help • Give feedback • Subscribe or unsubscribe.

19:19, 13 November 2017 (UTC)

Kay Brown (Artist) Wikidata item

Hi Erika/BrillLyle, I apologize for deleting the catalog tag from the Kay Brown (Artist) Wikidata item (and thanks for assuming I probably did it in good faith). Since I had just written the article about her, I wanted to see if she had a Wikidata item and if it had anything I could add or fix. Because there was the "potential issues" symbol next to "catalog", I tried to figure out what had happened to trigger that. It seemed to me that this was possibly a garbled reference to an exhibition catalog which I couldn't find a record of, and since it didn't make sense to me I deleted it. After your explanation, I understand that you've been using it as a collocating tag for your Black Lunch Table project so it's definitely valid. I wonder if there's a way to fix the "catalog" tag so it's not getting that "potential issues" warning since well meaning folks might, like me, think it was an error. Anyway, thanks for the explanation, and I applaud the work that you, the Black Lunch Table group, and the Brooklyn Museum are doing! Best wishes, Diane Uncommon fritillary (talk) 15:03, 20 November 2017 (UTC)

Tech News: 2017-47

Latest tech news from the Wikimedia technical community. Please tell other users about these changes. Not all changes will affect you. Translations are available.

Recent changes

• If you use the Chrome web browser on Android you can see a download icon on the mobile website. You can download a formatted PDF. It will work in other mobile browsers in the future. [5]
• The abuse filter now has a function called get_matches. You can use it to store matches from regular expressions – one of each capturing group. You can read more in Phabricator.

Problems

• Last week's MediaWiki version didn't come to all Wikipedias because of a database crash. It will be on all wikis on 20 November. [6][7][8]

Changes later this week

• There is no new MediaWiki version this week.

Meetings

• You can join the next meeting with the Editing team. During the meeting, you can tell developers which bugs you think are the most important. The meeting will be on 21 November at 19:30 (UTC). See how to join.
• You can join the technical advice meeting on IRC. During the meeting, volunteer developers can ask for advice. The meeting will be on 22 November at 16:00 (UTC). See how to join.

Future changes

• Language converter syntax will no longer work inside external links. Wikitext like http://-{zh-cn:foo.com; zh-hk:bar.com; zh-tw:baz.com}- must be replaced. You will have to write -{zh-cn: http://foo.com ; zh-hk: http://bar.com ; zh-tw:http://baz.com }- instead. This only affects languages with Language Converter enabled. Examples of such languages are Chinese and Serbian. This will happen next week. [9][10]

Tech news prepared by Tech News writers and posted by bot • Contribute • Translate • Get help • Give feedback • Subscribe or unsubscribe.

19:19, 20 November 2017 (UTC)

The Signpost: 24 November 2017

• News and notes: Cons, cons, cons

• Arbitration report: Administrator desysoped; How to deal with crosswiki issues; Mister Wiki case likely

• Technology report: Searching and surveying

• Interview: A featured article centurion

• WikiProject report: Recommendations for WikiProjects

• In the media: Open knowledge platform as a media institution

• Traffic report: Strange and inappropriate

• Featured content: We will remember them

• Recent research: Who wrote this? New dataset on the provenance of Wikipedia text

• Humour: Good faith (but still incomprehensible)

* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 02:39, 24 November 2017 (UTC)

Nomination of List of Women of Rock Oral History Project interviews for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article List of Women of Rock Oral History Project interviews is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Women of Rock Oral History Project interviews until a consensus is reached, and anyone 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. Bearcat (talk) 00:15, 26 November 2017 (UTC)

Tech News: 2017-48

Latest tech news from the Wikimedia technical community. Please tell other users about these changes. Not all changes will affect you. Translations are available.

Recent changes

• You can now test the new advanced search function beta feature on mediawiki.org. It makes it easier to use some of the special search functions that most editors don't know exist. It will come to German and Arabic Wikipedia this week. It will come to more wikis later. [11]
• You can now upload large files with the Internet Archive upload tool. Previously you could not upload files larger than 100 MB. [12]
• You can now use the Timeless skin on all wikis. You can choose skins in Special:Preferences#Appearance. [13]

Changes later this week

• The new version of MediaWiki will be on test wikis and MediaWiki.org from 28 November. It will be on non-Wikipedia wikis and some Wikipedias from 29 November. It will be on all wikis from 30 November (calendar).

Meetings

• You can join the next meeting with the Editing team. During the meeting, you can tell developers which bugs you think are the most important. The meeting will be on 28 November at 19:30 (UTC). See how to join.
• You can join the technical advice meeting on IRC. During the meeting, volunteer developers can ask for advice. The meeting will be on 29 November at 16:00 (UTC). See how to join.

Tech news prepared by Tech News writers and posted by bot • Contribute • Translate • Get help • Give feedback • Subscribe or unsubscribe.

20:30, 27 November 2017 (UTC)

Olive branch

I would gladly change my vote on Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Women of Rock Oral History Project interviews to 'keep' if the list were removed and replaced by a link to http://www.womenofrock.org/videos/ — the topic of interviews has received some coverage so it may be notable independent from the Women of Rock Oral History Project. That would bring the article into compliance with Wikipedia policies and guidelines. The list itself is the problem, not the introductory prose. It would have to be renamed also, probably just removing the "List of" from the title. ~Anachronist (talk) 18:05, 29 November 2017 (UTC)

Really? Is this so-called "olive branch" anything more than a patronizing approach to stifle addressing the gender gap and a misunderstanding of the potential outreach possible for a GLAM project?!? I think this is all just hugely problematic and unhelpful. The agenda here is to establish notability and add content to the projects. I am not hurting Wikipedia here, but by your actions you are. It's baffling and more than a little sad. Wikipedia needs to innovate. If something as conservative and actually constructive is so problematic, that's on you all. -- BrillLyle (talk) 20:07, 29 November 2017 (UTC)

I'm offering constructive ways to keep the article. Having a big directory listing of external links isn't acceptable. If you want to change that policy, the place to do it is over at Wikipedia talk:What Wikipedia is not, not in a deletion discussion. I'm interested to know why you would object to keeping the article with the list residing on the Rock Oral History Project's external page. ~Anachronist (talk) 22:29, 29 November 2017 (UTC)

Ugh. You keep describing this information as a directory of external links. That's inaccurate. They are citations, just like a publication list, or a discography. All acceptable on Wikipedia. But you don't seem to be able to hear this information, or see the innovation that is possible here, of value to editors. So I give up. Delete away. That seems to be the goal here, not actually facilitating adding content. -- BrillLyle (talk) 06:35, 30 November 2017 (UTC)

Wilkie Bard

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Please don't do that again. Per WP:BRD the bold edit in 2009 is currently being discussed. Have the common decency to take part. If you have nothing to say and still want to revert, think twice about it, go out for a walk, and come back in a better frame of mind with a view to improving one of the 5 million other articles we have in need of work. Regards. Cassianto^Talk 16:25, 2 December 2017 (UTC)

@Cassianto: You are committing 3Rs all over the place with these edits. It's destructive editing. I know it's your "thing" to be anti-infobox -- and bizarrely you have an Admin's support. Apparently you do this with impunity. It is not okay.

Also: Don't tell me what to do. Please note I've got over 55,000 edits, so I don't need advice on editing. Unlike you I add content, don't carry out petty tyrannies to deleted content. Don't accuse me of not having common decency. I could tell you what kind of walk off of what kind of pier you can take, but then again, I'm not here to personalize things -- you are. But yes, you've made me mad. -- BrillLyle (talk) 16:48, 2 December 2017 (UTC)

I don't give a shiny shite how many edits you've got, you are trolling by the mere fact you are ignoring an active discussion about the merits for and against an infobox by mindlessly reverting and sticking your fingers up at the advice, laid on by John, to discuss first. You seem to know me well, so you'll know that I've mentioned hundreds of times that I' m not "anti infobox" at all, see: here, here, and the one here which I helped format on an article I started. Not to mention this discussion during which I stated I was all for an infobox but not a premature one. Is there anything else you'd like me to clarify before you embarrass yourself further? Cassianto^Talk 17:21, 2 December 2017 (UTC)

@Cassianto: This made me laugh. Embarrass myself? Ha ha ha ha. Thanks. I needed a good chuckle today. -- BrillLyle (talk) 17:23, 2 December 2017 (UTC)

Clearly. Cassianto^Talk 17:39, 2 December 2017 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Unwisely sticking my head in here

BrillLyle: not everyone agrees with you about infoboxes. Not everyone even likes the fact they "generate metadata", or that one of the uses of that is for Google to discourage potential readers from looking at the nuanced and well referenced articles we have created.

Where everyone would, I hope, agree with you is that it's horrible to be vilified concerning one's efforts to help in a volunteer project. I've been reading your complaints over on Wikipediocracy, and you had my sympathy. And I can't read what you wrote about Cassianto; it's been revdeleted. But I put it to you that you are vilifying Cassianto much as those people vilified you. Please have the wisdom to walk away, realizing you have seen another aspect of the variety of committed editors Wikipedia attracts, and needs to attract. Because Cassianto is a committed editor, and does good work. Yngvadottir (talk) 21:39, 2 December 2017 (UTC)

@Yngvadottir: So let me get this straight, Cassianto can personally attack me, tell me to F off, call me an idiot. He can control what is on his Talk page but I am not allowed to do the same. Every interaction is hostile and angry and objectionable. So it ceases even becoming about the actual editing.

I don't understand this whole "committed editor" thing. Cassianto gets a pass for his behavior because he is a committed editor while he is actively out of control in his interactions? What makes his contributions so valuable? And what makes his rights more valued than my rights.

I have done nothing wrong here, and tried to reach out to him and offer kindness and the willingness to connect. He is not interested and saw that as a personal attack. A personal attack I did make.

I don't understand your supporting him, you not supporting me, and frankly what seems to be a community-wide support of bad behavior.

This whole thing is disheartening in the extremis. All of you allowing this behavior and supporting his misbehavior -- and encouraging doxxing, which was just done to me on his talk page -- it's not okay. -- Erika aka BrillLyle (talk) 22:00, 2 December 2017 (UTC)

As I say, I can't see what you wrote; it's been revdeleted and I am not an admin. I also freely admit I am not a lawyer, but I didn't see doxxing in the (now removed) section on their talk page; I did see quotations of your public posts on what I refer to as "the unnameable site". A lot of Wikipedia editors do read there, and as I say, you had my sympathy. I also saw some links to edits you've made here, which I didn't click on. None of my business really. But the parallels between how you have said you were treated and how you are treating this fellow editor are disturbing to me, so I spoke up. There was no implication that you—and those you have tried to help—are not also a committed editor. For the rest, I said it, really. Yngvadottir (talk) 22:11, 2 December 2017 (UTC)

@Yngvadottir: I expressed concern about Cassianto's behavior, and said that I hoped he was okay in real life, and offered to talk off Wiki if he wanted. I said this genuinely, no agenda, just sort of worried about my fellow human. But he saw/sees that as a personal attack. I am very confused how remarks expressing concern and coming from a kind place become a personal attack. It's confusing to me that others would project that on my discussion with Cassianto as well. It wasn't an attack. It was a moment when I was trying to have a discussion with Cassianto to try and be collegial and supportive. That's all it was. This will maybe get deleted because I obviously have no right to control my Talk page -- although Cassianto does, even blocked. Another thing I am discovering and find head scratching here.

The doxxing was real. If you didn't see it then I don't know what to say about that. But I feel very vulnerable now. It freaked me out. So...

I have never cursed at someone and told them they were an idiot. I have never treated anyone like this on Wikipedia. I have disagreed and lost my temper, yes, but I also don't have a history of block logs, or a Talk page where I delete things that might make me look bad. Cassianto has both. I just don't get it. And I don't understand why you or any other editor who cares about the community of editors on Wikipedia would support this type of behavior, a long-standing recurring pattern of behavior on Cassianto's part.

Not sure if this response will be allowed to be up on my Talk page. Again, learning I have no control here. Trying to understand what is happening. And also very depressed about this whole interaction. And worried that I might not continue editing in the face of this. It is impacting me too, so I hope you can understand that too. That while Cassianto is supported, I do not feel the same support. And people wonder why editors stop editing En Wiki. This is a perfect example. -- Erika aka BrillLyle (talk) 22:23, 2 December 2017 (UTC)

• Right, this is the last I'm going to say on the matter, and after this I want you to delete this thread, as I have done on my talk page: My private life is private. That means I take any reference to it, on WP or anywhere, whether it be in jest, concern, or as in this case, speculation, to be a very serious breach. Although your behaviour tonight has fallen short of doxxing, to me, it’s just as bad. All this because I deleted an infobox! I guard my private life very closely. That should be respected. That has not been respected by you tonight. Now, what you want to hear: I’m sorry for upsetting you tonight, telling you to eff off, calling out your “idiotic” behaviour, yadda yadda yadda... but I hope you can understand that this was not without it’s reason. Now, you go your way, I’ll go mine. Yngvadottir, thanks for helping to mediate here tonight, you’re a star. Cassianto^Talk 23:33, 2 December 2017 (UTC)