This is an archive of past discussions with User:SarahStierch. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.
Sarah, do I understand from the edits you have made that you are not willing to answer questions raised about whether and, if so, provide an explanation of circumstances in which you were paid to make edits to Wikipedia? Regardless of the circumstances in which this came to light, it is important that administrators are accountable and respond promptly to such issues. Unfortunately, if you aren't willing to respond, I will be taking this matter further. WJBscribe(talk)11:42, 8 January 2014 (UTC)
I understand the importance of admins responding to credible accusations, but I haven't seen any credible accusations so far. For example, on Jimbo's talk page, an apparently banned user has cited an indefinitely blocked user, quoting an associated retired user's personal blog saying that he thinks Sarah has done paid editing. And these folks seem to be pro-Paid editing trying to make a point by accusing others of paid editing. If that's all there is, then I think Sarah is justified in not feeding the trolls.
On the other hand, if you were to make your own accusation, putting your own credibility on the line in a recognized forum, then she would have something to respond to. But forcing somebody to answer trolls doesn't seem to be the way forward. Smallbones(smalltalk)14:11, 8 January 2014 (UTC)
Comment - The reason why this is getting a bit of credence at Jimbo's talk page is not the blog post, but this screenshot, which could (in theory) be doctored but has not been thought as such at Jimbo's talk page. Steven Wailing brought up the idea here though. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 14:21, 8 January 2014 (UTC)
Bingo, Eric. Smallbones has a months-long pattern of accepting and acknowledging paid editing reports from users he believes to be "banned" by the Wikipedia community, if and only if the alleged paid editor is not affiliated in any way with the Wikimedia Foundation, its chapters, its vendors, Jimmy Wales, or his sponsors. If the allegation is linked to anything or anyone in the Wikimediasphere, only then does Smallbones get all twisted up in agony, despairing that the report has come from a "banned" "troll". For evidence of this, just review Smallbones' commentary on User talk:Jimbo Wales, from about October 2013 onward. - 2001:558:1400:10:A88E:BE0C:116C:D108 (talk) 15:07, 8 January 2014 (UTC)
I am not interested in commentary on any blog but I do want a response regarding the screenshot. I did not take the screenshot so cannot say whether or not it is genuine. I linked to the screenshot in my post above and I am asking Sarah to provide an explanation. If it's a fake, Sarah has only to say that and - absent further evidence turning up to the contrary - that would be the end of the matter. WJBscribe(talk)14:37, 8 January 2014 (UTC)
WJB, please point me to your policy justification for repeatedly demanding that Sarah respond to the "evidence" contained in the screenshot? Administrators should be held accountable for violations of site policy, but neither in the terms of use nor in the COI policy is paid editing explicitly prohibited. Nathan T 15:32, 8 January 2014 (UTC)
WP:PAY: "If you intend to participate in this kind of paid editing, transparency and neutrality are key". (my emphasis) That's for any editor, never mind an admin heavily involved in Wikipedia:Articles for creation. If Sarah has been engaging in paid editing, it has been quite the opposite of transparent. I'm a little concerned about the number of people jumping in to say that Sarah need not even answer my questions (which she has so far ignored). If I need to quote yet more policy, WP:ADMINACCT applies. If Sarah has not engaged in paid editing, that will take her very little time to confirm this. If she has, then I believe the onus is on her to explain the circumstances. As to "repeatedly demanding" - I have asked once and been ignored, so I asked again. I have no intention of asking a third time. WJBscribe(talk)16:20, 8 January 2014 (UTC)
Perhaps people are reacting to the "gotcha" reveal and ulterior and unsavory motives of Sarah's accusers, chiefly banned editor Russavia. I'm sure at some point Sarah will respond, I imagine that she is taking some time in order to react calmly and with a fully considered answer -- and perhaps to discuss the issue with her superiors at the WMF. Badgering her when the desire for her to account for the image is well known is piling on and not particularly helpful, particularly when your demand (and threat to "take things further") implies that Sarah has done something wrong. Even if the accusations are accurate, Sarah has not violated the COI policy (the "transparency is key" is, at best, a vague suggestion), and the admin policy does not require her to respond immediately --- especially when use of the administrator role or tools are not at issue. Nathan T 16:42, 8 January 2014 (UTC)
Administrator policy also says "Administrators are expected to lead by example". The WP:COI guideline says "Paid editors who insert material that is promotional in tone into an article may be presumed to be violating our policy on neutrality." One would need to know which of Sarah's edits were paid, in order to determine if they were promotional in tone. Regardless, article content like this would be considered by many Wikipedians to be "promotional in tone". If Stierch is a paid editor, she has probably not met the expectation to "lead by example", so (at the very least) retention of her admin tools would be in question. I think we all need to remember, too, that Sarah's supervisors at the Wikimedia Foundation may have expressly asked her to not comment on the allegations, which if that is the case, then everyone (including WJBscribe) should cut her some slack if the silence continues indefinitely. (Perhaps she could answer the question of whether or not anyone at the Wikimedia Foundation has asked her not to comment; however, that may also fall under the muzzle rule.) Regardless, this is certainly a difficult position to be in for Sarah, and I hope that we can all be humane as the repercussions (if any) fall out. The root of the problem, in my opinion, is Jimmy Wales' enduring and hypocritical approach toward paid editing. It's a problem if he's not a friend of yours; it's not such a big deal if he is your buddy. - 2001:558:1400:10:A88E:BE0C:116C:D108 (talk) 16:35, 8 January 2014 (UTC)
That's the rub at this point, isn't it? You say we'd need to know which edits she was paid to make to determine whether the tone is promotional, but... for any definition of the word tone, it's obviously untrue that knowing the intent of the writer is necessary to perceive it. No one has turned up any actual problematic content that Sarah has written, so whether she was paid or not ought to be academic if the participants in the discussion held Wikimedia content as their primary concern. But evidently, and not surprisingly, the particulars of bureaucratic adherence win out over the actual mission here. Nathan T 16:48, 8 January 2014 (UTC)
Let me show you how content can fail NPOV, even when it appears to be "reliably sourced", since I imagine that will be the next argument here. Stierch wrote about Barry Posner, "His work has been featured in The Washington Post."<ref name=Frontiera>{{cite web|last=Frontiera|first=Joe|title=The leadership challenge, 25 years later|url=http://articles.washingtonpost.com/2012-08-08/national/35493644_1_edition-context-effective-leaders|work=Social Media|publisher=The Washington Post|accessdate=4 November 2013}}</ref> On the face of it, that seems like a neutral, fair assessment. However, what Stierch fails to do is note that the Washington Post "story" was authored by Joe Frontiera. Guess who wrote the Foreword to Frontiera's own book about leadership? Guess which publishing company sells both Frontiera's book and Posner's books? Is a softball interview of Posner by Frontiera that happened to get published by the Washington Post really being "featured in" the Washington Post? Sounds more like it was a successful media marketing ploy executed by Frontiera and Posner at the expense of Washington Post (a company which, ironically, is a competitor of John Wiley and Sons, the book publisher). If this was a paid editing article, then it becomes more clear the reader's need to know who paid for the article, to judge if NPOV has been violated. If it wasn't a paid editing article, then it merely casts a shadow on the competency of the writer to discern neutral sources adequately. - 2001:558:1400:10:A88E:BE0C:116C:D108 (talk) 17:19, 8 January 2014 (UTC)
It doesn't say much for the WashPo that they failed to disclose the relationship between Frontiera and Posner. Yet countless citations rely on the credibility and editorial effectiveness of major newspapers like it, fairly or not. That's a pretty good subject for debate, but I don't think it implicates Sarah in any way - she may not have dug deep into the relationship between the two, but doing so is not a requirement of using a reference (or, as in this case, making a fairly offhand reference to media coverage). I probably would not have written in the WashPo mention in that way, but I think its a stretch to describe the article as "promotional in tone", especially without any evidence that substantial and available material was excluded. This is what I mean by turning up problematic content - not making vague accusations that something may be problematic, but actually demonstrating that any of her work is false, misleading, suspiciously incomplete or manipulated so as to be inaccurate.Nathan T 18:08, 8 January 2014 (UTC)
Nathan, you do realize, I hope, that terribly POV content can be entirely true and accurate, right? Why don't we create a poll that asks Wikipedia admins whether the article as it was written was "promotional in tone", without revealing who the editor was? - 2001:558:1400:10:A88E:BE0C:116C:D108 (talk) 18:29, 8 January 2014 (UTC)
File:50p an edit.jpga sign selling paid edits for 50p it has come to my attention that there is a "sign" that people were paying to dig up dirt on Stierch. it's on commons: it must be true: of course, on commons, one can trace the provenance of images, unlike screenshots on some joe's blog. I love the cynicism: lift your lamp for an honest man. I need to know who are these drama queens who are running down this website? here is a challenge: have you written one good article; have you run one editathon; have you made one presentation to a GLAM institution? if not then your credibility is Less Than Zero (novel). Duckduckstop (talk) 18:20, 8 January 2014 (UTC)
Image deleted. I think Sarah should respond regarding the paid editing issue, but clearly she should not be subjected to that kind of trolling. WJBscribe(talk)18:27, 8 January 2014 (UTC)
Well done, deleting the image. Strange that it came from a long-time Commons user named "Duckduckgo", and the User wailing above is "Duckduckstop". Do we have a "joe job" right here on Sarah's user page? Edit: never mind, it's the same person, behaving poorly on Commons, and now here. - 2001:558:1400:10:A88E:BE0C:116C:D108 (talk) 18:33, 8 January 2014 (UTC)
speculation gone amuck, merely a naming policy on one wiki and no others. I especially like the preemptory use of tools to control discussion, no sense of humor, admin? Duckduckgo (talk) 18:42, 8 January 2014 (UTC)
To be honest, I hadn't realised it was you who uploaded the image to commons so you could post it here. I just didn't think (although there are IMO legitimate questions to be answered) that Sarah deserved that sort of image floating around stirring the pot. I see you've asked for a deletion review - I trust the Commons community to decide what's best. WJBscribe(talk)18:46, 8 January 2014 (UTC)
I've written 43 featured articles, does that count? And like WJBscribe I think that Sarah has some serious questions to answer. No doubt we will each draw our own conclusions from her failure to respond. EricCorbett18:32, 8 January 2014 (UTC)
WJB - I think it's funny; I think stierch thinks it's funny; we've established you have no sense of humor. the point being that the image has exactly the same standing as a screen shot. how much credence is given to people trying to upload images from some blog? they have to jump through hoops with licenses. and yet now you expect stierch to "explain" such an image with no such provenance or license. you speedy delete trolling, and yet expect her to answer to another troll.
EC - the desperation seems to me the other way, i.e. can't catch stierch with diffs, so let's go off wiki. "questions to answer" - really? I see a general, "we're talking about you, why don't you weigh in, so we can pick you apart". here's the problem with wiki inquiry: it never ends; death by a thousand cuts; who's the scapegoat today? without evidence other than a screen shot, what can anyone say? are you now going to police blogs and yard signs? if I take a picture of a sign offering to edit for money, will you then "denounce" me? if I get a free lunch from the Smithsonian, will you take it up at COIN? as you know, real writers around here are scarce, so why engage in this trolling theater? as you know the numbers of writers like you are declining; is this "questioning" process increasing quality editors or decreasing them? Duckduckstop (talk) 19:38, 8 January 2014 (UTC)
What's your motivation in putting up this smoke screen? Sarah has been asked a very simple question and has declined to answer it. As I said, we will each draw our own conclusions from that fact. EricCorbett19:47, 8 January 2014 (UTC)
Eric Corbett—I think User:SarahStierch should totally ignore your demands. I would advise her not to entertain your persistence. Bus stop (talk) 20:50, 8 January 2014 (UTC)
I'll spare your blushes by not telling you what I think. Sarah's refusal to answer a very simple question renders further discussion here unnecessary in any case, the facts speak for themselves. EricCorbett21:14, 8 January 2014 (UTC)
what smoke? when the process and culture is widely perceived to be unfair (Iron Law of Oligarchy), reasonable people may well opt out. vague fulminations will not "motivate" others. what next, blocks for not interacting with you? maybe we need a RfC for answering trolls questions; the dramaz is neverending. Duckduckstop (talk) 21:22, 8 January 2014 (UTC)
Hey, let's monetize that traffic with a couple graphics! Too soon? But seriously, folks, the problem here isn't paid editing, per se, or paid editing by a WMF employee at the same time they are getting all worked up over the issue, but rather the entire culture of paid editing. We know it needs to be declared. We know it needs to be supervised. Yet until the game of whack-a-mole ends and the situation is regularized, declarations of paid COI editing and supervision of paid COI editing remain theoretical rather than practical. SS's error was not in taking the work, which is permitted under WP rules, but in not declaring the COI on talk pages. Thats what needs to change — a situation in which there is no retaliation for making these declarations, but no excuses for not having made them. Carrite (talk) 02:59, 9 January 2014 (UTC)
Thanks. Looking at that list, I wonder how the 1000 editors listed there compare with a list of top 1000 editors by edit count? Cla68 (talk) 22:58, 9 January 2014 (UTC)
That's four hours of writing (though probably another two or three of research). I wouldn't call that a "considerable" amount of time, considering how much time it normally takes to write a decent book article (I spent most of one day on Drama dari Krakatau, for instance). — Crisco 1492 (talk) 23:36, 8 January 2014 (UTC)
In case Kaldari's point is not clear, I believe he is saying Sarah could easily be interested in Sun King Brewing simply because she already knew of the business from personal experience. A sometime customer of the business or a mere passer-by does not have a conflict of interest. Binksternet (talk) 03:08, 10 January 2014 (UTC)
Note my use of the word "may," which should cover your concerns. I did consider that. I also can recognize zebras at a glance. Carrite (talk) 03:05, 11 January 2014 (UTC)
Ditto for Blackbird Vineyards, which was a Dec. 2012 start. More disturbing to me than the lack of a COI declaration (if so needed, as it would appear it may well be) is the fact that this was pumped through Did You Know? on the mainpage. Carrite (talk) 04:17, 9 January 2014 (UTC)
Is this really necessary? Playing at guessing what articles might possibly have had a COI, and making a list of "potential misdemeanours" on her talk page? Why don't we wait until she returns, and just ask. - Bilby (talk) 05:27, 9 January 2014 (UTC)
@Bilby. Yeah, it is really necessary at this point. I think that anyone digging into her edit history will find what I found: not very many paid editing jobs undertaken, none of them properly declared (as is highly recommended). A very big deal made about not such a big deal in reality — but some retroactive COI declarations needed ASAP. And flagging all for appropriate scrutiny on the POV question is a very good thing. Carrite (talk) 23:38, 9 January 2014 (UTC) Last edit: Carrite (talk) 23:43, 9 January 2014 (UTC)
(talk page stalker)Maybe I'm missing the non-vagueness of these vague accusations. Writing articles about your home town/state is not unusual and no crime. I've done so myself, then proudly pushed them through DYK. Why wouldn't I?!
A sub-section headed 'Non vague facts' should concentrate on exactly that, not more assumptions and guesswork. Sionk (talk) 03:54, 10 January 2014 (UTC)
My last statement here. - Yeah, the ones above. With considerable effort I spooled back to the start of 2012 and the above are the only ones I see out of many thousands of edits that strike me as potentially problematic. There is also one piece on a Napa valley hotel in userspace that has certain earmarks that we would expect to see in editing for hire. I note that the Vineyard was worked on repeatedly over time, as if a labor of love rather than commerce. I'm not anti-paid editing — far from it, I've got an ad up on oDesk myself and I do look forward to taking on a paid editing job or two and writing about the experience. My motivation here is this: to identify the possibly commercially-produced pieces, hint strongly that there needs to be COI tags where appropriate, and to provide the links for scrutiny. Which I have done. This is one of the best Wikipedians, bar none, judging from an amazingly prolific and diverse set of contributions for 2013. This whole issue is a mountain made out of a very small molehill, by all indications — a tiny, tiny percentage of total work is potentially involved here. Carrite (talk) 03:59, 11 January 2014 (UTC)
Might I suggest that the wikipedians lay off this page for a few days? If you want to discuss and debate there are plenty of other fora, I'm sure other people will be happy to open up their user pages to debate and speculation. She isn't responding here for now, and I for one would be a bit aghast to return from a wikibreak to find this dramafest lingering on my page. Discuss elsewhere please, and when Sarah is back and willing to engage she will do so. Just a suggestion from the jedi handbook.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 16:13, 10 January 2014 (UTC)
Curious that someone would just take a hatchet to a bunch of articles then disappear. She founded a Wikiproject on women artists so while I don't expect her to be on here all the time, I do expect some responsibility from her. Anyway, good point, will try other channels as well.--Aichik (talk) 17:44, 11 January 2014 (UTC)
For all that you do...
Writer, organizer, promoter and encourager
I am sure that you will do the right thing for yourself. I hope it includes a remaining presence here, but am sure that no matter what you do.... you will be making your presence known in a positive way. CaroleHenson (talk) 19:46, 11 January 2014 (UTC)
Women artists - reliable sources
I've started work on some of the "needed articles" for a bit and have been thinking that it would be helpful to have a checklist / bibliography for sources of information about women artists / artists... and I see that the Women artists article might be a good place to start.
Ideas
It would be helpful for me, and I'm guessing others, to have such a list and then verify if the sources are reliable / very reliable (I did it this way because I was having fun, another option is a table with Reliable sources / Depends / Not reliable sources)
Museums - good
Books - good, unless self-published or use Wikipedia as a source
Journals and magazines
Print - good
Online with an editorial staff or function - good
Online without an editorial staff (no tabs or information that mentions staff / editorial staff) - not good
Web sites
Galleries - generally don't use (sales / promotion / POV issues), unless the gallery is with a museum
Blogs - not generally good, exceptions may be news source blogs
no social media sites (facebook, linkedin, etc.), personal web sites, genealogy
Art based web sites - AskArt, Mutualart, etc. -- this would be helpful to get clarification
Tertiary sources - secondary is preferred, some tertiary sources, such as with gravestone / cemetary data, like Find a Grave, may be used if taking the raw information: dates of birth, death, etc.???
And have a bibliography of particularly good sites and books, starting with Women artists article and other good sources. Plus, a section that links to the articles about Reliable sources, verifiabilty, Original research, etc.
I'm not sure about
AskArt http://www.askart.com - can we use anything from here (Quick Facts, artwork), I've seen different takes on this
Mutual Art - same as Ask Art
Contemporary Art Daily, which looks like a blog ("Contemporary Art Group is the organization that produces Contemporary Art Daily, Contemporary Art Venues and Contemporary Art Quarterly.") http://www.contemporaryartdaily.com
Then, members of the Women artists group could use it as a reference and add reliable sources / identify non-reliable sources.
Having spooled your entire contribution history for 2013 I can only say, "Wow, what an outstanding body of work." Don't let the bullshit get you down. Carrite (talk) 18:39, 11 January 2014 (UTC)
In recognition of your service to your country ...
For your work in promoting and preserving the culture of the United States
You have responded to the call to strengthen our nation's cultural institutions, at considerable personal cost, in a very challenging time. I hope that some of the people who are reading this will aspire to make similar contributions themselves. Djembayz (talk) 03:20, 13 January 2014 (UTC)
Hi, so I've added articles from Art in America, the Boston Globe, NY Sun, and the New York Times since you placed your tag about this article needing more references. In addition, I've added a link to articles on the New York Foundation for the Arts, RISD, Pennsylvania Ballet, and a Dutch art nonprofit as well as a dancewear website, the latter for information about her sister. Could you please revert your tag?
Hello SarahStierch. It has been over six months since you last edited your WP:AFC draft article submission, entitled "Tjsusan".
The page will shortly be deleted. If you plan on editing the page to address the issues raised when it was declined and resubmit it, simply edit the submission and remove the {{db-afc}} or {{db-g13}} code. Please note that Articles for Creation is not for indefinite hosting of material deemed unsuitable for the encyclopedia mainspace.
If your submission has already been deleted by the time you get there, and you want to retrieve it, copy this code: {{subst:Refund/G13|Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Tjsusan}}, paste it in the edit box at this link, click "Save", and an administrator will in most cases undelete the submission.
I was just cleaning up the left-over talk page for this article. I saw you closed the discussion as redirect, but then you deleted it. Not a major issue, just curious what you wanted to do with this when your close says one thing, but your deletion says another. Best, IronGargoyle (talk) 01:38, 15 January 2014 (UTC)
I would say that she meant to create a redirect, but in accordance with the majority opinion, delete the article before redirecting. In this spirit I have made the redirect that she forgot. --Randykitty (talk) 12:20, 15 January 2014 (UTC)
A message from Lindsie Starr (aka Miss Lindsie 12:28, 15 January 2014 (UTC))
Thank you for dropping by. I am working on my user page and I am going to try to work on a pro wrestler wikipedia page. The situation is that the pro wrestler wikipedia page have not cited the real name and I have proof of the real name from three sources. I am under construction on my user page, if you can tell, I am making it a wikipedia page. (Yikes) It's details of my knowledge and stuff. :) So, thank you for dropping by! sign Lindsie Starr (aka Miss Lindsie 12:28, 15 January 2014 (UTC)) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Misslindsie (talk • contribs)
An editor has asked for a deletion review of Kent Evans. Because you closed the deletion discussion for this page, speedily deleted it, or otherwise were interested in the page, you might want to participate in the deletion review. DizaBlah (talk) 18:51, 15 January 2014 (UTC)
Hello Sarah, I would kindly like to ask You to review the edit on the article Aviation Times as realiable independent references on the owner have been added to prove the person is a expert in the field, which is one of the possible ways of reliable sourcing, as I understand. Thank You very much, and please understand it's not so easy to grasp the concept of editing. Peto.figi (talk) 07:43, 21 January 2014 (UTC)
Re: Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Maxwell_Chase
Submission declined on 17 December 2013 by SarahStierch (talk).
This submission is not adequately supported by reliable sources. Reliable sources are required so that information can be verified. If you need help with referencing, please see Referencing for beginners and Citing sources.
You are encouraged to make improvements by clicking on the "Edit" tab at the top of this page. If you require extra help, ask a question at the Articles for creation help desk. You may also like to try the live help chat with experienced editors. Find sources: "Maxwell Chase" – books · scholar · JSTOR · free images.Declined by SarahStierch 35 days ago. Last edited by SarahStierch 35 days ago. Reviewer: Inform author.
Hi,
We are not very familiar with how this works but would like to inquire as to why the page created for Maxwell Chase was declined. All info on the page is accurate and verifiable on IMDb http://www.imdb.com/name/nm4098408Maxwell Chase at the Internet Movie Database his personal website http://www.MaxwellChase.orgOfficial Website and links for articles provided. If there is something missing in order to bring the page to date for publication please let us know so it can be rectified. We would never put his career at risk by listing false or misleading information.
Thank you for your assistance,
Lisa & Maxwell Chase
MaxwellChase (talk) 07:21, 22 January 2014 (UTC)
I'm not Sarah but I can tell you that IMDb is not good enough per WP:Reliable sources, especially for WP:Biographies of living persons, and Maxwell's own webpage fails to support his notability because it is a primary source. All this Wikipedia-type talk translates to the following: you need to have several reliable newspaper and magazine articles reporting on the guy, with in-depth coverage rather than passing mention. I looked online for such sources and came up with nothing. If I were looking over your submission, I would say it was not sufficient, that it did not meet the minimum notability requirements at WP:GNG or WP:N. Binksternet (talk) 07:55, 22 January 2014 (UTC)
Shpackov Alexander
You had move off my page "Universal Classification". You, like others UDC authors, promoters and your collegues do nothing understand in the page, real classifying and library nad information sciences have been using UDC and others tipe of empiric "classifications". Thrue classification is Universal classification. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Shpackov (talk • contribs) 07:44, 22 January 2014 (UTC)
Hi - you recently relisted Live Wire Radio, a PR rep inserted article on a local radio show, for additional AfD discussion. We have had a very thorough discussion in which four editors have expressed their support for delete, and two editors have expressed their opinion to keep it. Unfortunately, the discussion is getting rather heated and I feel like it would be in the best interest of everyone if a final decision were made one way or the other, so as to keep things from spiraling out of control. I personally believe a delete consensus has been reached, though would defer to your judgment on that point. BlueSalix (talk) 18:05, 22 January 2014 (UTC)
Hey Sarah, I'm looking for the Art+Feminism press kit mentioned in the email, but I haven't heard back from the email address/talk page. I thought you might know the right person I could contact. If not, no worries. czar♔ 21:02, 22 January 2014 (UTC) Resolved czar♔22:55, 27 January 2014 (UTC)
Miraflores Altarpiece
Hi Sarah. You recently welcomed me to Wikipedia via the Teahouse. Can I ask you to look at this non-free-content review of a file I uploaded?
What it concerns is a Google Art Project image that was tagged as in need of deframing. The Visual Arts Project accordingly removed the image from the Miraflores Altarpiece article for a full six months or more until I deframed it when I started my account, not a trivial task because it needed researching as to where the panels end and the frames begin. Nevertheless there should be an image of the panels in their frame to appreciate the work in its entirety and this why I also uploaded a much reduced image of the altarpiece under a Fair Use rationale. I should think I spent at least a couple of hours doing this and it is really irritating to have spend further time justifying it. It's being queried on the grounds of replaceability, but it's a fact that the Upload Wizard for works of art autogenerates a "n.a." entry for this field, presumably because museums and galleries rarely permit photography and especially of works of art as old and venerated as this.
Hi, my name is Monika and I'm working on a class assignment for my graduate class at American University, and I see that you are an active participant for WikiProject Washington, D.C. I would like to get some guidance from you on which articles have priority on editing. But more specifically which articles are lacking the multimedia element. Any help would be great. Thanks.
OkMonika (talk) 17:03, 4 February 2014 (UTC)
Hi User:OkMonika! I actually have not actively contributed to that project in a long time, so I am unsure on if there are any priority articles. I suggest posting on the talk page, or even investigating articles about Washington history and culture on your own that you think might need improvement. I live on the west coast now, and rarely contribute about DC anymore. Sorry I can't be more helpful. SarahStierch (talk) 17:06, 7 February 2014 (UTC)
Netherlands report: New Years Reception; 550 years States General; Content donation University Museum; Wikipedians in Residence; OpenGLAM Benchmark Survey
Hello SarahStierch! There is a discussion that your input is requested on! I look forward to your comments, thoughts, opinions, criticisms, and questions!
Thanks for uploading File:Ktuu-logo.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).
Thank you & So sorry I missed the edit session today!
Hi Sarah, thanks so much for your visit to Eugene and the work you do - I was inspired by your presentation on Friday, and unfortunately just could not make it to the editing/writing workshop on Saturday. Hopefully you'll come back next year and I'll be able to make it then. In the meantime, I'll see what editing I can do on my own! — Preceding unsigned comment added by RachelEmerald (talk • contribs) 07:04, 9 March 2014 (UTC)
Hi Sara -- thank you for uploading the picture of the Blackford County courthouse under construction. I have a "hard copy" of that photo, but was concerned about copyright issues. I have had two pictures removed from Wikimedia, and was told state government photos are not public domain. I will wait a few weeks to make sure your photo does not get removed. If it survives, I will gladly add it to the Blackford County Courthouse page—I wanted to include it in the original version. Thanks again. TwoScars (talk) 16:49, 14 March 2014 (UTC)
Hi User:TwoScars! That photograph, the one I posted on the talk page, is public domain. That is because it is of the courthouse under construction, therefore it was absolutely taken before 1923. So it should survive. Any problems, keep me posted! Thanks for your amazing work on that article (I'm a Hoosier, so I love seeing my home state covered so well!). SarahStierch (talk) 18:59, 14 March 2014 (UTC)
I'll definitely get it in then—probably in April (I have some work deadlines in March.) I am currently working on a Lake James Wikipedia article, and hoping to have it ready by the end of the summer. As you probably know, Lake James is near Angola and Pokagon State Park (already has a Wikipedia article). I have plenty of sources and a handful of pictures, but no good color pictures of the lake itself that are recent. If you know of anyone willing to post a good cross lake picture of Lake James' Lower Basin—I will use that too. Thanks again. TwoScars (talk) 16:42, 16 March 2014 (UTC)
Francis Godfrey and Montpelier, Van Cleve
Hi Sara, I have always been told that the statue in Monteplier (donated by Godfrey family members) was of Chief Francis Godfrey, not simply a plains Indian. Am I missing something? I will check in the Blackford County Historical Society's History of Blackford County. Here is a link to the plaque: Godfroy Reserve. Second topic: Your Van Cleve Opera House photo upload would be an excellant addition to History of Hartford City, Indiana. Van Cleve deserves a paragraph and your photo under the 1880s and Gas Boom section. Van Cleve was a pretty big deal long ago, Hartford City has a street named after him. TwoScars (talk) 17:19, 16 March 2014 (UTC)
Hi TwoScars, I didn't find a reliable source (yet, but I don't have access to that book currently) stating that was him...let me know what you find out in your book. Hmm. Right on about the opera house, it was just something I stumbled across, glad it was a benefit :) SarahStierch (talk) 02:23, 17 March 2014 (UTC)
I checked with the Blackford County Historical Society. You are correct—good catch! Although the Godfroy family (there may be some that spell it Godfrey) paid for the giant Indian, the statue is a generic Indian. The BCHS book, from the 1980s, shows the statue, but does not identify "who" it is. Thus, I think your edit is an improvement! TwoScars (talk) 15:10, 17 March 2014 (UTC)
The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Acacia Winery 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. MelanieN (talk) 22:55, 20 March 2014 (UTC)
List of Italian Women articles needing work
I will be out of town on the 5th of April so I will regrettably miss the editing session. However, I have been keeping a list of articles about Italian Women artists, writers, and scientists, that need to be created or that need editing. It's in my sandbox, and therefore is a bit of a mess, but if you have anyone who is interested feel free to make use of it. I will continue to add to it. LaMona (talk) 02:02, 20 March 2014 (UTC)
Hi LaMona. Can you link to me where the list is? Thank you so much for sharing it. I will share it with as many people as possible!!! I'm sorry you can't join us - more will follow. SarahStierch (talk) 05:06, 20 March 2014 (UTC)
.jpg)
czar ♔ 21:02, 22 January 2014 (UTC)
czar ♔ 22:55, 27 January 2014 (UTC)
Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to List of public art in Indiana may have broken the syntax by modifying 2 "[]"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.
