User talk:Bard Cadarn

This user believes Competence is required.

This user is associated with Harvard University.

I am a Bard at heartᚇ and a historian by training (i.e. a Bachelor's Degree and M.Ed in the field), and have been wandering in and out of Wikipedia since June 2013. As one can probably guess from my work regarding Leopold and Rudolf Blaschka, Mary Lee Ware, and related pages, I am loosely affiliated with the Harvard Museum of Natural History and have been volunteering my time for them as an amateur historian. Hence I am also the hand that wrote the articles on the Harvard Australian Expedition (1931–1932), William E. Schevill, the Harvard Medical African Expedition (1926-1927), and Elizabeth Hodges Clark.

                            "Welcome stranger. The paths are treacherous today." - Tad Williams

"There are three candles that illuminate every darkness: truth, nature, and knowledge." - Celtic Triad

                                     "Pay heed to the tales of old wives. 
        It may well be that they alone keep in memory what it was once needful for the wise to know." - J.R.R. Tolkien

"The job of the artist is to remind people of what they have chosen to forget." - Arthur Miller

                             "Truth is the fire that fetches thunder." - Diana Wynne Jones

"I do not love the bright sword for it's sharpness, nor the arrow for it's swiftness, nor the warrior for his glory. I love only that which they defend." - J.R.R. Tolkien

                     "Caught between the riddle and its answer there is no freedom." - Patricia A. McKillip

Bard Cadarn (talk) is busy in real life and may not respond swiftly to queries.

Bard Cadarn, you are invited to the Teahouse

Hi Bard Cadarn! 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! Theopolisme (I'm a Teahouse host)

Visit the Teahouse

This message was delivered automatically by your robot friend, HostBot (talk) 01:17, 20 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Your edits

I see that you use edit summaries, and that you've been reverted before, at least once with an edit summary that said "you are pushing an untenable POV based on unreliable sources. Stop it.". This is correct. The Order of Bards, Ovates & Druids would be acceptable as a source for its own article in some circumstances, but not for the articles where you are trying to use it. The same applies to druidcircle.org. You can read more about sources at WP:VERIFY and WP:RS. Please stick to academic sources for these articles. Thanks. Dougweller (talk) 06:11, 28 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I hate to be a pain, but that page was part of an undergraduate project - we don't even always use PhD theses, and certainly not undergraduate work. Another point is that if you read it carefully, it doesn't say that there were any Iron Age Druids. Have you read any of Hutton's works on Druids (he's a pagan). Dougweller (talk) 17:13, 28 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Ovate

I think your work here has uncovered a problem - you were right in that it shouldn't have been a redirect to the definition of the shape, but it turns out that we already have Vates so I've redirected it there - I hope that's ok as it seems to cover what you want to cover, and you might not have known about Vates. Dougweller (talk) 17:26, 28 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

License tagging for File:Dinas Emrys.jpeg

Thanks for uploading File:Dinas Emrys.jpeg. You don't seem to have indicated the license status of the image. Wikipedia uses a set of image copyright tags to indicate this information.

To add a tag to the image, select the appropriate tag from this list, click on this link, then click "Edit this page" and add the tag to the image's description. If there doesn't seem to be a suitable tag, the image is probably not appropriate for use on Wikipedia. For help in choosing the correct tag, or for any other questions, leave a message on Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. Thank you for your cooperation. --ImageTaggingBot (talk) 00:06, 3 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi - you haven't given a fair use rationale so I've removed it from the article, and to be honest I'm not sure you can give one at least for this article. I don't think you looked far enough on the Pheryllt and have revised that section. You might want to also read [1]. Dougweller (talk) 11:13, 13 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination of Dinas Affaraon for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Dinas Affaraon 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/Dinas Affaraon 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. Dougweller (talk) 16:13, 13 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The redirection I performed was as a result of this discussion, which you participated in. This was an administrative action reflecting the consensus established there, so simply undoing it as you did is not appropriate. If you believe I erred in interpreting consensus I suggest you pursue deletion review, which is the correct way to challenge the outcome of an AFD discussion. If you were trying to work on the merger you can do that by accessing the page's history to locate material you wish to merge. Beeblebrox (talk) 01:38, 22 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Talkback

Hello, Bard Cadarn. You have new messages at Dougweller's talk page.
Message added 16:18, 13 September 2013 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.[reply]

Dougweller (talk) 16:18, 13 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Your recent edits

Hello and welcome to Wikipedia. When you add content to talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion (but never when editing articles), please be sure to sign your posts. There are two ways to do this. Either:

Add four tildes ( ~~~~ ) at the end of your comment; or
With the cursor positioned at the end of your comment, click on the signature button ( or ) located above the edit window.

This will automatically insert a signature with your username or IP address and the time you posted the comment. This information is necessary to allow other editors to easily see who wrote what and when.

Thank you. --SineBot (talk) 16:27, 13 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned non-free media (File:Dinas Emrys.jpeg)

Thanks for uploading File:Dinas Emrys.jpeg. The media description page currently specifies that it is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, it is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the media 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 will be useful. However, please note that media for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'file' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "File" from the dropdown box. Note that all non-free media not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Werieth (talk) 16:16, 14 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Dinas Affaraon ‎

I'm not sure what you thought you were doing, but your edit went against the AfD decision and I see it was reverted. Please leave the redirect as it is. Thanks. Dougweller (talk) 05:33, 22 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Pheryllt

I see you created a page for this despite only having one unreliable source. Please realise that you need at least two much better sources - such as books by academics - for a new article. I see above that you were told before that the Order of Bards, Ovates and Druids does not qualify as a reliable source, and at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Dinas Affaraon you were shown why interpreting Pheryllt this way is a fringe view. Please, next time you want to make a new page, line up better sources first. Yngvadottir (talk) 16:36, 11 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for December 13

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Silver Branch, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Tara (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 08:58, 13 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Disputed non-free use rationale for File:The Morrigan by Laura Cameron.jpg

Thank you for uploading File:The Morrigan by Laura Cameron.jpg. However, there is a concern that the rationale provided for using this file on Wikipedia may not meet the criteria required by Wikipedia:Non-free content. This can be corrected by going to the file description page and adding or clarifying the reason why the file qualifies under this policy. Adding and completing one of the templates available from Wikipedia:Non-free use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your file is in compliance with Wikipedia policy. Please be aware that a non-free use rationale is not the same as an image copyright tag; descriptions for files used under the non-free content policy require both a copyright tag and a non-free use rationale.

If it is determined that the file does not qualify under the non-free content policy, it might be deleted by an administrator within a few days in accordance with our criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions, please ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thank you. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 10:48, 5 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

January 2014

Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to introduce inappropriate pages to Wikipedia, as you did at Lots of Articles, you may be blocked from editing. If you need guidance on how to create appropriate pages, try using the Article Wizard. Stop uploading images that are clear violations of the artists' copyright.

You have uploaded a slew of non-free images, to which you do not hold the copyright. The fact some of these images have also been posted on blogs doesn't mean those content-stealers had permission, either.

The non-free rationale you have added to these images does not apply: the images are not photographs of a person, or low-res scans of a book cover or album cover; they are pieces of modern artwork and subject to copyright laws. They are also not "a depiction of the subject of the article" as you can't photograph mythological or ancient historical figures. - Slàn, Kathryn NicDhàna ♫♦♫ 21:02, 14 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I see you have also uploaded a piece of clipart to Commons and claimed you hold the copyright to it. Even if you are "OCAL," who created Twisted Branch 2, or one of the other users who created derivative work based on it, this image was taken from clkr.com. While the site specifies: "in case you are the copyright holder you hereby release it under the latest version of the creative commons CC0 public domain dedication" it looks to me like your posting it on WP and claiming you hold the copyright is a violation of their T.O.S. The image has now been deleted. Please take the time to learn about Copyright issues, as this is a serious problem. - Slàn, Kathryn NicDhàna ♫♦♫ 22:33, 14 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

As if

To start, I claim the copyright to nothing and if anything what I added implies that then it is a mistake on my part. In terms of the picture from the Silver Branch article, I found the outline (colorless, mind) and did the coloring myself, utterly unaware of another's like work, as I have never heard of http://www.clker.com/clipart-purple-background-branch.html. As to the image that was on the Manannán mac Lir page, that went unchallenged for many weeks, so naturally I assumed it was OK to do like with other articles. Even now, I fail to see the issue with it. Understand, Kathryn NicDhàna, that lack of action is taken as a "yes, this may be done." I do not mean to be insulting, but that is how I see it, nor do I appreciate jumping to conclusions with false accusations. - User:Bard Cadarn

Welcome

A cartoon centipede reads books and types on a laptop. — The Wikipede and the Picture Tutorial. *(image credit)*

Welcome!

Hello, Bard Cadarn, and welcome to Wikipedia! I have noticed that you are fairly new! I hope you like the place and decide to stay. I also see that you have an interest in the use of images and/or photos on Wikipedia.

Did you know that:

Wikipedia has a very stringent image use policy?
Most images from Flickr, online news websites, and other web sources are copyrighted?
Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously?
Freely-licensed images may be uploaded to Wikimedia Commons, a central location for images, from where they can be used on Wikipedia and many other wikis?
We recommend that new users use our "files for upload" process - at least until you get the hang of things?

If you are stuck, and looking for help, please come to the New contributors' help page, where experienced Wikipedians can answer any queries you have! Or, you can just type {{helpme}} on your user page, and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Here are a few other good links for newcomers:

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you have any questions, check out Wikipedia:Where to ask a question or ask me on my talk page. Again, welcome! - Slàn, Kathryn NicDhàna ♫♦♫ 19:01, 18 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for March 11

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that you've added some links pointing to disambiguation pages. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

Druidess (Celtic Mythology) (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added links pointing to Sorceress and Conall

List of druids and neo-druids (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to Conall

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:14, 11 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion nomination of File:Philip Pullman's chosen Coat of Arms - "A bird of the raven family with a diamond in her beak. This is the storyteller, storytellers always steal their stories, every story has been told before".jpg

A tag has been placed on File:Philip Pullman's chosen Coat of Arms - "A bird of the raven family with a diamond in her beak. This is the storyteller, storytellers always steal their stories, every story has been told before".jpg requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section F1 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the image is an unused redundant copy (all pixels the same or scaled down) of an image in the same file format, which is on Wikipedia (not on Commons), and all inward links have been updated.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Click here to contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be removed without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. ~SuperHamster Talk Contribs 00:28, 11 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Earthsea

If you want to rename this page, you must move it, along with its talk page, not copy and paste the content. Otherwise you'll lose the history and attribution to it's authors. I've gone ahead and fixed this for you. Best — MusikAnimal ^talk 15:31, 11 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for August 13

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Characters in Earthsea, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Ged. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:17, 13 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

More Copyvios. This is a warning.

You've been warned about this before. It is against WP policy to upload copyright artwork to illustrate articles. It does not fall under free use. You've done this a lot in the past and were thoroughly warned. You created a lot of cleanup work for other editors; don't start up again. Diff:[2] - CorbieV^☊☼ 18:57, 17 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

More hasty judgement. This my response.

Exactly what was the copyright, User:CorbieVreccan? I made it quite clear that it - and I assume you refer to the Brigid picture I uploaded - is used on so many different websites that counting them was an impossibility. And not once was the copyright listed. I only put down "not Fair Use" for safety's sake. Where, might I ask, did you find such clear proof that it is NOT Fair Use? After all, given its un-moderated free usage across the Internet, how could it be otherwise? As to these thorough warnings, as you put it, most were accusations aimed at a then new user still learning the ropes and my responses are still on this page if you care to look for them (look under the As If, heading). As to this Brigid picture though, WHERE WAS ITS COPYRIGHT? I could find no solid evidence of any, so I went against WP policy neither willfully nor wittingly. - User:Bard Cadarn

Disambiguation link notification for August 31

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Pellinor, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page The Riddle. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:27, 31 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed deletion of Republic of Heaven

The article Republic of Heaven has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

no indication of significant third party coverage of this fictional entity/place

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, content or articles may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 12:55, 18 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom elections are now open!

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) 17:01, 24 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for April 16

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that you've added some links pointing to disambiguation pages. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

Druidess (Celtic mythology)

added a link pointing to Breton

Gallizenae

added a link pointing to Breton

Île de Sein

added a link pointing to Breton

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 10:03, 16 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Take it to the talk page of Talk:Druid. Do not edit war.

Once again, you're doing things that don't respect WP article structure, and you're not using appropriate sourcing. I know you like creating lots of short, inadequately sourced articles, but you need to consult with other editors. This has been a problem for you for quite a while now and you need to come discuss it. - CorbieV ^☊ ☼ 17:12, 16 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Look before you accuse, CorbieV

"Lots of short, inadequately sourced articles" you say? Perhaps you missed my Mary Lee Ware, Silver Branch, Immacallam in dá Thuarad, and His Three Calls to Cormac pages - as well as my contributions to George Lincoln Goodale, Glass Flowers, and Leopold and Rudolf Blaschka. Do not accuse me of cutting corners and look to my other response on Talk:Druid. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bard Cadarn (talk • contribs)

Yes, I would definitely encourage other editors to take a look at those articles, as well as this talk page and your contribs in general, notably the deleted ones. - CorbieV ^☊ ☼ 17:37, 16 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Bitter about the past, are we? How about looking at the fact that my good work far outweighs the bad. I acknowledge earlier errors and put them to the fact that I was a new User and thus did not know all the rules and full workings of Wikipedia editing. Don't we all learn by trial and error? But I am wiser now, as my good articles prove, and even then I, like the rest of us, will make a mistake now and again. But one thing I do not do is question the integrity of other editors, as you are doing with me, CorbieVreccan. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bard Cadarn (talk • contribs)

Not bitter, but irritated that you keep making the same mistakes over and over again. I would strongly advise you to focus on edits, not what you assume others are feeling or thinking. It's taking you an unusual amount of time to learn to observe and respect basic policy, and I don't think your behaviour has improved much at all since I had to delete handfuls of blatant WP:Copyvios you uploaded. I'm not sure you should keep editing here, quite frankly. You still haven't bothered to learn how to properly use a talk page, and your other article contributions are large swathes of unsourced or inadequately-sourced text, yet you seem to think these are good additions. It is annoying to experienced editors to encounter people who seem to think the policies and rules here don't apply to them, and who create unnecessary work for other editors, which has largely been your pattern on the 'pedia. - CorbieV ^☊ ☼ 18:46, 16 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Large swathes of unsourced or inadequately-sourced text? What pages are you speaking of, CorbieV? In the past I have done so, yes, and possibly Gallizenae was such a mistake, but what others? And what do you mean that I "still haven't bothered to learn how to properly use a talk page"? Are we not talking now? --Bard Cadarn (talk) 19:26, 16 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Your recent edits

Hello and welcome to Wikipedia. When you add content to talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion (but never when editing articles), please be sure to sign your posts. There are two ways to do this. Either:

Add four tildes ( ~~~~ ) at the end of your comment; or
With the cursor positioned at the end of your comment, click on the signature button ( or ) located above the edit window.

This will automatically insert a signature with your username or IP address and the time you posted the comment. This information is necessary to allow other editors to easily see who wrote what and when.

Thank you. --SineBot (talk) 18:12, 16 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom Elections 2016: Voting now open!

Hello, Bard Cadarn. 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)[reply]

Glass Sea Creatures

I agree my "fix" may not have been ideal. This capped title seems to be used as more of a generic, not very parallel to the proper name of a collection like Glass Flowers. What do you think we should do to sort it out, given that most sources don't cap it, and you want it to be more about the generic items than a specific collection? My "fix" sort of went both ways on that. Dicklyon (talk) 02:33, 21 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Blaschka Invertebrate Models

The key, Dicklyon, is that, unlike the Glass Flowers, which is a single collection with an official name, the Blaschka Invertebrate Models are everywhere - in many museums across the world - and have no official name; so yes, the article is about generic items as opposed to a specific collection. Furthermore, each of the names listed on the page is used just as much as the others, and many official sources, such as the websites of Harvard, the Rakow Research Library of The Corning Museum of Glass, and Cornell University, do capitalize the name. It is, frankly, something of a judgement call, and when I wrote the article I chose to to cap the letters so as to reinforce parallel stories between Glass Sea Creatures and their younger botanical cousins. Again, these earlier creations of the Blaschkas do not have the same ironclad officialdom surrounding them: in titles people tend to cap it and then not cap them again. So, in addition to my aforesaid reason of wanting to reinforce parallel stories between Sea Creatures and Flowers, I was trying to follow this trend. I thank you for your interest and your efforts - and and doubly glad to find others interested in the Blaschkas - and dearly hope you understand my reasoning.--Bard Cadarn (talk) 12:46, 22 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the explanation. But please review WP:NCCAPS, WP:TITLEFORMAT, MOS:CAPS. On wikipedia, we reserve caps for proper names, and avoid them for generics or where otherwise unnecessary. As you can see, sources seldom cap this title "Glass Sea Creatures": books, news, web; even Harvard doesn't cap it except where it's used in a title-case context (a type of context that we don't have on Wikipedia). So that's why I downcased it. And Harvard does cap Glass Flowers in the same docs. I think I should have gone ahead and rewritten the lead more as generic, too, rather than picking an exhibit name. What do you think? Dicklyon (talk) 03:01, 23 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Very well, Dicklyon. I yield to standard Wikipedia policy and have made the necessary cap changes.--Bard Cadarn (talk) 00:09, 24 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Glass flowers

You need to participate in the talk page discussion rather than repeatedly reverting on Glass Flowers. To do otherwise makes it appear that you have WP:OWN problems. Please stop reverting until you get a consensus on talk for the version you prefer. As it is, the other version is standing unopposed in the discussion. Your claim in the edit summary that the discussion did not have "many" editors involved is irrelevant — all the editors who cared to participate agreed. —David Eppstein (talk) 23:27, 5 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Speak of what you know

Repeatedly reverting? The Glass Flowers] page has been repeatedly and carelessly stripped to its bones by a single user who clearly does not know anything about them and whose Wikipedia history is a long list of offenses. Did you even read the Revision History, David Eppstein? The offending user strips and blanks for no scholarly reason and I am undoing the damage just as administrators such CorbieV do on other pages. Frankly, what the offending user does is possible vandalism and I shall report it once I have given the required four warnings. I have no WP:OWN problems, for those who wish to delete parts are free to do so if said sections are judged as biased, unprofessional, and/or inadequately sourced, per standard Wikipedia protocol. But such reasons were not cited, and the offending user is quite unprofessional. --Bard Cadarn (talk) 00:26, 6 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The reason, as clearly explained on the talk page, is that the version you prefer is childish and unencyclopedic tripe. —David Eppstein (talk) 00:54, 6 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

See my reply on the talk page. This is your first warning.--Bard Cadarn (talk) 01:18, 6 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Speaking of warnings:

Your recent editing history at Glass Flowers 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.. Also, your claims that the edits in question are vandalism are false and a personal attack, as are your comments about EEng. Do not think you can rely on the "reverting vandalism" clause of 3RR to escape consequences for your edit warring. —David Eppstein (talk) 02:03, 6 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This makes no sense, David Eppstein. I get the warning, but EEng, who engaged in mass deletions without discussion, does not? You say "undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert" and yet that is exactly what EEng did on a massive scale within a 24 hour period a bit back. Please explain.--Bard Cadarn (talk) 02:08, 6 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

You have now undone EEng's improvements to the article three times in rapid succession. A fourth and you are very likely to be blocked. Stop your edit warring, stop talking about other people's behavior, and start discussing, on the article talk page, the actual content of the article, and why you think that ridiculously breathless description is worth keeping. —David Eppstein (talk) 04:56, 6 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

See the Glass Flowers talk page for my full response. I note, though, that you did not answer my question, David Eppstein, nor respond to my words. It is you, I fear, who will not discuss, as I am getting naught but repeated warnings as opposed to clarifications. --Bard Cadarn (talk) 13:11, 6 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Of glass flowers and procedures

@Bard Cadarn: Hello. I saw your request about what arbitration is. Most administrators (I am not one of them) are very busy, and they cannot use their administrator tool undiscriminately. As very experienced editors their input is valuable, but these are procedures which everyone should learn about, so I'll try to resume possibilities below:

The Tea House (WP:Teahouse) can be a place to ask questions about what procedures are available, or to invite non-involved editors who like giving help to look at an article, etc. It has a relaxed atmosphere where others can also comment, usually without dramatic consequences.
For blatant vandalism (which does not seem to be the case here), it may be proper to report at Administrator Intervention Against Vandalism (WP:AVI).
The first procedure is usually to attempt to reach consensus (WP:Consensus) on the article talk page, while avoiding edit warring, which can be a reason for undesirable administrator intervention (and a loss of time for everyone). If you are the only to disagree there, consensus was probably still already reached.
If consensus cannot form (i.e. not enough participants, too many with conflict of interest (WP:COI)), a possibility would be request for comments (WP:RFC) to obtain the input of uninvolved editors.
Before the two following points, in case of dispute, if the issue is not about content, it is recommended to use user talk pages rather than more public article talk pages. For instance, as per WP:ASPERSIONS, it may be uncivil, and perhaps considered as a personal attack to start disclosing all that the other does, or has done wrong in public space. One should also avoid canvassing (WP:CANVAS), that is, faking conensus by inviting selected people who are likely to be on our side.
If a dispute cannot be resolved, another possibility would be dispute resolution (WP:DR).
The last resort, not recommended because they do not deal with content disputes, and because of the possibility of WP:BOOMERANG, would be the Administrators Incidents Noticeboard (WP:ANI).
Another last resort is arbitration (WP:ARB), which even administrators can use to reach consensus in some cases. The administrator you contacted is part of this committee, I believe.

As for this particular issue, my personal uninvolved impression: I perceived the example quotes that were presented by EEng as indeed having a promotional tone which should be avoided on Wikipedia (WP:PROMOTION). And I was impressed by the beauty of this form of art. I think that the article is promising. I hope this helps, and wish you a nice day, —░]PaleoNeonate█ ⏎ ?ERROR░ 18:05, 6 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Image licensing problems (but don't panic)

Hi there. A problem's come up with several of the images you uploaded, in that you tagged them this way: "The copyright holder of this file allows anyone to use it for any purpose, provided that use is approved by the Harvard University Herbaria and Botany Libraries". With extremely narrow exceptions, the Wiki projects can't use material burdened by this kind of limitation -- see Commons:Commons:Deletion requests/Files uploaded by Bard Cadarn. Now don't panic, because we can probably fix this. First, I need to know two things:

The images File:Ware_Dedication_plaque.jpg and File:Ware Dedication plaque translation.jpg -- did you take that yourself?
The other images -- did you scan those, or get them from some website, or what?

E Eng 18:35, 7 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, E Eng, I took the Ware Dedication plaque image myself. As to the rest, I was given permission to upload them to Wikipedia by the Herbaria archivists - but only under those conditions/expectations; some images I got from the website, others I scanned in the Botany Libraries. --Bard Cadarn (talk) 20:43, 7 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I've commented over there but it is important in these cases to list the dates the photos were taken and the dates they were published, not the dates the scans or copies were made of them. If they were published in the US before 1923, they are public domain and should not have been marked as being copyrighted (but this would also save them from deletion). As for the plaque, it's a modern photo but of a two-dimensional object, so the copyright (if it exists) is on the object and not the photo, and it's important to know when the plaque was actually emplaced. Was it 1887, the later of the two dates on the plaque, or some other date? —David Eppstein (talk) 21:59, 7 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The exact dates are unknown, David Eppstein, but Leopold died in 1895, so the ones with him were obviously taken beforehand. As for the plaque, the Wares kept their connection with the Blaschkas secret until 1888, so it must have emplaced between then and 1937 (when Mary Lee Ware died); the exact date of its emplacement I do not know, but I would be greatly surprised if it was not done early on. Finally, regarding the photos of the Wares themselves, Prof. Goodale, and the Ware Family Farm, I must confess again to not knowing the exact dates; in fact, that was part of what the HMNH was hoping I would uncover. Still, given that Goodale died in 1923 and Miss Ware in 1937, it can be safely assumed that they were taken before 1923.--Bard Cadarn (talk) 23:37, 7 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Check Commons:Commons:Deletion requests/Files uploaded by Bard Cadarn -- all should be well now. E Eng 21:29, 12 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

That is a relief. You have my thanks, E Eng. Just please be sure to remove the "nominated for deletion" tags from the photos (it is still there on the one of Mary Lee Ware).--Bard Cadarn (talk) 02:35, 14 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Your edit to Odd Squad

Please do not add original research or novel syntheses of published material to articles as you apparently did to Odd Squad. Please cite a reliable source for all of your contributions. I sort of wanted to notify you of this revert without using a template but couldn't think of a better way to phrase the issue. Carmen Sandiego does in my eyes bear resemblance to Todd now that I think about it, but adding it to the article is original research and therefore inappropriate for Wikipedia. (It's probably also giving a little undue weight to his part, especially considering it among other chraracter profiles were previously extensively pared down because the profiles were basically eating the article. Plus you indented it and phrased it as if you were on a talk page rather than in an article.) It could be brought up if there are reliable sources discussing/analyzing the connection, but otherwise it's not really encyclopedic. Thanks. - Purplewowies (talk) 06:28, 26 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2017 election voter message

Hello, Bard Cadarn. Voting in the 2017 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 10 December. All users who registered an account before Saturday, 28 October 2017, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Wednesday, 1 November 2017 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

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 2017 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 3 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Image without license

Unspecified source/license for File:Philip Pullman's chosen Coat of Arms.jpg

Thanks for uploading File:Philip Pullman's chosen Coat of Arms.jpg. The image has been identified as not specifying the copyright status of the image, which is required by Wikipedia's policy on images. Even if you created the image yourself, you still need to release it so Wikipedia can use it. If you don't indicate the copyright status of the image on the image's description page, using an appropriate copyright tag, it may be deleted some time after the next seven days. If you made this image yourself, you can use copyright tags like {{PD-self}} (to release all rights), {{self|CC-by-sa-3.0|GFDL}} (to require that you be credited), or any tag here - just go to the image, click edit, and add one of those. If you have uploaded other images, please verify that you have provided copyright information for them as well.

For more information on using images, see the following pages:

This is an automated notice by MifterBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. NOTE: Once you correct this, please remove the tag from the image's page. --MifterBot ^{(Talk • Contribs • Owner)} 04:45, 20 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

File:William E. Schevill.jpg

Hi, I'm RonBot, a script that checks new non-free file uploads. I have found that the subject image that you recently uploaded was more than 5% in excess of the Non-free content guideline size of 100,000 pixels. I have tagged the image for a standard reduction, which (for jpg/gif/png/svg files) normally happens within a day. Please check the reduced image, and make sure that the image is not excessively corrupted. Other files will be added to Category:Wikipedia non-free file size reduction requests for manual processing. There is a full seven-day period before the original oversized image will be hidden; during that time you might want to consider editing the original image yourself (perhaps an initial crop to allow a smaller reduction or none at all). A formula for calculation the desired size can be found at WP:Image resolution, along with instructions on how to tag the image in the rare cases that it requires an oversized image (typically about 0.2% of non-free uploads are tagged as necessarily oversized). Please contact the bot owner if you have any questions, or you can ask them at Wikipedia talk:Non-free content. RonBot (talk) 17:17, 14 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

File:Harvard Medical African Expedition (1926-1927) journey map.png

Hi, I'm RonBot, a script that checks new non-free file uploads. I have found that the subject image that you recently uploaded was more than 5% in excess of the Non-free content guideline size of 100,000 pixels. I have tagged the image for a standard reduction, which (for jpg/gif/png/svg files) normally happens within a day. Please check the reduced image, and make sure that the image is not excessively corrupted. Other files will be added to Category:Wikipedia non-free file size reduction requests for manual processing. There is a full seven-day period before the original oversized image will be hidden; during that time you might want to consider editing the original image yourself (perhaps an initial crop to allow a smaller reduction or none at all). A formula for calculation the desired size can be found at WP:Image resolution, along with instructions on how to tag the image in the rare cases that it requires an oversized image (typically about 0.2% of non-free uploads are tagged as necessarily oversized). Please contact the bot owner if you have any questions, or you can ask them at Wikipedia talk:Non-free content. RonBot (talk) 17:18, 15 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2018 election voter message

Hello, Bard Cadarn. Voting in the 2018 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 3 December. All users who registered an account before Sunday, 28 October 2018, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Thursday, 1 November 2018 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

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 2018 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 19 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned non-free image File:A photo of Oakes and Blanche Ames.jpg

⚠

Thanks for uploading File:A photo of Oakes and Blanche Ames.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).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in section F5 of the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 02:23, 20 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2019 election voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2019 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 on Monday, 2 December 2019. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

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 2019 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:16, 19 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

April 2020

Your recent editing history at Historicity of King Arthur shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war; that means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be, when you have seen that other editors disagree. 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 the bold, revert, discuss cycle 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 you 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. Ghmyrtle (talk) 19:24, 17 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

See Talk:Historicity of King Arthur for my answer, Ghmyrtle. --Bard Cadarn (talk) 19:47, 17 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not refer to editors using their unofficial service awards

These are just for fun - I'm a "Grand High Togneme Vicarus", but calling someone a Grandmaster Editor in an edit summary is misleading at best. Doug Weller talk 15:06, 18 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I agree - potentially misleading, and very silly indeed. Ghmyrtle (talk) 15:14, 18 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Point taken, Doug Weller, and no offense intended,Ghmyrtle. I simply did so to prevent the impression that I was edit warring. (Also, I was not aware that one was not supposed to.) --Bard Cadarn (talk) 15:53, 18 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2020 Elections voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2020 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 7 December 2020. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

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 2020 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 02:34, 24 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed deletion of Earthsea (universe)

The article Earthsea (universe) has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

WP:CONTENTFORK of Earthsea with none of the additional detail established as WP:NOTABLE in reliable secondary sources. The novel of the same name is notable, but there isn't significant coverage of the setting as a distinct topic with critical reception of its own.

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the page to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. Jontesta (talk) 02:29, 14 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Glass flowers and sea creatures

Nice work (here and in your profession), thank you. You may want to consider adding a couple images of the flowers and creatures to the Glass art and Art glass pages. Saw the Harvard exhibit during Wikipedia's 2019 North American conference, one of the highlights and was on my "list" of must-sees in the Boston area. Randy Kryn (talk) 14:40, 21 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

My thanks and I think I shall in the near future. Thank you for the suggestion. Bard Cadarn (talk) 19:42, 21 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2021 Elections voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2021 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 6 December 2021. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

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 2021 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:39, 23 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]