User talk:Imogen at Leeds Uni Library

Imogen at Leeds Uni Library, you are invited to the Teahouse![edit]

Hi Imogen at Leeds Uni Library! 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 experienced editors like 78.26 (talk).

Visit the Teahouse

We hope to see you there!

Delivered by HostBot on behalf of the Teahouse hosts

16:05, 25 January 2017 (UTC)

{{wikidata}}[edit]

Hi. Just as a tip, you should combine the two Wikidata calls into one like [1] and [2] to always be sure that the retrieved qualifier belongs to the retrieved property. thayts 💬 11:45, 27 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Thayts, thank you very much! I will do from now on.

A cup of coffee for you![edit]

Lovely to meet you today and looking forward to working on-wiki together! Leela0808 (talk) 14:44, 6 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

An attempt at replying...[edit]

Looks like this has worked, phew :) Thanks very much, Leela0808 !

Imogen_at_Leeds_Uni_Library

Expanding your activities.[edit]

Imogen, really pleased to see Leeds Uni joining into WP. Apart from the work you are doing there is a lot that could be done regarding articles about the University itself especially buildings and people. If you decide to widen your activities please let me know as it's an area I'd like to develop and your access to the library resources would probably be invaluable. Nthep (talk) 16:35, 15 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Nthep, thanks for getting in touch! There are discussions about this happening currently. I will let you know if the project develops. Great to hear you're enthusiastic.

Great, let me know if there are any meetings etc as I still life fairly locally. As an example of what can be achieved is my last edit to The Gryphon where I'm guessing at the date of the first issue. If it's available via Special Collections and the date can be referenced this would be a good impreovement. Nthep (talk) 14:09, 18 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

February 2017[edit]

Hello, I'm Pmokeefe. I wanted to let you know that I reverted one of your recent contributions —the one you made with this edit to John Ruskin— because it did not appear constructive. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thanks. Pmokeefe (talk) 16:42, 15 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I made a mistake, my apologies. I believe another editor caught the error and has already restored your contribution. Thank you! Pmokeefe (talk) 17:00, 15 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Your submission at Articles for creation: Leeds University Library's Cookery Collection (April 6)[edit]

Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed! Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reason left by Timothyjosephwood was:

Much of the article appears to be about the things in the collection rather than being about the collection itself as an independent noteworthy thing. Similarly, many or most of the references appear to be about a piece or about a person but not really about the collection itself. You need sources that deal mostly with the collection as an entity, and the article should be about the same, not a catalog of the items in the collection.

Please check the submission for any additional comments left by the reviewer. You are encouraged to edit the submission to address the issues raised and resubmit when they have been resolved.

If you would like to continue working on the submission, go to Draft:Leeds University Library's Cookery Collection and click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window.
If you need any assistance, you can ask for help at the Articles for creation help desk or on the reviewer's talk page.
You can also use Wikipedia's real-time chat help from experienced editors.

TimothyJosephWood 18:08, 6 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, as you know I think this worth resubmitting. Perhaps you could humour the reviewer with some small changes (I suggest you remove most of the boldface as we only use this for the name at the top) to reduce the impression of the article being all about individual books, tidy it up a bit in a few other ways, and try again. I've done a little very minor tidying up myself (and I've now finished doing that!). Chiswick Chap (talk) 11:14, 7 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I forgot to say that it would be great (and would directly answer the reviewer's comments) if you developed the section "Books which discuss the Cookery Collection": you already have the refs, so a few words about what each book says about the collection, and even a few quotes, would demonstrate the notability of the collection, and show that the article was focused on the topic. All the best, Chiswick Chap (talk) 13:00, 7 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

In response to a reviewer over at Drafts, I've added a COI declaration below; you might like to add "yes" after the equals sign to say you declare yourself, which I assume you want to do. Chiswick Chap (talk) 06:52, 12 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Conflict of interest declaration[edit]

The following Wikipedia contributor has declared a personal or professional connection to the subject of this article. Relevant policies and guidelines may include conflict of interest, autobiography, and neutral point of view.

Imogen_at_Leeds_Uni_Library (talk · contribs) This user has declared a connection. (Draft:Leeds University Library's Cookery Collection)

A barnstar for you![edit]

	The Editor's Barnstar
	Congratulations on getting Leeds University Library's Cookery Collection accepted as an article! Chiswick Chap (talk) 10:37, 16 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Leeds University Library collections has been nominated for discussion[edit]

Category:Leeds University Library collections, which you created, has been nominated for possible deletion, merging, or renaming. A discussion is taking place to see if it abides with the categorization guidelines. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the categories for discussion page. Thank you. —swpb^T 14:42, 4 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hello[edit]

Hi Imogen - thanks for saying hello on my page. This is me saying hello on yours...Just experimenting (I tend to live on Twitter!)

The only other thing I've done Wikipedia wise, other than the odd OA link (https://leedsunilibrary.wordpress.com/2017/07/14/wikipedia-information-literacy-and-open-access/) is to add my name to Wikipedia:WikiProject Open Access/Members — Preceding unsigned comment added by OAnick (talk • contribs) 10:37, 24 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Links via wikidata[edit]

Hi. There has been some unresolved controversy among editors about how we want use Wikidata on Wikipedia. In regards to something like this:

{{wikidata|qualifier|property|P485|Q24568958|P856|format=\[%q %p\]}}

we don't currently have any guidelines for or against it. However in my opinion it's a very cryptic and hard-to-read way to provide a simple link. It is possible, but uncertain, that we might create a rule against it in the near future. If we do restrict or exclude Wikidata links then those links would all wind up getting re-written. If you add more of these archive links, my suggestion is to just make them a direct links like this:

[https://library.leeds.ac.uk/special-collections-explore/8427 Leeds University Library]

In my opinion that's a lot more clear, and it would avoid getting entangled in the ongoing Wikidata controversy. Some of the inter-editor arguments on the issue have been getting a bit heated. Alsee (talk) 23:24, 2 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]