Why is my edit a conflict of interest The edits to the page I have made are common knowledge and can be confirmed through the Battye Library
Wikidata weekly summary #391
ArbCom 2019 election voter message
Books & Bytes – Issue 36
It's fine to have strong views, but you've got to be able to articulate why if you want other people to heed them. Our coverage of heritage sites in Queensland and New South Wales is objectively vastly better in breadth, depth and quality than on those in states where there hasn't been a CC-BY project, with South Australia, Victoria and Tasmania being particularly bad. WA is a bit of an exception due to the extensive local projects in some areas, which surpass the CC-BY efforts in at least breadth, but the breadth is very much concentrated in those areas, with even metropolitan National Trust museums still lacking articles. Even in places where the breadth of articles is okay, the user-created articles are heavily lacking in depth compared to the articles we've been able to get through CC-BY material. This is why an argument that is just "I don't like CC-BY material" is not something people are going to care very much about, or why calls for an evaluation are going to fall on deaf ears: the CC-BY material just holds up extremely well by any comparison.
Now, if there are things that can be fixed beyond "I don't like CC-BY content", they're things we can talk out and possibly walk through - but that requires that people explain what those issues actually are. The Drover's Wife (talk) 07:02, 24 November 2019 (UTC)
- Why would they be assessed separately to the process for any other article? You're absolutely correct that no one is interested in assessment, and that's always been substantially the case across the entire Australian WikiProject, largely because it's never served a clear purpose to many people beyond appearing in a metric that nobody much pays attention to: the assessment itself will be ticked off once with no real process and then maybe looked at it again in a decade. It's an issue that's got absolutely nothing to do with heritage places or CC-BY content, and the point and purpose of that assessment process needs a thorough evaluation much more than the addition of good content to the project does. The Drover's Wife (talk) 10:43, 24 November 2019 (UTC)
Wikidata weekly summary #392
Hi JarrahTree - just wanted to thank you for your very kind message! You've explained things really clearly and i will definitely take up your offer of reviewing content before it is published so as not to cause any issues. Thanks for making me feel part of the community. Msquidnunc (talk) 14:14, 28 November 2019 (UTC)
Speedy deletion nomination of Category:Transport ministries in Australia
A tag has been placed on Category:Transport ministries in Australia requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section C1 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the category has been empty for seven days or more and is not a disambiguation category, a category redirect, a featured topics category, under discussion at Categories for discussion, or a project category that by its nature may become empty on occasion.
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 "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 deleted 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. UnitedStatesian (talk) 22:48, 29 November 2019 (UTC)
Wikidata weekly summary #393
November 2019 Tree of Life Newsletter