Josefin Gladh, Nationalmuseum

Welcome

Hello, Josefin Gladh, Nationalmuseum, and Welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions to this free encyclopedia. If you decide that you need help, check out Getting Help below, ask at the help desk, or place {{Help me}} on your talk page and ask your question there. Please remember to sign your name on talk pages by clicking or by typing four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your username and the date. Also, please do your best to always fill in the edit summary field. Below are some useful links to help you get started. Happy editing! – Aranya (talk) 18:44, 9 April 2020 (UTC) Getting started Introduction Contributing to Wikipedia The five pillars of Wikipedia How to edit a page Intuitive guide to Wikipedia Finding your way around Table of contents Directories and indexes Department directory Editing articles How to develop an article Simplified Manual of Style Getting help Frequently asked questions Cheatsheet Our new user help forum, the Teahouse The Help Desk, for more advanced questions Help pages Article Wizard – a Wizard to help you create articles How you can help Community Portal Join a WikiProject Follow Wikipedia etiquette Practice civility Discover what's going on in the Wikimedia community

Would you care to explain?

Hi! So, I reverted your change of image at John Bauer (illustrator)‎ with the (partial) edit summary "... nor does this version of the image seem in any way better than the other". I see that you've inserted it again. Since you left no edit summary, I don't know why you did that. Would you care to explain? Your replacement of a Google Art image with this one was a clear improvement, but I don't see that the same applies here.

In any case, if an edit you've made has been undone, it's not usually a good idea to just go ahead and make the same edit again. A better response is to start a discussion on the talk-page. Thanks, Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 10:17, 15 April 2020 (UTC)

Hi Josefin Gladh, it is not customary to edit other people's talk page entries, and it's even less acceptable to keep trying to make the same change against what you may be noticing is a rather solid consensus, we call that edit-warring. Since the images seem to be indistinguishable it's also rather difficult to see what you may be trying to achieve. If you want to get rid of the old image on Commons, you can of course ask for it to be deleted over there (good luck with that) but it's hard to see why it should matter in this case. Chiswick Chap (talk) 12:30, 15 April 2020 (UTC)

April 2020

Hello. This is a message to let you know that one or more of your recent contributions, such as the edit you made to Talk:J. R. R. Tolkien's influences‎, did not appear constructive and has been reverted. Please take some time to familiarise yourself with our policies and guidelines. You can find information about these at our welcome page which also provides further information about contributing constructively to this encyclopedia. If you only meant to make test edits, please use the sandbox for that. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you may leave a message on my talk page. Chiswick Chap (talk) 12:46, 15 April 2020 (UTC)

Further, it would be much appreciated if you could revert that last edit yourself, please. Many thanks, Chiswick Chap (talk) 12:47, 15 April 2020 (UTC)

Please stop your disruptive editing.

• If you are engaged in an article content dispute with another editor, discuss the matter with the editor at their talk page, or the article's talk page, and seek consensus with them. Alternatively you can read Wikipedia's dispute resolution page, and ask for independent help at one of the relevant noticeboards.
• If you are engaged in any other form of dispute that is not covered on the dispute resolution page, seek assistance at Wikipedia's Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents.

If you continue to disrupt Wikipedia, as you did at Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/A beautiful princess among the trolls ‎, you may be blocked from editing. Chiswick Chap (talk) 12:51, 15 April 2020 (UTC)

Edit-warring at Talk:J. R. R. Tolkien's influences

Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia. You appear to be repeatedly reverting or undoing other editors' contributions at Talk:J. R. R. Tolkien's influences. Although this may seem necessary to protect your preferred version of a page, on Wikipedia this is known as "edit warring" and is usually seen as obstructing the normal editing process, as it often creates animosity between editors. Instead of reverting, please discuss the situation with the editor(s) involved and try to reach a consensus on the talk page.

If editors continue to revert to their preferred version they are likely to lose their editing privileges. This isn't done to punish an editor, but to prevent the disruption caused by edit warring. In particular, editors should be aware of the three-revert rule, which says that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Edit warring on Wikipedia is not acceptable in any amount, and violating the three-revert rule is very likely to result in loss of your editing privileges. Thank you. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 13:52, 15 April 2020 (UTC)

Please revert your last (mistaken) edit to that page. Thank you, Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 13:58, 15 April 2020 (UTC)

April 2020

Please stop your disruptive editing.

• If you are engaged in an article content dispute with another editor, discuss the matter with the editor at their talk page, or the article's talk page, and seek consensus with them. Alternatively you can read Wikipedia's dispute resolution page, and ask for independent help at one of the relevant noticeboards.
• If you are engaged in any other form of dispute that is not covered on the dispute resolution page, seek assistance at Wikipedia's Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents.

If you continue to disrupt Wikipedia, as you did at Talk:J. R. R. Tolkien's influences, you may be blocked from editing. Lava Lamps (talk) 15:20, 15 April 2020 (UTC)

TIFF files

Hi! A number of your edits have been reverted by Armbrust with the reason "Tif is an archive format, and shouldn't appear in articles". I didn't know that, so I looked at Com:TIFF, where I found "Only some TIFF files can, at this time, be displayed in resized (thumbnailed) form within Wikipedia or on Commons, and TIFF files are not supported by most Internet browsers. They are an archival format, and should never be used for images intended to be displayed". I suggest that you might want to review this – and perhaps reconsider the format the Nationalmuseum has been using to upload files – before you make any other edits; you might consider starting a discussion at the Commons:Village pump to receive expert advice on what (if anything) should be done.

May I also suggest (quite strongly) that you do not add any more TIFF files to English Wikipedia until this has been sorted out? I see that you have also been spamming the same images into numerous other Wikimedia projects, and respectfully suggest that you stop doing that too until you've clearly established that such additions are acceptable. I freely admit that file formats are not something I know much about, so please forgive me if I'm wrong about any of this. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 20:39, 15 April 2020 (UTC)

Further to this: I'm not an image expert by any means, and I didn't know that TIFF files were discouraged on Commons. I'm quite sure, though, that any discussion of that should take place there and not here. The solution may perhaps be as simple as creating a PNG version of each image. Your starting-point is the page I linked before, com:TIFF. If it would help, I'd be prepared to start a discussion of whether the files are OK to use and if not, how to make them so. Please let me know if you would like me to do that. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 10:34, 17 April 2020 (UTC)

April 2020

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on List of princesses of Sweden by marriage; that means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be, when you have seen that other editors disagree. Users are expected to collaborate with others, to avoid editing disruptively, and to try to reach a consensus, rather than repeatedly undoing other users' edits once it is known that there is a disagreement.

Points to note:

1. Edit warring is disruptive regardless of how many reverts you have made;
2. Do not edit war even if you believe you are right.

If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's talk page to discuss controversial changes and work towards a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at an appropriate noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, it may be appropriate to request temporary page protection. If you engage in an edit war, you may be blocked from editing. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 20:46, 15 April 2020 (UTC)

Just to be clear: you've been warned several times against edit-warring, but you've neither acknowledged those warnings, nor – apparently – taken any notice of them. So please read this carefully: if you again make the exact same edit more than once to any page without first discussing it – as you did for example at List of princesses of Sweden by marriage – you will be prevented from editing on this project. Please acknowledge that you have read this message by replying to it, here on this page, with some message (in Swedish if you wish). This is a final warning, so please take notice of it. Thank you, Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 20:59, 15 April 2020 (UTC)

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing for your continued failure to respond to, or even acknowledge, complaints about your additions of images; please see Wikipedia:Communication is required. Specifically, (1) you have repeatedly been asked not to change images on archived, historic or article talk pages and (2) you have been asked not to insert any more TIFF images without prior discussion, as you did at Template:POTD/2019-01-24.

If you think there are good reasons for being unblocked, please read the guide to appealing blocks, then add the following text below the block notice on your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Sorry for the inconvenience and misunderstanding my editing has caused. The tif-images were uploaded to Wikimedia Commons in 2016 during a collaboration between Nationalmuseum and Wikimedia Sweden and we were explicitly asked to deliver the highest possible quality. We were asked to deliver tiff images to facilitate printing and reuse for any possible project. A lot of our tiff images have been used in a lot of articles, and we were now trying to make some of the most popular images more accessible by exchanging older images with the new ones.

I understand that some of the tiff images do not seem to provide more information or a better image for the user at first sight, but the tiff image generally offers more possibilities for reuse. Generally, my colleagues and I have got a lot of thank you messages for the images we exchanged. We have not before encountered the view that tiff should not be used for viewing but will investigate the problem. In the meantime, I would be happy if you could unblock my user. Until the matter about the tiff images is clarified, I will only add images to those articles were the original image is of lesser quality, that is very low resolution or wrong color scheme. Does that sound ok? ~~~~}}.  Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 15:19, 16 April 2020 (UTC)

Please understand that you may be unblocked as soon as you show that you have understood the problems your edits have caused, and agreed not to make any more edits of the same kind. Thank you, Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 15:58, 16 April 2020 (UTC)

Josefin Gladh, thank you for replying – it's good to hear from you! Before I lift the block, can you please confirm that you do clearly understand on which pages an image should not be replaced, even with a better one? And perhaps give an example or two of pages where you should for that reason not have changed the image?

Since we're here, would you also kindly explain what we mean by edit warring, and give an example of an edit you should not have made for that reason?

Can you also kindly confirm that only one person has access to this account?

Once we have satisfactory answers to those extra questions I'll be happy to lift the block (or for anyone else who sees this to do so), and let you get on with the good work you've been trying to do. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 10:26, 17 April 2020 (UTC)

Justlettersandnumbers Hi, and thank you for your swift answer. I have understood that talk pages, user pages and some list pages are more of a personal work space where I should not edit at all. I have been systematically working from the Wikimedia commons page of an image and exchanged images in any page that it linked to. I must have lost track after some time and did not carefully look into if the site using the image was an encyclopedic article at all. Hence, I shouldn’t have changed the Talk:J. R. R. Tolkien's influences‎ page at all.

The same is true for my repetitive re-editing. I apologize for the irritation it caused. As I worked systematically through all the links on one image at a time, I did not even notice that the image had been changed back in the meantime. I never had the intention of engaging in edit warring. I got a lot of notifications during my work, but since most of them were thank-you messages, I unfortunately stopped paying attention after a while. I will be more alert in the future.

I gladly confirm that it is only one person having access to this account. For utmost transparence, we added “Nationalmuseum” to my username, to clarify that my editing is done as part of the collaboration between Wikimedia and Nationalmuseum, Sweden. While I now understand that there is a problem with tiff files – I am still waiting for clarification on that matter – I would also like to point out that the images provided by Nationalmuseum offer more descriptive information about the original work of art they are depicting, which we believe is useful for users who might get interested in the artwork.