This is an archive page of my user talk page. If you wish to reopen an archived discussion or otherwise respond to me, please do so on my user talk page. Thanks! :)
Thanks to Sarah Stierch's invitation to the TeaHouse, I have found out the minimum level of the HTML knowledge for becomig a decent Wikipedian. Thank you, sarah Stuersch for being such a good sprt as a TeaHouse host!!!
--VickiRedProject (talk) 23:23, 31 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I think you posted this on the wrong user's talk page. I don't mean to disparaging, but your class was focused on contributing to Wikipedia. Your professor didn't go over Wikipedia editing in class? On your class discussion page, I invited you all to ask if you had any questions. Edit: I also posted on your talk page and asked if you had questions. End edit. I commented on several things that you were all doing on your various assignment pages and nobody ever responded or asked about anything. When nobody spoke up, I presumed that (as graduate students going for a Master's degree) that you all knew how to edit Wikipedia already and weren't having any problems. Should I have been more proactive and kept asking whether you all had questions about how to fulfill the basic requirements of your college course? Banaticus (talk) 07:28, 1 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I see you have edited some of the pages within the scope of immunology. Please have a look at the proposal for a WikiProject Immunology WP:WikiProject Council/Proposals/Immunology and give your opinion (support or oppose). Thank you for your attention. Kinkreet~♥moshi moshi♥~ 09:36, 4 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Hi! Welcome to the second edition of The Tea Leaf, the official newsletter of the Teahouse!
Teahouse celebrates one month of being open! This first month has drawn a lot of community interest to the Teahouse. Hosts & community members have been working with the project team to improve the project in many ways including creating scripts to make inviting easier, exploring mediation processes for troubling guests, and best practices regarding mentoring for new editors who visit the Teahouse.
Springtime means fresh tea leaves...
First month metrics report an average of 30 new editors visiting the Teahouse each week. Approximately 30 new editors participate in the Teahouse each week, by way of asking questions and making guest profiles. An average of six new questions and four new profiles are made each day. We'd love to hear your ideas about how we can spread the word about the Teahouse to more new editors.
Teahouse has many regulars. Like any great teahouse, our Teahouse has a 61% return rate of guests, who come back to ask additional questions and to also help answer others' questions. Return guests cite the speedy response rate of hosts and the friendly, easy to understand responses by the hosts and other participants as the main reasons for coming back for another cup o' tea!
Early metrics on retention. It's still too early to draw conclusions about the Teahouse's impact on new editor retention, but, early data shows that 38% of new editors who participate at the Teahouse are still actively editing Wikipedia 2-4 weeks later, this is compared with 7% from a control group of uninvited new editors who showed similar first day editing activity. Additional metrics can be found on the Teahouse metrics page.
Say hello to the new guests at the Teahouse. Take the time to welcome and get to know the latest guests at the Teahouse. Drop off some wikilove to these editors today, as being welcomed by experienced editors is a really nice way to make new editors feel welcome.
You are receiving The Tea Leaf after expressing interest or participating in the Teahouse! To remove yourself from receiving future newsletters, please remove your username here. Sarah (talk) 21:32, 5 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Banaticus! I hope you are doing well! I really appreciate your contributions at the Teahouse and I know you haven't been able to contribute as much as you'd like. I hope you don't mind, but, for now I am going to remove you from the your hosts page and move you to our past hosts page which will be linked from the hosts page. You are of course encouraged to move yourself back to the active host page anytime, or just drop by to lend a hand at your convenience. I'm really glad you were able to participate in the pilot! Enjoy the spring and see you for a cup of tea soon! Sarah (talk) 17:19, 14 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, Banaticus. Please check your email; you've got mail! It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template.
Hello, Banaticus. Please check your email; you've got mail! It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template.
Hello fellow Wikipedian, the hardworking hosts and staff at WP:Teahouse would like your feedback!
We have created a brief survey intended to help us understand the experiences and impressions of veteran editors who have participated on the Teahouse. You are being selected to participate in our survey because you edited the Teahouse Questions or Guests pages some time during the last few months.
Hi! We're seeking your feedback as a current or formal host at the Teahouse about the project. Please stop by and lend your voice at your convenience, here. Thanks :) Sarah (talk) 20:08, 31 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, Banaticus. Please check your email; you've got mail! Message added 21:00, 8 June 2012 (UTC). It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template.
I, Sarah, hereby award you, Banaticus, the Teahouse Barnstar for your valued participation in the Teahouse pilot. Your insight and input in answering new users questions hasn't gone unnoticed. Even when you are busy with real life, thank you for all you do to help new users. I look forward to your continued participation at the Teahouse and thanks for all you do to make Wikipedia the invaluable resource it is! Sarah (talk) 00:21, 12 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Hi! Welcome to the fourth issue of The Tea Leaf, the official newsletter for the Teahouse!
Teahouse pilot wraps up after 13 weeks After being piloted on English Wikipedia starting in February, the Teahouse wrapped up its pilot period on May 27, 2012. We expect this is just the beginning for the Teahouse and hope the project will continue to grow in the months to come!
Thank you and congratulations to all of the community members who participated - and continue to participate!
What you've all been waiting for: Teahouse Pilot Report is released! We look forward to your feedback on the methodology and outcomes of this pilot project.
....and if a pilot report wasn't enough, the Teahouse Pilot Metrics Report is out too! Dive into the numbers and survey results to learn about the impact the Teahouse has made on English Wikipedia.
Teahouse shows positive impact on new editor retention and engagement
409 new editors participated during the entire pilot period, with about 40 new editors participating in the Teahouse per week.
Two weeks after participating, 33% of Teahouse guests are still active on Wikipedia, as opposed to 11% of a similar control group.
New editors who participated in the Teahouse edit 10x the number of articles, make 7x more global edits, and 2x as much of their content survives on Wikipedia compared to the control group.
Women participate in the Teahouse 28% of Teahouse participants were women, up from 9% of editors on Wikipedia in general, good news for this project which aimed to have impact on the gender gap too - but still lots to be done here!
New opportunities await for the Teahouse in phase two as the Teahouse team and Wikipedia community examine ways to improve, scale, and sustain the project. Opportunities for future work include:
Automating or semi-automating systems such as invites, metrics and archiving
Experimenting with more ways for new editors to discover the Teahouse
Building out the social and peer-to-peer aspects further, including exploring ways to make answering questions easier, creating more ways for new editors to help each other and for all participants to acknowledge each other's efforts
Growing volunteer capacity, continuing to transfer Teahouse administration tasks to volunteers whenever possible, and looking for new ways to make maintenance and participation easier for everyone.
Want to know how you can lend a hand at the Teahouse? Become a host! Learn more about what makes the Teahouse different than other help spaces on Wikipedia and see how you can help new editors by visiting here.
Say hello to the new guests at the Teahouse. Take the time to welcome and get to know the latest guests at the Teahouse. Drop off some wikilove to these editors today, as being welcomed by experienced editors is really encouraging to new Wikipedians.
You are receiving The Tea Leaf after expressing interest or participating in the Teahouse! To remove yourself from receiving future newsletters, please remove your username here. Sarah (talk) 16:37, 13 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Stop by for a tasty glass of wiki-iced tea at the Teahouse, today!
Hi! Welcome to the fifth edition of The Tea Leaf, the official newsletter of the Teahouse!
Guest activity increased in July. Questions are up from an average of 36 per week in June to 43 per week in July, and guest profile creation has also increased. This is likely a result of the automatic invite experiments we started near the end of month, which seeks to lessen the burden on hosts and other volunteer who manually invite editors. During the last week of July, questions doubled in the Teahouse! (But don't let that deter you from inviting editors to the Teahouse, please, there are still lots of new editors who haven't found Teahouse yet.)
More Teahouse hosts than ever. We had 12 new hosts sign up to participate at the Teahouse! We now have 35 hosts volunteering at the Teahouse. Feel free to stop by and see them all here.
Phase two update: Host sprint. In August, the Teahouse team plans to improve the host experience by developing a simpler new-host creation process, a better way of surfacing active hosts, and a host lounge renovation. Take a look at the plan and weigh in here.
New Teahouse guest barnstar is awarded to first recipient: Charlie Inks. Using the Teahouse barnstar designed by Heatherawalls, hosts hajatvrc and Ryan Vesey created the new Teahouse Guest Barnstar. The first recipient is Charlie Inks, for her boldness in asking questions at the Teahouse. Check out the award in action here.
Teahouse was a hot topic at Wikimania! The Teahouse was a hot topic at Wikimania this past month, where editor retention and interface design was heavily discussed. Sarah and Jonathan presented the Teahouse during the Wikimedia Fellowships panel. Slides can be viewed here. A lunch was also held at Wikimania for Teahouse hosts.
As always, thanks for supporting the Teahouse project! Stop by and visit us today!
You are receiving The Tea Leaf after expressing interest or participating in the Teahouse! To remove yourself from receiving future newsletters, please remove your username here. SarahStierch (talk) 08:23, 4 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
You recently revised my edits on this page and I am hoping that maybe you can help me. I like how the sources are condensed, it makes it neater because I used the same source several times. However, you can no longer click on my references when they are condensed. How do you make them "clickable" again so that it will take you to the site I referenced? Lugnuts achieved this with the reference to the Swedish film database, but I can't seem to do it and I have asked at the article's history for help as well as at the tea house but I haven't been able to get any assistance on this.
I'm sorry it's taken me so long to respond, I didn't notice that you'd posted here. You have to add a name parameter to the ref tag. For instance: <ref name=bob>The Reference Is Here</ref> or with quotes as: <ref name="bob">The Reference Is Here</ref> You would then add something like this later in the article: <ref name=bob/> or with quotes as: <ref name="bob"/> and that would automagically link to the original reference. The quotes are optional, unless you have a space in the name -- then you must use quotes. It looks like you have already had some help here, though, and that everything has been taken care of. If you need some more help, let me know. :) Banaticus (talk) 17:31, 13 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Hehe... pois é. Me distraí e confundi sua edição com uma edição indevida. Peço desculpas. Abraço.‴ Teles «Talk ˱@LCS˲» 01:33, 20 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I was not bothered by it. Have a great day! :) Banaticus (talk) 04:26, 20 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, Banaticus. I created the template {{geobox2}} like a translation of its version in Esperanto, because it can use the same locator templates like {{location map}}. You can see a little test on my sandbox. And I just corrected a very ugly bug of {{geobox2}}, according to its version in Esperanto. This bug was caused from a helping template. --Tlustulimu (talk) 15:29, 21 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Banaticus! Are you interested in being the Online Ambassador for any classes this term? We've got a few classes that are looking for ambassador right now (Canada, US), so if you're up for helping any, please do! Let me know if you have any questions, or if you'd like me to pick a course for you.--Sage Ross (WMF) (talk) 16:02, 10 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Sure, although until October 1st I will be running around areas largely without internet access, for a WFA train-the-trainer class, and some other outdoor activities. While I'm gone or once I return, feel free to pick a course for me. If that'll work for you, then I'm up for being the Online Ambassador for a class. At this point, I don't think I'll have time for more than one class. Banaticus (talk) 17:46, 13 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Sounds great. I'll ping you again at the beginning of October or just before, and match you up with a class that's just getting started then.--Sage Ross (WMF) (talk) 13:41, 14 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I'm back! I can now train people in WFA, First Aid, CPR and AED. Feel free to match me up with a class when one is ready or when a class needs someone. :) Banaticus (talk) 16:33, 23 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Hello again! New skills, cool! I've never had first aid or CPR training, but I probably should. Anyhow, I saw your message last week, but wasn't sure which class to put you with. Now, I think this one will be good Wikipedia:USEP/Courses/Introduction to Qualitative Research in the Social Sciences (Heather Adams). They are just about to hit their first major milestone of putting articles live, one week from now. Some students have gotten started in sandboxes and (naturally) some have yet to really do anything yet, waiting to the last few days before the first milestone. If that's cool with you, please jump right in and do your thing!--Sage Ross (WMF) (talk) 15:11, 1 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Banaticus, I've never actually applied a range block, so I'm not the right person to ask. If AGK can't help you, I suggest posting on the admin noticeboard. PhilKnight (talk) 17:59, 13 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
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.
Ok, delete it -- I moved the historical information from the page to the template. The template is displayed on two pages, both Cedar Glen, California and Lake Arrowhead, California. The two have the same weather because Cedar Glen is mostly surrounded by Lake Arrowhead. It's better to have duplicate information written once then displayed in two places, so that future updates only require updating one set of information. Banaticus (talk) 16:27, 23 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not an admin, so it's hardly my decision. In any event, I appreciate your note. I think we'll get better exposure to both the CG article and the weather data by combining the material.--S. Rich (talk) 16:41, 23 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
linking to a page that says article does not exist[edit]
I am currently attempting to link my article on Thematic analysis on the Narrative analysis page. However I just created the thematic analysis article. I went to the narrative analysis page and it is still in red and says that the thematic analysis article does not exist. Please let me know what steps I need to take to address this issue. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nasachs (talk • contribs) 17:20, 4 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Are you talking about this edit? It may be that the cache wasn't updated yet. If you don't want to wait for a while next time, you might try bypassing the cache, which might force an update in your browser or in the Wikipedia servers so that you're viewing the most current data. Good luck! :) Banaticus (talk) 08:44, 5 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Dear Banaticus,
My students and I are having serious problems negotiating the feedback of a contributor. It is in fact, such a negative experience that I hesitate to post it here in a rather public form. Please advise me of the best way to share this situation with you in order to get your advice.
Heather Adams (talk) 23:26, 4 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Go look at my user page or my user talk page. Then look over in the far left-hand margin in the Toolbox section and click "E-mail this user". Depending on the situation, I may or may not respond in a "public" format. I am inclined to respect privacy. I am also inclined to respond in a public format, such as your talk page. Banaticus (talk) 07:16, 5 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Dear Banacticus, My students and I are having a serious problem with another user. The experience is quite unpleasant so I hesitate to post the whole thing here. Please advise me on how to best communicate this information. I left a previous message here yesterday, but have not heard back from you. Heather Adams (talk) 14:24, 5 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Go look at my user page or my user talk page. Then look over in the far left-hand margin in the Toolbox section and click "E-mail this user". Depending on the situation, I may or may not respond in a "public" format. I am inclined to respect privacy. I am also inclined to respond in a public format, such as your talk page. Banaticus (talk) 18:46, 5 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I think this problem is beyond a simple email solution. I would like to set the entire situation before you, but as it is very unpleasant, I hesitate putting in an open forum, where it may become inflammatory. If you want me to post it here though, I will. Please advice how to further communicate the depth of the problem to you. Heather Adams (talk) 18:54, 5 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Let me see if I understand the problem correctly. The problem is that the narrative inquiry article has been edited by some students, mainly Anbingham and Zakdavid18, and Snowded has mainly reverted those edits? With that as the problem, I think a large part of the issue (for instance this set of edits), is that the students aren't putting in enough references for the material they're adding. Here's the thing about Wikipedia. Articles are (or should be) essentially research papers, written on a Master's level, not a Bachelor's level or a Doctorate level. By that, I mean that everything should be referenced, have citations, be verifiable. Articles should not be simply a synthesis of what the student has personally read or learned and generally free from a bibliography, or otherwise like the majority of undergraduate papers. Articles also should not be written like a doctorate paper, which would typically investigate something new or otherwise present a previously unstudied viewpoint or scientific theory. The following bit about notability (what qualifies for a Wikipedia article) also stands true for information added to an article or other article improvements:
Notability in a nutshell: If a topic has received significant coverage in reliablesecondary sources that are independent of the subject, it is presumed to satisfy the inclusion criteria for a stand-alone article.
The main problem that I saw with the narrative inquiry edits was that students were putting a lot of good information into the article, but were not using references, they weren't citing their sources. So the edits were revoked. Now, I know at this point you're probably thinking, "But that Wikipedia article on Justin Bieber's new album doesn't have this many citations." Well, it might, Believe (Justin Bieber album) has 77 different references, but sometimes "softer" articles are cut a little bit of slack (though, technically, they shouldn't be). Serious articles, though, such as articles in the sociology field, do need references/citations, and the students didn't appear to really be adding those. Disputes in article creation/editing, like those Anbingham and Zakdavid18 have been involved in with Snowded, should generally be settled by an argument from authority, with each party citing sources and references on the article talk page, to arrive at a consensus for how the article should be edited. I hope this helps. I'll write a short post to Anbingham and Zakdavid18 about the need to cite their sources. If I misunderstood the problem or if you have another concern, I'm more than happy to help where I can. :) Banaticus (talk) 19:49, 5 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Dear Banaticus,
My students and I are having serious problems negotiating the feedback of a contributor with the user name Snowded. Here are the events in a nutshell.
1. On the Narrative Inquiry page, Snowded removed a student's contribution (which was properly cited) with no explanation. When the second student working on the page re-posted it (he just thought the other student had not put it back up), Snowded tagged him as a Vandal. Snowded later apologized but maintained that his critiques were valid, and he provided an explanation in a later talk point, but did so after he had removed the content. I used this event as an opportunity to teach my students about problems in communication (for which, in my opinion, this situation) served as a negative example) and we went over how to respond to such an event.
2. Snowded’s belated explanation for removing the material was that there are many ways of conducting narrative inquiry, and because the students presented only two the presentation was unbalanced. I worked with the students to craft a response to Snowded, acknowledging his concern and asking if preceding the information with an explicit statement that this was only one of many ways for conducting narrative inquiry and encouraging other Wikipedia users to add additional methods would address his concern. He responded that they should keep the page in their sandbox. He also stated that their post was unsuitable anyway because it should have been just a summary. Please keep in mind that he acknowledged that he knew they were working within the Wikipedia education program.
3. Since then, he has gone to another of the student's pages, Participant Observation, and taken down much of her material, again without any comment.
I have several points of concern as an instructor:
4. I am appalled at the speed with which Snowded labeled the student a Vandal, a designation that is very negative in Wikipedia. That he later apologized and stated that the student was not in fact acting as a Vandal indicates that he sent his initial comment without careful thinking. By acting this way he caused the student and the other members of the class a lot of emotional distress.
5. My understanding is that in using Wikipedia users would provide helpful feedback, which the student would respond to, thus both improving the content and enhancing the student's learning process. Snowded has done neither. In two instances now, he has removed student contributions without any explanation, which undermines rather than contributes to learning. Snowded may have other goals for his Wikipedia pages, but I committed to this project solely for the learning opportunities for my students. I have previously used Wikispaces with great satisfaction. Although my students have enjoyed contributing to a product outside the classroom, all that pleasure has now been replaced with anxiety.
6. Snowded’s dismissive response to “stay in a sandbox” is demeaning and belittles the students personally and their work.
I understand that their are criteria for Wikipedia pages and other users have provided helpful corrections and suggestions the students have responded to. You state the student's need further citations and references, but I would then expect him to state that, not remove a page or more of content with no explanation. They are students who are both new to the topic and new to Wikipedia, which should be taken into account.
After thinking about this carefully, I would like to suggest that Wikipedia set a level of reviewer who are trained and abide by criteria for provide constructive, useful feedback. Please keep in mind that as an instructor, my first concern, and that of any instructional colleagues, is the learning experience of my students. I am responsible for structuring their course in such a matter that they have challenging but fair experiences and expectations of their work. Snowded's actions are currently disrupting this. Given these experiences I am seriously considering going back to Wikispaces for future projects. Please keep in mind that several colleagues have asked me to tell them about my experiences to help them decide if they want to incorporate Wikipedia projects into their classes. I will not put down Wikipedia itself, but I will, as a colleague, tell them about these experiences and let them draw their own conclusions.
Please let me know what avenues of resolution are possible here. Thank you for your time and assistance.
Umm, I came here to ask you to have a chat with the guys about a new page Interviewing in the qualitative paradigm which is problematic and found the above tirade. I held back from nominating the article for deletion given they are on a class assignment, but with any other editor I think it would have been the right action.
Just one factual correction on point 4 - I was editing on my iPad and the Rollback vandalism button is too close, I corrected it with a blank edit within seconds so the accusation above misrepresents the position to say the least.
Otherwise I think the suggestion to work in a sandbox first is in their educational interests and any responsible teacher seeking to use Wikipedia should properly prepare their students by suggesting that. That allows them more freedom. A notice could then be placed on the talk page with a link to said sandbox(s) which would allow editors to comment without the pressure of dealing with main space edits.
Your own comments on their talk pages were good. I'm more than happy to work with Heather (or anyone else for that matter) but WIkipedia is not a place for undergraduate essays. People come here for information, so if material needs conform with standards regardless of the purpose of the editors. ----SnowdedTALK 07:24, 6 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Heather Adams, let me preface these remarks by giving you the Wikipedia Guide to dispute resolution. It has many helpful suggestions and places to go to get more help. Personally, I love it. And now for my take on things:
Here's a situation where we have an editor who has apparently invested a lot of time into their edits and those edits are getting summarily changed without any real discussion. This applies both ways. A) Snowded apparently put a lot of effort into a series of edits and then some rather sweeping changes were made that weren't discussed first. B) Anbingham and Zakdavid18 (Ab/Zak) apparently put a lot of effort into a series of edits and then some rather sweeping changes were made that weren't discussed first. I can't really fault Snowded without also faulting Ab/Zak. I mean, from your point of view students made some good edits then some interloper (Snowded) suddenly jumped in and started changing things, while from Snowded's point of view some good edits were made and then some interloper (Ab/Zak) suddenly jumped in and started changing things. I know it's different for you, since these are your students, and you feel responsible for them, but both parties are at least a little bit at fault. Let me step through each of your points.
1. I think Snowded probably used the wrong template initially (unless I should be looking at a different edit). Zakdavid18's edits were reverted and Snowded said, Reverted edits identified as vandalism. A minute later, he edited again just to add a new statement in the edit summary, "APologies, it wasn't vandalism, but..." When he dropped a template on Zakdavid's talk page, Snowded basically reminded Zakdavid of the importance of discussing edits on the article talk page, BOLD. Act boldly and put something out there, if the edits are reverted, stop and discuss it on the article talk page. Think of an edit reversion in Wikipedia like death in a video game. You're just going to respawn -- all article edits are saved and can be brought back up again later, so just chat about it for a while on the article talk page. It's something that seems so simple, so basic, to Wikipedians, that the talk page for an article is where the talking about the article takes place, but I've noticed that most students who come through this program don't seem to be familiar with the concept and perhaps something about that should be added in. Basically, when a person's edits are reverted, the first thing they should usually do is to start a new discussion on the article talk page, dropping a note on the other person's personal talk page that there is now a discussion on the talk page.
2. I agree, some information is better than none and having one method presented is better than having no methods presented. The person adding that in, though, should be careful to avoid giving the appearance that the method added is the "only" method, which might have appeared to be the case if "a" method was presented, as it's easy to confuse "a" method with "the" method (especially if a method isn't explicitly called "a" method). I think a method should be added and since that's my opinion, I'm going to go post such on the article talk page, where something like that should go.
3. The students don't seem to be actively aware of one of the basic tenants of Wikipedia, "All articles must strive for verifiable accuracy: unreferenced material may be removed, so please provide references. Editors' personal experiences, interpretations, or opinions do not belong here. That means citing verifiable, authoritative sources." The material that Snowded removed on the Participant Observation page was unreferenced, written from the air, or from wherever those "facts" were pulled from (yes, we know that they're true but how do we "know" that they were true without a reference?). Wikipedia:Verifiability indicates that unreferenced article content should be removed, however it does not precisely define the timing and appropriate steps for removal in all instances. From Wikipedia's point of view, although he hasn't been civil, Snowded has improved the article by first removing unreferenced facts and then by adding more referenced material.
4. I'm sorry if they experienced emotional distress. I'm really sorry that they apparently experienced a lot of emotional distress. It was just a single statement in an edit summary, though, unless I should have been looking somewhere other than the edit that I linked earlier, and the user corrected himself a minute later. Mistakes happen and the user corrected himself shortly afterward.
5. The students and Snowded have have sort of ignored basic tenets of Wikipedia (albeit different tenets). The students didn't add any citations to what they were writing (added unverifiable material) and Snowded basically slapped their hand for it, which came across as uncivil. Wikipedia articles don't exist in a vacuum. They were written, are edited, and will be watched by many people. Most Wikipedia editors are fairly helpful; some few users aren't as helpful as others. Part of these assignments should possibly, in my opinion, be for the students to learn to work together with different people, even when those other people aren't very helpful. Throughout their lives, the students will have to work with coworkers, other volunteers, family members, who just aren't as helpful as a person would like. Here, they're doing that while in a supervised framework with other resources and people who can help mediate discussions. I'm not saying that unhelpful editors are a "feature", a net positive, I'm just suggesting that it could be a teaching moment.
6. That was a demeaning remark, yes. It wasn't appropriate.
Wikispaces might be more appropriate in some instances. There's good points and bad points about both sites. When I tried to post this, I had an edit conflict and saw that Snowded had responded. I agree that Wikipedia is not a place for undergraduate essays. They're in college now -- it's time to move beyond the papers they wrote in high school and to start preparing for what is today considered an "entry-level degree" in the social sciences, a master's degree. They're never going to get published if they can't cite and there's not many high-paying well-rewarded jobs in the social sciences for people who can't get published. I don't think the students should stay in their sandboxes, though, I think this is an opportunity for them to step up their game and write their papers the way a paper should be written. Get with it, verify those sources, point out the references. Banaticus (talk) 07:57, 6 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Snowded, yeah, you saw, their students. I'd rather not see them view this as "something they have to do" which they're just going to rush through for the grade then never look back at again. I'd rather that they see this as an opportunity to contribute to the greatest source of open, free, easily navigable, knowledge (in the world). There are more articles here than any one person could ever read. Even if you had somehow read everything that already is in Wikipedia, more is being written than the fastest person can read. And all of this is available for free. This is the students' opportunity to learn how this all works. I really hope that they catch the fever and continue contributing, continue editing and improving this project which aims to be a repository of the whole of human knowledge. Let's cut them a little slack until the semester ends.Banaticus (talk) 07:57, 6 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Actually I have cut them some slack if you check. I also think you are plain wrong on the sandbox issue, in respect of both policy and practice. There are many articles where experienced editors use a sandbox to develop something, inviting other interested editors to contribute. That way lots and lots of slack can be cut. It was practical advice and not a failure to be civil. You are also (in my opinion) wrong (in policy, violation of NPOV etc etc) to say it is better for one method to be represented rather than none. To do that is just sloppy research and preparation.
But those disagreements aside, the key thing here is that teachers need to better prepare their students for editing wikipedia. It is obvious that these students thought they were entitled to have their edits treated differently simply because they were on an assignment. That is never going to be the case. I also think there are issues (possibly here) where the course is partial or focused on one approach and students start to believe that their course content is the entirety of the universe. The naive reference to social constructivism on the new article being an example of that. --SnowdedTALK 08:17, 6 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
True, many other people do use sandboxes, and twice you indicated that you'd prefer to talk about the articles on the article talk pages -- I didn't want to confuse the issue. I don't believe I'm wrong to present one method rather than none, as long as the method presented is referenced and verifiable. I'm sure there are many different techniques to use with one type of analysis and a lack of exhaustive coverage for every possible technique shouldn't prevent discussion of one possible avenue of exploration. Wikipedia article inclusiveness is not based upon "completeness", that's not a requirement anywhere. Articles are based on verifiability. If they have a textbook that says, "this is how you do it", then that's how you do it. There are other ways, but that method is verifiable, you can't argue with it. Other equally valid methods can be listed later by them or by you or by someone else, just as we would list equally valid but differing "answers" for any Wikipedia article, from whether or not a particular singer is Indian or Afghani, to a facet of quantum physics.
I'm sure you've heard before that you can tell what year a student is in college by what they "know" is correct. Nonetheless, their viewpoints can lead to productive and constructive editing. They mainly just need to remember that they need to cite what they write. :) Banaticus (talk) 14:58, 6 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
It did occur to me that the teacher might have thought I was talking about an actual sandpit (which would have been bad form) as opposed to a wikipedia one. Mind you if that was the case all the more concern about setting students loose without proper preparation or training. Otherwise reference to methods does not have to be complete per se, but it has to be more than some scrawled notes from a seminar or lecture of one particular approach (which is how it appeared). You have to have some balance and you can't simply write "more to come" as was proposed. Overall I think they should be encouraged but they should also be prepared and not indulged. ----SnowdedTALK 22:00, 6 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Great points, I fully agree. Perhaps you'd like to contribute to Wikipedia:Training/For students to help make sure that the next group is better prepared? :) Banaticus (talk) 22:24, 6 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Its a good article. I have made one amendment based on this recent experience. Thanks for the link ----SnowdedTALK 05:50, 7 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I appreciate the detail and depth of the consideration and discussion of my concerns. After reading through the conversation, I feel comfortable having the students continue to work in Wikipedia. I agree completely that the students themselves were not following Wikipedia protocol and have sent them a very firm email on these and several other points. I think that the basis of this problem may be a difference in expectations. I certainly did not expect the students to be pampered, but I did expect the correcting dialog they received to be more constructive in nature, such as some of the other feedback they received. For example, I understand Snowded's concern that the material on Narrative Inquiry was unbalanced, but suggestions of types that should be included and a source or two to help them get started would have made that an excellent teaching moment that would have pushed them to a better understanding of the topic. Snowded, you made several excellent comments on student's pages, which you will see I validated. These improvements should be addressed this week. I must also concede that part of the fault of the students incorrect Wikipedia protocol rests with me, as I am also a new comer to this community and forum. This means that in some cases I am learning about the venue, side by side with my students. In hindsight, I think it would have been better for me to gain some experience working in Wikipedia on my own before incorporating into a class. Unfortunately, the presentation of the process did not include this suggestion and emphasized the minimal amount of effort it would take for me to incorporate this community into my classroom. Perhaps, such a caution and suggestion to work in Wikipedia a bit before moving it into the classroom would be helpful in the future. Once again, thank for all of your assistance. Heather Adams (talk) 19:41, 7 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
You might want to look at getting experienced editors to brief the students before the start and/or after they have engaged. I think most (especially those of us who also teach) would be happy to contribute. ----SnowdedTALK 10:09, 9 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Disambiguation link notification for October 6[edit]
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited National Registry of Emergency Medical Technicians, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page EMT (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) 10:49, 6 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
It's easier than ever to be a Host at the Teahouse
Hi Banaticus! The Teahouse has recently went through some design changes in order to improve it's usability for new editors and for our Hosts. As a former Host, we'd love to see you back. A few changes have taken place about hosting:
A new and improved Host Lounge which features calls to action and resources.
Concerned about how much time you have to contribute? Don't be. With our new automated Host check in system Hosts can feel less pressure to participate outside of their volunteer capacity - only participate when you want.
Teahouse invitations are currently automated! We encourage you to keep inviting, but, there is no pressure or quotas as HostBot does the task for the you.
I hope you'll come back and join us, your skills at making new editors feel welcome and appreciated are invaluable to the Teahouse, and the Wikipedia community. See you there! EdwardsBot (talk) 17:30, 9 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Hi -- I'm not keen on the edit you made, but I wouldn't like to revert it without discussion. The problem is that a person will typically be able to do several of the things on each subscale -- what the scale uses is the "best" of them, that is, the one that requires the highest degree of consciousness. If you say that "best" is not a very good term here, I would agree with you, but it is, I believe, the term that the literature uses, so we are somewhat stuck with it. Regards, Looie496 (talk) 04:57, 14 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, and text in each section should be put in that says something like that, namely to use the level that best matches the patient. The section title though is about the section as a whole, which discusses "all" the levels. :) Banaticus (talk) 05:11, 14 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Hello and thank you for all your help with the Narrative inquiry page. As you know, my partner and I have been working on developing the page for a classroom assignment. We are to have our contributions posted by today at 5:00pm EST. We have made changes to the article based on your comments and have since received more comments about the partiality of our writing and the accusation of making universal statements. I have come to you to seek advice on how to proceed with your deadline in mind. Do you believe that our current works (in my sandbox) are satisfactory to be posted? How should we carry on? Thank you for your help in advance. (Anbingham (talk) 13:10, 15 October 2012 (UTC))[reply]
I responded at User talk:Anbingham/sandbox#Some notes on reading this:. You may need to rewrite some parts, however it's my opinion that you don't need to state how the listed methods are partial, since I presume that the cited authors aren't saying that they're only giving partial methods. I'm going to be gone all day for my own class, so I won't be able to respond again until after your deadline. Good luck! :) Banaticus (talk) 14:23, 15 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Snowded appears to be continuing to apply his variation of the Wikipedia regulations on the Narrative Inquiry page. I have responded there quite strongly. I do not think that this requires any further action from you, as you have clear stated your positions on the page content, which are better supported in the requirements and regulations that I read. Heather Adams (talk) 15:58, 16 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, I won't take any further action then, unless you'd like me to. You might look into Wikipedia:Third opinion which is "a means to request an outside opinion in a dispute between two editors". Good luck. :) Banaticus (talk) 16:44, 16 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
