Jump to content

User talk:Shalor (Wiki Ed)/Archive 4

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1 Archive 2 Archive 3 Archive 4 Archive 5 Archive 6 → Archive 10

Need help request from Lizmeuser (talk)

Hello.

I'm in Jennifer Maher's G310 Representation & the Body Class and IU. I was wondering if I could get your help in checking my 'draft' (namely the written contributions I would like to make to my assigned article of Islamic Feminism) in my personal sandbox to make sure I cited things correctly according to the Wikipedia plagiarism guidelines.

Also, some of the things I mention in my paragraphs may have a separate Wikipedia page already. Is there a way to hyperlink to that page from the paragraph I wrote? I've seen some other contributors write "See also:". Which do you suggest would be the proper way to go about that?

Thank you!


--Lizmeuser (talk) 05:44, 1 March 2018 (UTC)

Help needed

Hi Shalor, I am attempting to write a paragraph for a current wikipedia article as part of an assignment, and I have a list of sources below my paragraph, however one of the sources is telling me: "URL-wikilink conflict" and I don't know how to fix it. I've tried cliking on the help link next to the message, I've tried changing the information manually of the source (such as where I can add the url, author's name, access date, etc.) Yet have found no luck so far. Based on this information, would you have any suggestions on how I could fix this?

Here is a link to my sandbox if that helps,

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User:Shaywah/sandbox&action=edit

Thanks, Shaywah (talk) 03:00, 1 March 2018 (UTC)Shayla

  • Hi Shaywah - love your name! I've fixed the source, however I did want to give you some feedback about the paragraphs - your sourcing is excellent, so good job on that! My only caution would be that your work does feel a little too casual in places, so be careful about that part. The sentence "Germany didn't always want to be an immigration destination." stands out some. You may want to rephrase that, perhaps something like "According to (insert name of source/person), immigration is one of the two most discussed topics in the country as it puts strain on many social and governmental aspects of a country, such as social services, schooling, and taxes." You don't really have to use a quote for the list of things that immigration could impact since there's not really a lot of ways to rephrase a list.
Also, make sure that when you attribute, that you specify the author or source since you don't want it to be too general of an attribution. You do especially want to make sure that you attribute claims to things like "Most of these incoming workers were Turkish, who are considered the most difficult ethnic group to integrate", as that's definitely something that could be considered controversial claim-wise. Saying the "who" of who made the claim helps show that its being represented as a claim and not an absolute fact, for example. Shalor (Wiki Ed) (talk) 18:04, 1 March 2018 (UTC)

Need help request from Lwarres (talk)

Hello, Shalor,

I need help with formatting citations in Wiki with subfields properly identified and appearing in the reference list. Can you help?

Thank you!


--Lwarres (talk) 20:15, 1 March 2018 (UTC)

user sandbox deleted and article title

Hello Shalor,

I wasn't aware of contentforking and created an article titled "Yin Zhen," assuming that it would be somehow link and merge with the already existing article titled "Yongzheng Emperor." I tried to correct the issue and renamed the article to its proper title, but somehow I changed my "user" name from "User:李许安" to "User:Yongzheng Emperor" instead. I created a big mess. Would it be possible to undo the username change? Thank you. 李许安 (talk) 03:17, 2 March 2018 (UTC)

I think I've sorted this.[1][2] There were a few duplicate pages in there. — JJMC89 (T·C) 05:27, 2 March 2018 (UTC)
(talk page stalker) Hi Shalor, I've added a few suggestions here. Some go-to people for this WiEd project who can actually speak Chinese might be User:PalaceGuard008 and User:Alex Shih. Wikipedia:Notifications appears to have a flat tire at the moment, so I'll ping em later on. Pete AU aka --Shirt58 (talk) 12:08, 2 March 2018 (UTC)

Need help request from Yangm7 (talk)

Hello.

I need help with looking over my current sandbox draft for "rhetoric of technology." Please let me know how I can improve the entry to increase the likelihood of it passing the "notability" test for a new entry. Thank you! --Yangm7 (talk) 23:30, 1 March 2018 (UTC)

  • Hi Yangm7, this is a very good draft - my main two notes are that if you can, add more sourcing to the article to help cite claims and show notability. The second is that at times this comes across as more of an academic paper, in that it's occasionally written in a speculative fashion and from a specific point of view (ie, trying to persuade the reader). Be very careful with writing to avoid things like "broadly speaking", as those can make an article seem more like a response or academic paper. Also make sure that you avoid original research, which is content, claims, and research that you came up on your own that isn't explicitly stated the source material. An example of this would be if someone were to describe something that sounds like a cat and I went a step further and stated that they were definitely describing a cat and used their description to make my case. Elsewhere this wouldn't be anything to worry about, but on Wikipedia we can only summarize what has already been written about a topic, so on here all I could do is say that the person was describing a feline-like creature. This is another reason to be careful about writing styles, as an essay-type or casual style can actually make content seem like original research even if it isn't and can also make it easier to slip into the original research mindset without realizing it. (It took me a while to really work on my writing styles when I first started editing, to be honest.) Other than that, this really does look good so far! Shalor (Wiki Ed) (talk) 15:08, 2 March 2018 (UTC)

Need help request from Treesssss (talk)

Hello.

I would like help with my rough draft in my sandbox titled "performance art and video art". I want to know if I have written by standards of Wikipedia and have maintained a neutral POV as well as cited reliable sources that can be used. I would also like to know if I should write more than what I have written about each artist or if it is best to stick to the facts that have been provided by my sources and simply introduce them, list their work, explain how it relates and move on.

Thank you for your help

--Treesssss (talk) 02:02, 2 March 2018 (UTC)

  • Hi Treesssss - it's better to stick to the facts and do a quick intro, as the section is supposed to be more about the general history and concepts of performance art and video art interacting with one another. It's helpful to have some examples, but it's not meant to be a list of performances exactly. I was wondering - do you have any information about the history of the two together? Something I do have to caution you about is that your sourcing needs to specifically state the claims in the article as well as make the connection between performance and video art, as otherwise it could be considered original research. (IE, conclusions and information that you created based on sourcing that may not explicitly state the same conclusions/claims) Shalor (Wiki Ed) (talk) 14:54, 2 March 2018 (UTC)

Thank you so much for your help! Treesssss (talk) 01:24, 3 March 2018 (UTC)

Need help request from Esamikhafe (talk)

Hello Shalor.

I have finished with my page. It's supposed to proceed to the main space but can you please help look it over?

I need help with formatting. I have done some for the filmography but I don't think its the standard type. I also want to add a profile box, for bio and info at a glance.

Thanks. 

Esamikhafe (talk) 11:31, 4 March 2018 (UTC)



need help from cutiepinky

I got another article on Vernacular Painting Vernacular Painting 

  It is a realistic depiction of scenes from everyday domestic life, people put it during the New Year and Birthday. The vernacular painting draws “academic” paper and color. When it is on Silk, the image is graceful and lively. These painting can satisfy the people’s need and desire.The Chinese connoisseurship and collecting against the Vernacular painting, by the following: 1) they despise the functionalism 2) they don’t show the hand of the artist of brushwork. Because of their functionalism, the Chinese connoisseurship describes them as the irrelevant art. In Chinese painting, the artist shows their feeling and the temperament in the painting.Since the functional painting lost its value during that time.

It is different from other painting that another painting is from the classic and history. Since there has not a lot collector are interesting to the Vernacular painting, the dealer will mislead people about the attribution and the signature of the artist. The artist who draws the vernacular that they mostly are master with small prestige in studios in the cities, but they are under the control that they need to satisfy their customers’ need and desire.The painting reveals the Chinese life and working of Chinese society. The Chinese Painting : scholar-amateurism=brushworks=calligraphy=self-expression=disdain for representation=high-mindedness=high quality. The vernacular painting had increased during the later seventeenth and eighteenth centuries, which is the High Qing dynastic, the Kangxi period, Yongzheng period and Qianlong period in Qing dynasty. One example of vernacular painting is family celebrates New Year together,

References James Cahill, “Pictures for Use and Pleasure, Vernacular Painting in High Qing China” — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cutiepinky (talk • contribs) 06:17, 3 March 2018 (UTC)

need help from cutiepinky

so I am done? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cutiepinky (talk • contribs) 19:37, 5 March 2018 (UTC)

Plagerism

Hi Shalor, so sorry about that I will review the module again did you remove it from the page or do I have to do that? Cdelrio123 (talk) 17:55, 5 March 2018 (UTC)

Need help request from Ms1220a (talk)

Hello.

I need help with... the rough draft of my improvements to propaganda in post-Soviet Russia



--Ms1220a (talk) 01:24, 3 March 2018 (UTC)

  • Hi Ms1220a, what exactly did you need help with? One thing that I will definitely caution you about is that anything that deals with Donald Trump and Russia is extremely hot button and controversial on Wikipedia, so make sure that your sourcing is on point. I noticed that you used a primary source, Twitter's review of the elections, at one point. You need to find a secondary, independent reliable source that mentions the Twitter report. This will help show that the report is legitimate (ie, released by Twitter) but more importantly, it will show that it's a notable enough report to justify mentioning. Part of the issue with using primary sources is that it's the primary source for any claims and assertions and as such, someone could claim that you're cherrypicking content in order to favor a particular viewpoint.
On that note, make sure that the material is neutrally written. Be careful of things like "accused of" without attribution since that can imply guilt, which can make the article non-neutral. You always want to make sure that you attribute a claim to a person/outlet, such as "In X Time So-and-So stated that...". Also, since this looks to cover multiple accusations, it's a good idea to include a little bit of an introduction to the section, like "Multiple organizations and people have made statements saying that the Russian government have interfered in foreign elections via propaganda campaigns." (You can use or re-write that as you like.) This can help show that it's not just about the Trump stuff. Something else to make sure and do is include rebuttals to the claims, if any exist, as that can help show neutrality as well - only using sourcing that says "yes, they did it" (or something along those lines) can cause the content to appear one sided. This looks like an interesting topic and you've done some good work so far - we just need to be careful with this topic since Russia and Trump are so controversial right now. Shalor (Wiki Ed) (talk) 20:58, 5 March 2018 (UTC)

thank you from cutiepinky

Thanks for helping me a lot , hope you have nice spring break. peiwen zou (talk) 20:45, 5 March 2018 (UTC)

Hello Shalor,

Thank you for your help. I appreciated it.

Hazel 李许安 (talk) 22:31, 5 March 2018 (UTC)

Need help with re-naming an article (changing the title)

Hi Shalor,

I hope this finds you well! I am hoping to change the name of the page "Sex Trafficking of Women and Children in Thailand" (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sex_trafficking_of_women_and_children_in_Thailand) to "Sex Trafficking of Persons in Thailand" or simply "Sex Trafficking in Thailand." Changing the title of the article will allow the page to be inclusive of all victim populations, and the change will also reflect the additions I'll be making to the article regarding gendered language and representation-- I plan to add a section on the seldom-talked about but epidemic issue of sex trafficking of men, boys and LGBTQ+ folks. Let me know how to best go about doing this! In the future I may consider merging this article with the page "Human trafficking in Thailand," but for now it seems alright to keep them separate because the issue of human trafficking is so large that having a separate space for just discussing sex trafficking in Thailand allows for wider representation and deeper exploration of the factors that contribute to the issue as it exists in the country today. Re-naming this page to maximize inclusivity is the first step in a greater effort I hope to make to increase visibility of all groups affected by the issue. Perl s (talk) 03:48, 6 March 2018 (UTC)

  • Hi Perl s! I've listed this as a requested page move. This typically takes a week and as long as there's no opposition to the new title, it should be moved after that. I think that this is a very good idea, as the title "Sex trafficking in Thailand" is definitely more inclusive of all peoples that are trafficked. I'm glad that you posted to the talk page as well - that made it easier for me to list, so well done! Shalor (Wiki Ed) (talk) 15:46, 6 March 2018 (UTC)

Need help request from Esamikhafe (talk)

Hello.

I need help with...my page before I take it to main space. Thanks. --Esamikhafe (talk) 08:39, 5 March 2018 (UTC)

--Esamikhafe (talk) 08:39, 5 March 2018 (UTC)

  • Hi Esamikhafe, it looks like you moved it already - I've made some tweaks to the page. My main notes are these:
  1. When citing online sources, include the full URL link so that people can go directly to the story. I've fixed these for the ones I could find links for.
  2. Be careful of original research, specifically in stating that Oguamanam does advocacy through her films. You need sourcing that specifically says that this is something she does with her films. On Wikipedia it doesn't really matter if the claim is an obvious one, the site still requires a source that specifically states the claim.
  3. I'm a little confused by the filmography section. There's a list of films set in a template, however there's also a paragraph's worth of films listed above that. I'm not sure what the difference is between the two groups.
  4. Finally, be careful of sourcing. Not all sourcing is both independent and reliable. Some of the sourcing, especially the ones I couldn't find, looked to be in self-published sources or in places that looks to sell advertising.
I hope that this helps! You definitely put a lot of work into the article! Shalor (Wiki Ed) (talk) 17:36, 5 March 2018 (UTC)
Thanks Shalor
I had to the article because of our deadline.
#The claim about her films being used for advocacy I found in one of the materials. I'm sure that can be backed.
#The issue with the filmography is formatting. I was discovering more films as I prepared the 'table' and it was difficult to fit it all in and I was pressed for time. I designed it in the Word format. I'm sure it will look better with a redesign.
Thanks again.

Esamikhafe (talk) 03:49, 7 March 2018 (UTC)

Possible bug

Hello Shalor, 

I'm working on an article for a class but whenever I go to publish content in my sandbox, characters, references, and hyperlinks will just randomly appear in my typed paragraph even disrupting words and my own citations. My letters will also shift to other sections of the article. I have tried this on two different computers but it keeps happening and makes it impossible to publish a complete article. An example of on the sentences is " New London also hosted to the Roland Academy for girls between 1812 and 18 i2 e dlOld e Mead's aerr. .[3]" Can you give me any help or advice? Here is a the link to my sandbox if you need it https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Mlemon1/sandbox. Mlemon1 (talk) 02:09, 7 March 2018 (UTC)
  • Hi Mlemon1, I didn't see any formatting errors on your page. Some general notes though, if you include a space before a paragraph it can affect formatting akin to like it does above. Also, if you're copying from a word or Google document, that can also affect formatting. However if you're doing neither and this still happens, give me a link to the sandbox without any changes made to the content and I'll see what I can find. That's a fairly odd formatting error overall, so I'd have to see the page without any corrections. Shalor (Wiki Ed) (talk) 15:35, 7 March 2018 (UTC)

Need help request from Msw258 (talk)

Hello.

I need help with...

Just added potential articles to use for editing the "Fish oil" article. What do you think about these sources?



--Msw258 (talk) 02:07, 7 March 2018 (UTC)

  • Hi Msw258, Ian (Wiki Ed) is the Content Expert for your course so he will be the best person to look over your sourcing. Offhand, I will say that you should be careful of using studies as sources. I'm not sure if any of these are, but it's the number one thing I'd caution you about. Studies are primary sources for any data, claims, and theories contained therein, so you would need an independent, secondary source that covers the study to some extent. Shalor (Wiki Ed) (talk) 16:46, 7 March 2018 (UTC)

Question from H0187160

Hi Shalor,
I hope this message finds you well. I am now forbidden to edit on Social media marketing since I accidentally published an unconstructed citation info on it. I am leaving this message to check if this will cause any restriction on my further edition on Wikipedia. Thank you. H0187160 (talk) 04:44, 7 March 2018 (UTC)

  • Hi H0187160, it doesn't look like you're forbidden from editing on the page - it's just that the edit was reverted. I'll respond in more depth on your talk page and try to get the person who removed the content to respond. Shalor (Wiki Ed) (talk) 17:02, 7 March 2018 (UTC)

Need help request from Hotchinaboy (talk)

Hello.

I need help with reviewing the article. Thank you.


--Hotchinaboy (talk) 18:11, 7 March 2018 (UTC)

  • This looks good for the most part - it could use some tweaks for grammar/flow and more sourcing, as there are some unsourced sections, but this is good. I think it's ready to move live. Shalor (Wiki Ed) (talk) 19:04, 7 March 2018 (UTC)

UI Representation class feedback

Just a heads-up that as a follow-up to my comments to Professor Jennifer E. Maher (Jemaher (talk · contribs)) on her Talk page regarding an issue about her wiki edu-related class on Representation, I addressed an email to Prof. Maher at her public university email account providing her with a link to the discussion about using JSTOR on her Talk page, which I'm not sure if she knows how to access.

It seems to me that information about how to properly use online databases that have public-facing urls which may be different than the urls available on an internal university network, should be part of the standard information packet about Wikipedia that a professor connected with a wiki edu-related class receives at the outset. Volunteer editors should not be burdened with having to correct individual students who were not aware of how to do this properly, because it was never covered before they started editing Wikipedia. Mathglot (talk) 08:27, 7 March 2018 (UTC)

FYI about gender pay gap

Hey Shalor,

One of the classes this term (@NYU) is working on gender pay gap. It's a good article for students to improve but I'd recommend putting it on your watchlist because some editors working there can be pretty grumpy. They *just* added the article to their list, so there's nothing immediate but I felt you could use a heads up. Hope you're well, Protonk (talk) 18:58, 8 March 2018 (UTC)

  • Hi Protonk! I'm doing well - thank you for letting me know about this. I'll keep an eye out and make sure that everything goes well. I think that I'll recommend that the class heavily use the talk page while researching and drafting their changes/additions and look for community feedback. It's definitely a controversial topic, to say the least, so caution would be a good move overall in any case. Shalor (Wiki Ed) (talk) 20:15, 8 March 2018 (UTC)

Need help request from Shane.blau (talk)

Hello.

I need help with how to approach the topic and title for the article I am editing. It is currently titled "Language acquisition by deaf children", but as people point out in the Talk section, it really focuses on the US and on sign languages. I am not sure if I should leave the title as is and try to fill in information on the missing information about language acquisition around the world etc., or if I should start a different article titled "Sign Language Acquisition in Deaf Children" and focus on that aspect of the question. Also, the article currently includes a lot of information that seems off-target for language acquisition, such as educational methodology questions (e.g. fingerspelling, Total Communication). Is it ok to take out those sections? Or should I move them to a different location such as the Deaf education page? Thank you for your assistance!


--Shane.blau (talk) 15:14, 7 March 2018 (UTC)

  • Hi Shane.blau, Ian (Wiki Ed) is the Content Expert for the class, so he would be the best person to ask in this situation. In general, I would suggest just beefing up the article rather than removing information, at least not without some discussion on the talk page about removing or moving sections. Setting up a new page could work, however you'd have to show that the article could stand on its own and wouldn't be redundant to the existing article. Shalor (Wiki Ed) (talk) 18:17, 7 March 2018 (UTC)

--- Thank you Shalor! I will check with Ian, but I appreciate the advice. --- Shane.blau (talk) 00:28, 9 March 2018 (UTC)

Need help request from Naldysol21 (talk)

Hello.

I need help with...



--Naldysol21 (talk) 04:06, 9 March 2018 (UTC)

Meeting notability guidelines

Hi Shalor, I'd like to start work on an article for SP493 on the Basque filmmaker Mikel Rueda. He currently has a page in Basque here, but none in English or Spanish. Does the existence of a page in another language meet the notability requirements? There are several Spanish and English-language interviews with him in newspapers, and other information in good sources around the internet. Thanks in advance for your help. Danielbritain (talk) 23:13, 9 March 2018 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) Hello Danielbritain, The fact that a Wikipedia article exists is not ipso facto proof of notability even if it exists on English Wikipedia. Articles are challenged all the time and nominated for deletion at Afd, sometimes for reasons of Notability.[a] It's also important to understand that Notability is not a property of the existence (or non-existence) of an article, or how good the article content might be, but rather, it is a property of the subject itself: you can have Notable topics with no article in any Wikipedia, or conversely, you can have subjects that are not notable which have a Wikipedia article. (But it would be at serious risk for deletion.)
To get a sense whether filmmaker Mikel Rueda is a Notable subject for inclusion in Wikipedia, you can start with WP:NOTABILITY for general background, and then read WP:BIO for more specific information about notability for people. The section Creative professionals on that page would be particular apt.
On another note, to link an article from a foreign Wikipedia or sister project such as the Basque article, you can use a shortcut code: just enter [[eu:Mikel Rueda]], which renders as eu:Mikel Rueda and links properly. For a list of all the shortcut codes, see the table at meta:Table of Wikimedia projects#Projects per language codes. Hope this helps, Mathglot (talk) 23:58, 9 March 2018 (UTC)
This is all fantastically helpful, Mathglot! (Particularly the foreign Wikipedia shortcut, which I've been trying to figure out for a few weeks.) I appreciate you taking the time to answer. Danielbritain (talk) 18:05, 10 March 2018 (UTC)

Notes

  1. ^ The list of articles nominated for deletion so far just today can be viewed here, and the topic of "Notability" comes up dozens of times there, although it's not the only reason an article might be deleted.
  • Thanks Mathglot! As stated above, Danielbritain, each language Wikipedia has its own standards of notability. Some are looser than the English Wikipedia's, which are the most strict of all, and some are identical. The best thing to do is search for coverage for Rueda and see what you can find, like news articles about him and/or his films. If you can find books or journal articles that discuss him, that's all the better. Something to note is that coverage doesn't have to be in English, so if coverage exists in another language definitely feel free to use it in the article! Since you're looking into articles in other languages, it may be a good idea to review this training module on the topic, if it's not already part of your course requirements. Shalor (Wiki Ed) (talk) 02:27, 10 March 2018 (UTC)
The "find sources" template generates links which may (or may not) provide some additional resources for you:
HTH, Mathglot (talk) 02:54, 10 March 2018 (UTC)
Many thanks for all the helpful links, Shalor (Wiki Ed). The 'find sources' template is going to come in very handy. I'll look over the notability information above and see if I can come up with more good sources. (The El país article is a perfect example!) Danielbritain (talk) 18:05, 10 March 2018 (UTC)

Need help request from Anāhitā (talk)

Hello.

I need help with review of the content in my Sandbox, termed "Article Contribution (Outline)," as soon as possible. I would like both positive and negative feedback, regarding the proposed additions and/or changes.



--Anāhitā (talk) 07:08, 10 March 2018 (UTC)

Very basic questions about the editing window.

Necamonecamor (talk) 22:45, 7 March 2018 (UTC)necamonecamor wed mar 7 14:32 PST


Hi Shalor

Couple of questions:
(1)

Just going through the tutorials, nothing too scary but the screens in the course material and in the videos doesn't exactly match what I'm seeing.
I don't see an Edit button, I see an Edit source tab. In addition, I don't have a Save button at the foot of my screen, I have a Publish Changes button.
I'm not sure if the interface has changed since the course materials were prepared OR (more likely) if I'm on the wrong page but page header reads Editing User:Necamonecamor/sandbox and everything else seems to match.

Here's the video I'm following where it shows a different pair of buttons:
Editing Basics

(2)

I'm also trying to work out the syntax for nesting multiple markups - is there an order I need to keep them in? I'm seeing stuff showing up bracketed with apostrophes when I wanted to make them formatted text + heading text.
Does that make sense?

Thanks in advance for your help, I know these are dumb questions.
Now I'm just going to hit Save, um Publish changes.


Cheers

  • Hi Necamonecamor, these aren't dumb questions at all! I subscribe to the idea that there are no dumb questions.
You're not on the wrong page - when you're editing a page the page header will read "Editing (page title)". However you are correct in that the interface has changed slightly. It's not anything hugely major, it's just that they renamed "save changes" to "publish changes". As far as the edit and edit source tabs go, you likely only have one version enabled so you will only see one type of tab. You can enable both by following these directions - I highly recommend that you do this since VisualEditor is really helpful and there are times that either can be helpful.
With markup language, Wikipedia uses wikitext, so only certain markup works on here. The link should give you some help as far as what type of markup is used. In any case, when nesting tags, the basic format of "<i><b>Word</b></i>" would be what you would use. Shalor (Wiki Ed) (talk) 17:51, 8 March 2018 (UTC)


Awesome!
Thank you so much! That all makes sense. I'll enable the Visual Editor, and yes, I can see how having both views could help you maintain your sanity. I'm going to do some more training today then start working offline on this article.
I have one more very low priority question...and I think this is more about process... If I get to the point where I'm working on multiple articles, and I have active changes on each that I'm not ready to commit how should I save them? Is it as simple as 'You have different chunks of different articles on your single sandbox page and you cut and paste by section?' or do you have multiple sandboxes going at once?
Apologies again, I tried to look this up but I didn't know how to phrase the question and got even more confused.
:)

Necamonecamor (talk) 18:19, 8 March 2018 (UTC)

  • Hi Necamonecamor - no worries, I don't mind being asked! You can do this in one of two ways:
  1. As you stated, you can cut and paste the sections into your sandbox into a new section. This can be good if you're working on small edits in specific subsections and they're not huge-huge.
  2. You can actually create a new sandbox or draft in your userspace by titling it along the lines of User:Necamonecamor/sandbox2 or User:Necamonecamor/Draft title. If you plan on creating one, I recommend that you link to it in your userpage by writing this: [[User:Necamonecamor/sandbox2]]. What I've written here has tags on it to keep wikitext within the tags from working, so you'd need to use it without the nowiki tags. (You've used them already, but I'm writing this for anyone coming in that may see this.)
I actually recommend just copying the section into your sandbox/draft and working on it there, as this way you can fine tune the content and take your time. The only requirement of this is that when you save the material in your sandbox, that you make a note of where you took the content from, like "Copying content from (article title) for a draft". Shalor (Wiki Ed) (talk) 02:23, 10 March 2018 (UTC)


Hi Shalor!
Thank you so much! Makes perfect sense :)

Necamonecamor (talk) 15:36, 12 March 2018 (UTC)

Student on GMO pages

I came across an edit request from User:Cesar.Salade, from this class project. I responded to it: [3], and had to revert the student at another page. I'm contacting you because you provided the welcome notice on his user talk page, and I'm pinging Ian (Wiki Ed) as the content expert for the class. It's pretty clear that the student needs some guidance, and furthermore, it's always problematic when student projects get onto pages about GMOs, because of the Discretionary Sanctions and 1RR put there by ArbCom. I figured I should let you know. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:58, 10 March 2018 (UTC)

@Tryptofish: it's a short course - they were only adding a couple sentences to articles - and they should be done as of the end of last week, so I'm guessing it's too late to impact their work at this stage. I actually looked at their sandboxes after another student edited some GMO pages, but I think this student didn't draft their work on-wiki. It's worth mentioning DS, and the challenges it presents, to the instructor before they teach again - presumably in the Fall. I'll make sure that happens. Ian (Wiki Ed) (talk) 20:17, 11 March 2018 (UTC)
Thanks! That should cover it. (Purely fyi, I've added a caution about DS to WP:ASSIGN.) --Tryptofish (talk) 21:24, 11 March 2018 (UTC)

Children in the military copy edit

Hi Shalor - just mentioned you on the talk page. Could you have a look when you get the chance, please? (Not urgent.) Fugitivedave (talk) 13:40, 13 March 2018 (UTC)

Separate sandbox pages

Hi Shalor, this is Shaywah again working on a school assignment. I'm working on a new writing assignment, but I need to start it on a separate sandbox page, however I don't know how to make multiple sandbox pages for myself to transfer previous assignments to. How would I go about doing that? Thanks again, Shaywah (talk) 17:43, 13 March 2018 (UTC)Shaywah

(talk page stalker) Hi, Shaywah, this is Mathglot; please read about subpages. In brief, you can create a new sandbox by using a redlink to either name a new sandbox at the same level, or by creating a subpage under the sandbox, using a slash and a new name. A Red link on some other page may be the easiest way to do that. You can create a red link by typing something like: User:Shaywah/new sandbox or this: User:Shaywah/sandbox/Article two. If you click one of the red links (or create your own) and start filling in the page and save it, you will have a second sandbox named as you choose. Make sense? Mathglot (talk) 19:19, 13 March 2018 (UTC)
  • Hi Shaywah, along with what Mathglot has stated I can recommend the following:
An easy way of doing this would be to say, go to your userpage. In the URL field you'll see this:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Shaywah
You can add a draft/sandbox title to the end of this by adding /sandbox2 or /Jane Smith, which will look like this:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Shaywah/Jane_Smith
Pressing enter will take you to the page, which you can begin editing like you would any new article space. It's a more roundabout way than what Mathglot has stated, but it's how I started creating subpages. I'm not sure how/why I started creating them this way, but it's one I wanted to suggest. Shalor (Wiki Ed) (talk) 19:42, 13 March 2018 (UTC)

My page is not showing

Hello Shalor,

I am going to develop a new wiki page called Deaf Gain. When I enter the link of Deaf Gain, the link connects me to Deaf Culture wiki page instead. Why is that?

Second, I couldn't get my introduction on the top of the page. The content box is on the top of page and I want have them to move below the introduction. How can I do that? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Conradbaer (talk • contribs) 15:53, 13 March 2018 (UTC)

  • Hi Conradbaer! I've moved your draft to a new sandbox, User:Conradbaer/sandbox2. This will make it a little easier for people to be able to navigate to your sandbox as well as to the new draft and identify you as a student. I've made some tweaks to the wikitext markup so that the headers will show up better - offhand, the lead paragraph should not be placed under a header of any sort - that's why the content box was at the top.
Now when it comes to the deaf gains page, it looks like it redirects to the deaf culture page because the topic of deaf gains is covered in the article under the values and beliefs section. One of the things you will need to do with your page is show how the idea of deaf gain has received enough coverage to where it can have its own article. You will definitely want to make sure that the new article isn't too similar to the deaf culture page. If it covers most or all of the content that is in the deaf culture article then it may be better to focus on writing a new section for the deaf culture article that gives a history of the term deaf gains and the movement around it. Also avoid using POV terms like "compelling", as these are seen as an opinion and can make something seem like it's favoring a specific viewpoint, making the writing non-neutral. I also want to caution you about your sourcing - be very, very careful with YouTube sourcing. The video needs to have been uploaded by the person who owns the rights to the video/content. Something like this can't be used as a source because the uploader doesn't own the rights to the video of Switched at Birth. You also need to make sure that the source explicitly backs up the claims you plan on adding to the article and that the uploader would be considered a reliable source on the topic.
Finally, the article outline you have includes deaf spaces - this is something that seems a little general, like it would belong in an article about deaf culture as a whole, rather than the specific idea of deaf gains, unless it is something that specifically spun out of deaf gains. I'd recommend that you work on that as a subsection to the main article on deaf culture or perhaps as an article on its own, as this looks like it may potentially be a good article topic in its own. It could cover both architecture, as well as the idea of deaf space as a place where deaf people can feel comfortable and safe, like safe space. Shalor (Wiki Ed) (talk) 16:26, 13 March 2018 (UTC)
(talk page stalker) (pinging Ncaselli)
Conradbaer, before beginning your article, please read up about Wikipedia's notion of Notability.
In brief, the subject (i.e., "Deaf gain") must be notable enough to deserve an encyclopedia article. If the subject isn't notable, the article may be deleted. The way to establish notability is to check the topic against the general notability guideline, and by assembling multiple, independent, reliable, second-party sources before you start writing anything. Of the twelve sources you list at your sandbox, at first glance I see none of them that qualify; most are either self-published sources or user-generated content (powerpoints), primary sources (everything by Dirksen/Bauman), or YouTube clips (also self-published, see also WP:CITEVIDEO#YouTube videos as references) and cannot be used to establish Notability (although some of them might be usable as references, external links, or in a Further reading section). Also have a look at WP:Identifying reliable sources.
I see at your sandbox, you have a long article all planned out with multiple subsections. That's fine, going down the road, but I would start with a one- or two-paragraph article with plenty of references (shoot for a dozen, but make sure to get at least five to eight) to establish Notability per the GNG, then ask Shalor or someone at the Tea house to have a look at your draft, and evaluate it for Notability, before going any further.
Keep in mind that Notability is about the subject of the article (i.e., "Deaf gain") and not about the content of the article. You could write a fifty-page article, with beautiful level two, three, and four section heading and perfect organization, and it might get deleted as non-notable, or you could write a two-sentence article with eight great sources that establish Notability, which gets kept. It's not your article that is (or isn't) notable, it's the subject itself. So, rather than fill out that beautiful, long, outline you have on your sandbox page, instead, go find some great sources and write your two-sentence or one- or two-paragraph article first, and do the expansion later. Here are some links to get you started:
Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL
What to do if you still can't find enough good sources to establish Notability? Ask for help here, or change to another topic whose subject meets the GNG. Hope this helps, Mathglot (talk) 20:14, 13 March 2018 (UTC)

Need help request from BVargas901 (talk)

Hello.

I need help with... I was wondering of there was another Makeover Article that I can refer to.

--BVargas901 (talk) 20:51, 13 March 2018 (UTC)BVargas901

Need help request from Mmddyyyyy (talk)

Hello,

I am in the process of moving my sandbox into the mainspace, and might need some help. I went through the process of clicking on "More" in the top right corner, "Move," selecting "Article," naming my article, and submitting. However, when I go to my article, there is a little box towards the bottom that indicates that it still a sandbox. Has it moved into the mainspace? I'm a little confused. Thanks for any help.


--Mmddyyyyy (talk) 20:35, 14 March 2018 (UTC)

Questions regarding my article in the sandboxMpark92 (talk)

Hi Shalor,

I have a question about the comments you posted in my talk page.

The article Maze Shooter that I'm working on my sandbox will not be published to wikipedia. I'm just using that area for my assignment which is to create a Wikipedia article (but don't publish it and keep it in my sandbox). My question is that other than the notability comments, do you think it's fine the way I wrote the article (in terms of structure, tone, etc)?

I have no intention of publishing my article (unless I get enough sources to support my article and get popular), is it okay for me to keep edit my article? (I have my draft due soon). — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mpark92 (talk • contribs) 22:03, 14 March 2018 (UTC)

Domdeparis

Hi I was looking for someone that could answer a question about student peer reviews, I have come across a couple of articles in the WP:NPP feed that I was going through as a reviewer notably Madeleine Sackler and Juliana Rojas. I did a bit of MOS clean up and copy editing on the first and I noticed that the talk pages contained peer reviews and discussions between students about the articles. I blanked the pages to remove this as I think this is the sort of discussions that should be on the user's talk pages and not the article talk pages but I may be wrong. What do you think? Also the Sackler article contains literally dozens of minor edits and tweaks in the history. Would it have been better to copy and paste from the sandbox to a main article page? cheers Dom from Paris (talk) 15:16, 12 March 2018 (UTC)

  • Hi Domdeparis - it looks like these articles started off as sandbox drafts, so when they moved the content it moved the sandbox's talk page as well, taking the comments with them. I would have to ask about whether or not it would be OK for students to cut/paste their drafts as a form of article creation as opposed to moving their draft live, however that would make it very difficult to show the entire edit history and attribute work if more than one student made edits. Shalor (Wiki Ed) (talk) 16:15, 12 March 2018 (UTC)
Hi Domdeparis,
Although I'm fully in agreement with you on this, nevertheless we can't just remove others' comments from article talk pages, per WP:TPO (except in limited circumstances detailed there) so, regretfully, I've reverted your two "peer review" removals. These talk page peer reviews have been popping up on article talk pages all over the wiki-ed universe, and annoying me just as much as you; I could give you a slew of links, but it looks like you're annoyed enough already, so I won't bother. That said, imho we need to support WP talk page recommendations like WP:TPO, even if we think the original motivation of placing the reviews there in the first place was misguided.
In the meantime, I see two possible solutions for the current problem:
  • Per WP:TPO, off-topic posts may be hidden using {{cot}}/{{cob}} templates, so you could consider doing that. However, keep in mind that some might argue that these aren't really off-topic as they deal with an assessment of the article's current status, and sometimes point out weak points in the article, and in that sense these reviews might be interpreted as *on-topic* as they point out areas to improve the article, which is exactly what a Talk page is supposed to be about. So even hiding these, might be problematic per the guideline.
  • A better solution imho, might be simply to wait a decent interval, and then archive the posts. You could set up a one- or two-week archive interval, or just do it manually. If the posts are old enough already, you can just do so now.
That brings us back to the whole issue of how to stop this practice from proliferating. I'm sure that a few dozen students didn't all just get it into their head simultaneously to place peer reviews out there just for fun, instead of getting out on the weekend; i.e., the responsibility lies with their professors who must be requiring this as part of their students' coursework or it wouldn't be happening. That likely being the case, Wiki ed monitors can help nip this in the bud going forward, by recommending additions to the PDFs sent out to professors hosting classes on Wikipedia, to clarify this point. Mathglot (talk) 18:44, 13 March 2018 (UTC)
  • Hi guys - I spoke with my colleagues and this is the general consensus:
Since it's important to preserve the edit history and progress of the article, we won't suggest that students cut/paste their new articles into the mainspace. With peer reviews we advise students to post them to the draft talk pages so they can gain experience interacting with others. Engaging on talk pages also helps make their work more transparent, especially if there are any questions about their content. It is something that we will continue with at this point in time.
I know that we generally advise people to post on the draft/sandbox talk pages or the user talk page, but sometimes the students will post live. I'll definitely pass this all along - community feedback is more valuable than rhodium to us! Shalor (Wiki Ed) (talk) 19:36, 13 March 2018 (UTC)
Hi from what I can gather they have posted it on the draft talk pages but when the draft/user space page is moved into mainspace they also move the talk page. There is a peer review process which creates an archive that is a link on the talk page. This procedure doesn't seem to have been followed. The trouble is that the interaction between students about their editing prior to publication is not really of much use to anyone wishing to interact with other editors post publication and is a distraction more than anything else. Dom from Paris (talk) 00:53, 14 March 2018 (UTC)
I also made quite a few changes on the sackler page. What I tried to do was group my changes and give an explanation in the summary which is why there were quite a few diffs. I hope the creator understood my reasons behind the changes. Dom from Paris (talk) 06:40, 14 March 2018 (UTC)
Archive them; then, even if moved over, they will not be a distraction. Mathglot (talk) 09:30, 14 March 2018 (UTC)
OK no problem I'll do that but that's a lot of unnecessary work on potentially a lot of articles. Is it not possible to get the students to use the peer review process for the peer reviews or teach them to archive the conversations themselves when they move the pages to mainspace? Dom from Paris (talk) 11:36, 14 March 2018 (UTC)
(talk page stalker) @Domdeparis: As we want to be conscious of not adding to formal processes that take up a great deal of the community's volunteer time, we wouldn't want to suggest that students go through the WP:PR process. Doing so would create a significant amount of work for those who volunteer their time there. The formal PR process is, of course, only one form of peer review articles undergo. Most of it is just standard use of the talk page, leaving comments about how the article can be improved. If it's unrelated chitchat then, of course, there's no need to retain it, but if it was relevant to article improvement, I don't know why we would want to treat it differently from the same kind of section added by a non-student editor. That said, if all of the issues have been resolved and it no longer serves a purpose, then as with any other resolved section that has outlived its usefulness, it can be archived. I don't know that there's an urgency to doing so in most cases, but that would be at editors' discretion.
I would also add that in addition to students reviewing each other, we have long-time Wikipedians on staff that help students, too, so the student reviews are not the only feedback they receive. :)
Thanks for your feedback about this, by the way. If you'd like to talk sometime about ideas you may have for how to maximize the usefulness of the student peer review process, please do leave me a message. --Ryan (Wiki Ed) (talk) 19:44, 14 March 2018 (UTC)
@Ryan (Wiki Ed): when I get a moment I'll drop you a line on your talk page to discuss it with pleasure. But in the meantime just to be clear I'm not saying that discussions between students are less relevant than between other editors (a large number of "normal" editors are students including some admin I believe) what I'm saying is that these discussions are part of a process that is way up the river from the publication and correspond to the kind of exchanges that go on during AFC which are not carried over to the talk page of the published article. The comments are part of a learning process and coursework assignments. If this had been a published paper or any other student project no one would think of joining the informal exchanges between students or their tutors to the work. All of these exchanges are prior to publication like in user talk page discussions help me requests etc and other normal editing practices. I have never seen on any other new articles other than these student articles these kind of discussions and I have reviewed a few thousand pages as a NPP reviewer. I agree that it is useful for the participants to keep a record of their exchanges but is the article talk page the best place? Dom from Paris (talk) 11:12, 15 March 2018 (UTC)
You make some interesting points. The AfC comparison is interesting, though these comments don't necessarily represent a resolved process just because they happened before moving. Some peer reviews happen just after moving, and the content of the review might not be acted upon until after moving. Whereas the AfC process is more or less resolved once the move is complete, we urge students to move their drafts to the mainspace as soon as it's good enough to do so, rather than waiting until they're addressed every bit of feedback. They should be continuing to edit after moving and the peer reviews often contain items that might not be practical right away but worth considering down the road. One of the reasons we urge them to move it when it's good enough rather than waiting until the end is to create the opportunity for interaction with and feedback from the Wikipedia community, and I have seen Wikipedians comment on students' peer review suggestions. Granted, I cannot think of examples off-hand, and cannot say for sure whether it was a review of work on an existing article, draftspace review, or post-move review (Shalor would know better -- my work with Wiki Ed doesn't typically involve direct engagement with student work). Where the feedback is resolved, I don't think anyone would object to archiving. I do feel like it fits into standard talk page use, though. I know that whenever I work in draftspace first with my volunteer account, I move the talk page along with it because if there's any content there that was relevant to me while writing the page, it would seem unwikilike to remove it just because it's in a different namespace (the edits of the draft page are in the past, too, but we move rather than copy/paste to preserve the history).
Anyway, I don't want to belabor this. I do want to acknowledge one of your underlying points -- that when students review as part of this process, it's a little different than me jotting down notes on my own. Someone has suggested they use a subpage in the past, too, although that was met with some resistance from other members of the community. I do believe there are conversations we could have about improving the student peer review process, however, so don't want to give you the impression you're getting the brush-off -- this is a helpful thread for us to see, to be sure. Thanks again for your comments. --Ryan (Wiki Ed) (talk) 15:24, 15 March 2018 (UTC)

Need help request from Clarkeka9 (talk)

Hello.

I need help with... creating my sandbox



--Clarkeka9 (talk) 00:08, 16 March 2018 (UTC)

Introduction

Hi Shalor,

I am Karan doing the Online Communities class. I realized I hadn't introduced myself properly yet and wanted to. Thank you for your welcome message on my talk page!

--ChicSham (talk) 02:11, 16 March 2018 (UTC)

Speedy Deletion -- Concerns from DevDefiance (talk) 00:11, 19 March 2018 (UTC)

Hello!

I noticed that the page about Brittany Billmeyer-Finn was deleted (with Speedy Deletion). The page was an attempt at a stub page for the Wiki-Edit-a-Thon in (about) two weeks. Does this change anything about it being deleted? Is there anything that I can do to fix it so it can be republished to use as a stub for the Edit-a-Thon?

Let me know.

Thanks,

DevDefiance (talk) 00:10, 19 March 2018 (UTC)

  • Hi DevDefiance, I'm sorry but the article must have coverage in independent and reliable sources to establish notability for Billmeyer-Finn, even if it was created for an EaT. However that said, there's definitely something you can do - if you can find enough coverage you can move it back. This can be anything from newspaper articles about Billmeyer-Finn to academic or scholarly texts/journals that cover her work. Make sure to avoid self-published sources like blogs and also ensure that you have sourcing from multiple outlets. It can honestly be a little difficult to find the needed sourcing, as poets do tend to get less coverage than many other creatives, who tend to struggle with coverage more often than not, unfortunately. Shalor (Wiki Ed) (talk) 00:14, 19 March 2018 (UTC)

Need help request from Mackenzie Hunter (talk)

Hello.

I need help with...

leaving notes in my sandbox!


--Mackenzie Hunter (talk) 23:21, 18 March 2018 (UTC)

Need help request from 10444Cart7976 (talk)

Hello.

I need help with... where are modules in sources and citations 10444Cart7976 (talk) 21:02, 18 March 2018 (UTC)


--10444Cart7976 (talk) 21:02, 18 March 2018 (UTC) 10444Cart7976 (talk) 21:02, 18 March 2018 (UTC)

Checking in

Hello Shalor,

Students in the QueerEncyclopedia class are trying to set up stub pages for the Mills edit-a-thon that is happening Mar 30. I fear I misled them in this process and I am hoping you will help me figure out a strategy for this. I was under the impression that they could start a page and that then people coming to the editathon would be able to add resources and citations to that list.

But given that you just deleted one of the entries - I am sure I have it wrong.

How should I direct them?

Thank you, Rebekah — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rebedwards (talk • contribs) 00:11, 19 March 2018 (UTC)

  • Hi Rebedwards! My recommendation would be to create stubs in their userspace and let people edit from those, then move them live. Another option would be for them to add just enough coverage to where the articles would pass notability guidelines - this is generally 3-5 independent, reliable sources like newspaper articles, scholarly journals that cover the person/topic, and other, similar places that cover the topic in depth and would be considered reliable. The main issue with moving the articles live before this is that they run the risk of getting deleted, even if they're made with the idea that others will come in and add more to the article. It's generally safer to create userspace drafts and let them incubate until the Edit-a-Thon, where they can be expanded and moved. Shalor (Wiki Ed) (talk) 00:18, 19 March 2018 (UTC)

Thank you.

Thanks Shalor, I will write them all and let them know! R — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rebedwards (talk • contribs) 00:56, 19 March 2018 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Shalor_(Wiki_Ed)/Archive_4&oldid=833956017"