User talk:Turnj

Thanks for your help - I believe I've now added a multicommunicating link on the media richness page. Kommunication (talk)

Thanks for the shout out! Pongr (talk) 21:04, 23 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You are literally the best. Pongr (talk) 15:53, 6 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome![edit]

Welcome to Wikipedia, Turnj! I am Demize and have been editing Wikipedia for quite some time. Thank you for your contributions. I just wanted to say hi and welcome you to Wikipedia! If you have any questions check out Wikipedia:Questions, or feel free to leave me a message on my talk page or type {{helpme}} at the bottom of this page. I love to help new users, so don't be afraid to leave a message! I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Also, when you post on talk pages you should sign your name using four tildes (~~~~); that should automatically produce your username and the date after your post. Again, welcome!

demize (t · c) 04:01, 1 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comm Tech and Organizations[edit]

Comm Tech and Organizations
Please Read This Before Messaging: Conversation Formatting Intro
Helpful links and resources
Campus Ambassador: MyNameWasTaken (talk · contribs)
Wiki Markup Cheatsheet Printable Guide
Compare your article to Good Article Criteria
Referencing Guide Referencing for Beginners
Getting Help Wikipedia Helpdesk
Don't forget about Office Hours, mine are Thursday 3-5 at CNLDS

Hello! Glad to see you added the box. For some reason your computer also seems to have pasted a chunk of nonsense as well. I didn't want to edit your Userpage (its bad form), but wanted to let you know so you could remove it. See you in class! MyNameWasTaken (talk) 05:03, 7 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

WikiWomen's Collaborative[edit]

WikiWomen Unite!

Hi Turnj! Women around the world who edit and contribute to Wikipedia are coming together to celebrate each other's work, support one another, and engage new women to also join in on the empowering experience of shaping the sum of all the world's knowledge - through the WikiWomen's Collaborative.

As a WikiWoman, we'd love to have you involved! You can do this by:

Liking the WikiWomen's Collaborative on Facebook and share your tips, projects, and connect with other WikiWomen
Join the conversation on our Twitter feed
Reading and writing for our blog channel

We can't wait to have you involved, and feel free to drop by our meta page (under construction) to see how else you can participate!

Can't wait to have you involved! SarahStierch (talk) 04:22, 10 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

hello! HeyyyReggie (talk) 16:07, 1 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Your attention is needed[edit]

Several members of your class Wikipedia:Wiki Ed/Georgetown University/Communication Technology and Organizations (Spring 2017) have created an article titled Communication, Culture & Technology Program. This article is problematic for several reasons:

Per WP:OUTCOMES, individual courses of study at otherwise notable universities are not themselves individually notable unless the course itself has been the subject of significant coverage, independent of the university.
The article does not appear to actually be about the Communication, Culture & Technology Program, but instead appears to be a general article about the entirety of Georgetown University, making it somewhat superfluous.
The article appears to be undergoing a rather piecemeal creation process that would be better carried out in the draft space.

I hope you can take the opportunity to work with your students and guide them toward the necessary corrections. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 20:22, 14 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

(@WikiDan61:),Thank you for your thoughts about the class page. We have been coordinating with Helaine Bluementhal and Adam Hyland about our page and how to develop it. Students are studying virtual organizations and also reflecting on their experience with the development of the Wikipedia page for the CCT program. They have broken into groups and are building parts of the pages while also reflecting on the experience of being part of a virtual organization. Thank you for your help!

That's lovely, but none of that address the problematic contributions of your students at Communication, Culture & Technology Program. Please remember that this page in the general article space is not yours; your students contributed to it as can anyone else. But The page does not meat Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and whether or not the page is created in relation to a WikiEd sanctioned course, it must meet the criteria for inclusion. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 03:48, 21 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

(@WikiDan61:) We met yesterday and have been trying to address each of the items you mentioned. The page is no longer there. Adam indicated to me in December that we should proceed with this project. We could work in one person's sandbox but then it would be hard for other people to edit that sandbox. What do you suggest?

It really isn't any more difficult for the group to edit one person's sandbox then it is to edit the document in the article space. However, a good compromise would be to develop the article in the draft space (at Draft:Communication, Culture & Technology Program). Then your class can collaborate on it freely, and submit to WP:AFC when they think it is ready. You can contact any of the administrator on this list to provide you with the text that was deleted to begin the draft. I will caution you though: I don't think that the CCT program at Georgetown merits its own Wikipedia article, and I fear that if you pursue this path, you will frustrate your students who will put a fair amount of effort into an article that will not likely survive long in the main article space. I would recommend that you work with the WikiEdu folks to choose a different topic for your class to work on. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 17:54, 22 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@WikiDan61: Usually the students contribute to theory pages. For the past 9 years, we have developed and contributed to pages that explore different communication theories. Could you help me understand how the inclusion criteria has evolved over time? It seems there are many pages that are not well developed that cite only their website. We have explicitly tried not to do that but to pull from different sources. I am confused about the inclusion criteria and the deleting of pages when I see many pages that have not been deleted based on that criteria. Thanks for your help! Turnj (talk) 17:22, 23 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Ms Turner:

I doubt the inclusion criteria have changed significantly, and I would imagine that most topics under the umbrella of "communications theories" would meet the criteria for inclusion, but this year, rather than tackle a topic in communication theory, your class wrote about the CCT program itself. In general, individual programs at universities are not considered notable unless they have made significant, documented contributions to their fields, and when these programs are brought to a deletion discussion, they are commonly deleted. (See WP:OUTCOMES#Parts of schools and school-related organizations.) Additionally, your students were not writing about the CCT program by itself, but rather were creating an article that appeared to describe the entire graduate school experience at Georgetown. (There were, as I recall, sections on athletics and student activities; material that has nothing to do with the CCT program.) Citing one's own website is not, in itself, a reason to delete a page (although it is generally not a great idea, as one's own website will rarely have the type of neutral information needed for a Wikipedia article). However, if the only source available (not the only source used, but the only source that one can find) is one's own website, this indicates that the topic at hand has not received sufficient independent coverage to meet the criteria for inclusion. The fact that many pages exist on Wikipedia that probably shouldn't is unfortunate, and reflects the amount of material that has been created but gone relatively unreviewed, but that is not a valid argument to make when arguing for the retention of this page. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 17:48, 23 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@WikiDan61: I agree. I am not making the argument that other pages that don't have information is a reason that any page should be included. The students are trying to learn about group editing and how Wikipedia works. In the many years I have been working with Wikipedia, the students have only received one or two comments outside of their own class members about their contributions so already this experience has been helpful. Thank you for the information about the Draft page. Turnj (talk) 22:04, 23 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Courses Modules are being deprecated[edit]

Hello,

Your account is currently configured with an education program flag. This system (the Courses system) is being deprecated. As such, your account will soon be updated to remove these no longer supported flags. For details on the changes, and how to migrate to using the replacement system (the Programs and Events Dashboard) please see Wikipedia:Education noticeboard/Archive 18#NOTICE: EducationProgram extension is being deprecated.

Thank you! Sent by: xaosflux 20:28, 8 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]