Jump to content

User talk:Adam (Wiki Ed)/Archives/Fall 2014

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Hey

Hi Adam, thanks for all the help with our history of Western Canada class! Lindzcrymble (talk) 23:33, 27 January 2015 (UTC)

Just Saying Hey

Hey Adam, Looking forward to this semester in the History of Western Canada and hopefully I can make full use of your services! Be prepared for a lot of questions. Thanks Sydpphillips (talk) 18:15, 27 January 2015 (UTC)

Hello from Evo Mather

Hi Adam, My name is Evan and just like the others, I too am in the history of Western Canada class. I am looking forward to working with you in order to get to know the basics of using Wikipedia. Thanks in advance for the help! Evo mather (talk) 17:13, 27 January 2015 (UTC)

Just Checking In

Hi Adam, I'm Léna and I'm in the History of Western Canada class! I'm excited to learn more about how to use Wikipedia, learn the coding and more! Also really thankful we have you because I think there will be lots of questions!

Thanks, Lbaronikian (talk) 16:41, 27 January 2015 (UTC)

Final Submission Help

Hey Adam,

Thank you for continually reaching out. I'm not sure if I'll figure out how to take you up on your feature offer this week. I do need help finalizing my submission so that I receive a grade for my final. I submitted the draft for review - is their anything else I need to do? I don't want to miss tomorrow's due date.

All the best, Jordan — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jordanliff (talk • contribs) 02:02, 8 December 2014 (UTC)

Evan M, citations

I sent you an email on Oct. 29th stating that the sources in my edit section were not coming up on the saved portion for some reason. I sent you a screenshot of the sources in the edit section and i am not quite sure why they do not come up in the saved draft. — Preceding unsigned comment added by EvanM15 (talk • contribs) 04:37, 7 November 2014 (UTC)


Hello from UOJComm

Hello Adam. I hope this finds you well. You are the Online Volunteer for my course Intro to Social Media. My students have been using our course Talk page to research other articles and credible sources for the article we are working on. I now want them to start drafting paragraphs for the article (or revisions to any strong current parts of the article...of which there aren't many). I'm wondering if it's possible for us to archive the information already on our Talk page so that the information is available somewhere else, but so that the Talk page is clean for students to start drafting? I know user Talk pages can be archived, but I'm not sure if it works the same way with a course page. Any guidance you have will be much appreciated. Thank you in advance. Randall UOJComm (talk) 19:41, 17 October 2014 (UTC)

@UOJComm: It should be very similar to talk page archiving. You can archive to chronological archives (like most talk pages) or archive specific discussions to particular sub-pages. I'll be back on tonight and have a set of links for how to do that or if you want a simple archive just say so and I can archive it. Adam (Wiki Ed) (talk) 19:55, 17 October 2014 (UTC)
Hello Adam. Thanks for the help. I think a simple archive of everything on the page would do it. I'd like to learn how to do that, so instructions would be great. However, I'm going to wait until they do one other thing on our current Talk page, so I'll probably archive it mid-week. Should I basically just use these instructions? UOJComm (talk) 13:05, 20 October 2014 (UTC)

Diffusion of innovations

Hi Adam, thank you for your comments on the Diffusion of Innovations article. I am concerned about adding applications to the article. Like you said, there are a lot of ways the theory has been used. I don't know what to add and what not to add. I feel like it could go on endlessly. Do you have any advice or input on knowing where to stop and knowing which subfields should be featured in applications and which ones shouldn't? Thank you! Jk1618 (talk) 21:20, 30 October 2014 (UTC)

  • @Jk1618: I'm a bit biased, as my major was in economics, but I'd say a lot of the work on innovation diffusion by economists is fairly germane. I think adding a comprehensive overview of the contributions may be a bit outside the scope of your assignment (and hopefully other editors will add more on it later), but there's a fair amount of work both theoretical and particular. I'll try to find a paper that directly links the two, as that may be the simplest way to figure out where a connection should be made. But you're right that this could quickly spiral out of control. Adam (Wiki Ed) (talk) 21:25, 30 October 2014 (UTC)
  • As for applications of the theory to different disciplines, I'd suggest plucking out a few sources that you think summarize the work well and starting out with a discussion in prose of the various applications. Off the top of my head I'd suggest econ, business (it's very common to see the language of the diffusion model appropriated by Bschools for comments on Technology adoption lifecycle and the like) and sociology. A quick summary of those three as applications within scholarly work would probably take 1-2 paragraphs and would fit nicely in the article as it stands right now. Adam (Wiki Ed) (talk) 21:30, 30 October 2014 (UTC)

Citation question

Hi Adam, I noticed that the first citation on my page is broken, and I can't figure out the problem. Can you lend your expertise to it? Link: Diffusion of Innovations Also, I'm about done making changes. Can you give it one last review and provide any feedback? Thank you Jk1618 (talk) 02:03, 11 November 2014 (UTC)

  • @Jk1618: The citations all seem to have the same problem. If you use the "first" or "last" parameters in a citation template (cite book, etc.) you need to use both. So {{cite book|first=Rogers Everett M.| ...other stuff}} should be {{cite book|first=Rogers|last=Everett M.| ... other stuff}}. Adam (Wiki Ed) (talk) 02:22, 11 November 2014 (UTC)

parks

Hi, Just want to say thanks for your expertise and help. It is now successfully part of the Parks article, with citations. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Urban walker (talk • contribs) 03:10, 31 October 2014 (UTC)

Hello from CaroleHenson

Hi, I've jumped in and have provided comments and made some tweaks to articles at

Is this the kind of input that is expected / helpful? I'm not expecting an indepth review - your initial take would be helpful!

Also, I'm not listed as an online ambassador on the course page. Did I miss a step that I'm supposed to do?-- CaroleHenson (talk) 05:34, 31 October 2014 (UTC)

  • @CaroleHenson: I'll check out why you aren't listed as an online volunteer for the course. I'm not sure but I don't think that's something you're responsible for.
  • You are right to not expect a detailed review. I think what you've got there is great and it works well w/ editing the draft (i.e. you can correct something and point to your edit as an object lesson).
  • Thanks for your help here! Adam (Wiki Ed) (talk) 14:19, 31 October 2014 (UTC)
  • You should be added to the page now. For future classes since you have the online ambassador right you should be able to add yourself as an online volunteer for the course. Adam (Wiki Ed) (talk) 18:59, 31 October 2014 (UTC)
Great! Thanks for adding me as a olv and comments about the reviews - that helps level-set me.--CaroleHenson (talk) 23:27, 31 October 2014 (UTC)

I'm tracking the articles I've commented about in a table at User:CaroleHenson/Menu - Working on and have found two articles that are already in article space, developed by other users. (Sort on the last field of the table to bring them to the top.) In one case, the Lis Rhodes article, the class user seems to be building the article from the version that is in article space, but doesn't note that in her draft. There are three common sources + 2 additional sources in the article space version. Is this an issue?

How would the versions be integrated where they are different, like the article about Marie Redonnet? Thanks!--CaroleHenson (talk) 19:05, 1 November 2014 (UTC)

  • I don't have a good answer for that from the Wiki Ed point of view. Perhaps Jami (Wiki Ed) or LiAnna (Wiki Ed) have some thoughts. In some cases I've seen draft re-writes of articles (which haven't yet replaced the content), in other cases I've seen editors work in sandboxes on content for a particular article, then paste in the work as they go--that seems to work well for some students and classes. There's some trickiness with attribution for that, but not anything that couldn't be resolved with a dummy edit linking the draft page in the summary. I think the best way to go about it is to let the student know that the article already exists and ask them what their plans are. Adam (Wiki Ed) (talk) 19:25, 1 November 2014 (UTC)
  • Thanks so much for all your great work with this class, CaroleHenson! With regard to the question about copying content from the main space into a sandbox and working on it from there, that is what we encourage student editors to do in general: We want them to build from what is there, rather than starting over from scratch. When the student copies it back into the namespace, the diff should indicate what the student's done. Students who aren't doing this should be gently reminded that they should be doing so. Hope this helps! --LiAnna (Wiki Ed) (talk) 17:53, 3 November 2014 (UTC)
    • Yes, it does. She was the only person that was updating an existing article, but didn't mention it at the top of the page... and you've helped me realize that was a minor oversight. Thanks!--CaroleHenson (talk) 19:39, 3 November 2014 (UTC)

I'll bite

Why was this necessary? Is there a problem with collectively welcoming a group rather than each individual? LeadSongDog come howl! 16:42, 5 November 2014 (UTC)

  • You can reinsert it if you like, but IMO it's akin to welcoming a wikiproject task force to a project. Aside from the fact that the template boilerplate leads it to sound like Brock University is an editor (complete w/ a broken link to a contributions page), it's a discussion page for students to work with each other. If you want to welcome them, I think welcoming individual editors will be more useful (and will trigger a notification for them when they log in, rather than being something that they may not see again). Adam (Wiki Ed) (talk) 16:57, 5 November 2014 (UTC)
    • Perhaps I'm misunderstanding, but I thought the editors on these pages were temporally related: all students in a single class (hence the "Fall 2014" bit). I'd expect that all of them will have watchlisted that page, so I'm not concerned about the notifications. LeadSongDog come howl! 20:48, 5 November 2014 (UTC)
      • As a practical matter I've found that many/most student editors don't know about or take advantage of the watchlist. All editors on that page are related, but I didn't feel that a welcome template was really the best fit for that page. As I said above I have no issue with you reverting me should you feel strongly that you made the right choice in welcoming editors there with that template. Adam (Wiki Ed) (talk) 21:17, 5 November 2014 (UTC)

Child Language Development

Thank you for correcting my mistakes for the "Child Language Development" group! It was very much appreciated. Rebecca L 04:34, 6 November 2014 (UTC)

Thank you for the support !

Dear Adam,

Thank you for your support and useful comments on the Uncertainty Reduction Theory page, I am currently working on incorporating all your comments, however in regards to your point

  • "A new strategy for reducing uncertainty was suggested in 2002 by Ramirez, Walther, Burgoon, and Sunnafrank that complements..." Should the paragraph starting with this sentence be where it is now or in the section on Computer-Mediated Communication that you created?

I think I should keep it where it is because it introduces the latest proposed strategy to reduce uncertainty, I did add a link to the Wikipedia page of computer-mediated communication in case the reader was not familiar with such a concept.

Please let me know if I can incorporate any further adjustments.

Best Regards,

Dk802 (talk) 16:02, 9 November 2014 (UTC)

Uploading a video to URT page

Dear Adam,

Thank you for your support with the URT page i am editing, i added a video section in which i uploaded a video which included an interview conducted by Em Griffin with Charles Berger the developer of URT. Copyright holder of the video is Em Griffin who i contacted and received a reply via email with permission to upload the video on the URT Wikipedia page, however today i received a message from Wikimedia commons that it has been deleted although i mentioned that i received permission from the copyright holder.

Kindly advise on why it was deleted and what steps i could take to re-upload the video and avoid its deletion.

Best regards Dk802 (talk) 04:38, 14 November 2014 (UTC)

Hello from Btaylor1836

Hello Adam I have made some changes to my sandbox and I believe my information is ready to be on the actual page for A Natural Born Gambler, how do i do this? Btaylor1836 (talk) 18:38, 5 December 2014 (UTC)

Jeanie MacPherson

Hi Adam, I dont understand how to move the article in my sandbox to an already existing wikipedia page. I have tried googling, and youtube videos but it still says that im doing something invalid. Any help would be appreciated! Thank you! Labossofyou (talk) 16:16, 6 December 2014 (UTC)

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Jeanie MacPherson, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page The Cheat. 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) 08:56, 7 December 2014 (UTC)

Hello from Fleuryj

Hi Thank you for your edits. I am currently reviewing and making edits of my own. I am going to look into the original Fleuryj (talk) 22:57, 8 December 2014 (UTC) Fleuryj

Hello from 24.188.72.79

Hi Adam, I am having trouble sending in my final submission. Please help! Everything is in my sandbox waiting to go. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.188.72.79 (talk) 16:03, 9 December 2014 (UTC)

Hello from Tricewilson48

REPLACE THIS TEXT WITH YOUR MESSAGE "tricewilson48" 04:45, 16 December 2014 (UTC)

Hi Adam, You recently edited my class submission from UMass for Margaret McWade and left me a note about redoing my references from various newspaper articles because they all came from the same newspaper archive. How would you recommend I go about doing that? I have the names and dates of each newspaper, should I just remove the URL of the newspaper archive? What is your suggestion?

Thanks, Patrice Wilson tricewilson48

Hi, @Tricewilson48: If they came from a specific archive is there a permanent, specific link to the reference? For instance if I used this article I would use that link for the url rather than jstor.org, even if reading the article requires an account. If that's not possible or desirable, you may remove the link entirely, as the information necessary to verify your content is from the original source, not one specific archive. So if you have title, date, publication, (potentially page) and author, that's enough for someone to look up the reference and check your work.

I suggest that you remove the links for most, provided you've got the information in the citation for someone else to look the content up. Archive links are nice, but only when they point to the content directly. Adam (Wiki Ed) (talk) 13:01, 16 December 2014 (UTC)

Thanks Adam. I will remove the URL's. I carefully followed the MLA newspaper archive references formatting on OWL. The newspapers are all very old and never showed an author noted as writing the newspaper article. However, I did print off copies and I will double check to make sure there are no author's noted, then I will remove the URL's and hopefully the article will be ready to post. I will check back later today to see if you have had the chance to look it over. Thanks for you help! I appreciate it. "tricewilson48" 14:56, 16 December 2014 (UTC)tricewilson48"tricewilson48" 14:56, 16 December 2014 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tricewilson48 (talk • contribs)
No problem. Also I mentioned earlier that the imdb links should also be removed, but I didn't want to do so myself as there might be claims which can no longer be verified because we can't rely on IMDB as a source (it is community edited, similar to wikipedia in a number of ways). Adam (Wiki Ed) (talk) 15:00, 16 December 2014 (UTC)

Adam, I removed the URL's you suggested and the IMBD's. However under my reference heading there are still 2 or 3 URL's for the newspaper archives that are left. I wasn't able to access the References when I clicked on the "edit button". It just shows an empty space now where references originally were during the early editing process. I don't understand why. However, having said that if you were to click on the URL, it would take you to the newspaper archives and you could type in the newspaper information and the article that I referenced from will come up. Please let me know if the article is okay to move forward. Thanks heaps! "tricewilson48" 15:21, 16 December 2014 (UTC)tricewilson48"tricewilson48" 15:21, 16 December 2014 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tricewilson48 (talk • contribs)

@Tricewilson48: You can reply in this thread by editing, rather than leaving a new message each time, if you like. It makes it a bit easier to keep track of discussions. I've cleaned up the draft a bit. There are still a number of insufficiently specified references. One simply says "marriage records" and links to an archive home page. It's hard to convey to a reader that being dropped to a home page isn't an error, because that's what it will feel like. Even if they could recover the article by searching, it sort of voids the convenience of a link. We should instead write citations to help a critical reader check your work, because someone editing this article later will want to know they can depend on particular claims. Does that make sense? Adam (Wiki Ed) (talk) 15:37, 16 December 2014 (UTC)

Adam, Should I just take out the reference to when the McWade's were married then? I had to search for that information on the website provided by inputting their names and possible years before finding the marriage certificate. Because of that portion of heavy research should I just take out that sentence and reference to make it easier as not to confuse people? "tricewilson48" 16:03, 16 December 2014 (UTC)tricewilson48"tricewilson48" 16:03, 16 December 2014 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tricewilson48 (talk • contribs)

@Tricewilson48: I think you can leave it out for now. If you want to keep it in, I'd say note the location of the registrar, the date of the wedding and the names of the parties in the reference. But in general I think that sentence can be removed. Adam (Wiki Ed) (talk) 16:08, 16 December 2014 (UTC)

I removed the sentence referencing their marriage date and the corresponding reference. Thanks for all your help. I greatly appreciate it! I will check back later today to see if there are any other suggestions. Otherwise if the article is all set to go do I need to do anything else? "tricewilson48" 16:52, 16 December 2014 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tricewilson48 (talk • contribs)

@Tricewilson48: I've moved the draft to a name which seems to comport with the sourcing better (and re-worded the lede, consequently): Margaret May McWade. I still need a few things. First, do you know anything else about the biography on her, cited as "Paul Smith-Rothwell; Biography of Margaret M. McWade". The links we have now (to what looks like a sketchy streaming site) need to go, there's no need to link to a resource like that unless we really have to. But do we have info on the biography? A publisher? A date? A reason to treat it as a reliable source? I think if we can shore the info up on that bio and remove the remainder of the links in references that don't go to the precise reference we should be good. Sorry for the repeated edits and comments. I think the article is improving continuously! Adam (Wiki Ed) (talk) 17:09, 16 December 2014 (UTC)

Adam, The biographer Paul Smith-Rothwell the UMass Librarian and I came across his information when doing a broad search in October. He is originally cited on IMBD, however there are only 3 books left in the world of the one cited and we couldn't get our hands on any of them. She felt that I could keep him as a reference since we also found him referenced on the IMBD website so she wasn't concerned with me tracking down the books full information such as the publisher. How do you think its best to proceed? "tricewilson48" 17:27, 16 December 2014 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tricewilson48 (talk • contribs)

@Tricewilson48: Is it "Paul Rothwell-Smith. Silent Films! the Performers. Nottingham: Cordelia Books, 2011. ISBN 9781907540325"? Adam (Wiki Ed) (talk) 17:32, 16 December 2014 (UTC)

Adam, you are pretty awesome!!!!!!!! I will add that right now. "tricewilson48" 17:38, 16 December 2014 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tricewilson48 (talk • contribs)

I just took care of redoing the 2 references to Paul Rothwell-Smith. Thanks for all your help. I'll check in later to see if there's anything else. You ROCK Adam!!!! "tricewilson48" 17:45, 16 December 2014 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tricewilson48 (talk • contribs)

Ok, Tricewilson48, last question. Each of the movie reviews are titled something like "Margaret McWade movie review". Is that the actual title of the article? Were some titled for the movie she was in? Because we don't have online copies, getting accurate info on all sources is really important. thanks for being so patient. Adam (Wiki Ed) (talk) 18:14, 16 December 2014 (UTC)

Adam, during my rough draft I added the text "Margaret McWade movie review' because I was also researching her husband, Edward McWade and they often performed in stage plays and movies together. I was just keeping the 2 different subjects straight. I will remove that part of the test. Thanks again.:) "tricewilson48" 23:53, 16 December 2014 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tricewilson48 (talk • contribs)

I made those last changes Adam :). Thanks!!!! "tricewilson48" 00:02, 17 December 2014 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tricewilson48 (talk • contribs) --"tricewilson48" 00:04, 17 December 2014 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tricewilson48 (talk • contribs)

Checking in: ProfGray

Just wanted to say hello, I see you listed as part of the support for my course. Let's chat at some point about your role (or it's fine if you want to delimit it and tell me). At this stage, the course plan / syllabus is not finalized and I may let it sit, gather feedback, before tackling it again. May do some networking, since it'd be terrific to have a group of experienced editors ready to support the class. Cheers, ProfGray (talk) 16:28, 19 December 2014 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Adam_(Wiki_Ed)/Archives/Fall_2014&oldid=1138993769"