Jump to content

User talk:Adam (Wiki Ed)/Archives/Spring 2016

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

RE: Edits to Biracial Identity Development page

Hi! I wasn't sure how to respond to you within your message on my talk page. I understand that readers only need a summary of the information - I wonder, however, if the content that was removed (Theory depth) should be kept because there aren't pages with that content elsewhere? Or should pages on the theories be made to link to using that initial information that has been removed? Brittanyota (talk) 02:42, 19 November 2015 (UTC)

  • Hi Brittanyota. To respond to an individual message on a talk page you can click the "edit" button you see next to that section heading.
  • As to the larger question, it's hard to determine where exactly to limit detail. I think you should add in more detail to the individual theories, but I'd add a paragraph or two to each rather than a full delineation. Also, I think the article would be more improved by referencing and expanding the Census and statistical identification section to the level the modern and early theories are now.
  • The Marginal Person Model could certainly have its own wikipedia article. For Poston and Root it seems (from my rough glance) they represent BID models as such and so are better here, but Poston's model could probably have an article. That doesn't mean they need to be made right now, but they could certainly be made in the future.
  • I hope this helps. Adam (Wiki Ed) (talk) 13:55, 19 November 2015 (UTC)


Help moving edits to main space

Hi Adam. My class https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Wiki_Ed/University_of_South_Florida/ENL6236_18thC_Women_Authors_(Fall_2015) is approaching the end, and one of my students is having difficulty moving her edits from her sandbox to the article. She is working on Lady Mary Wortley Montagu, an article that seems to get some attention. Can you help her with some suggestions to move the sections and to add a banner on the talk page? (All of the other student pages have the banner, but hers does not.) @ChaudharyAA: LLRungegordon (talk) 21:03, 30 November 2015 (UTC)

How to make headlines

Dear Adam,

I am trying to make sections in my article, how do I make sections with bold titles? Also how do I make a title space? Sorry for the inconvenience.Kat Noaga (talk) 01:35, 1 December 2015 (UTC)

  • Hi Kat Noaga. I've added a few sections to your draft: User:Kat Noaga/sandbox. You can add sections with the visual editor by clicking on the tab that says "Paragraph" which will give you options like "Heading level 2" and so forth. Selecting that will cause whatever you type next to be a section header. If you want to add it with wikicode (which I did in my edit) you can start a line with two equal signs "==" write your title and end it with the same number of equal signs. You can also do this with three or four for subsection. For instance, I've made a subsection below by typing:

=== A new section ===

  • I'm not sure what you mean by title space, but if you look on a wikipedia article (like Medieval Singlewomen) you'll see that the title of the article is displayed on the top of the page just because it lives at that title.
  • Also, looking at your draft, I would recommend that you cut things down to the basic facts you can source about the subject to reliable sources, then build it back up. Remember that wikipedia article are not going to (mostly) be a close examination of someone's biography. It also should not have phrases like "These constant clips keep him in viewers eyes, and fans have created videos that have "all" of Joslins Instagram clips in them." which are not really appropriate for a general encyclopedia (which has to maintain a neutral tone). If you need a hand figuring out what exactly to cut and how to re-write the article such that it will get approved please let me know. Adam (Wiki Ed) (talk) 15:10, 1 December 2015 (UTC)

A new section

A subsection!

{{histmerge}} removal

Why are you removing the {{histmerge}} template from User:Nchandras94/sandbox? --Stefan2 (talk) 14:05, 15 December 2015 (UTC)

  • I removed it because I had moved the content back to the sandbox (which shouldn't then need a hist merge). If that's incorrect please replace the template, though I'm not sure what's to be merged into the history of an article draft. Adam (Wiki Ed) (talk) 14:10, 15 December 2015 (UTC)
    • Whether history merging is needed or not has nothing to do with the namespace of the content. History merging is done so that all of the history shows up at the same place (thereby simplifying for users wishing to check the development of the page), and in some cases for legal reasons (if the copy & paste move was done by someone other than the copyright holder). --Stefan2 (talk) 14:18, 15 December 2015 (UTC)
      • Like I said, if you think the removal was incorrect, please feel free to revert. However it does seem a bit superfluous to histmerge content from the same editor. 14:27, 15 December 2015 (UTC)

Moving page Diversity Center of Northeast Ohio

Katelynyac (talk) 13:39, 16 December 2015 (UTC)Hi Adam, I was wondering if you could please help me move my article on the Diversity Center of Northeast Ohio to a main page.

  • Hi Katelynyac. I'm still worried that there are too few independent sources talking about the subject to allow us to cover it appropriately. The sources you've added have a number of problems:
    • "Unlocking the Benefits of Diversity" is a good article about workplace diversity but doesn't mention the center at all. It's used to support the claim "This approach embraces all types of diversity and uses diversity to help the organization of a business." which implicitly ties it to the previous sentence and might lead a reader to presume the source is talking about the subject when it isn't.
    • The DiversityInc source says at the top of the article "This is an advertorial", so I don't think a critical reader would trust that source. To be more explicit, we should never use those on wikipedia, because someone is paying for that to be written.
    • One of your sources is a youtube video created by the diversity center to mark an award they've given someone else. Videos on youtube aren't necessarily disallowed as sources but they're also not very good ones. It's also somewhat problematic because the claim it's supporting is pretty trivial.
  • Furthermore, the "history" section of the draft (which I've removed, see this old revision) was lifted almost directly from the center's own page. We can't have plagiarized content in wikipedia articles, at all.
  • It may be the case that there isn't enough sourcing for us to have a standalone article about this organization, as I mentioned back in October. If that's the case, it may be very difficult to write a neutral, verifiable Wikipedia article on the subject. Adam (Wiki Ed) (talk) 14:18, 16 December 2015 (UTC)

Wikipedia ISP Questions (New College)

Hi Adam, Just wanted to let you know that I've asked my ISP students to have new content posted to live Wikipedia by our group meeting scheduled for the afternoon of Tuesday, Jan. 19, in order to have it peer reviewed by each other and by you in the coming week. From my individual meetings with a couple of them, it appears that they've shifted their article interests a bit, and I can't quite tell whether they can easily remove/add articles from their assignment list. Can you please tell me how to direct them if they need to remove/add article titles? Thanks for any guidance you can provide! Tburress (talk) 03:38, 19 January 2016 (UTC)

  • Hi Tburress. You or your students can change their assigned articles from the dashboard (and the articles they've chosen to review, if you're including a peer review segment) by following these instructions: at ask.wikiedu.org. If you're having any trouble with this, email me and I can update the assignments myself. Adam (Wiki Ed) (talk) 17:31, 19 January 2016 (UTC)


Wikipedia Class Saying Hi

Hi Adam, Women in War saying hi. Learning talk pages. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bellicist (talk • contribs) 10:03, 21 January 2016 (UTC)

Warning

Please see [1]. --Francis Schonken (talk) 17:43, 28 January 2016 (UTC)

FYI, I've edit-warred with (semi-)automatic edits before: can't recall an instance where in the short or long run my reasons for reverting (usually something along the line of "vandalism"), and the revert itself weren't accepted.

So, let's get down to business: I don't accept an external dashboard or whatever other application WP:OWNing a Wikipedia page. There's no wiggle-room there afaics.

But that's not the real problem: a big issue was and is the lack of interaction, leading to a lot of frustration Wikipedia-editor side (it's all documented how much cleanup was needed after the project passed through, much of which could have been avoided if the project had been set up more properly); and when those problems arose, and were signalled in the appropriate places, zero interaction from the external project followed, so that the long and short of the whole project, seen from Wikipedia's integrity, was a lot of post operation cleanup, largely overshadowing whatever little benefit may have resulted from the external project.

And even that is not the real problem: the real problem was the project's set-up leading to the students involved in the external project taking very little of what Wikipedia is about (leading to frustration on their side, which also is documented): they certainly did not become Wikipedia editors after they had hurried down through their external assignment. That's what worried me the most, they certainly didn't come to see what an asset Wikipedia can be, or how gathering knowledge on a particular topic is here (as it probably will be more and more outside Wikipedia context) something that can be realised through collaboration. --Francis Schonken (talk) 17:28, 31 January 2016 (UTC)

Soc Advocacy student

Hi Adam, thank you for the welcome. This all seems very difficult but people tell me it gets easier with practice. I will definitely ask for your help when needed.Duran028 (talk) 18:44, 30 January 2016 (UTC)

Order & Violence Student

Dear Adam -- Thank you for the welcome to the website! Looking forward to working with you this semester. --Sarah Whittenburg (talk) 01:42, 1 February 2016 (UTC)

Publishing from sandbox

Hi Adam! I have a question regarding a stub page we have to make for the Women in Warfare group. How do I publish the article from my sandbox? I accidentally "moved" the article, or redirected, and I received a message that says the redirect meets criteria for speedy deletion, and I wasn't sure how to undo this action. The stub page is under US military personnel Winter Plummer. Thank you! Hannahelong (talk) 16:40, 8 February 2016 (UTC)

  • Hi Hannahelong. I'll take a look at your draft and leave you some feedback on your talk page. You don't need to worry about the deletion process in this case. The article was moved back to your sandbox and by the time we've made a few changes to it the old page will be gone and you can move it back to the same title without issue. Adam (Wiki Ed) (talk) 17:42, 8 February 2016 (UTC)

History of Modern Childhood greetings and question

Hi Adam - History of Modern Childhood class checking in. We've been learning about editing, talk pages, and selecting articles. Each of us are now getting ready to post a plan of our research and writing, as well as a list of planned sources, to either the article talk pages, or to our sandboxes. Do you have any tips for us?

Also, we'd like to be able to put banners on the articles students will be working on. Is this common practice? Do you recommend it? And how do we do it? Thanks so much! Cliomania (talk) 17:12, 10 February 2016 (UTC)

  • Hi Cliomania. If you assign articles to your students on the dashboard, a banner will be placed on the talk page for that article. That way community members will see the change but a regular reader won't. Students can also assign articles to themselves.
  • My first tip is for students to read wikipedia articles to get a sense of the tone and format--it can be a bit different from many of the essays they've written before. Making small changes like adding a source, simplifying a sentence or fact-checking a claim can also help them get the hang of it. Adam (Wiki Ed) (talk) 17:19, 10 February 2016 (UTC)

Thanks, Adam, that's good advice. We've been discussing encyclopedic style and NPOV a bit - it's definitely a step outside the academic history paper comfort zone, but that's why it's useful, I think. I didn't know the banners were automatically generated - good to know. Cliomania (talk) 17:22, 10 February 2016 (UTC)

Autoconfirmed Users

If a page is locked to autoconfirmed users only, would it be best to find a different article to contribute to, or are the criteria for becoming an autoconfirmed user within reach of a student? -Tonix223 (talk) 19:33, 10 February 2016 (UTC)

  • Hi, Tonix223. Most of the time you see that it's to limit vandalism to articles from very new users. The criteria for autoconfirmation are low, you only need to make 10 edits to anywhere on wikipedia and have been an editor for four days. I'd poke around some other articles right now and make a few small improvements, then in a few days you can edit any of the "semiprotected" articles. I hope this helps. Adam (Wiki Ed) (talk) 19:52, 10 February 2016 (UTC)

Thank you very much

I appreciate your assistance in cleaning up some of the problematic bios of Chicago artists that I tagged. Terrific work. Very best, 2601:188:0:ABE6:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 23:09, 18 February 2016 (UTC)

New page question

Hi Adam, is it ok to create a new page on an author who does not have a page in Wiki? Duran028 (talk) 13:52, 19 February 2016 (UTC)

  • Hi Duran028. Are you referring to creating a new page for a subject who has written a book? If so, the general answer is yes, provided that the subject has been covered by multiple secondary sources in some detail. So for instance if many people had written about their book but had little to say about the author (which is not uncommon), it might be hard to make a wikipedia article for them even tho one or more of their books could have an article. There simply wouldn't be enough sourcing to make strong, verifiable claims of any import. However if they have been covered by sources (profiled by a magazine, had their overall work reviewed as a whole in a way that talks about them, etc.) then you should be able to make a new article. You can take a look at our student training for a bit more elaboration on these points. Does that answer your question? Adam (Wiki Ed) (talk) 15:43, 19 February 2016 (UTC)

Editing from an IPad

Hello, I am trying to cite my source on an IPad but the editing toolbar is not appearing at the top of my screen. Do you know how I would go about citing my source? Tate012 (talk) 20:18, 19 February 2016 (UTC)

Notes / Citations

Hi Adam, I just finished drafting and editing a new article. Need some help with citations/notes. After I do one I'll know how to do the rest, can you help? Also, I inserted an image from the Wikimedia Commons and then I got an email that my page was patrolled by someone called LoudLizard, is that normal? Duran028 (talk) 23:00, 20 February 2016 (UTC)

@Duran028: Adam will respond to your citation questions a bit later, but don't worry about the patrolling. IT is a regular feature of Wikipedia. For more information about it, check this out. Helaine (Wiki Ed) (talk) 17:28, 22 February 2016 (UTC)
Hi Duran028. I've fixed the citations on the page--it looks like what happened is the title or journal fields were pasted from something that broke them with line-feeds. I've also re-organized some of the sections in the article. I'd recommend two things before you move this into mainspace:
  • The article right now assumes the reader is interested only in the homeless experience in the United States. You don't need to expand the article to homelessness and pets worldwide, but you will want to move it to a title like "Pet ownership among the homeless in the United States". You'll also want to comb through the article to see where you may be referring to the US implicitly and try to either avoid that or make the reference explicit.
  • The introduction of the article should be an executive summary of the content. A good introduction to a Wikipedia article will start with a declarative sentence defining the subject (including putting the article title in bold). You won't want to start it off by listing facts which won't be repeated in the article below or by immediately referencing a particular study.
I hope this helps. Adam (Wiki Ed) (talk) 17:27, 23 February 2016 (UTC)

Draft/Article problems

Hi Adam, I wrote a draft on my sandbox and submitted for a review, but it was declined because it reads more like an essay than an encyclopedia article. Should I erase everything I did or is there a way I can keep my information. I'm so used to writing in an essay format. I don't know exactly what kind of information goes into an encyclopedia article. My topic is after-school programs and its effect on children. Please help. Thanks.Alma760 (talk) 18:29, 22 February 2016 (UTC)

  • Hi Alma760. I think our handouts on Wikipedia articles (Evaluating and Editing Wikipedia) can help you understand the difference between an encyclopedia article and a position paper or analytical essay. You can also review the student training, which should cover the differences between the two as well. Adam (Wiki Ed) (talk) 22:02, 22 February 2016 (UTC)

How to Cite Articles from Online Databases

Hi Adam! My students have found lots of good sources in article databases like JSTOR and LexisNexis, and we're trying to figure out the easiest way to cite those sources on WP. In MLA format, the citation would look something like this: Petroski, Henry (2009). "Tacoma Narrows Bridges". American Scientist 97 (2): 103–107. Academic Search Complete. 24 Feb 2016. The citation tool, however, doesn't seem to have a box for the name of the database (in this case, Academic Search Complete). What do you recommend? Is it okay to simply leave the name of the database out?

  • Hi Josefhoracek. A few things. First, if your students are using the visual editor, I recommend having them try out the automatic citation system, which can generate a formatted citation from a URL (including a stable JSTOR url), DOI or PMID. That will insert not just the text of the citation but will order the metadata for the citation in a way that is machine readable and can help other editors adding to the citation. Second, while a link to a database entry can be helpful, it's not strictly necessary for the encyclopedia. Were you to add one, you could include the link in the URL field (which as I mentioned above will be pre-filled if they use the automatic citation tool). Does that answer your question? Adam (Wiki Ed) (talk) 20:01, 25 February 2016 (UTC)
Yes, this was very helpful. Thank you. Josef Horáček (talk) 23:08, 25 February 2016 (UTC)

Talk:Chus Gutierrez

Hi please take a look at the above redirect. It seems that the dashboard keeps adding the template to that page on behalf of users. I assume this is because the article listed there lacks the diacritic and needs to reflect the actual name. Opencooper (talk) 02:20, 27 February 2016 (UTC)

While it isn't a pressing issue, it did result in the template being added to the wrong page which the community might be concerned about. Otherwise quite good output by the students. Thanks for looking into it! Opencooper (talk) 00:12, 4 March 2016 (UTC)
No trouble, Opencooper. I believe I was able to add the template to the correct page through the dashboard. Adam (Wiki Ed) (talk) 17:13, 4 March 2016 (UTC)

Question about uploading images under "Non-free content"

Hi Adam (Wiki Ed). I am an instructor for this course who is helping another class on campus. In this other course, students are going to the university's archive in order to profile university publications. We would like to be able to upload images of the covers of these journals and publications to Wikimedia Commons. We plan to use the non-free media use rationale template for magazine covers. Do you have any advice, or resources we should consult?

We tried an image upload test earlier today (with admittedly not the best example) here. I recognize now that we (I am working with Wrongrrl, the other instructor on campus I am working with) should have perhaps added the wikitext found below when uploading the image. Or perhaps I am mistaken. Regardless, any advice you might have on how to appeal a speedy deletion nomination or for these situations generally would be great. I have looked here, but cannot seem to find the wikicode to add the appeal to the file. Thank you. Vaparedes (talk) 07:02, 28 February 2016 (UTC)

Hi again Adam (Wiki Ed). I think I've figured out why I've been having such issues. I have been working from this model. I realize now that it is uploaded on Wikipedia and not Wikimedia Commons. Today in class we tried to upload this journal/ magazine cover on Wikimedia Commons. Does this rationale only work for images uploaded on Wikipedia? I will also post this question on the Talk page of the file I just uploaded. Thanks for your help. Vaparedes (talk) 23:32, 29 February 2016 (UTC)
Hi Vaparedes. The answer is yes - non-free content is not permitted on Commons. It is permitted on Wikipedia if certain conditions are met (technically this is only true for the English Wikipedia - other languages have their own rules). It's also important to note that fair-use rationales are made based on the article in which the image is used, not the image itself (which is why you can't use a non-free image on a user page, and generally can't be used in a sandbox; wait until you move the draft to mainspace before you include the image). Ian (Wiki Ed) (talk) 23:52, 29 February 2016 (UTC)
Hi Ian (Wiki Ed), thanks! This is what I finally figured out was happening. It took me a long time to figure out that the image I was trying to follow was uploaded as a Wikipedia file. Are there any links to Wikipedia documents about this process? Regardless, thanks for your reply! Vaparedes (talk) 00:02, 1 March 2016 (UTC)
Vaparedes, WP:NFCC is probably a good starting point. Ian (Wiki Ed) (talk) 00:07, 1 March 2016 (UTC)

Course assignment tags

Hi Adam. I saw that you supervised Wikipedia:Wiki Ed/University of Toronto/Exploring Heritage Languages (2016 Winter) (probably among others), after I came across a sudden article creation spree about heritage languages in Toronto. Aren't such articles supposed to have some kind of tag on their talk pages, indicating that they are the result of an educational assignment? - HyperGaruda (talk) 20:28, 1 March 2016 (UTC)

Course dashboard content

Hi Adam, thank you for replying to my concerns at Talk:Rape schedule. I've come back here to your talk page to clarify what I meant about the problems with the course schedule, which I assume is not unique to this course. I can see from your talk page that you are very busy, so there is no hurry about replies. I am watching here.

When I mentioned "a required part of course schedules ... for student editors to assess any response by other editors to the changes they have made" what I meant is that in Wikipedia:Wiki Ed/Louisiana State University/Intro to WGS Sec 1 (Spring 2016), for example, Week 4 currently has the very sensible requirement "In Class - Be prepared to explain close paraphrasing, plagiarism, and copyright violations on Wikipedia". But Week 4 also has the Milestone, "Add 1–2 sentences of new information, backed up with a citation to an appropriate source, to a Wikipedia article related to the class".

How does this Week 4 Milestone work get reviewed by the student themselves? As the course schedule is structured right now, the student is required to carry out the edit, but not ever to look at what happened to it or if they received any feedback about it. As can be seen from the example we were looking at, this is detrimental to the student (there could be a learning opportunity from the feedback they receive, or there could be a significant problem with their editing) -- and also potentially detrimental to the encyclopedia itself for obvious reasons.

So in my view, Week 5 should either include in the "In Class" section, something along the lines of "Be prepared to discuss whether your edit remained in the article or was changed or reverted, and if you received any communication about it, and why you think this was." Or, something equivalent under Milestones.

Really, this could happen as late as Week 6, and maybe it is implied there or in fact done there, but it needs to be clearer from the Course Schedule that it's required.

I'm sure you will agree that it's unfair to students to expect them to contribute new articles, or major additions to existing articles, without making sure that they have first checked how their first exploratory additions were received, and giving them the opportunity to understand what the issues may have been.

I may be misunderstanding some aspects of the process -- it is surprising to discover that course schedules that dictate how student editors should act on Wikipedia are actually overwritten with material taken from an external website, and therefore it is pointless for existing Wikipedia editors to change them. So I have a lot to learn about the process too. But I hope you can see my point? MPS1992 (talk) 21:29, 1 March 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for the reply, MPS1992. I think we should better integrate direct response with editors into student editing, but there are some pretty significant hurdles (or at least experience we've had in the past which makes it hard to front-and-center editor interaction).

  • Editor response is by definition idiosyncratic. Some students edit articles without coming into contact with anyone, or if they do, those messages are hard to distinguish from bots sometimes, even for editors who have training and resources (which we provide) explaining how talk pages work. The quality of feedback they receive may vary as much as the content of the edit and may also vary independently of that content.
  • Students, of course, could ask for feedback before attracting it. Some instructors have students post on the talk page of an article well before they edit it, which can result in students getting valuable feedback or it can be downright burdensome for editors. Students don't know all (or any) of the norms of talk pages--they are new editors after all. It's a great solution for instructors and students who can find active talk pages and communities and where they can teach students to ask the right question. And even the right question can seem trivial for a community that rightly advocates "SOFIXIT".
  • Editor response can also take a long time. Student drafts which are moved into the draft namespace can (just as any other draft) wait quite a while for some pretty perfunctory and occasionally incorrect feedback.

I think your suggestion above about incorporating feedback is concrete and reasonable. I like it as a followup to their first attempts at edits to existing articles. I'm going to talk to the rest of the Wiki Ed folks about adding something like that to our copyediting module.

As for the course pages, we were forced to move to a new system for technical reasons, and it became really impractical to have the WP page be the 'source of truth'--instructors add students and articles via the Wiki Ed Dashboard and it's mirrored on that page, so that editors don't need to load up an external site to see which students are associated with what classes.

I hope this helps. Thanks again for your comments above. Adam (Wiki Ed) (talk) 17:13, 3 March 2016 (UTC)

Moving article into Wikipedia

Hi Adam, I followed the instructions in the training module to move my sandbox article into Wikipedia and I think all it did was move my entire sandbox into Wikipedia. Can you please help me!!! Thanks Dave

Multiple Sandboxes?

Gi Adam, I'm wondering if its possible to create more than one sandbox and if so how to o it? Thank you! Stayhomegal (talk) 08:37, 4 March 2016 (UTC)

yes thank you so much! Stayhomegal (talk) 07:17, 5 March 2016 (UTC)

Stayhomegal, you can also create pages named User:Stayhomegal/sandbox1 User:Stayhomegal/sandbox2 User:Stayhomegal/sandbox3 and so on if you prefer to label them in that fashion. DGG ( talk ) 21:35, 6 March 2016 (UTC)

WIR A+F

Hoping you enjoyed the recently-held in-person Art+Feminism meetup,
we cordially invite you continue your participation by joining the
virtual worldwide online event
hosted by Women in Red.
March 2016 (Women's History Month)

(To subscribe, Women in Red/Invite list. Unsubscribe, Women in Red/Opt-out list) --Rosiestep (talk) 19:48, 6 March 2016 (UTC)

Some comments on a course

Please see a question & my comments at [2] DGG ( talk ) 21:36, 6 March 2016 (UTC)

altho it is of course not a criterion, sometimes style makes a difference in the impression that someone has of an article. In this example, it would have helped to refer to her by her last name, not her first name alone, and not to write in one sentence paragraphs. As you yourself know very well how articles should be written, your subsequent edits fixed both problems. But quite apart from that, if reviewers are right 90% of the time, it can be predicted that at least one one article per class will be unreasonably rejected. (And I think the average level of performance is nearer to 80% than 90%) DGG ( talk ) 02:03, 11 March 2016 (UTC)
I certainly didn't mean to imply that reviewers were wrong in more than a minority of cases, just that common student errors line up with where reviewers tend to decline on the margin, e.g. poor sourcing mixed in with acceptable sources, issues with tone, overlong sections or articles. Adam (Wiki Ed) (talk) 14:58, 11 March 2016 (UTC)

Need direction on stubs my class canuse

Hi,Adam,

I haven't used Wikipedia for classroom projects in a few years so there is a bit that is new! I am teaching an upper level undergraduate course on Early Modern Popular culture in England that concentrates on the sixteenth century.

There is already quite a bit on Wikipedia that addresses the Tudors and England. I'm not sure what to have my students do. I would appreciate some direction. Thank you. (Rbricker (talk) 19:47, 7 March 2016 (UTC))RBricker

Changing title for draft

Hello Adam, I'm having trouble changing the title of my draft. How can I do that? LauraRivera 091 (talk) 02:52, 8 March 2016 (UTC)

  • Hi, LauraRivera 091. Renaming pages is done through the "move" function, which you can see on the upper right corner of the page menu (the bar where you see "edit", "view history" and the star for watchlisting a page). You can see an explanation here with links to our handouts on the subject. Adam (Wiki Ed) (talk) 18:49, 10 March 2016 (UTC)

Dear Adam, I am concerned about the condition of my page "Exchange students' challenges" and I have a question regarding my page. What can I possibly do to change the current plight of my page/article? Wiki is based on reliable sources and information, therefore I presume that copying an important information and pasting it ought to be considered normal. Don't you think it is logical, or am I mistaking?. I did not simply copy and paste the excerpts I also cite the sources to avoid any possible threats like copyright violations/infringements. You have made a comment about a citation style, but I can assure you the only style I used was APA. I am asking you to help me with these matters. By the way it is Semenov, not Semonov. Sincerely, Igor semenov

question about the FMST 329 Women and Film

Hey, im in the [3] course and im having some trouble in two aspects. the first is that i went on the dashboard and choose two articles to review, yet on the wiki page there still isnt the names of the articles in the "reviewing" column. the second is that somehow i have two names of wikipedia articles in the "assigned" column (one being my article, that of Anna Hamilton Phelan) and another one. How can i removes the secondary one?

thanks!

Pepito gun (talk) 22:24, 12 March 2016 (UTC)

Pepito gun (talk) 22:24, 12 March 2016 (UTC)

Hi Pepito gun. If you click on the "+" as you do when you add articles you'll see a small window pop up with your currently assigned articles and you should see a button to remove them next to each one on the list. I've also made a few edits to Anna Hamilton Phelan. In particular I removed a section on nazis. That part should be replaced eventually, because it happened, but you want to find multiple sources on the subject to make sure the reader can trust it. Adam (Wiki Ed) (talk) 16:32, 14 March 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for getting back to me! I was able to resolve the issue. As for the section on Nazi's ill certainly look into it more and try and find more sources

  • Thanks, Pepito gun. I think you'll be able to find several. Searching through multiple sources while writing an article is good, because it helps you corroborate claims or evaluate different claims--you'd be surprised how many sources make errors that you'd only catch by reading others. Adam (Wiki Ed) (talk) 15:59, 16 March 2016 (UTC)

Hello from LaGuardia class

Thanks for supporting our class. --Keyboredplease (talk) 17:08, 14 March 2016 (UTC)

Hello Adam

Blazingm0on1111 (talk) 17:08, 14 March 2016 (UTC)I am a student at Laguardia College just wanted to say hey and thank you for your support §Blazingm0on1111 (talk)

Hello Adam from LaGuardia Class

Hi, Adam, I am currently in my class, saying hello. --OhhhRenneR (talk) 17:09, 14 March 2016 (UTC)
hi--Andreina2 (talk) 17:11, 14 March 2016 (UTC)

Hello

Hello Adam, I would like to thank you for welcoming me as a new student to wikipedia. Being that I am new to this, i appreciate your advice and gesture for help. I look forward to working on my wikipedia page and being able to gain more experience and knowledge throughout my time in this course. Thank you for supporting my class and I hope to be able to talk to you soon.--Figueroa Lea (talk) 17:16, 14 March 2016 (UTC)

Hello from S08

Hello--StudentSO8 (talk) 17:26, 14 March 2016 (UTC) thank you for the message.

Hi

Hey Adam! I wanted thank you for the welcome message.. Here's a cookie! Heytherefriend (talk) 15:23, 17 March 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for helping a newcomer out.

Training

I saw your message on Wikipedia:Training and it's left me a bit confused (or rather added to my confusion). Where are resources for training NOT in an educational institutional setting shared, discussed etc? How do get advised of outages, new features in the tools so we can update presentations, etc. I've previously asked for VE training materials as we have assumed that from now on new users should attend VE sessions rather than source-editor training. It seems that in the creation of the Wiki Education program and online on-boarding programs that those of us who do face-to-face training in other settings, run edit-a-thons etc have been forgotten. Certainly when you look at the Outreach main page, there isn't any recognition that any of this kind of Outreach takes place. We've don't exist apparently. Who in WMF is the present contact point for us? Kerry (talk) 20:40, 14 March 2016 (UTC)

  • @Kerry Raymond:. Thanks for the note, I'll try to reply as best as possible. I should note that Wiki Ed is entirely independent from the WMF, so I don't know anything about their more general plans or who is running outreach or outreach training.
  • I'm not sure (exhaustively) what resources are available from the community or other organizations. I believe we announced the new training on the education noticeboard, but Eryk, our communications director, would have a better general answer for you on how to stay up to date.
  • Visual editor is still something we're adapting our training around. We hope to update more of our resources (not just the training) to start from VE first in the future, but I don't know when that process will be complete.
The best bet is to talk to someone from the Wikimedia Foundation, because Wiki Ed only covers training for higher education in Canada and the USA. I'm afraid that I don't really have any further information on Wikimedia's operations. --Eryk (Wiki Ed) (talk) 20:06, 15 March 2016 (UTC)

Hi There

Hi Adam, I wanted to thank you for your help gearing us up to be successful Wikipedia contributors. Thanks again! Mshuttles (talk) 17:14, 18 March 2016 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Adam_(Wiki_Ed)/Archives/Spring_2016&oldid=998338270"