User talk:Castelamfr
Welcome![edit]
Hello, Castelamfr, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few links to pages you might find helpful:
- Introduction and Getting started
- Contributing to Wikipedia
- The five pillars of Wikipedia
- How to edit a page and How to develop articles
- How to create your first article
- Simplified Manual of Style
You may also want to complete the Wikipedia Adventure, an interactive tour that will help you learn the basics of editing Wikipedia. You can visit the Teahouse to ask questions or seek help.
Please remember to sign your messages on talk pages by typing four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or , and a volunteer should respond shortly. Again, welcome! Blythwood (talk) 07:46, 12 November 2017 (UTC)
Reply[edit]
sent you an email with two of my student’s assignments with authorshipnrelated issues and these are not yet on Wikipedia... like others student’s contributions are already
Hi. What can I help you with? Ian (Wiki Ed) (talk) 20:42, 12 December 2017 (UTC)
Women in Red[edit]
Hi there, Castelamfr, and welcome to Women in Red. It's good to have one more instructor from Wiki Edu. As you have not yet created any biographies of women, you might find it useful to look through our Ten Simple Rules. I hope you will be inspired to create women's biographies yourself and encourage your students to spend more time writing about women. Please let me know if you run into any difficulties or need assistance. Happy editing!--Ipigott (talk) 10:39, 15 April 2020 (UTC)
The Women in Red Barnstar[edit]
 
|
The Women in Red Barnstar | |
| Thank you for making time during the COVID-19 pandemic to become a Women in Red Wiki Scholar. |
--Rosiestep (talk) 14:29, 17 April 2020 (UTC)
May 2020 at Women in Red[edit]
Online events:
|
--Rosiestep (talk) 20:58, 29 April 2020 (UTC) via MassMessaging
Feedback[edit]
Hi Castelamfr! First a quick note--you don't have to sign your edit summaries by typing the 4 tildes. It actually doesn't autofill the signature. If you look at the history page, you can see that the username of the editor is automatically saved, along with the time stamp, so there's no need to attempt to sign. Now some thoughts on your edits:
- I made a few adjustments to the section titles. I removed colons and I shortened them a bit when possible. Also, instead of having one large section "Biography" with most other sections as a subsection, I removed "Biography" (the whole article is a biography, essentially).
- The conventions for biographies are to just have the dates of birth and death dates in the first sentence in parentheses. So the parentheses should just have (26 November 1842 – 30 November 1921)
- References immediately follow punctuation (Sentence.[1] not Sentence[1].) I see a couple instances of the latter form--you can just drag and drop the references to move them after the punctuation.
- I notice you are citing a Wikipedia article after the sentence A street in the 13th district of Paris is named for her. Wikipedia is not considered a reliable source, and thus Wikipedia articles cannot be cited.
- External links are being used instead of citations in the sections for tributes. An external link looks like this [1] while a reference looks like this: [1] Generally, external links are never used in the body of an article. They are instead in the external links section at the very bottom of the article and occasionally found in infoboxes.
- In general, all content on Wikipedia should be referenced. If consecutive sentences come from the same source, the citation can be added once at the end of the consecutive sentences rather than duplicated at the end of each sentence. In that vein, no paragraph should end without a citation, and no paragraphs should lack citations. I see a few places where citations would be a welcome addition
- I'm wondering if the translation of the French photo caption can be placed in the caption of the image rather than having a whole section about it? So that way, the image would be used in some part of the article with the English caption. That seems more natural to me.
- Great use of the RP template!
- I removed that ugly maintenance template on the top of the article saying it needs more references, as you have greatly improved it from its status in November 2019.
Let me know if you have any questions! Great work so far. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Elysia (Wiki Ed) (talk • contribs) 16:33, 8 May 2020 (UTC)
June 2020 at Women in Red[edit]
June 2020, Volume 6, Issue 6, Numbers 150, 151, 167, 168, 169
Online events:
|
--Rosiestep (talk) 17:10, 25 May 2020 (UTC) via MassMessaging
Discussion of student editing from your courses at WPMED[edit]
Please have a look at the discussion here. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:40, 26 June 2020 (UTC)
- Let me start by saying that as you are likely aware writing is a skill which we all develop. As you mention, I have taught this course several years and it is this year when I have received notice of the issues brought up by my most recent cohort which were working under the current circumstances. It is clearer to me that some students may not be aware or thorough in the many important issues of Wikipedia editing. I worked in Laurence Zitvogel’s page part from translation of the French source and I added as much not primary data as I found available. I welcome your comments and I am know better versed about the back end of Wikipedia “the encyclopedia that anyone can edit” however I don’t think perfection is part of the definition. As a recent Wikipedia scholar I have a larger view of what I need to address with my students. I can definitely guide them better if I am given the Wikipedia course however I somehow sense that because of the large demands ensued by covid 19 Wikipedia may be looking this year to “the weakest link”. I have no control over that. I have been very excited to now be able to have a broader input which is more informed after the women in red scholar course I just finished. Honestly your commentary though technically versed, simply curves my excitement. I rest assured that what I did and what many students in previous cohorts have done though not perfect, has been the source of interest to many other editors whom I think could take their valuable time to educate rather instead of criticizing. Castelamfr (talk) 04:06, 26 June 2020 (UTC)
- You don't have to put a para break to start a new post; the conventions on Wikipedia are explained at WP:THREAD, and are to thread posts by using colons. Thanks for engaging! Yes, writing is general is a learned skill, but to write encyclopedic content on Wikipedia, the issue is less one of brilliant prose and more one of understanding the site's policies and guidelines. Poorly written articles are the norm, but other things like sourcing and notability are important. When guiding students, one should be familiar with key policies-- more so after many years of doing this. I do not believe the recurring issues are unique to the most recent "cohort"; if you go back in your course lists, you will find a lot of the work has had to be removed, and in the interim, a lot of other editors and Wiki Ed staff have been cleaning up issues that perhaps you weren't aware of. I am unsure if you check each of the articles your student's edit to view the changes that needed to be made; that can be instructive for the instructor. Ideally, a prof would have enough experience to know where the problems are occurring, and by several years in, would not be depending on others to clean up work. Wiki Ed staff does an admirable job, but at some point, it should no longer be their job. I am not following your argument about how this is related to COVID-19; the issues in your student's work pre-date COVID, and you have only edited two articles yourself, so perhaps there is a cart-horse problem, that is easy to solve! The more you understand, the more you can help your students so that their work won't end up deleted. Notability is a key concept determining what should be on Wikipedia; it's not "perfectionism". Your students are often choosing topics without having determined if the topic is notable-- that is, if there are enough independent sources writing about it for us to be able to host an article. When students put non-notable work on Wikipedia, lots of other people have to work to remove it. Or if it's barely notable but so poorly written it's hard to tell what is sourcing what, then one has to go read and check every source to figure out, eventually, that an hour was spent on an article that never met notability and needed to be removed. That's fine for one year ... or two ... but you are far enough in now, and not a "newbie", that I wonder if you feel it right that others are doing this work, and whether your students are learning by having their work removed? I have come across a couple of fine articles from several of your students (I'm sorry I can't pull up their names from memories), so you have made a difference in some instances, but I hope you will be encouraged to understand that concepts like [[WP:NN|notability and reliable sourcing are key to creating encyclopedic content. Now that you are more aware, I am confident that we will see good things from you and your students. It does seem wise to have at least a few terms, though, where your students keep their work in Sandbox rather than Mainspace; perhaps you can discuss that with WikiEd staff. And I hope you appreciate the learning at Zitvogel-- as you know better than I, it takes much longer to teach someone the things they should know than just to do it one's self, and I wanted you to have that learning opportunity, so took the time. In the case of Zitvogel, there was nothing "dangerously" wrong, but when you have a group of students making medical statements on a widely read internet site, it is important that those medical statements be sound, according to Wikipedia's guideline for sourcing medical content. Frequently, they are writing a long plot summary themselves, and then putting in non-MEDRS-compliant sources, that are completely unrelated to the topic they are writing-- to justify the medical statements, which at times are wrong or quackery. And that's an important and potentially dangerous problem. That's why I took the extra time to show you some things you may benefit from at Zitvogel. Please do not hesitate to ping me if I can ever be helpful somewhere. Regards, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 04:49, 26 June 2020 (UTC)
- Another note on “anyone can edit“. Wikipedia is widely read, and we have an extra responsibility to get it right in two places where there is great potential for harm, both of which your course engages: biographies of living persons and editing medical content. Things we write on Wikipedia about people and their health can have consequences, so courses that edit in the area of BLPs and WP:MEDRS have to be more aware than a course writing on, for example, literature. Because malaria is not Louisa May Alcott! SandyGeorgia (Talk) 05:45, 26 June 2020 (UTC)
- You don't have to put a para break to start a new post; the conventions on Wikipedia are explained at WP:THREAD, and are to thread posts by using colons. Thanks for engaging! Yes, writing is general is a learned skill, but to write encyclopedic content on Wikipedia, the issue is less one of brilliant prose and more one of understanding the site's policies and guidelines. Poorly written articles are the norm, but other things like sourcing and notability are important. When guiding students, one should be familiar with key policies-- more so after many years of doing this. I do not believe the recurring issues are unique to the most recent "cohort"; if you go back in your course lists, you will find a lot of the work has had to be removed, and in the interim, a lot of other editors and Wiki Ed staff have been cleaning up issues that perhaps you weren't aware of. I am unsure if you check each of the articles your student's edit to view the changes that needed to be made; that can be instructive for the instructor. Ideally, a prof would have enough experience to know where the problems are occurring, and by several years in, would not be depending on others to clean up work. Wiki Ed staff does an admirable job, but at some point, it should no longer be their job. I am not following your argument about how this is related to COVID-19; the issues in your student's work pre-date COVID, and you have only edited two articles yourself, so perhaps there is a cart-horse problem, that is easy to solve! The more you understand, the more you can help your students so that their work won't end up deleted. Notability is a key concept determining what should be on Wikipedia; it's not "perfectionism". Your students are often choosing topics without having determined if the topic is notable-- that is, if there are enough independent sources writing about it for us to be able to host an article. When students put non-notable work on Wikipedia, lots of other people have to work to remove it. Or if it's barely notable but so poorly written it's hard to tell what is sourcing what, then one has to go read and check every source to figure out, eventually, that an hour was spent on an article that never met notability and needed to be removed. That's fine for one year ... or two ... but you are far enough in now, and not a "newbie", that I wonder if you feel it right that others are doing this work, and whether your students are learning by having their work removed? I have come across a couple of fine articles from several of your students (I'm sorry I can't pull up their names from memories), so you have made a difference in some instances, but I hope you will be encouraged to understand that concepts like [[WP:NN|notability and reliable sourcing are key to creating encyclopedic content. Now that you are more aware, I am confident that we will see good things from you and your students. It does seem wise to have at least a few terms, though, where your students keep their work in Sandbox rather than Mainspace; perhaps you can discuss that with WikiEd staff. And I hope you appreciate the learning at Zitvogel-- as you know better than I, it takes much longer to teach someone the things they should know than just to do it one's self, and I wanted you to have that learning opportunity, so took the time. In the case of Zitvogel, there was nothing "dangerously" wrong, but when you have a group of students making medical statements on a widely read internet site, it is important that those medical statements be sound, according to Wikipedia's guideline for sourcing medical content. Frequently, they are writing a long plot summary themselves, and then putting in non-MEDRS-compliant sources, that are completely unrelated to the topic they are writing-- to justify the medical statements, which at times are wrong or quackery. And that's an important and potentially dangerous problem. That's why I took the extra time to show you some things you may benefit from at Zitvogel. Please do not hesitate to ping me if I can ever be helpful somewhere. Regards, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 04:49, 26 June 2020 (UTC)
July 2020 at Women in Red[edit]
|
--Rosiestep (talk) 16:10, 28 June 2020 (UTC) via MassMessaging
August 2020 at Women in Red[edit]
|
--Rosiestep (talk) 18:50, 26 July 2020 (UTC) via MassMessaging
September Women in Red edithons[edit]
|
--Megalibrarygirl (talk) 17:53, 29 August 2020 (UTC) via MassMessaging
October editathons from Women in Red[edit]
|
--Megalibrarygirl (talk) 15:09, 21 September 2020 (UTC) via MassMessaging
November edit-a-thons from Women in Red[edit]
|
--Megalibrarygirl (talk) 18:52, 28 October 2020 (UTC) via MassMessaging
December with Women in Red[edit]
|
--Megalibrarygirl (talk) 16:43, 26 November 2020 (UTC) via MassMessaging
A New Year With Women in Red![edit]
|
--Megalibrarygirl (talk) 03:01, 29 December 2020 (UTC) via MassMessaging
February 2021 at Women in Red[edit]
|
--Rosiestep (talk) 14:58, 27 January 2021 (UTC) via MassMessaging
March 2021 at Women in Red[edit]
|
--Rosiestep (talk) 18:47, 26 February 2021 (UTC) via MassMessaging
April editathons from Women in Red[edit]
|
--Megalibrarygirl (talk) 20:15, 22 March 2021 (UTC) via MassMessaging
May 2021 at Women in Red[edit]
|
--Rosiestep (talk) 21:35, 28 April 2021 (UTC) via MassMessaging
June 2021 at Women in Red[edit]
|
--Rosiestep (talk) 18:49, 28 May 2021 (UTC) via MassMessaging
July 2021 at Women in Red[edit]
|
--Rosiestep (talk) 16:04, 22 June 2021 (UTC) via MassMessaging
August Editathons at Women in Red[edit]
|
--Megalibrarygirl (talk) 22:24, 23 July 2021 (UTC) via MassMessaging
September 2021 at Women in Red[edit]
|
--Rosiestep (talk) 22:29, 26 August 2021 (UTC) via MassMessaging
October 2021 at Women in Red[edit]
Special event:
|
--Rosiestep (talk) 01:34, 29 September 2021 (UTC) via MassMessaging
November 2021 at Women in Red[edit]
|
--Innisfree987 (talk) 21:27, 24 October 2021 (UTC) via MassMessaging
December 2021 at Women in Red[edit]
|
--Innisfree987 (talk) 00:10, 27 November 2021 (UTC) via MassMessaging
January 2022 Women in Red[edit]
|
--Megalibrarygirl (talk) 16:02, 28 December 2021 (UTC) via MassMessaging
February with Women in Red[edit]
|
--Megalibrarygirl (talk) 15:09, 31 January 2022 (UTC) via MassMessaging
March editathons[edit]
|
--Megalibrarygirl (talk) 16:37, 27 February 2022 (UTC) via MassMessaging
April Editathons from Women in Red[edit]
|
--Megalibrarygirl (talk) 22:44, 22 March 2022 (UTC) via MassMessaging
May Women in Red events[edit]
|
--Megalibrarygirl (talk) 16:51, 30 April 2022 (UTC) via MassMessaging
June events from Women in Red[edit]
|
--Megalibrarygirl (talk) 09:19, 31 May 2022 (UTC) via MassMessaging
Women in Red in July 2022[edit]
|
--Lajmmoore (talk) 15:45, 27 June 2022 (UTC) via MassMessaging
Women in Red in August 2022[edit]
|
--Lajmmoore (talk) 10:57, 29 July 2022 (UTC) via MassMessaging
Women in Red in September 2022[edit]
|
--Lajmmoore (talk) 15:34, 31 August 2022 (UTC) via MassMessaging
Women in Red October 2022[edit]
|
--Lajmmoore (talk) 14:58, 29 September 2022 (UTC) via MassMessaging
Women in Red November 2022[edit]
|
--Lajmmoore (talk) 17:32, 26 October 2022 (UTC) via MassMessaging
Women in Red December 2022[edit]
See also:
Tip of the month:
Other ways to participate:
|
--Lajmmoore (talk) 20:53, 26 November 2022 (UTC) via MassMessaging
Women in Red January 2023[edit]
See also:
Tip of the month:
Other ways to participate:
|
--Lajmmoore (talk) 18:00, 27 December 2022 (UTC) via MassMessaging
Women in Red in February 2023[edit]
Tip of the month:
Other ways to participate:
|
--Lajmmoore (talk) 07:26, 30 January 2023 (UTC) via MassMessaging
Women in Red March 2023[edit]
See also:
Tip of the month:
Other ways to participate:
|
--Lajmmoore (talk) 12:52, 26 February 2023 (UTC) via MassMessaging
Women in Red April 2023[edit]
See also:
Tip of the month:
Other ways to participate:
|
--Lajmmoore (talk) 07:51, 27 March 2023 (UTC) via MassMessaging
Women in Red May 2023[edit]
See also:
Tip of the month:
Other ways to participate:
|
--Lajmmoore (talk) 18:27, 27 April 2023 (UTC) via MassMessaging
Women in Red - June 2023[edit]
See also:
Tip of the month:
Other ways to participate:
|
--Lajmmoore (talk) 09:15, 28 May 2023 (UTC) via MassMessaging
Women in Red July 2023[edit]
Tip of the month:
Other ways to participate:
|
--Lajmmoore (talk) 07:42, 27 June 2023 (UTC) via MassMessaging
Women in Red 8th Anniversary[edit]
|
|
Women in Red 8th Anniversary |
| In July 2015 around 15.5% of the English Wikipedia's biographies were about women. As of July 2023, 19.61% of the English Wikipedia's biographies are about women. That's a lot of biographies created in the effort to close the gender gap. Happy 8th Anniversary! Join us for some virtual cake and add comments or memories and please keep on editing to close the gap! |
--Lajmmoore (talk) 11:00, 18 July 2023 (UTC) via MassMessaging
Women in Red August 2023[edit]
See also:
Tip of the month:
Other ways to participate:
|
--Lajmmoore (talk) 19:24, 28 July 2023 (UTC) via MassMessaging
September 2023 at Women In Red[edit]
Tip of the month:
Other ways to participate:
|
--Victuallers (talk) 16:49, 25 August 2023 (UTC) via MassMessaging
Women in Red October 2023[edit]
See also
Tip of the month:
Other ways to participate:
|
--Lajmmoore (talk) 10:51, 29 September 2023 (UTC) via MassMessaging
Women in Red - November 2023[edit]
See also Tip of the month:
Other ways to participate:
|
--Lajmmoore (talk) 08:21, 26 October 2023 (UTC) via MassMessaging
Women in Red December 2023[edit]
Tip of the month:
Other ways to participate:
|
--Lajmmoore (talk) 20:22, 27 November 2023 (UTC) via MassMessaging
Women in Red January 2024[edit]
Announcement
Tip of the month:
Other ways to participate:
|
Women in Red February 2024[edit]
Announcement
Tip of the month:
Other ways to participate:
|
--Lajmmoore (talk 20:07, 28 January 2024 (UTC) via MassMessaging
Women in Red March 2024[edit]
Announcements
Tip of the month:
Other ways to participate:
|
--Lajmmoore (talk 20:21, 25 February 2024 (UTC) via MassMessaging
Women in Red April 2024[edit]
Announcements
Tip of the month:
Other ways to participate:
|
--Lajmmoore (talk 19:41, 30 March 2024 (UTC) via MassMessaging
Women in Red May 2024[edit]
Announcements from other communities
Tip of the month:
Other ways to participate:
|
--Lajmmoore (talk 06:16, 28 April 2024 (UTC) via MassMessaging
Women in Red June 2024[edit]
Announcements from other communities
Tip of the month:
Other ways to participate:
|
--Lajmmoore (talk 07:04, 23 May 2024 (UTC) via MassMessaging