User talk:Etherfire

Nomination of Gary Weber for deletion
(Keeping this section in place as a legacy for what prompted me to dive into wikipedia. :) Etherfire (talk) 04:52, 28 February 2017 (UTC)

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Gary Weber is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Articles for deletion/Gary Weber until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article.  DGG ( talk ) 19:13, 22 September 2016 (UTC)

Don't remove your comments from an AFD or talk page as you did at Articles for deletion/Gary Weber, particularly when they have already been responded to. And don't ever remove someone else's comments as you also did. If you made a mistake or changed your mind about something you can use WP:strikeout, but wholesale erasure of comments you made as long as three weeks ago is not appropriate, and removing your disclosure of your COI makes it appear that you are trying to hide it. If you want to withdraw your objection to the deletion just strikeout your "Keep" and leave a new comment. Meters (talk) 06:47, 15 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Ok, sorry about this. I had felt that I had already overstepped my role there as the person who had posted the original post. Plus some of what I had posted was unnecessarily self-identifying, and, in retrospect I would have handled it differently. As the process of reviewing the article has proceeded, I've learned a lot about this process. I realized that I was unsure of how/if I should be arguing for the article and felt uncomfortable about so much of my personal stuff being placed in a public space. I suppose it's inevitable that we make some mistakes to this effect. I'll be more careful before posting in the future to make sure I later won't want to scratch it from the public record. 50.24.139.160 Etherfire (talk) 18:22, 16 October 2016 (UTC)

Student editing
Hello Etherfire, and thanks for your long note on my Talk page. I don't identify students specifically so must have guessed accurately (accidentally) when your student posted on a page I patrol. I belong to the WP medical project which captures many topics and has had substantial surveillance on student editing, not all of it constructive, so our caution is sharpened on edits in this category. Sorry, but I have little to add further. Will monitor a few days here on your page for any reply. Kind regards. --Zefr (talk) 20:42, 27 February 2017 (UTC)

Comment on Zefr's talk page
About this - first, if you get to know Zefr a bit, you will soon learn that they don't much like having discussions on their talk page, so I am not sure you are going to get much of a reply there or if your comment will just be deleted. You didn't cite a specific comment by Zefr and I went looking but found nothing obvious.

But I read your post with great interest, as I have thought a lot about the good things and bad things about student editing. I appreciated very much that you seem to understand that WP editing is a dramatically different context from what usually happens in schools with student work (i love what you wrote about "I wanted to avoid claiming and altering the editorial flow "). In schools, a student (or a team) works privately and then submits a clearly defined work by some defined due date, with their names on it, that the instructor evaluates, and the quality of that work determines a grade and ultimately credit or no credit for the class. Students need good grades and need to pass in order to move on with their education.

Here in WP, we anonymously collaborate to generate whole articles, and nothing depends on our work, and there is no deadline.

In my view many instructors fail to take into account the different frameworks and the conflict of interest and both things lead to problems both with content and behavior. Content-wise it really easy to look at an article and see that some student plopped an essay into the middle of it, without regard for WEIGHT or anything else, and more than once I have gotten into ugly interactions where students were desperate for their content to "stick" so their instructor could grade it - the obvious product of a conflict of interest between the mission of WP and the student's need to get a grade etc.

I don't know (and I really don't know) what model would be optimal for instructors to use.

From here within WP, we care about two things - the quality of content, and the behavior of editors. There are separate policies about both (content and behavior) and both are necessary for this strange experiment that is WP to thrive.

If the goal of the in-class WP project is to learn how to edit WP, then the instruction should cover both, and instructors should evaluate content and behavior. I have never seen a coursepage that addressed student behavior, however. Nor have I seen a coursepage that said that student's work would be graded in light of how it affected the overall article.

Most times, it seems that the goal is purely about content (the quality of the research and writing, as demonstrated in the writing) and what is evaluated is the content produced by the student. Which is what leads to the problems I mentioned above.

I have written too much already, but I do want to add that it is a really good idea for students to say that they are students on their Userpage at least, and provide a link to their instructor at least. Disclosing that they are students does probably lead other editors to cut them some slack and helps other editors understand their behavior....  and providing a link to their instructor allows other editors to let the instructor know if things are going awry. From an editor's perspective, the coursepage is useful to me, mostly so I can look and see if the class is badly managed and students are all running amok, and can let the education people know so they can contact the instructor and help them get things on track.

Happy to discuss more if you like. If you are not in dialogue with the education people, they are super helpful. Am pinging User:Ian (Wiki Ed) in case that is helpful to you. Jytdog (talk) 21:06, 27 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Thanks, . Good thorough coverage as usual. One of my concerns with students and their instructors is that WP may be used as a test of "acceptance" by anonymous editors covering the topic, and of possible feedback that helps to hone the edit and behavior of the student, leading to a course grade. In other words, WP editors may unknowingly participate in grading the student's work. If so, this creates some ire in me and likely others, as many WP editors (all of whom are anonymous volunteers, of course) have their own preferences for donating time to WP which in most cases probably does not include training students. I was contacted apparently because I had extended a Twinkle greeting to a new student editor who in turn contacted Etherfire, apparently her/his instructor. I don't want to be involved in instruction but pledge polite behavior and a greeting if I detect a newbie editor. --Zefr (talk) 22:23, 27 February 2017 (UTC)

Hi Jytdog, Hi Zefr. Thanks so much for your comments. This is all really useful. I've moved some of my previous comment on Zefr's page over to a new section on my talk page with the intention of continuing to add to it some thoughts and justifications for the current project. I'll also update it once the project is completed. Asking my students to disclose is a good idea. I'll let them know to do so. Etherfire (talk) 04:50, 28 February 2017 (UTC)

= New Comments below here please =

Article Concerns
I would really like to get this article matter sorted out so I can begin working on the project as soon as possible. I would really prefer not having to use leftover articles, so I have selected 4 that I wish for you to check over. I hope these are appropriate: Dante Alighieri, Das Boot, Memoirs of Carwin the Biloquist, Xavier: Renegade Angel

I am reaching out to you in several places over the news because I really want to get this assignment going and cannot stand getting behind. Thank you for your time.

CognitiveBehavioralTherapyWizardTheIX (talk) 13:37, 15 February 2022 (UTC)

How about Neo-Marxism or Calvin_(Calvin_and_Hobbes) or Jet_Propulsion_Laboratory_Science_Division? TheLoneDeranger (talk) 06:31, 23 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Do the Neo-Marxism one but let's talk about it since it will take some work. Part of what you'll have to do is what the guy in the talk page said back in 2011 -- hop over to other wiki articles that have content about specific neo-marxists. But you could also easily consult e.g. this sociology encyclopedia entry to get you rolling on it. You'll have to rewrite a bunch of content and perhaps even add some sure but I think that you could do it. Etherfire (talk) 19:16, 23 February 2018 (UTC)

Student Editing Part 2
Hi. I'm adding this comment here per the request for new comments below the line but this is really a continuation of the discussion above about student editing. As an educator I love the approach that your user page indicates you're taking with Wikipedia in the classroom - indeed when thinking of doing a Wikipedia assignment myself your approach seems to mesh with what might would be. Given my own background, I also probably have more tolerance for helping motivated and thoughtful students in refining their work to Wikipedia. If there are students who are particularly motivated/interested and who haven't been getting the kind of interaction/feedback you might be looking for know that I would be willing to help assuming that they're editing an area that I have something to offer (broadly speaking, sports, children's literature, technology, or anything that might be taught in a HS Social Studies Department). If you would like someone to bounce instructional ideas off of know that I would be happy to be that sounding board as well.

Is Sewinginthepast one of your students? If so I left some feedback, as did another editor, about their Good Article nominations that you might be interested in (working back from their talk page is how I found you).

I will not be monitoring this talk page so please ping me back here in any reply. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 15:05, 29 March 2018 (UTC)


 * Thank you for your thoughtful comment. It's nice to see such a great community on Wikipedia...it continues to surprise me.


 * Yes, Sewinginthepast is one of my students and she did contact me separately about having trouble with the GA nominations. It seems that I did not adequately frame or convey to the students what this process looks like. I'm not requiring it but did encourage them to either do GA nominations or nominate for reassessment with individual project pages so that their hard work might also move forward in the community and then they could see immediately how others received their work. I didn't think that the WP:PR was appropriate in this case since technically the project is done and I've begun reviewing what they've done myself. Unfortunately, we needed to move on to next assignment...so I didn't have enough time to take them through either WP:PR or the GA nomination process. I did, however, show them the page with the GA nomination and encourage them to read through it before nominating (if they wanted to--this was not a requirement). I'll look into this more and talk with my students on Monday to clarify some things for them. Etherfire (talk) 12:36, 30 March 2018 (UTC)

VR
Hi Etherfire! I mostly just really like editing wikipedia, especially with other people in the same room or alone when I come across something interesting that needs work. I've done guest presentations at universities, but mostly I facilitate workshops through Art+Feminism in Toronto and Buffalo. You can look me up through Art Gallery of Ontario and Squeaky Wheel Buffalo Media Arts Center. My interest in the VR page is largely due to research I've been doing on the technology and its applications. I think editing Wikipedia is a great way to focus on a research interest and practice sharing knowledge in a clear, concise and relevant manner.

Exciting to see that your students are contributing, very cool course addition!

Seazzy (talk) 23:28, 12 April 2018 (UTC)

Rice–Texas football rivalry
I have removed your Template:Original research tag which was applied to the Rice–Texas football rivalry. That template states Note: This template should not be applied without explanation on the talk page, and should be removed if the original research is not readily apparent when no explanation is given. and there is no associated discussion observed at Talk:Rice–Texas football rivalry.

If there is an aspect of the article which is unsourced in your view, perhaps Template:Citation needed would be a better match. Cheers, UW Dawgs (talk) 21:02, 9 October 2020 (UTC)


 * Thanks -- I didn't realize the OR tag always needed a talk page post. Apologies, I've added one.

Iliad article help
Hi! I went through the archived Iliad talk page, and I found a couple things I'd like your input on. The page seems to have really stalled out around 2009. But before then, editors were discussing a big organization restructure: Reorganization/rewrite. Is this worth looking into and possibly changing, using their proposed structure as a starting point? Or should I focus on OR as discussed? I also found discussion over The synopsis and "Themes". Thanks for the help! Grenadine13 (talk) 23:02, 24 February 2022 (UTC)


 * Hi Grenadine13 -- way to use the Wikipedia channels of communication. I think this does point to ways that the article could be reorganized. I don't think you necessarily need to go back to the 2009 version but it is worth broaching the topic of organization again, especially since we want to get it going towards Odyssey level. But where to start? You'll need to assess the whole article in relation to where it might be, probably starting with a comparison with Odyssey and a careful look through what is already in the Iliad article. Etherfire (talk) 02:18, 25 February 2022 (UTC)

Trying to figure out why the c-span ID was reverted in this edit
Hi, I noticed the c-span regressed to the string format from the numeric ID which was converted to prevent link rot. Did your edit rely on a tool or copy paste or just miss this regression? I'm curious what might have caused this given there were days between the edits. I'm checking to find if any tools need to be updated to prevent regressions from the ID. Wolfgang8741 says: If not you, then who? (talk) 20:15, 21 April 2022 (UTC)


 * It probably was some of the work done by Sageicedlatte  -- they are a student of mine and I think they did use a sandbox to work on the page before copy/pasting it back in. So check back in their edits and apologies if they accidentally removed something important.  Etherfire (talk) 15:16, 25 April 2022 (UTC)