User talk:Shalor (Wiki Ed)/Archive 3

Need help request from Ds3630 (talk)
Hello.

I need help with my article on LGBT rights/people in Ayiti. I want to make sure it is suitable for publishing.

--Ds3630 (talk) 04:07, 24 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Hi, where are you going to post User:Ds3630/sandbox? If it's going to be posted to the Haitian Creole Wikipedia then we will need to make sure that there isn't a page for this topic already on this language's Wikipedia. Offhand I'm concerned that this comes across like original research in many places and is written in a relatively casual, essay-like style. I think that you would be better off doing a translation of LGBT rights in Haiti, to be honest, if you wanted to add this content to the Haitian Creole Wikipedia. As far as I can tell, that page has no corresponding article on the Haitian Creole Wikipedia and they actually seem to lack overall coverage for LGBT content as a whole. While you wouldn't need to research new sourcing per se, translation is still fairly difficult and as such, your teacher will likely be OK with you just translating an existing article - I would still ask them first, however. Shalor (Wiki Ed) (talk) 15:46, 26 December 2017 (UTC)

Stray student
Hi Shalor. I may have come across a stray student wandering the halls of Wikipedia. Would you might taking a look at User talk:Marchjuly and seeing if you have any suggestions for this editor. Apparently there have been some cases of company interns, etc. editing Kathryn Tappen in the past, but I'm assuming good faith that this editor is a student working on a project. FWIW, I don't think they are participating in a WikiEd project, but not sure. Thanks in advance. -- Marchjuly (talk) 22:16, 9 January 2018 (UTC)
 * I don't see anything in their edit history that shows participation in a Wiki Ed classroom assignment - typically they will have an edit to the Wikipedia page for their class showing that they've enrolled. I'll leave a message on their talk page, though. Shalor (Wiki Ed) (talk) 14:40, 10 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Also,, I'm going to send you an email about this. Shalor (Wiki Ed) (talk) 14:53, 10 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Thank you for taking a look at this and helping to explain things to that editor. -- Marchjuly (talk) 21:28, 10 January 2018 (UTC)

Signatures in Visual Editor?
Hi Shalor. Do you know if I can enable signatures for the page User:Reagle/QICs? Students like VisualEditor, but my understanding is no VE on talk pages, and signatures are grayed out on that user page...? I thought maybe there had been a change in policy, and surprisingly, there *is* an insert signature option in VE on that user page, but it is grayed out. -Reagle (talk) 21:44, 10 January 2018 (UTC)
 * I'm actually not sure - I was going to post a question at the VE page, but it looks like you've already done that. I'd like to know that as well! Shalor (Wiki Ed) (talk) 21:54, 10 January 2018 (UTC)

Just testing
Thanks Sharon--Esamikhafe (talk) 03:09, 17 January 2018 (UTC)
 * No worries! Welcome to Wikipedia! Shalor (Wiki Ed) (talk) 14:48, 17 January 2018 (UTC)

New student editors
Hi there, Shalor. I have noticed by going through your contributions over the past few days that you have welcomed hundreds of students to Wikipedia. As far as I can see, their universities provide special training on Wikipedia and sooner or later they are encouraged to write articles of their own. I'm not sure how many actually progress to the stage where they write articles but it strikes me that at least some of them, especially the women, may be interested in reducing the gender gap on Wikipedia by writing biographies of prominent women in their field of study. I was wondering if it would be useful to draw their attention to WikiProject Women in Red which would provide them with the necessary background information and offer assistance to any who join the project. I'm not sure whether it would be useful to mention WiR in you welcoming message or whether we should leave it to a later stage when they have already come to grips with the Wikipedia essentials. Any ideas? Do you maintain an index of the universities and colleges participating in this initiative? Perhaps they could be sensitized to the problem too. Btw, I see that as, you have written quite a few women's biographries yourself and that you are on the main WiR mailing list.((cc --Ipigott (talk) 11:20, 17 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Hi ! I mention WiR quite a bit with educators - I'm definitely a staunch supporter of the project. :) I don't know if we can drop a note about it in the message or not - I can bring this up with my co-workers to see if there's any place we could have a more regular place to mention the WikiProject. Shalor (Wiki Ed) (talk) 14:08, 17 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Thanks for taking this up. Please let me know if you take any action. WiR itself could perhaps help you along.--Ipigott (talk) 14:10, 17 January 2018 (UTC)


 * I dropped a message on the office Slack channel. :) Shalor (Wiki Ed) (talk) 14:48, 17 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Hi! We can't really add specific mentions of this to any of the template messages that we send out to people. We do have quite a few classes that have made articles about women in specific though, such as this class that created 30 new articles on women in the field of psychology. :) Shalor (Wiki Ed) (talk) 17:36, 17 January 2018 (UTC)
 * (edit conflict) :*Hi Shalor! Thanks,, for circling me in. I could see how it would be problematic for an employee of Wiki Edu to send a welcome message to these WikiEdu students which includes mention of Women in Red. In her role as , she is reaching out to students who are part of a specific university class which has a Wikipedia assignment. For this reason, the students should stay focused on their assignment, so mention of Women in Red might be confusing. That said, if someone in a "volunteer" role -you, me, Tokyogirl79- sent a communication at another time (May/June... end of semester) regarding Women in Red, that might be nice. If you think it would be worthwhile, we could continue this recruitment discussion at the Women in Red talkpage for broader comment? --Rosiestep (talk) 17:42, 17 January 2018 (UTC)
 * This seems to be a case of nothing ventured, nothing gained. I just noticed that a fair proportion of the students receiving Wikipedia training are women. Maybe it would be possible to include something on the gender gap in their courses, around the time they are beginning to create articles. This may provide some of them with more incentives to continue Wikipedia editing after the end of their course. As far as I can see, not many do so. By all means bring this up on WiR. We can continue the discussion there.--Ipigott (talk) 11:42, 18 January 2018 (UTC)
 * See: Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Women in Red. --Rosiestep (talk) 14:27, 18 January 2018 (UTC)


 * Hi guys - I'll actually let my boss know about this so she can participate. She's the one who would really be the person you need to talk to. Shalor (Wiki Ed) (talk) 18:05, 18 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Nice! Thanks, Shalor. As I'll see in Berlin in a few weeks, maybe we can talk about it more there, too. --Rosiestep (talk) 18:16, 18 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Wunderbar! :) Shalor (Wiki Ed) (talk) 18:18, 18 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Happy to talk more in Berlin, ! --LiAnna (Wiki Ed) (talk) 18:28, 18 January 2018 (UTC)

Need help
Hi Shalor,

This is Shayla from a University class assignment group. I'm still new to using Wikipedia, and I am trying to figure out how to create a section in my sandbox to title it "Article Evaluations". Do you know how I can do this?

Thank you in advance for your help,

--Shayla — Preceding unsigned comment added by Shaywah (talk • contribs) 19:32, 18 January 2018 (UTC)


 * Hi - how cool is it that our names are so similar? In any case, you can create a new section in your article in one of a few ways:
 * Write the subsection name out like "== Article Evaluation ==" (minus the quotation marks, of course). This should create a new section using source code.
 * In VisualEditor there will be a toolbar at the top of the page. If you click on the page you will see a box that has "paragraph" written in it. Clicking this box will bring a pull down menu like the one pictured here. Selecting "heading" will bring up a section heading. With this you can write out "Article Evaluation" in the article space and it will appear as a new section. Click below the heading and you can start your evaluation.
 * If you don't have VisualEditor enabled, you can re-enable it by following these directions. Shalor (Wiki Ed) (talk) 20:11, 18 January 2018 (UTC)

Need help request from Nickn99 (talk)
Hello.

I need help with... creating a section in my Sandbox for Article Evaluation.

--Nickn99 (talk) 19:41, 18 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Hi ! I just posted a set of directions on this above. (It was after you'd posted here, of course.) Shalor (Wiki Ed) (talk) 20:13, 18 January 2018 (UTC)

Ve'ahavta deletion
Greetings, thank you for advocating for the student work to be restored. I cannot believe how quickly this transpired. I quite disagree with you that the article is a mess. I've been working with students writing about organizations for years and have never had an issue like this. I see very little detail presented to justify G11. Generally the issue is a lack of external sources, which this article does not suffer from. This seems very hasty, and I am frankly troubled by the deletion of seemingly everything, including the student sandbox without any form of respectful, civil engagement. I have yet to hear a detailed argument as to why this material violates any Wikipedia policy. If the only definition of neutrality is that there must be criticism, then I would like to hear someone say and defend that. --Jaobar (talk) 20:52, 18 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Hi - I wouldn't say that the article was a mess. It was more of a case of the article having a very persuasive tone that, when mixed with words that Wikipedia sees as buzzwords, comes across as promotional. For example, more detail is given than is really necessary for Wikipedia's purposes. An example of this is the activities section. The section contains a lot of overall information about issues that isn't really necessary in a Wikipedia article. One of the specific examples I gave was the International Crisis Response section. There isn't a need for a detailed overview of what this part of the organization has done in various countries and the reasons for them reaching out to these areas - that's seen as a bit indiscriminate, as far as Wikipedia goes, and can actually make a page unintentionally promotional when paired with cpersuasive writing.
 * I'm in the process of trying to get a sandbox version restored at the moment and I'm going to go through the page and help pare down some of the content that likely caused to see the page as promotional. Shalor (Wiki Ed) (talk) 21:07, 18 January 2018 (UTC)


 * Essentially, I think that the main cause for concern is a difference in writing styles - the article's tone is one that wouldn't be problematic elsewhere and wouldn't be seen as "sales-speak" in another setting, but on Wikipedia would come across as such. It can be difficult to pick this out at times, especially if this is a writing style that people are used to writing on a regular or daily basis. Shalor (Wiki Ed) (talk) 21:13, 18 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Hello. In case you didn't see my comments on the article's Talk page, the issue is that the article was written in the form of an appeal from the organization to the reader, as outreach, a means of engaging the reader to appreciate the organization and be inspired by its mission, and to call attention to the plight of the homeless. There's nothing wrong with that kind of outreach—on the contrary, it's admirable—and the organization merits it through appropriate vehicles, but that's a distinct purpose from that of Wikipedia, which doesn't advocate or justify or appeal. The article continually worked to share the organization's vision, to provide lots of background (such as a couple of paragraphs about other programs related to the homeless in Toronto) to frame how important its work is, to describe each of its activities in minute detail worded so as to inspire admiration. I didn't see any way that the article could be converted into a neutrally written reference article without starting from scratch. I'm sure that a fine article that meets Wikipedia's guidelines could be written about this organization. Largoplazo (talk) 21:17, 18 January 2018 (UTC)


 * Largoplazo, thank you for your comments. Let me begin by saying that I think efforts to remove the article, student sandbox and discussion within an hour of the edit, without thoroughly presenting a merit-based argument (and allowing a productive discussion) demonstrates a disheartening violation of a number of Wikipedia conduct policies. I did see your comments on the article talk page, and your reference to G11 (to which I responded), and I think you are incorrect. G11 states "This applies to pages that are exclusively promotional", which the article was not. Your comments on this thread, justify, at most, a flag that I'm sure you are familiar with, suggesting that the article is overly promotional and should be amended. This, more WP:Civil gesture, would encourage the editor and others to make corrections, in line with WP:AGF. Speedy deletion on the other hand ignores months of work, the possibility that others have debated the language and see it differently, and assumes an almost editorial control that also violates WP:Own. I'm sorry but I do not share your concern about a connection between the presentation of vision and a description of the organization's work. The organization is described this way in reputable external sources, which support the assertion that this presentation is in line with WP:Verify. Again, while I appreciate your efforts to protect the integrity of the encyclopedia, I do not agree with the merits of your argument. I hope you will reconsider. Sincerely, --Jaobar (talk) 21:40, 18 January 2018 (UTC)
 * I do feel that it was exclusively promotional. The language was written, end-to-end, in a manner that elicited admiration for the organization and suggested an appeal for readers's support of its mission.
 * You are arguing that by invoking G11, I was inherently violating WP:CIVIL and WP:AGF and exercising WP:OWNERSHIP. If that reasoning held, it would render G11 inoperable. Since G11 is an extant guideline that is invoked frequently, it is clear that good-faith invocation of G11 is not considered a violation of WP:CIVIL and WP:AGF or an exercise of WP:OWNERSHIP. If you would like to make the case that G11 shouldn't exist because it's a violation of WP:CIVIL and WP:AGF and an exercise of WP:OWNERSHIP, that's a matter to take up at Wikipedia talk:Criteria for speedy deletion or elsewhere on a project discussion page.
 * I have no doubt that many of the sources underlying this article describe the organization and its activities, deservedly, in glowing terms, but only the factual information, not the glowing terms, should become part of the language used in a Wikipedia article. Articles here serve a different purpose and are governed by different policies and guidelines and speak in a different one and from a different perspective from many of the sources from which information on this website are taken.
 * Since I take no issue with the truth of any part of the article, I'm not sure why you're bringing up WP:Verify, unless you believe that passing WP:Verify is sufficient to qualify an article. But while verifiability is required, it isn't the only criterion. Largoplazo (talk) 21:57, 18 January 2018 (UTC)
 * I was considering whether to suggest that the heavy attention given in the article to Ve'ahavta's cause, the plight of the homeless, amounted to a WP:COATRACK issue. I was just browsing through the WP:NOBLE essay on writing about "noble causes", and noticed that it covers that point in the first list item under the heading WP:NOBLE. (On the other hand, a neutral reference article on Homelessness in Toronto might itself be a good topic for a Wikipedia article.) Largoplazo (talk) 22:11, 18 January 2018 (UTC)


 * I think that a large chunk of the content in the activities section of the article could be placed in an article that is generally about the homeless population in Toronto, or at the very least, in a subsection in the main article for Toronto. Part of the issue here is that this information doesn't really belong specifically in an article about a non-profit. Non-profit content should be specifically about what the organization is doing, such as "The organization does this, this, and this." The first two sections in the activity portion under the title "Street Outreach and Homelessness Response" are very general and do not mention the organization. While yes, the information is why they're doing what they're doing, it isn't considered pertinent for an article that's specifically about an organization. To use an example, in Wikipedia's perspective it's akin to discussing the history of African-American performers in an article about Will Smith. While he is an African-American performer, this information would be superfluous in an article that is specifically about him.
 * I highly recommend, at the very least, creating a section about the homeless population in Toronto in the main article and merging the general information there. If possible, an article about this would be even better. I'm going to remove this information from the article on Ve’ahavta, although I will try to work it in as needed into other sections. 22:41, 18 January 2018 (UTC)

Heads up
Just in case you miss it on your watchlist - see here. - Sitush (talk) 01:02, 19 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Thanks! Shalor (Wiki Ed) (talk) 14:54, 19 January 2018 (UTC)

Draft for Black American Music course rejected; notability
Could really use your help problem-solving this draft. Was this just a waste of time on my part. I wanted students in a large lecture to collaborate. Paraphrasing was about their best bet as many of them lacked good writing skills.

On a whim, I had them collaborate to make a book article draft of our textbook which is not considered notable and was rejected 3x.

Is there any way I can salvage their work and publish it? Perhaps in another Wikimedia project (I know the crosslinks won't carry over) or as a personal essay on my page?

Draft:Issues in African American music : power, gender, race, representation (book) sheridanford (talk) 14:54, 5 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Hi - I tried my hand at salvaging the page as well. It was a bit surprising, but it looks like the book hasn't received any true coverage just yet - at least not enough to pass NBOOK. I know that textbooks can have a hard time, but you'd think that the contributor list would have enticed some reviewers at the very least. I'm not really sure where else this could be covered as far as the Wikimedia projects go - the only true option (if you want a page for this individual book) would be to continue to monitor the page and make periodic edits so that the draft stays undeleted. (Abandoned drafts are deleted after about 6 months.)
 * Now another option would be to see if the companion book would warrant an article and if so, include this information on that page. Hmm... would you say that this is a series of books? If so, then we could probably have a series page for this under "African American Music (series)", if the first book has enough coverage. It's often easier to justify a series page than individual pages and this would make it a little easier for your students work to survive. Shalor (Wiki Ed) (talk) 19:19, 5 January 2018 (UTC)


 * This is very helpful, Shalor (Wiki Ed) THANK YOU! I'll do some research on the series route.sheridanford (talk) 21:10, 20 January 2018 (UTC)

Step 5
did I do it? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mdaly8 (talk • contribs) 21:39, 21 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Hi ! What's step five? Each class does something a teensy bit different, so I just need a little bout this step. Shalor (Wiki Ed) (talk) 17:42, 22 January 2018 (UTC)

Hello
Hi Shalor, Thank you for having me! Julie Juhoang (talk) 03:16, 22 January 2018 (UTC)
 * No problem! I hope that you enjoy the class! Shalor (Wiki Ed) (talk) 17:43, 22 January 2018 (UTC)

Viability of adding a section to Bad Feminist article?
Hello Shalor

I am exploring possible topics for the first assignment in my Social Justice Leadership class. From the readings I've been doing, it seems like "Bad feminist" has moved from being a title of a book to a categorization within the feminist movement. With that in mind, it seems like there is a section missing from the article, because the article ends with the section, Reception. There seems to be a larger impact here, where its language usage has expanded beyond the book and a single self-declaration. Alternatively, I've browsed the feminism article, which is already a "Good article". The only section where it might fit is in the Reactions; however, you can see from my language my uncertainty.

If you could give me some feedback about whether or not this is a viable direction, I would appreciate it. I have other ideas for possible topics so if the above won't work, I will shift my focus.

Thanks for reading!

Adaptordie (talk) 20:08, 21 January 2018 (UTC)Adaptordie =)

P.S. I don't see how to delete that duplicate message that appears below. Very sorry about that. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Adaptordie (talk • contribs) 20:30, 21 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Hi ! I fixed the double message. In any case, I think that adding a section about the book's impact as far as the term goes would be a good addition to the book's article. I'm assuming that she popularized the term? Shalor (Wiki Ed) (talk) 17:40, 22 January 2018 (UTC)

Thank you for the feedback, Shalor! Yes, I think it is accurate to say that she has popularized the term. I am also looking at whitesplaining as a content topic. I see it mentioned in the mansplaining article, but it only exists as a definition on wiktionary. I am not sure the relationship between wikipedia and wiktionary when it comes to my class project here. For example, is editing wiktionary the same or different? I do think that the wiktionary entry could be expanded into a wikipedia article. Even if it can't be, I see ways to improve the entry itself.Adaptordie (talk) 19:43, 22 January 2018 (UTC)
 * - Wiktionary is a totally different beast, so all that they'll have are very brief definitions of a term. You wouldn't be able to write an article for it over there. As far as here goes, this would likely be considered a neologism (ie, a very recently created term that hasn't gained a lot of in-depth coverage in scholarly, reliable sources) so you may want to just create a subsection in the mansplaining article that gives a bit more information about the varieties of "splaining" that are out there. I don't think that you could focus solely on whitesplaining, but I do think that a subsection about the various types would be good. I know that this isn't a completely new term, but it's relatively recently used and it can be hard to really gain the needed coverage to justify independent articles on Wikipedia. Shalor (Wiki Ed) (talk) 20:20, 22 January 2018 (UTC)

Thank you! This helps me understand and move forward with actually writing something. =) I agree about the subsection.  I need to be more precise and not overuse "article".   I had googled "whitesplaining wikipedia" and it took me to that totally different beast.  Anyway, I now have a much better sense of what to do.  Thanks again.  Adaptordie (talk) 05:19, 23 January 2018 (UTC)

Error code when citing
Hi Shalor,

I have recently attempted to cite something in the article, Charlottetown Conference. However, when I add the citation it gives me this error message, "line feed character in |title= at position 37". I don't know how to change this as when I press help I don't see the answer to how to solve this.

Cheers. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bdobrish (talk • contribs) 03:40, 23 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Hello, . There was a line feed as the 37th character of title in your citation. Jonesey95 fixed it for you. —&thinsp;JJMC89&thinsp; (T·C) 05:24, 23 January 2018 (UTC)


 * Thank you !, what basically happened is that the title of your source "The Charlottetown Conference and its Significance in Canadian History" appeared like this:
 * The Charlottetown Conference and its
 * Significance in Canadian History
 * In other words, the title was split into two lines, like someone had pressed the enter key in the middle of the title. It looks like this was done as a result of the way the journal article's title was set up. The only thing to really do to prevent this in the future is make sure that the title is all in one line. (No worries about this happening - it's happened to us all at some point.) Shalor (Wiki Ed) (talk) 15:11, 23 January 2018 (UTC)

Creating a new article.
Hello Shalor,

I am from the Qing China History class at UCSC. I have just finished writing an article about scholar Zhu Yun (1729-1781) and I believe I have submitted it for review. I am still new to this whole process, so is there anyway you could check what is currently going on with the article or when it will actually be created and go live onto Wikipedia? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Yfmai (talk • contribs) 02:01, 25 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Hi ! The article looked good, so I accepted it under my main account. I made some slight tweaks here and there - it's now visible at Zhu Yun (scholar). Good job! Shalor (Wiki Ed) (talk) 17:03, 25 January 2018 (UTC)

Hello (resolved)
Hello Shalor,

I trust that you are well. My name is Vicentia, a student who will be using Wikipedia as part of my studies this semester. Thank you for reaching out to me; I am new to this, so I will surely contact you with any questions or problems I will encounter.

Thank you.
 * No problem! Let me know if you need anything! Shalor (Wiki Ed) (talk) 21:57, 25 January 2018 (UTC)

Hi! this is Caroline Giovanie
 * Hi Caroline! I hope that you're enjoying everything so far! Shalor (Wiki Ed) (talk) 00:06, 27 January 2018 (UTC)

Sockpuppet investigations/MarsLovesDogs
Please see the above report, which I just closed with comments. Thanks.--Bbb23 (talk) 23:31, 27 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Thank you Bbb23! I'll reach out to the professor and try to find out what happened here! Shalor (Wiki Ed) (talk) 17:46, 28 January 2018 (UTC)

Whitewashing
Is this article only about paint? Because it was assigned as an article for my Sociology of Gender class and I want to know if I can edit it so that it will also be about Whitewashing in the media/Photoshop/film, etc. --JohnsonB1999 (talk) 20:44, 30 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Hi JohnsonB1999! If you look at the top of the page there is a "hatnote" - a link that will direct you to a disambiguation page where other articles with this title are listed. Wikipedia does have articles on this topic, which you can find at Whitewashing (censorship) and Whitewashing in film. There's also an incredibly interesting article at Racial whitening that needs work as well - it's not the same thing exactly as what you want to include, but it's something that I hadn't really heard of before now. The Whitewashing in film is the one that is closest to your topic, but it doesn't look like we really have an article on whitewashing in general media. If you're interested in writing about this topic then you may want to look about expanding the section in the main censorship article first and if you have enough coverage to justify an independent page, then work on a new article. The reason that I'm recommending caution here is because this is a fairly controversial topic and as such, it needs to be very well sourced and written because it will be scrutinized a little more than some other topics. I hope this helps! Shalor (Wiki Ed) (talk) 14:45, 31 January 2018 (UTC)

Need help request from S.sherif (talk)
Hello.

I need help with... creating a new section in sandbox

--S.sherif (talk) 21:19, 30 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Hi S.sherif, good question! I wrote up a quick illustrated guide for you here. Shalor (Wiki Ed) (talk) 15:09, 31 January 2018 (UTC)

Need help request from Hmedforth1 (talk)
Hello.

I need help with my sandbox. I dont understand why i cannot have different sub categories within my sandbox. It doesnt look like others in my class...

--Hmedforth1 (talk) 20:31, 31 January 2018 (UTC) Hanna Medforth
 * Hi, it looks like you had the source code nested in a way that would prevent the header code from showing up properly. You had == Article Evaluation == , however to make a header show up correctly you would have to have == Article Evaluation == . You could probably put the code for big wording inside the equals signs, but it's generally not necessary and wouldn't be something that you would use in the mainspace. With headers/new sections in general I have a guide written up here. I was wondering - do you use VisualEditor? It's what I personally prefer since it has a nicer looking interface, is easier to see how the article will look as you're editing, and is more user friendly in general. If it's not set up on your account you can do so by following the directions here. I like having both VisualEditor and source code enabled since there are occasionally things that I like to do specifically in either. Shalor (Wiki Ed) (talk) 20:43, 31 January 2018 (UTC)

Need help request from Reyesluis119 (talk)
Hello.

I need help with...

Viola Casares

I feel like Viola Casares’ wikipedia article needs an introduction about who she is as a person. The introduction should include when and where was she born, her childhood, and also her education. I would also add more information about what fueza unida is and important dates about that Group. It also needs more images of the her entire life and also of her collaboration with Fueza Unida. I would also like to add a paragraph where it would explain how she started working for Levi and also how they made the movement in order to protest against Levi for firing them.

--Reyesluis119 (talk) 05:13, 1 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Hi, I didn't see an article for Viola Casares - there's one for the group Fuerza Unida, but not for her specifically. It's generally not a good idea for articles on organizations to have sections that focus specifically on a single person, especially about their personal life outside the organization, as the article should focus on the organization. However that said, I think that a better idea would be for you to create an article on Casares herself, independent of the organization's article. You're right in that Wikipedia needs more information about her and a new article would be a great project for her. Offhand it looks like she should be independently notable outside of the organization - it looks like in 2009 she won an Ohtli Award for her activism and hard work. That makes me think that there's likely more coverage out there for her. While she's predominantly known for Fuerza Unida, she's had at least one award given to her independently, which is good for arguing for independent notability.
 * In any case, this independent article would allow you to expand on her in ways that you wouldn't be able to with the organization's article. Now when it comes to images, be careful - any images that you upload need to be in the public domain, held under a compatible Creative Commons license, or be images that you took yourself. Make sure that you do the images module - it has a lot of really important information about this process. Shalor (Wiki Ed) (talk) 15:15, 1 February 2018 (UTC)

Need help request from Ebrault (talk)
Hello.

I need help with adding other student users to add in my sandbox...

--Ebrault (talk) 16:39, 1 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Hi Ebrault, do you mean that you want to know how they can edit in your sandbox? All that they need to do is go to your sandbox, which will be at User:Ebrault/sandbox. They should be able to edit freely. If they can't, then let me know so I can check out their account. In any case, they don't need any special permissions to edit your sandbox. Shalor (Wiki Ed) (talk) 16:05, 2 February 2018 (UTC)

Chatham Granite Club
Hello! Thanks for all of your tips and suggestions. In regards to the logo, the logo is an interesting case. I designed the logo back in 2016 for social media and the website of the club. That being said the official logo that is used by the club is not it digital form (it's actually a painting on a wall). So this logo is one of many that has been recreated for many different uses. I hope that helps. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Aidenpoole97 (talk • contribs) 02:58, 2 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Thank you - that gives me a lot of relief! I would still recommend that you check in with the club to see if they have the sole rights to that specific image, though - if you created it for them they most likely hold the rights to the image itself. Shalor (Wiki Ed) (talk) 16:06, 2 February 2018 (UTC)

Student checking if image ok to use
I wanted to use the image found here https://www.flickr.com/photos/internetarchivebookimages/14804030313/ to add to an article. I also want to crop it. It says on the page that there are no known copyright restrictions. Is it ok for me to use it and crop it? Gingerpeachy2000 (talk) 17:36, 4 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Yes, you can use it (and crop it). I've uploaded the original to Commons as File:Tommy at the wheel from Spunyarn and spindrift - a sailor boy's log of a voyage out and home in a china tea-clipper (1886).jpg. If you want to crop it, please upload the cropped version separately. —&thinsp;JJMC89&thinsp; (T·C) 19:36, 4 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Thank you! Gingerpeachy2000 (talk) 19:42, 4 February 2018 (UTC)


 * Thank you ! Shalor (Wiki Ed) (talk) 22:05, 5 February 2018 (UTC)

Need help request from MGMoore (talk)
Hi Shalor,

I can't access my sandbox.

--MGMoore (talk) 23:02, 4 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Hi - you should be able to access it by entering User:MGMoore/sandbox in the search field or by clicking the sandbox link at the top right hand of your screen. If you can't access it, please let me know! Shalor (Wiki Ed) (talk) 22:08, 5 February 2018 (UTC)

Need help request
Hi Shalor,

I have an assignment to upload an image and insert into an article (Lawrence, MA). I wasn't finding the image I was looking for on the recommended sites.

After doing some research, I found a couple of pics on the EPA's website.

The file I uploaded is: ]

It's a pamphlet with text & pics. When I thought about it later, I wondered if this type of doc is not allowed.

Q #1: Was uploading text wrong? Do I need to request for the file to be deleted? #2: It may just be my inexperience, but I wasn't able to copy only the pics I wanted.

Thank you, Lauzrvr (talk) 00:57, 7 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Hi - you need to be extremely cautious with government images. While many governments place their work in the public domain, they sometimes use other people's work in their publications that isn't. In most situations this will typically be pictures, drawings, or other images, so I'm less concerned with the text as I am the images. I'm not as familiar with uploading PDFs as I would be with images, so I've asked about this on the Village Pump on Wikimedia Commons. Shalor (Wiki Ed) (talk) 18:59, 7 February 2018 (UTC)

Need help request from Janellemills (talk)
Hello.

I need help with editing some things...

--Janellemills (talk) 07:44, 7 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Hi Janellemills, what specifically are you having issues with? Shalor (Wiki Ed) (talk) 19:00, 7 February 2018 (UTC)

Responding to Message
Hi. I edited the portion I added to the Transfeminism wiki page, accrediting the specific group intended for my edit. Would you let me know if this sounds more accurate? If not, I will try my best to continue to edit. I also only added those first two sentences, the rest was already written by another editor. Thanks! Kaitlin 121 (talk) 05:24, 8 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Hi, I think that this is a good step forward. I made a slight tweak to what you added to add the name of the person who wrote the source you listed, to show that it was something they wrote as well. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡)  19:27, 8 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Sorry - that's my main account! Shalor (Wiki Ed) (talk) 19:28, 8 February 2018 (UTC)

Question about primary source
Dear Shalor,

I am a student in the 'Violence in the Early Years' course at the University of Chicago. I was thinking of using the book Sibling Abuse : Hidden Physical, Emotional, and Sexual Trauma by Vernon R. Wiehe published in 1997 but I think it would count as a primary source because the author is reporting the results of his own research. I guess I tend to think of all books as secondary sources but I have doubts about this book. There are some parts in which the author refers to other primary sources for his analysis but in general the book is just reporting the results of his own research. Additionally, the article already cites this source and it has a banner that says that there are too many primary sources. Do you think this book is a primary source? If I should post this type of questions somewhere else, please let me know.

Thank you very much in advance for your help! Elenajs85 (talk) 03:55, 8 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Hi - you're correct in that the author's own research would be considered a primary source. However the positive thing here is that you can use his references to other primary sources, as this would be considered a secondary source. Another positive aspect is that since this was released in 1997, there's an incredibly good chance that this is covered in some secondary source. I've actually heard of this book, so it would be surprising if there wasn't something out there that referenced Wiehe's work somehow. A good way to find these sources is to use something like Web of Science (I think that your university library has access to this) or even Google Scholar (not ideal, but OK in a pinch) to look and see who has referenced this work. You can also do a general search with most databases to see who mentions the source, although that can be a bit of a needle in a haystack sometimes since you don't know if they're referencing it or just mentioning it offhand - or even pulling up a false positive. Shalor (Wiki Ed) (talk) 19:47, 8 February 2018 (UTC)

Citing Sources
Hello,

If we have an external link as a source, would I insert it after I type out my information and then insert " "? I am a student and my training is not clear to refer back to.

Thank youChilogan (talk) 14:48, 8 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Hi, you can do it this way or use VisualEditor - I prefer VE because it's a little more user friendly. If you do it in source mode you can use the cite tab, which will bring up fields that you have to hand enter or you can do something like this:
 * If you don't have VE enabled and want it, you can follow these directions. Shalor (Wiki Ed) (talk) 21:49, 8 February 2018 (UTC)
 * If you don't have VE enabled and want it, you can follow these directions. Shalor (Wiki Ed) (talk) 21:49, 8 February 2018 (UTC)

Need help request from Mrg111 (talk)
Hello.

I was trying to edit the table of contents of the article on The Absolutely True Diary of a Part-Time Indian because there are some subtitles that are bold and should not be. However, when I go to edit the article the table of contents disappears so I am unable to do so. Is there a way for me to make this edit?

Thanks!

--Mrg111 (talk) 18:10, 8 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Hi Mrg111, the ToC is automatically generated - in order to fix the bolded section you'd need to go to the section headings themselves. Shalor (Wiki Ed) (talk) 22:08, 8 February 2018 (UTC)

Choosing a topic
I am trying to find a topic on Modern Japan to edit. I thought the shimizu mega-city pyramid looked interesting because it would be 12 times higher than the Pyramid at Giza, but it is only a proposed project. What do you think? Ovoster (talk) 04:33, 4 February 2018 (UTC)

Actually I may have already changed my mind. I found a lot about solar energy in Japan and new projects they are starting. I think this might be a better fit. Ovoster (talk) 05:54, 4 February 2018 (UTC)
 * I'm glad that you found something that you would like to work on! The solar power in Japan article definitely looks like it could be expanded and generally updated! Shalor (Wiki Ed) (talk) 22:10, 5 February 2018 (UTC)

I got a little a head of myself and my some edits to my article without using the sandbox. Is this okay? Does work need to be in the sandbox first or is that just suggested? Ovoster (talk) 05:37, 8 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Ovoster It's not absolutely required, but it's a good idea if the topic is controversial or if you're looking to add a lot of material. Plus it works as a general scratchpad. Shalor (Wiki Ed) (talk) 21:09, 8 February 2018 (UTC)

Need help request from Bjh38d (talk) coding for wiki
Hello.

I need help with... coding for wiki

--Bjh38d (talk) 22:29, 8 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Hi, are you using VisualEditor or source mode? If you aren't using VisualEditor and would like to do so, you can enable it by following the directions here. VisualEditor is definitely my preference overall. Other than that, do you have anything specific that you would like to know as far as coding goes? Shalor (Wiki Ed) (talk) 14:30, 13 February 2018 (UTC)

Article evaluation
Hello.

I need help with...

--JustinRowland (talk) 15:08, 10 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Hi, what can I help you with? Shalor (Wiki Ed) (talk) 15:08, 13 February 2018 (UTC)

Need help request from Jtorr271 (talk)
Hello.

I need help with...
 * how do I create a section on my sandbox?--Jtorr271 (talk) 17:23, 10 February 2018 (UTC)

--Jtorr271 (talk) 17:23, 10 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Hi ! I wrote up a little guide on doing just that here! Shalor (Wiki Ed) (talk) 15:12, 13 February 2018 (UTC)

Need help request from VA ESK104 (talk) Eric
Hello.

I need help with... the assignment that is due today in the course page it deals with selecting articles and putting them on my sandbox, and I am just confused on what exactly I need to do

--VA ESK104 (talk) 17:30, 10 February 2018 (UTC) Eric Valdez from ENGL498J
 * Hi, sorry that I didn't see this until today! I was traveling on Saturday and didn't get back into work until today. From what I can see, it looks like you have a good start. I did some tweaking to link to the articles a bit more directly and put it in bullet format. Shalor (Wiki Ed) (talk) 15:12, 13 February 2018 (UTC)

Hello!
Hello, let me introduce myself, I am Karan and I am working on building my own wiki page. I look forward to joining this wonderful community of wiki user and learn about the platform. ChicSham (talk) 16:30, 11 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Welcome ChicSham! Shalor (Wiki Ed) (talk) 15:13, 13 February 2018 (UTC)

Citations...
Hi Shalor,

I am adding to a very short existing article entitled Horace Mann School for the Deaf on Wikipedia. This school opened in late 1869 and an extensive set of archives are available for public viewing and use on the the MA gov website under the City of Boston Archives. Aside from the publications such as 'Annual School Report of the School Committee of the City of Boston' (self published) and 'Documents of the School Committee of the City of Boston' (published by the Boston School Committee), for example, as found on the cite mentioned, Horace Mann School is underrepresented in published books. Is it acceptable to cite the aforementioned sources in Wikipedia? If so, which citation format would you recommend? Please advise.

Additionally, below, please find a draft of the text which I would like to add to the article as it is now. As you can see, I would need to add an appropriate citation. (The information comes from the website: https://cityofbostonarchives.omeka.net/exhibits/show/horace-mann-school).

The school that is known today (and since 1877) as Horace Mann School for the Deaf was opened it 1869. Since its opening, Horace Mann School has occupied many different buildings in and around Boston. At its start, Horace Mann School concurrently occupied one space for educating students on East Street and one space on Somerset Street. After only a short time in its first location, Horace Mann School was relocated to Pemberton Square. By 1875, the number of students attending Horace Mann School had increased and a larger space was required. As a result, the school was moved to 63 Warrenton Street. Again, in 1890, the school was relocated. From 1890-1929, Horace Mann School was located at 178 Newbury Street. After nearly forty years on Newbury Street, in 1929, Horace Mann School began to operate out of the Roxbury section of Boston on Kearsarge Avenue where it remained for forty-five years. Finally, in 1975, a new building was again selected to house the school. Since 1975 and for the last 42 years, Horace Mann School has been and is currently located at 40 Armington Street, Allston, MA.

Thank you in advance for your help.

Jullian Drews (talk) 19:34, 12 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Hi Jullian Drews, this looks fine. As far as sourcing goes, you can use the city and school's material. It's seen as a primary source, so keep in mind that if it makes any hugely major and/or controversial claims, you should try to find a secondary source. By controversial or major, I mean things like one of the buildings being placed on the National Registry for historic places or claims that abuse happened at the school, for example. You don't have either of these in the above content, but I did want to give you some examples just in case. Shalor (Wiki Ed) (talk) 16:11, 13 February 2018 (UTC)

A kitten for you!
Thanks for mentioning Wikilove, Shalor!

Ryan (Wiki Ed) (talk) 20:22, 13 February 2018 (UTC) 

Adding Display images
Hi Shalor

I would like to insert a display image for my article that I found on IMDB but I am wondering if it meets copyright standards. The heading says that it is a "Photo by Brent N. Clarke - © 2016 Brent N. Clarke - Image courtesy gettyimages.com"

And where I could go to find a photo if the one i picked cannot be used

Adily1 (talk) 23:28, 13 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Hi, this image is copyrighted so it cannot be posted to Wikipedia. In general most images can't be uploaded here because they have copyrights that aren't compatible with Wikipedia. As far as where you can find a photo, that's often difficult when it comes to people. You can try checking Commons and see if someone has already uploaded an image, plus you can also check CC Search. It's more likely, however, that you won't find an image that will be released under a compatible copyright. There's a bit more about this in the module on uploading images and media. Shalor (Wiki Ed) (talk) 14:54, 14 February 2018 (UTC)

Feedback from Sandbox request from Elenajs85 (talk)
Hello.

I have written on my Sandbox what I would like to add to the Sibling Abuse article on Wikipedia. I would be very grateful if I could receive your feedback. I have tried to be neutral, I avoided plagiarism to the best of my knowledge by writing notes and interpreting with my own words the ideas from my sources. I have also cited everything that I think needs citation.

Thank you very much in advance for your time and help!

--Elenajs85 (talk) 21:49, 14 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Responded on your sandbox talk page! Shalor (Wiki Ed) (talk) 14:55, 15 February 2018 (UTC)

Hello
Hi Shalor,

Thanks for touching base. I still don't understand how this really works, I'm hoping as time goes on it gets easier?

Jacklyn B (talk) 03:23, 15 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Hi, it should. I know that it took me a while to get the swing of things, but you'll get there. :) On a side note, do you have VisualEditor enabled? If not, you can get it set up by following these directions. It's probably one of the easiest ways to edit on here, honestly. And of course you can ask me whatever questions that you have! Shalor (Wiki Ed) (talk) 15:03, 15 February 2018 (UTC)

Thank you
Thank you for the heads up on not needing to sign after every edit in an article. I guess it was stressed so much in the last class I had that the signature be added, I got into a habit of doing it on everything. 07:02, 15 February 2018 (UTC)ASU557 — Preceding unsigned comment added by ASU557 (talk • contribs)
 * No worries - it happens! It's an easy fix as well. Shalor (Wiki Ed) (talk) 15:03, 15 February 2018 (UTC)

Can you provide feedback on potential new entry?
Hi Shalor, I have created an initial outline in my Sandbox with sources for a potential new entry on the rhetoric of technology. Can you let me know if you think it will pass the notability test? Thank you! Yangm7 (talk) 18:28, 15 February 2018 (UTC)
 * - it looks like it should be. My only caution would be to make sure that it doesn't overlap too much with Rhetoric of science, as I saw some sourcing that mentioned the rhetoric of science and technology together. Shalor (Wiki Ed) (talk) 18:48, 15 February 2018 (UTC)
 * That's probably something you would only be able to discover over time, though. If it does overlap too much then you can always merge content into the main article. (By overlap I mean that the content talks about the rhetoric of technology but encompasses the same information that is in the science article.) Shalor (Wiki Ed) (talk) 18:49, 15 February 2018 (UTC)

Great! Thank you for the quick reply. The literature does a pretty good job of explaining why it is/should be distinct from rhetoric of science, but also good to know that merging would be an option if there was too much overlap. I think I am going to go for it! Yangm7 (talk) 18:51, 15 February 2018 (UTC)
 * No problem! It looks like it could be a really rewarding topic! Shalor (Wiki Ed) (talk) 18:59, 15 February 2018 (UTC)

Need help request from Jamesevans301 (talk)
Hello.

I need help with adding a map to an article that i am working on. It is the article for Tweedsmuir South Provincial Park i am having a lot of trouble finding a map that is not copyrighted.

--Jamesevans301 (talk) 00:28, 16 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Hi - unfortunately there's not much that can be done about this unless there is a map in the public domain or released under a compatible Creative Commons license. What you may want to do instead is take a picture (or pictures) of the park itself and upload them to Wikimedia Commons. They won't be a map, but they can help give people an idea of what the park looks like. On a side note, you can always link to the park website in the external links section, as that will have the maps listed there for people to look through. I noticed that the current link in the page is dead, so you can replace it with the correct link. Shalor (Wiki Ed) (talk) 15:32, 16 February 2018 (UTC)

Need help request from A116erin (talk)
Hello.

I need help with...the format of my draft. I am working on one part of my groups draft. It is under the " week 6 Assignment" header on my sandbox. Our professor stated we could request help to have someone look over our draft. I have never done an essay/draft on wikipedia. I cited a lot,and made sure that nothing could accidentally be "plagiarized." I was wondering if you could look and see if the format with the sources is correct. Also any improvements you may suggest. I still need to add more to my section. Thank you so much for your time.

--A116erin (talk) 00:23, 17 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Hi ! One thing I do need to caution you on is the word "essay" - use the word "article" or "content" instead. The reason for this is that articles shouldn't be written in an essay format. I know that you're most likely using this because it's a familiar term, moreso than article or content, but using it on here can bring far more scrutiny to additions. It's also easy to get into an essay mindset when using the term, which should be avoided. I'll leave you some feedback in just a few minutes. I'll either leave it on your talk page or on the sandbox itself. Shalor (Wiki Ed) (talk) 01:30, 19 February 2018 (UTC)

Need help request from Sepulvedalu (talk) 1
Hello.

We need help with knowing what to cite and not to cite (also some citations like UNICEF for example are hard to find, how should we go about that?). We would also like to add pictures but can't seem to find anything probably given the sensitive nature of the topic. We appreciate any help with formatting and making it a strong article.

Thanks for all of your help.

--Sepulvedalu (talk) 18:20, 19 February 2018 (UTC)Luisa, Richard, and Maddie
 * Hi, when finding sourcing the best place to look for sourcing is your school's database - in other words, scholarly and academic sourcing. There isn't always a guarantee that there will be sourcing or that they will be easy to find, so I highly recommend setting up an appointment with your school's reference librarian to get help going through the databases. They also have a live chat along with other traditional offerings. The reason I emphasize this is that while I can give some general advice, your university librarians will be able to fully access the databases and other offerings, whereas I can't.
 * When it comes to web searches, be extremely selective with what you find because most of it won't be usable as far as Wikipedia goes. Things like self-published sources (blogs), social media (Twitter, Facebook), and websites with unclear editorial oversight should be avoided, as very few of these would be considered a reliable source on Wikipedia, especially with this specific topic area. There are exceptions, but they're usually fairly rare and are limited to specific situations, like a direct quote from a person who is the topic of an article.
 * If you can't find a citation for something, then unfortunately you will have to leave the information out of the article until it can be found. The reason for this is that this is a fairly controversial area so you want to make sure that everything is properly referenced. Some good tips, however, on ways to better find information are as follows:
 * When using Google, try different word combinations. You may also want to use qualifiers - these are quotation marks around a word. This tells the search engine that you are looking for this specific phrase. This can often make a big difference when it comes to accuracy of search results. For example, searching for City of Dreams without qualifiers will prompt the search engine to look for any instance of the words city and dreams in a web page - as well as derivatives of these words, like cities and dreamy. Using qualifiers will instead tell them to specifically search for "City of Dreams" in a web page. Using and not using qualifiers both have their benefits.
 * Check the search function of specific websites.
 * Look in more than one place. If you cannot find what you're looking for in one place, you may want to check around. This can be especially applicable for organizations like UNICEF and the World Health Organization, as other places may end up having copies of data that for whatever reason isn't on the organization's website. Always check to make sure that it's authentic, though.
 * I hope this helps! Shalor (Wiki Ed) (talk) 18:42, 20 February 2018 (UTC)

Thanks!
Just wanted to say thanks for helping out the students in the Caucasus class. I hope their additions to Wikipedia will be substantive and helpful. I'm a librarian at Cornell, supporting this assignment in the background. --Unionpearl (talk) 15:27, 20 February 2018 (UTC)
 * No problem! Shalor (Wiki Ed) (talk) 18:42, 20 February 2018 (UTC)