User talk:Ian (Wiki Ed)

Question Involving Edits Done to Poisonous Amphibians

Hello Ian, I am currently a University student working on making edits to the topic listed above and had a few questions. When viewing the text logs from the previous editors, it seems as if this page hasn't been updated in a long time. I was making edits to the table and was wondering if you thought it would be okay to list just the genus of the animals instead of individually listing each one off due to the large amount of them. Secondly, there is a portion under these tables that include the use of these toxins in recreational use. I was wondering if you thought this was a relevant and needed bit of information for the subject of poisonous amphibians. I believe that this shouldn't be apart of this particular topic, but I would like a second opinion. Thank you so much for the help! Joseph73780 (talk) 07:08, 30 October 2023 (UTC)

Hi @Joseph73780. In the existing Poisonous amphibian article, the entire Dendrobatidae has one entry, the genus Mantella has a single entry, while other frogs and toads are single-species entries. If you can find a source supporting a whole genus of family, you might enter them ones. If you only find sources supporting individual species, I think you should use individual species entries. Do the best you can in terms of completeness - if you don't have time to add every species you come across, you should keep in mind that making the article better, even if it's not perfect, is still an improvement.

I'd leave a note on the talk page about recreational uses and see what people say about the possibility of removing that section. Ian (Wiki Ed) (talk) 15:23, 30 October 2023 (UTC)

A follow up question, I was told to make roughly 20-25 species additions to the page and was wondering if I need an individual citation for each species or if referencing towards another Wikipedia that actually discusses that specific species is enough. I ask this, because there are many different species written about on Wikipedia that contain sourcing, but I'm not sure if I need to add that to my bibliography for each one since I'm providing the hyperlink to the Wikipedia page. I apologize if this may sound confusing and hopefully I will hear back from you soon. Joseph73780 (talk) 13:27, 14 November 2023 (UTC)

@Joseph73780 You should include a reference on the page (and link to the species' Wikipedia article). If you just link to another Wikipedia article, someone reading your article will have a much harder time finding the relevant source (and it might even get removed by a future edit on the other page). Ian (Wiki Ed) (talk) 15:52, 14 November 2023 (UTC)

In this case, can I copy the sourcing for each one or do I need to search out new sources for it. This is confusing since much of the information added is either based off the original edit where they haven’t left a direct citation or information from additional pages. In the end, it shouldn’t take me to long to make citation additions, it’s just tedious because the original didn’t have this information cited. Ex. The distribution of the species didn’t contain a citation. Joseph73780 (talk) 20:26, 14 November 2023 (UTC)

@Joseph73780 You can copy the sourcing if it exists. If the original doesn't have a source, then you should definitely find one if you can. Think about it as doing a favor for the next person in your position :) Ian (Wiki Ed) (talk) 20:28, 14 November 2023 (UTC)

In the case that I can’t find an scientific article that supports the information, should I exclude the information from the charts? I apologize for so many questions. I thought, at first, that this information had citations, but it didn’t. Joseph73780 (talk) 20:42, 14 November 2023 (UTC)

@Joseph73780 No need to apologise for the questions - that's what I'm here for, and happy to help.

If you can't find a source, I'd exclude it. If you can't find a peer reviewed source, but you find it in something in a reputable popular science source like National Geographic you could go ahead and use that. Ian (Wiki Ed) (talk) 20:46, 14 November 2023 (UTC)

Should I just get rid of the charts that I was working on in my sandbox due to much of the found species coming from fellow wikipedia articles. I believe a good amount of them had citations, but I will need to double check. Joseph73780 (talk) 20:49, 14 November 2023 (UTC)

@Joseph73780 If they're already in the main article, you could leave them (or remove them - it's up to you). I just wouldn't add additional unsourced species to the main article. Ian (Wiki Ed) (talk) 20:53, 14 November 2023 (UTC)

It’s apart of the original, but some of the stuff like the scientific name I found through the common name they provided. Does this need to be cited or does documentation need to be found. My main issue is the distribution has no citatinos for the original content, but I think with the sources linked to the names that I want to add could provide that information. Joseph73780 (talk) 21:01, 14 November 2023 (UTC)

@Joseph73780 There's no firm rule of what you need to do here. If you think it's unlikely to be true, you should probably remove it. If you think it's likely to be true but you can't find a source, leave it. Anything that's somewhere in between is a judgement call. You'll be fine whatever you decide. Ian (Wiki Ed) (talk) 21:11, 14 November 2023 (UTC)

I apologize, I have made many additions with the page (except images). I plan on publishing it, but there are issues with the citations that wikipedia gave me and I was wondering why it has this issue on many of them. If there isn't an issue, the page is pretty much ready to be published and when I get the chance I can add the images. Example: It says cite journal and check date values, but wikipedia provided me with this citation after taking it from google scholar. Joseph73780 (talk) 22:15, 24 November 2023 (UTC)

@Joseph73780 That's a problem with the Cite tool and the main Wikipedia software not working together perfectly.

Basically the Cite tool will create references that are Month, Year (like 2010-08) if that's what the source gives it. Wikipedia software, on the other hand, wants Day, Month, Year, or just Year and throws up that red error.

To fix it, click on the reference number in the article text while you're in Edit mode, then click on "edit" for the reference, and find the "Date" field. You can then change that from Year-Month to just year.

Or you can leave it. The nice thing about Wikipedia is that there's a really good chance someone (who is proficient at fixing citation errors) will fix it for you. I think it's kinda satisfying to make those red errors go away :) Ian (Wiki Ed) (talk) 15:06, 27 November 2023 (UTC)

European eel questions follow up

Hi Ian,

I wanted to follow up since it has been a week since I posted my questions here and I haven't heard from you. My article is due in two days now for class so if we could resolve the couple issues I'm having soon that would be wonderful. Thank you and have a great day.

Chipmonkey9 (talk) 17:05, 15 November 2023 (UTC)

@Chipmonkey9 Sorry I missed your message. That issue with the reference sizes is strange, but I fixed that in addition to the heading issue. I'm not sure about the duplicate references, but I'll take a look at that later. Ian (Wiki Ed) (talk) 20:21, 15 November 2023 (UTC)

Good morning,

I really appreciate the help you have given me so far. I wanted to check in and see where you are at with the references issue since my article is due tomorrow. Let me know if there is anything I can do to help! Thanks and have a wonderful day.

Chipmonkey9 (talk) 18:35, 16 November 2023 (UTC)

@Chipmonkey9 I don't think you should worry about the duplicate reference issues. Ian (Wiki Ed) (talk) 19:31, 16 November 2023 (UTC)

Okay, thank you for all of your help.

Chipmonkey9 (talk) 20:34, 16 November 2023 (UTC)

Editing the Article Topic

Hello Ian,

I am editing, Central Time Zone, and I would like to change the article to "Central Time Zone (UTC-6)." Central Time Zone leaves an amount of ambiguity to the article as a few nations have a central time zone. The addition of UTC-6 specifies the actual zone being searched. Are there stipulations in regard to changing the title of an article? Bubbalicious82 (talk) 19:14, 22 November 2023 (UTC)

Hi @Bubbalicious82. The naming convention for Wikipedia articles favours shorter, more concise article titles, so I suspect the preference would be to leave the article where it is.

You can raise the idea on the article's talk page and see what other editors think. Ian (Wiki Ed) (talk) 20:02, 22 November 2023 (UTC)

Thank you for such a prompt response! For clarity moving ahead, a shorter title is preferred, and any ambiguity is then worked out quickly in the heading? Bubbalicious82 (talk) 20:36, 22 November 2023 (UTC)

(talk page watcher) Bubbalicious82, No; a shorter title is preferred (WP:CONCISION), but not at the expense of WP:PRECISION. There may be a U.S. bias in operation here, which could be raised at the article talk page if you propose a move. The only other "central" time I'm aware of is CET, but they never drop the 'E'/'European', and if no other time zone is commonly referred to as "central time", then the current title is probably okay. See WP:COMMONNAME and WP:PRIMARYTOPIC. If you start a move discussion at the Talk page, please read and follow WP:RM#CM. Mathglot (talk) 22:26, 22 November 2023 (UTC)

Need help request from HondainaPot (talk)

Hello.

I need help with renaming my sandbox. I'm currently drafting an article in my sandbox for Ron J. MacLaren, but I accidently titled it "Ron J. Maclaren" without capitalizing the L in his last name. How do I fix this?

Thank you!

--HondainaPot (talk) 22:12, 24 November 2023 (UTC)

(talk page watcher) @HondainaPot:, your user subpage now has the capitalized L at User:HondainaPot/Ron J. MacLaren. Mathglot (talk) 23:32, 24 November 2023 (UTC)

Thank you so much! HondainaPot (talk) 23:38, 24 November 2023 (UTC)

Help requested on Femicide in Latin America article

I am working on the Femicide in Latin America article for a class right now, and have completely moved my contribution onto the existing article. If you could take a look at it and give me feedback I would appreciate it! Stud3nt1947 (talk) 16:56, 25 November 2023 (UTC)

ArbCom 2023 Elections voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2023 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 11 December 2023. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2023 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:45, 28 November 2023 (UTC)

Need help request from Ohunayo (talk)

Hello.

I need help with... publishing my work

--Ohunayo (talk) 07:42, 28 November 2023 (UTC)

@Ohunayo It looks like you've managed to move your work to mainspace successfully. Ian (Wiki Ed) (talk) 14:59, 28 November 2023 (UTC)

Need help request from BryceKubasta (talk)

Hello.

I need help with being able to edit a template, to create my bibliography. --BryceKubasta (talk) 00:59, 30 November 2023 (UTC)

(talk page watcher) @BryceKubasta: usually, when we talk about "editing a template", we mean changing the code of the template itself, and I'm pretty sure you didn't mean that. Did you mean, you want to use one of the citation templates, like {{cite book}}, {{cite journal}}, or {{cite web}} to create citations for your bibliography? If so, please see the documentation at those links. If after reading them, you have a specific question, please come back and ask below, as it will be easier for Ian to respond if he knows what kind of difficulty you are encountering. Thanks, (edit conflict) Mathglot (talk) 08:00, 30 November 2023 (UTC)

@BryceKubasta It looks like you've clicked on the grey box without your bibliography sandbox. Those spaces aren't meant to be edited. You need to click somewhere else on the page to be able to edit. Ian (Wiki Ed) (talk) 16:45, 30 November 2023 (UTC)

Need help request from EricY.22 (talk)

 Courtesy link: User:EricY.22/sandbox

Hello Ian,

Hope all is well. I would like to publish my sandbox named "User:EricY.22/sandbox" but unfortunately, Wikipedia is not letting me rename the article. Could you please help me in renaming the article to "The Gee Family in Houston."

Best,

Eric — Preceding unsigned comment added by EricY.22 (talk • contribs) 07:51, 30 November 2023 (UTC)

(talk page watcher) EricY.22, Ian will give you more information, but your article is not ready for publication yet, as there are several issues:

• It is almost entirely unsourced, except for a couple of footnotes near the top.
• It relies on a single source, Chao & Chan (2019); as a general rule, you should find at least three, reliable, independent sources before considering publication.
• The part about "Ling Nam College" is on page 15 of the pdf, but your footnote doesn't give the page number, so I wasn't able to find it, the first time I looked. Please add the |page= parameter to your footnotes (or use {{rp}} after a <ref>.)
• Wikipedia has a concept called WP:Notability, which you must have learned about in your training modules, and it's not clear to me that C.Y. Chu (C.Y. Gee) is notable, or at least, you haven't demonstrated it yet. If he is not, no amount of fixing the article will suffice to get it published, so you should focus on this last point first.

I'm sure Ian will have more to say, but that should give you something to think about. Cheers, Mathglot (talk) 08:15, 30 November 2023 (UTC)

Thanks Mathglot! And thanks for adding sources EricY.22

There's a short introduction of what to do next in this video. In the interest of brevity, I think Gee family would be sufficient for an article title. Ian (Wiki Ed) (talk) 15:31, 30 November 2023 (UTC)

Actually, @EricY.22, you're still one edit short of the threshold that will allow you to move a page on Wikipedia - you currently have 9 edits, and you need 10. Once you've made your 10th edit you'll be able to move your draft to mainspace. Ian (Wiki Ed) (talk) 15:33, 30 November 2023 (UTC)

The page in question was moved from their sandbox to main space by EricY on 30 Nov. (diff), and moved back to their sandbox on Dec. 1 without leaving a redirect by Mathglot (diff) for referencing problems. Mathglot (talk) 01:29, 3 December 2023 (UTC)

Yikes!

Hello, Ian,

Tonight I came across 5 student projects moved to main space and none of them are main space ready. They still had the user sandbox tags on them! There has been no effort to adapt a student paper to a Wikipedia main space article.

Please tell instructors not to suggest that students move their articles from User space to main space without running them through AFC. I moved these pages to Draft space but I've found students often do not get the hint and if they are moved back, they will be deleted. This happens towards the end of every school term. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 06:47, 3 December 2023 (UTC)

Liz, as in the section just above this one. Moved live by the student on the last day of the term; moved back to "draft" (user subpage, actually) the day after, but we'll likely never see them back, I'd wager. Mathglot (talk) 08:49, 5 December 2023 (UTC)

Request to Review Computational Chemistry Page for Good Article Nominee

Hi Ian,

I am @Erdabravest2001 and am in CHEM 300 at UBC. My partner @Bird flock and I were wondering if you are able to take a look at the Computational chemistry page and see whether or not it is a "Good Article" by peer review.

Erdabravest2001 (talk) 09:21, 3 December 2023 (UTC)

@Erdabravest2001 Nice work but it isn't ready for a GA nomination. A few things that jump out at me right away - they're minor, but they're required for GAs

• Your lead it too long and not terse enough. A lead should be something like the abstract of a paper - a summary of the main facts. If the reader needs explanations of those facts, they need to read the body of the article.
• There's content that, by Wikipedia standards, appears unsourced. Every fact needs to be supported by the source that follows it. If a series of statements is supported by a single source, you can hold off on using the source until the end of the sentence, group of sentences, or paragraph. But there should never be any content after the final reference in a paragraph.
• Per the Manual of Style references go after punctuation, not before. The only thing that should be bolded is the article title at the start of the article.
• Section headers should never be numbered and should use sentence case, not title case.
• Don't do things like this, ever

Algorithm: Investigate the electronic structure (or nuclear structure) (principally the ground state) of many-body systems, in particular atoms, molecules, and the condensed phases.

Please don't take this to mean I think your work is bad - it looks great. But Good Articles require you follow stylistic and formatting rules. In addition, if you nominate an article for GA, you should stick around until it is reviewed (you're expected to respond to reviews). That may take a few days or a few months - it's always hard to know. So if you do, you should check back regularly. Ian (Wiki Ed) (talk) 15:39, 4 December 2023 (UTC)

Hi Ian, thank you so much for taking the time to look over our article! To address your concerns, we’ve done the following.

My partner edited the lead to be more like what you mentioned a lead should be.

I understand now that our article looks very unsourced. Thank you for clarifying that the reference should be put last if multiple sentences and the paragraph is based on that citation. Looking back, it's a bit embarrassing to see that we put it after the first sentence that uses the citation, so only one sentence a paragraph would be cited!.

We edited the citations to all be after punctuation to fix the formatting like you suggested.

Section headers are now under sentence case and not numbered. As well, the issue of Algorithm: investigate the… has been addressed and no colloned sections are in the article.

Again, we would like to thank you for catching these errors before the deadline of the article. This has been an excellent learning experience for us! Bird flock (talk) 02:54, 5 December 2023 (UTC)

@Bird flock & @Erdabravest2001 - I'm glad it was helpful. Ian (Wiki Ed) (talk) 16:54, 5 December 2023 (UTC)

Double Checking on Image Copyright.

Hi Ian, my partner Erdabravest2001 and I wanted to know if this image would violate copyright.

https://drive.google.com/file/d/1CjUnDTFKW7tjz0ltBxoHlDdFlyFsrPS0/view?usp=sharing

We took the format of the image from https://journals.aps.org/rmp/abstract/10.1103/RevModPhys.92.015003 at figure 5 and reproduced the image for with our own equations. However, we are concerned that doing this would violate copyright. We were wondering if you could give your thoughts on if this is an acceptable reproduction. My partner says that the information and format is common for quantum circuits in general, but would like your thoughts first. Many thanks. Bird flock (talk) 05:48, 5 December 2023 (UTC)

(talk page watcher) Bird flock: these questions can be tricky. Copyright has to do with "creative content", the "value added" by a human; so for example, you can copy a table listing the top 20 countries in the world by population, because the person that created that list didn't add anything creative, they looked stuff up and listed it, just like you or anybody could. I don't know enough about circuit diagrams to know how many different ways that could have been designed, but as a WAG I'd guess there's some creative value there. For better advice, though, I'd ask this same question at Wikimedia Commons, at their forum dedicated to the subject at c:Commons:Village pump/Copyright. Good luck! Mathglot (talk) 09:15, 5 December 2023 (UTC)

Thanks @Mathglot.

@Bird flock, I agree with Mathglot here - it's a tricky question, and the folks at Commons are probably the best ones to ask. Ian (Wiki Ed) (talk) 16:49, 5 December 2023 (UTC)

Hi @Ian, @Mathglot and @Bird flock,

As this photo is available in the public domain (i.e. those at UBC and those not at UBC can find it online in the abstract) and because there is a significant difference in the figure itself compared to the source (look at the function). I think we can safely say that this image would not violate copy right. Erdabravest2001 (talk) 23:54, 5 December 2023 (UTC)

Hi @Erdabravest2001 - this isn't what public domain means in a copyright context. Something is in the public domain either because its copyright has expired, or because the copyright holder has explicitly released it into the public domain (like the US federal government does). Ian (Wiki Ed) (talk) 14:20, 6 December 2023 (UTC)

Hi Ian,

Oh I see. Apologies, I thought that public domain meant what I said above. As a result of this caveat, I double-checked the copyright rules for APS (American Physical Society) papers. They say that no copyright rule has been violated as there are significant differences between our figure vs. the original Figure 5. However, since we did get the information from the paper, we need to cite it in the figure caption.

Wikimedia Commons also says the same thing to quote:

"Probably the original diagram wasn't even copyrightable, but if it was certainly [the case]: any copyrightable elements are exactly what you left out of your version. When you upload here, do credit the original for the ideas expressed. I'd also guess your version isn't copyrightable, and it would probably be clearest to note that and use a CC-zero license when uploading, releasing any claim on having something copyrightable here"

Thank you so much. Erdabravest2001 (talk) 18:17, 6 December 2023 (UTC)

@Erdabravest2001 That response from Commons is great to hear. I might have guessed something similar, but it would just have been a guess. Ian (Wiki Ed) (talk) 16:52, 7 December 2023 (UTC)

Need help request from IrisBellweather (talk)

Hello.

I need help with...

getting back into my sandbox. I guess I did not publish it frequently enough, or left the window open for too long, and all of my work is gone and it is now saying that I don't have a user page created for this project and I can't make/find the sandbox for my MRGPRX2 project. Please help me.

--IrisBellweather (talk) 23:25, 6 December 2023 (UTC)

@IrisBellweather If you didn't publish the page, it never left your browser. Sadly there's no way to recover your work.

To create your sandbox, you need to assign yourself an article in the My Articles section of the Dashboard. This will guide you through the process of drafting your work. Ian (Wiki Ed) (talk) 16:50, 7 December 2023 (UTC)

Need help request from CryingEM (talk)

Hello.

I need help with...publishing my edit, its giving me no stacked found error and i cannot publish what i edited

--CryingEM (talk) 06:06, 7 December 2023 (UTC)

Ian (Wiki Ed), this question has been answered at the Help Desk. CryingEM has made two content edits since posting here, so they may have figured it out. Folly Mox (talk) 12:58, 7 December 2023 (UTC)

Thanks so much @Folly Mox! Ian (Wiki Ed) (talk) 16:45, 7 December 2023 (UTC)

Notability issues

Hi Ian, I see that you are the WikiEd expert for Wikipedia:Wiki Ed/University of Pennsylvania/Medical missionaries to Community Partners (Fall 2023). I have had issues in the past with the notability of numbers of articles created out of this course. Today I moved to draft Draft:Sarah Goodman which would appear to be the most egregious - the lead makes the claim to notability of an 8 day short term mission trip in 2019. I have left a note on the student's page, but my question is where is the training and/or accountability for the class/instructor if this kind of thing is happening? Thanks Melcous (talk) 05:04, 10 December 2023 (UTC)

Bad news for a UBC-CHEM300 student

User:Icocci image license-violations and possibly even bad-faith image content. See their talk-page. DMacks (talk) 08:04, 11 December 2023 (UTC)

Thanks @DMacks. I will email their instructor. Hopefully they can intervene with the student. Ian (Wiki Ed) (talk) 16:39, 11 December 2023 (UTC)

Thanks. There's also license concern for other students in this class, though more convoluted, since it involves enwiki citations vs commons uploads, for the team of User:Melikajvn and User:Xavier1191. DMacks (talk) 22:06, 11 December 2023 (UTC)

License concerns for figures uploaded

Hi Ian, following up on User:DMacks message regarding the figures we uploaded on NMR article. Could you please guide us on how we can fix this issue? Melikajvn (talk) 01:02, 14 December 2023 (UTC)

Hi @Melikajvn - the simplest way to do it is to go to the file pages on Commons - c:File:C_NMR_chemical_shift.jpg and c:H NMR chemical shift.jpg and look for a link on the left sidebar that says "Nominate for deletion". When you click on that it will ask for a reason, and you can say "Uploader request" or something like that. Ian (Wiki Ed) (talk) 16:35, 14 December 2023 (UTC)

Need help...

Hi Ian I am a student and I just published my article on Maternity care deserts in the United States and quickly received some feedback. I was wondering if I could ask for help on the advice that I received that my article was too argumentative/personal essay kind of writing.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maternity_care_deserts_in_the_United_States

I wrote on section on solutions and wonder if thats what caused that flag...

any thougths? Kristudent194 (talk) 14:23, 14 December 2023 (UTC)

Hi @Kristudent194.

• The first point is about copy-editing. I'm don't really agree with this.
• The second point is about layout. I edited the headers to better match the standard Wikipedia style, but you still have external links in-text. You should convert them to inline citations.
• The third one is about tone. That's one of the tricky stylistic issues with how Wikipedia articles are written. It should be more factual and less conversational or persuasive. Have a look at pages 7-9 in the Editing Wikipedia brochure for a sense of how Wikipedia articles should be written. You might also want to peruse the list of featured articles to get a sense of how some of the best Wikipedia articles are written.

Ian (Wiki Ed) (talk) 16:16, 14 December 2023 (UTC)

Thank you so much Ian. I used the Wikipedia brochure and your advice to edit my language further. I would love if you had any other feedback based on my changes. Thank you so much for your support! Kristudent194 (talk) 08:03, 18 December 2023 (UTC)

Degloving article

Hello @Ian (Wiki Ed),

I am a student editing the wikipedia page on degloving. I am having an issue with citations in one of my image's captions. For some reason it creates new a new source even though it is the same source I am citing for each sentence in the caption. This is for the CT image in the diagnosis section for Morel-Lavallée lesions

Functional Frog (talk) 17:03, 17 December 2023 (UTC)

@Functional Frog Since each sentence is supported by the same source, you can just cite it once at the end. I've consolidated them for you. Ian (Wiki Ed) (talk) 14:57, 18 December 2023 (UTC)

Problem

Hello, Ian,

I did a check of User:P!neapp13/Jewish-American organized crime and found much of the content was taken from a 4 chan /pol/ discussion thread. I tried to tag the page but the link was blacklisted. You might check it yourself and consider what should be done. We already have an fully formed article on Jewish-American organized crime so this is really unnecessary draft on a controversial subject. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 07:08, 19 December 2023 (UTC)

Damn. Can you email me the link? Thank you so much for flagging this. I'll let the instructor know. After that it's probably best to delete it (but I can see about that). Ian (Wiki Ed) (talk) 14:48, 19 December 2023 (UTC)

n/m I can use Earwig's tool myself. :) Brain wasn't switched on yet. Ian (Wiki Ed) (talk) 15:38, 19 December 2023 (UTC)

OK, maybe not. The /pol/ page it pointed me to seems to be copied from Wikipedia. Ian (Wiki Ed) (talk) 15:46, 19 December 2023 (UTC)

Flagged for plagiarism

hello Ian.. I had a question: for the Commodification article.

Hello, I'm new to editing Wikipedia, and went through WikiEdu training this semester and editing the Commodification article was a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 21 August 2023 and 15 December 2023.

The question is, does moving sections within the article, Alphabetizing the Examples section, cause the Wikipedia bots to flag sections as plagiarism? No changes, but reorganizing the structure for clarity. If this is the case, please undo any removals. Mitsuo500 (talk) 17:51, 19 December 2023 (UTC)

Hi Mitsuo500. These are both false positives. And yes, they were triggered by moving sections within Wikipedia. Ian (Wiki Ed) (talk) 18:31, 20 December 2023 (UTC)

thank you Mitsuo500 (talk) 22:04, 20 December 2023 (UTC)

CSU/Northridge student adding unsourced material

Hi, Ian. I've removed the last 3 contributions from the Language and gender article by a student at CSU Northridge Gender and culture, mostly for lack of sourcing, but also for adding speculative nonsense like 'communication has existed since the beginning of time'. Hard to understand how they could complete a sourcing and citations module, and come up with this. My working theory, is that some students just don't quite believe we're serious about it, until the hammer comes down; or maybe they breeze through the module without really paying attention? I know I had my bad days in classes, sometimes. Sorry for the o/t musings but I can't help think what causes this, and I don't mean to pick on this particular editor, because it's not a rare phenomenon. Otoh, it's great to see the opposite: some new student coming up with beautifully written, fully filled-out {{cite journal}} templates with all the trimmings added to their assigned article. Well, I guess that's why they have the bell curve. Mathglot (talk) 20:45, 22 December 2023 (UTC)

Addendum: hadn't noticed that they have eight earlier edits adding 5kb to the article, with at least one citation (maybe more), so at least that's confirmation they know how to cite when they want to. Haven't looked at that content yet, but will try to get to it. Mathglot (talk) 21:19, 22 December 2023 (UTC)

Ænglisc Wikipedia

I was looking at the wikipedia page about ravens, and I came across an Old English version of the page.

I’m curious how Wikipedia knows Old English, or even enough to create such a page? BlueBlurHog (talk) 00:54, 15 January 2024 (UTC)