User talk:CESchreyer

March 2017

Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia. This is a message letting you know that one or more of your recent edits to Kala language has been undone by an automated computer program called ClueBot NG.

ClueBot NG makes very few mistakes, but it does happen. If you believe the change you made was constructive, please read about it, report it here, remove this message from your talk page, and then make the edit again.
For help, take a look at the introduction.
The following is the log entry regarding this message: Kala language was changed by CESchreyer (u) (t) ANN scored at 0.87774 on 2017-03-03T21:26:25+00:00 .

Thank you. ClueBot NG (talk) 21:26, 3 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

CESchreyer, you are invited to the Teahouse!

Hi CESchreyer! Thanks for contributing to Wikipedia.
Be our guest at the Teahouse! The Teahouse is a friendly space where new editors can ask questions about contributing to Wikipedia and get help from experienced editors like Liz (talk).

Visit the Teahouse

We hope to see you there!

Delivered by HostBot on behalf of the Teahouse hosts

16:04, 4 March 2017 (UTC)

Language Creation Society

See User talk:Adoricic#Restored to sandbox. Fences&Windows 22:01, 22 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for this. CESchreyer (talk) 10:22, 23 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Editing Wikipedia Etiquette

1. Add new comments to the bottom of articles, not at the top. If you need to reply to something, put it UNDER that comment, nowhere else. Also indent it using ':'. The more ':'s you put the more indented it will be. 2. Your sig goes at the end of your statement, not the beginning. --Tarage (talk) 05:51, 23 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for being SO helpful to a new user. You ripping up the previous post and moving all of my comments to a different section made it unreadable and "butchered" actually. I'm trying to support my students here and you could have simply indented them to make them more readable, but, yeah, I can see that's not your style. CESchreyer (talk) 06:02, 23 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Because in turn you ripped up the previous poster's message. You can't do what you did. Sorry. We have rules here. --Tarage (talk) 08:40, 23 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

and someone after you kindly pointed that out and how to fix the issues in a helpful way. Politeness is a virtue.CESchreyer (talk) 09:19, 23 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Language Creation Society

Hi CESchreyer. Just trying to get my head around the situation here for the moment, so I'm hoping you could clarify a couple of things for me. I may have some other questions, depending on the answers to these. Feel free to reply either below my signature here, or on my Talk page. Whichever's easier:

Looking at the articles assigned to the students in the course you've been teaching, it seems that all of the articles in question are about either languages, linguists/revivalists or things connected with either of the other two topics (Council of the Haida Nation, for example), with the exception of the LCS article. Is there a reason why this particular topic (LCS) was chosen? It seems to have a much more tenuous link to the other topics.

Having discussed matters with some of the other editors involved in this discussion, there seems to be concern that the canvassing which was mentioned earlier is actually taking place elsewhere, rather than on Wikipedia itself. While you're right in saying that the discussion shouldn't be kept a secret from other interested parties, it's also important to note that it's not a vote to be won by whichever side can get the most support (or have the loudest voices), but rather a discussion regarding matters of policy. Has there been - to your knowledge - any communication with other editors outside of Wikipedia? BigHaz - Schreit mich an 09:42, 23 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

First, thanks for your kind comment helping me learn the ropes on the Project Page. I appreciate it as compared to some of the other comments (see above).

Students in my class had a variety of options for their final assignments and could choose to either learn about an Indigenous language of Canada or a topic related to endangered languages in some way. Two of my students chose to look at fan communities and how they can contribute to language revitalization or knowledge about endangered languages (which is an area of my own research). One edited the Old Norse orthography page since she examined how fandoms are bringing Old Norse back to life in fanfiction. The other, the one who made the LCS page, looked at how learning about a minority language in a popular television show (Dothraki) could be a useful example to teach the public about the challenges Indigenous communities with endangered languages face. As she was looking into Game of Thrones and Dothraki specifically and they both have pages, as does David Peterson, she chose the LCS since that was how Dothraki came to be in the show.

Also, thanks for clarifying. I realize that the decision won't be made on popularity, but rather on policy. After the speedy deletion yesterday, I posted a Twitter rant expressing my frustration that my student's work had been deleted without what I considered to be a thorough discussion on how the article addressed the issues noted in the previous deletion threads. The speedy deletion was brought to my attention by David Peterson. One of the intention of my comment was to flag this as an issue for wikieducation, who has reached out to me, since the editors flagging this seem to have a bias against conlanging, which is something I have worked to fight against in my academic career. Others have since jumped on this thread calling it out and bringing it to people's attention, which was not the intention of my original Twitter thread. However, it made sense to me as the professor of the course which led to this creation to chime in and defend it, particularly when the points being made are erroneous (notability and reliable sources are present). I think there is a strong case for policy winning the day here. CESchreyer (talk) 10:01, 23 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Having been on the receiving end of some harsh lessons many years ago when I started out here, it's probably the least I can do! A couple of quick responses (it's getting late here in Australia, and I can't guarantee that I'll be able to contribute anything further until the 27th my time if there's anything beyond this). Firstly, and probably one of those pieces of feedback for future iterations of the class, it's probably a good idea to check with an admin if there's a plan to recreate a previously-deleted article. We can see what the content was, and generally what the reason for the deletion was. In some cases, there won't be any issue (policies may have changed, the original article may have been a copyright violation, and so on), but other times it might be the kind of thing which might need to be approached more carefully. Shalor, your Content Expert, should also be a good resource here. Obviously the worst-case scenario would be that the student would need to come up with a different topic, but there should be at least some way around that.

I won't comment on the specifics of the article versus policy here, but I will make the point that what you feel is a "bias against conlanging" may simply come down to what sources there are at present. Certainly Wikipedia does have blind spots in a great many areas, as the frequent campaigns against "systemic bias" make abundantly clear (if any of your students have an interest in female scientists, for example, articles on them are usually very popular things once created, but I digress...), but there are definitely some areas where the reliability and even the availability of sources are simply less than ideal. That said, if I remember back to my own abortive attempts at conlanging, there do seem to be more sources out there about conlanging, conlangs and conlangers now than there were when I tried my hand at it. BigHaz - Schreit mich an 12:17, 23 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Re: previously deleted articles. I completely agree and have learned my lesson the hard way on that point.

I think I would feel less that this was bias against conlanging if the same user didn't keep flagging it and making points that focus on the fact the organization began as a student group and is riding coattails. Conlangers have often been subjected to bias in the past, so it's hard to not see this as a similar issue. A few of my students did actualluy work on biographies of living female academics, as well as Indigenous academics, although we've found less "popularity" on those particular sites (so far). Again, thank you for your comments, they are very helpful and I appreciate you taking the time to engage in the debate and with me. CESchreyer (talk) 20:40, 23 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict) As an outside observer, looking at the deletion discussion, can I give you some advice? Wikipedia takes the concept of notability very seriously, so it pays to be as specific as you can about how the article Language Creation Society meets the WP:GNG: "significant coverage in reliable [secondary] sources that are independent of the subject". Note that sources is plural, so there is a presumption of multiple sources; and that third-party sources are required.

Now, at the AfD, you're asserting that LCS meets that standard, while other assert that it does not. It's hard to prove a negative, so the burden of proof will fall on your side of the argument to provide proof. However, no uninvolved commentator is going to search thorough the 42 sources currently cited in that article. I've used a script to upgrade most of the bare references into more conventional citations, but it's still not clear to me which sources are the ones you're relying on to meet the GNG standard.

I strongly suggest that you state as clearly as you can which sources are the ones that are independent and provide significant coverage of the LCS. They will be picked apart by those who feel that they are deficient, so you'll need to be certain: (1) that they are not directly related to LCS; and (2) that they really are about the LCS, not one of its members or an associated body - mere passing mentions will just weaken your case. If it's any help, there is a piece of guidance used with medical articles that is just as appropriate here: "Do not reject a high-quality type of study ... because of personal objections to the inclusion criteria, references, funding sources, or conclusions". So it doesn't matter if LCS part-funded a film; as long as an article about the film gives significant coverage to the LCS, it is a useful source. The disqualification would only be if LCS part-funded the articleitself, or the medium in which it appeared. I hope the distinction is clear to you.

Finally, can I remind you that our conventions here will be strange to you, but we do require everyone to adhere to them. I see that you've taken the point that discussions here are never interleaved, so that issue hopefully won't handicap your future contributions. Regards, --RexxS (talk) 12:23, 23 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Just wanted to add I also appreciate the advice from you User:RexxS. I will look into how to address some of your comments in the next little bit. Also, I'm happy to adhere to the rules, but was trying to learn them while also engaging on the topic. Those who corrected me kindly (as above) were much more appreciated than those who commented I had "completely butchered" and "fucked up" pages and if I am doing something else wrong, please feel free to jump in and correct me. CESchreyer (talk) 20:45, 23 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

COI

If you continue to edit this article you may be blocked from editing. Guy (Help!) 11:19, 24 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

From what I gather, disclosing that you are connected and only editing typographical errors and information in wrong places is not a COI, despite the fact that others have called me out for having a potential conflict of interest. This has moved on without me anyway.CESchreyer (talk) 05:47, 27 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

And I see the COI has been deleted so I will continue to edit things that are minor and neutral, as I see fit. CESchreyer (talk) 06:04, 27 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Response

Hi! You can see this template at the very top of the article when editing in source mode or Visual Editor. It's a smaller looking template, so you have to look specifically for it at the very start of the article. A good general rule of thumb, though, is that British English is typically used on most articles that deal with content outside of North America. This isn't always the case, but it's common enough that it's something that I try to remember.

On a side note, you can clear out your talk page if you want - you don't have to leave up past discussions unless you want to. Shalor (Wiki Ed) (talk) 13:35, 4 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! I finally saw it when you said it was small. I'll point this out to the students then as well as your general rule of thumb. Also, I do know I can clear my talk page and will perhaps at one point, but am using the conversations there (as well as what happened in my last class to the Language Creation Society page one of my students made) as teaching examples for this class, particularly as after the Pidgins and Creoles portion we are moving to Created Languages. CESchreyer (talk) 22:29, 4 October 2018 (UTC)CESchreyer[reply]