User talk:Dawnbazely · Paulipedia

Welcome!

Welcome to Wikipedia, Dawnbazely! Thank you for your contributions. I am CambridgeBayWeather and I have been editing Wikipedia for some time, so if you have any questions, feel free to leave me a message on my talk page. You can also check out Wikipedia:Questions or type {{help me}} at the bottom of this page. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:

Also, when you post on talk pages you should sign your name using four tildes (~~~~); that will automatically produce your username and the date. I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! CambridgeBayWeather, Uqaqtuq (talk), Sunasuttuq 11:55, 15 January 2020 (UTC)

Your submission at Articles for creation: Dawn Martin-Hill has been accepted

Dawn Martin-Hill, which you submitted to Articles for creation, has been created.
The article has been assessed as Start-Class, which is recorded on the article's talk page. You may like to take a look at the grading scheme to see how you can improve the article.

You are more than welcome to continue making quality contributions to Wikipedia. If your account is more than four days old and you have made at least 10 edits you can create articles yourself without posting a request. However, you may continue submitting work to Articles for Creation if you prefer.

If you have any questions, you are welcome to ask at the help desk.
If you would like to help us improve this process, please consider .

Thank you for helping improve Wikipedia!

Sulfurboy (talk) 04:55, 10 February 2020 (UTC)

Disputed non-free use rationale for File:Metcalf Garden Century.jpg

Thank you for uploading File:Metcalf Garden Century.jpg. However, there is a concern that the rationale provided for using this file on Wikipedia may not meet the criteria required by Wikipedia:Non-free content. This can be corrected by going to the file description page and adding or clarifying the reason why the file qualifies under this policy. Adding and completing one of the templates available from Wikipedia:Non-free use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your file is in compliance with Wikipedia policy. Please be aware that a non-free use rationale is not the same as an image copyright tag; descriptions for files used under the non-free content policy require both a copyright tag and a non-free use rationale.

If it is determined that the file does not qualify under the non-free content policy, it might be deleted by an administrator seven days after the file was tagged in accordance with section F7 of the criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions, please ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thank you.

This bot DID NOT nominate any file(s) for deletion; please refer to the page history of each individual file for details. Thanks, FastilyBot (talk) 01:00, 16 March 2020 (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) 00:46, 28 November 2023 (UTC)

ArbCom 2024 Elections voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2024 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 2 December 2024. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

If you wish to participate in the 2024 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) 00:33, 19 November 2024 (UTC)

Issue with WikiEdu student

One of your students, @WeltBhoomi, seems to have been on a rampage against MOS:INDICSCRIPT, to the point of over 100 reverted edits (erroneously tagged minor) and a good faith (though misguided) attempt to unilaterally rewrite the aforementioned MOS. For what it’s worth people are responding to them as engaging in good faith, but it’s clear WP:RGW behaviour and I’m concerned it’s going to result in a WP:TBAN or just a block in general. They do seem to be going through the process now, but their commitment to only a pause of disruptive editing is concerning.

I wasn’t sure exactly if this was appropriate to raise directly, but it seems so from prior ANI incidents involving Wikiedu students. Warrenᚋᚐᚊᚔ 12:01, 9 February 2025 (UTC)

Hello, @Warrenmck, from the course director. Thank you for your message. Apologies for my delay in responding. This has been a very hectic time for me and I am late with many of things on my to-do list largely because I have been meeting one-on-one with the other students in the course. All of them are new Wikipedians who are learning the editing criteria, including arms length and CoI rules, and about neutral tones. I think the best thing is for me to also sit one-on-one with @WeltBhoomi who is a wonderful student. We can review their edits and their activity together and seek to gain insight together. We will report back to you after our in-person chats, and also post on the talk pages.

FYI, I was born in India and was a visiting professor at an Indian university on my last sabbatical, so I am well aware of many of the tensions both in person and in the virtual world.

To reassure you, yes, you did entirely the right thing, because this is a WikiEdu course that is, first and foremost, aimed at teaching and training new Wikipedians in the art and science of editing our vital Open Access onlilne encyclopedia's best practices. Dawnbazely (talk) 15:18, 12 February 2025 (UTC)

Concern regarding Draft:Lisa D. Pfefferle

Hello, Dawnbazely. This is a bot-delivered message letting you know that Draft:Lisa D. Pfefferle, a page you created, has not been edited in at least 5 months. Drafts that have not been edited for six months may be deleted, so if you wish to retain the page, please edit it again or request that it be moved to your userspace.

If the page has already been deleted, you can request it be undeleted so you can continue working on it.

Thank you for your submission to Wikipedia. FireflyBot (talk) 20:08, 31 May 2025 (UTC)

ArbCom 2025 Elections voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2025 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 1 December 2025. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

If you wish to participate in the 2025 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) 00:39, 18 November 2025 (UTC)

Your students are making disruptive edits. I have only looked at two, one is duplicating sources, another is adding opinion and sources to leads. I expect others are also making mistakes that are creating work for volunteer editors. You need to handle this, review all the edits of all of your students, this is shared responsibility with User:Ian (Wiki Ed) and User:Helaine (Wiki Ed)]]. Thank you.Ldm1954 (talk) 08:36, 1 April 2026 (UTC)

thank you, for the heads up, Ldm1954 -- I am reviewing all of their work this weekend for their final grades and meeting with students. I will be touching base with User:Ian (Wiki Ed) and User:Helaine (Wiki Ed) as well. Dawnbazely (talk) 15:49, 3 April 2026 (UTC)

@Dawnbazely These aren't disruptive edits. Adding duplicate references isn't ideal, but it's a long way from Wikipedia:Disruptive editing. Ian (Wiki Ed) (talk) 17:44, 3 April 2026 (UTC)

Adding opinion is disruptive. Adding duplicate references to half a dozen articles, having three different editors revert them and tell them it is wrong, and doing nothing is a violation of Wikipedia:Here to build an encyclopedia. Ldm1954 (talk) 17:56, 3 April 2026 (UTC)

thank you for the clarification, @Ian (Wiki Ed) Dawnbazely (talk) 18:40, 7 April 2026 (UTC)

The duplicate citations themselves aren't disruptive, the fact they didn't support the preceding sentences was. —Femke 🐦 (talk) 18:51, 7 April 2026 (UTC)

Concerns with class

Hello! Just wanted to open the discussion about the module you teach. I know how difficult it is to teach students to edit Wikipedia well, as I've started incorporating it into my own teaching too. That said, the current assignment seems to lead to students "gaming" the rules. The few students I looked at seem to be adding citations in very rapid succession (often every 3 minutes), with a weak connection to the text that they are supposed to be supporting. When citations are not misrepresented, the changes sometimes break the logic of the article. I believe a rethink of the assignment might be needed if you plan to repeat this / if more edits are expected in the module. Having students add citations only rather than making them write text will likely always lead to these time-consuming mistakes. I've probably spent about 2 hours reading the sources students have added and reverting or partially reverting where necessary, and I don't really have that time to spend, and that only covered 3 of your students and a relatively small subset of their edits. —Femke 🐦 (talk) 21:08, 3 April 2026 (UTC)

Dear @Femke thanks for your note. The issue is with the students who have had from January 7th to do the assignment having failed to manage their time well. This particular small group of students is now at the end of term and they requested an extension. So, this is what we are seeing: panicked referencing to meet a three-day extension of a three month assignment. Please be assured that the students HAVE done the full Wikipedia training and have had 4 hours of office hours each week during which to meet with me to go over their proposed edits. The students that you have noted did NOT take advantage of this opportunity.

Now, it's Easter Weekend and Winter Term will end on Monday, and I am currently meeting online with a student whose multiple additions of duplicate references (again, despite having completed the training modules) were kindly reversed by @Johnjbarton. I have reviewed their editing mishaps with this particular student and they have thanked @Johnjbarton for reversing their incorrect work.

Just FYI, for context: this assignment ran for 5 years prior to students beginning to participate through WikipediaEdu (thank you, @Ian (Wiki Ed) @Helaine (Wiki Ed)), including early years in which students created new wikipedia pages. So, I have been around the block with every permutation of how to train new Wikipedians. This is the first year in which I have been contacted so often by other Wikipedia editors about the poor practices of some of my students. Thanks, again to you and everyone in the Wikipedia community for your patience and kindness. Dawnbazely (talk) 15:23, 4 April 2026 (UTC)

ps, I have now discovered the extent of what this well-meaning student has gotten up to in the last few days and holy yikes! I am making them apologize to one other Wikipedian who has been reversing their duplications of references. I KNOW that they were trained to NOT do this. As you may guess, @Femke, there is other stuff going on here.Dawnbazely (talk) 15:34, 4 April 2026 (UTC)

I just want to encourage you generally. Writing for an encyclopedia is much more difficult than many people believe. In Wikipedia's modern form, with emphasis on citations and a great deal of existing content, the difficulty is compounded by conflicting content and sources. If I can offer one advice: encourage students to start small. Unlike essay writing or other educational tasks, editing (and writing computer code and improving workflows and so many things) is best formulated as a long series of small efforts. Johnjbarton (talk) 15:58, 4 April 2026 (UTC)

I really appreciate the prompt response! And glad to hear they were explicitly told not to do this. So far in my teaching with Wikipedia, the classes have been quite small, so I have been able to manually check all the edits the students make, and revert policy violations myself, but that's of course not scalable.

One of the hopes I have from AI is that we can more easily assess if sources are reasonable, and that it becomes yet another layer of automated flagging when sources are nonsensical to the content they are trying to cite. —Femke 🐦 (talk) 07:55, 5 April 2026 (UTC)