User talk:Ian (Wiki Ed)

This is Ian (Wiki Ed)'s talk page, where you can send them messages and comments.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic. New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help. Assume good faith Be polite and avoid personal attacks Be welcoming to newcomers Seek dispute resolution if needed

Archives: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23

Thank you for fixing my species title on Centropages typicus!

JellybeanTurtle17 (talk) 21:27, 18 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you @JellybeanTurtle17! Ian (Wiki Ed) (talk) 21:36, 18 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Ian, sorry to trouble you again but this is clearly ongoing (and I certainly see only a tiny percentage of the cases). Once again, a student [has hastily added a pile of uncited coursework directly into a science article.

The stakeholders involved here are readers, editors and patrollers, students, lecturers, and the Wikipedia education team. Most students do their level best to find and cite sources, but not all. Lecturers surely explain the basics to the students. The team surely briefs the lecturers. And yet... I wonder whether students and lecturers couldn't be "vaccinated" against this kind of edit with a bit of humour? I mean, a couple of slides showing the worst imaginable uncited bit of coursework into an article, complete with a heading like "Mytown University Science Department Coursework, November 20" and a chunk of obviously unencyclopedic text? Even a cartoon, actually. Once lecturer and students have shared a laugh about it, the students may be a lot less likely to try to pull that one in practice. Just an idea. All the best, Chiswick Chap (talk) 08:03, 29 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Chiswick Chap Wow - this is even a different class. I've never had this happen once, far less twice in one term. And thanks for the fun suggestion - it's better than me banging my head against a wall :) Ian (Wiki Ed) (talk) 13:15, 1 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Ian, good luck with it. Chiswick Chap (talk) 13:19, 1 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hello.

I need help with...

I need to know if the article I put in my sand box and publish is correted right. Any helpful hits in making good corrects.

--Tala Luva (talk) 21:00, 2 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @Tala Luva. Brianda (Wiki Ed) is actually the Wikipedia expert for your class. Ian (Wiki Ed) (talk) 21:47, 2 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Ian,

My sandbox is a finished article of bawskee 4 an album by comethazine but on wiki.edu it links my article as comethazine. How do i make it so that article is linked to my actual sandbox, do i need to publish the article? Matthewicee (talk) 02:35, 3 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @Matthewicee, to submit your article for a Wikipedia editor to review, you can type {{subst:submit}} at the top. A reviewer will come around, fix it up and publish it. (talk page stalker) Happy Editing -- IAmChaos 03:21, 3 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @Matthewicee. Before you consider moving your draft to mainspace, you need to improve a couple of your sources. According to Wikipedia:WikiProject Albums/Sources "Album of the Year" isn't the best source, since it's a mix of professional and amateur reviewers. Your quote from a review there is also far too long - quotes should be kept as short as possible and only be included when the precise wording makes a significant difference to readers' understanding.

Also "Pickle" probably isn't a professional music critic. If you're reporting someone's opinion, they should be someone notable in the field.

As for the page - you can edit the redirect like any other page (if you use that link). If you need a refresher on how to do this, please review this training module or this video. Don't forget to remove the redirect itself from the page, and the template. Ian (Wiki Ed) (talk) 16:20, 3 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Ian,

I'm writing an entry on a forgotten Egyptian woman poet. She died on 1950 and there is scarce information of her. I reached out one her her family relative, her niece, and managed to conduct a phone interview with her. She told me a few pieces if information about this poet. Can I use it on my entry? If yes, how could it be cited?

Thanks, Mar Means Sea (talk) 20:42, 6 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Mar Means Sea unfortunately you can't use an interview like this because it's unpublished, which means it's unverifiable. I really wish there was another way to handle things like this, but there isn't. Ian (Wiki Ed) (talk) 19:35, 9 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @Ian (Wiki Ed),

I recently edited a page for Dentin phosphoprotein and received a couple messages from you. I've been having trouble citing the articles and books I found based on my research because I used the library database to research and had trouble finding usable links outside of the school's system. However, when I went back to edit my paper I can no longer find it. Would you be able to help me find it?

Thank you @Emperd-24 Emperd-24 (talk) 21:04, 6 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

If you look at the page history you can see that your edit was removed because it was "mostly unreferenced". The Wikipedian who removed your edit also left you a message on your talk page. Ian (Wiki Ed) (talk) 19:34, 9 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hello.

I need help with...

Can you edit and check my paragraph? ~2025-38215-19 (talk) 19:36, 10 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

--~2025-38215-19 (talk) 19:36, 10 December 2025 (UTC) Brigid[reply]

You're not logged in to Wikipedia, so I don't know who you are. Sorry about that. Ian (Wiki Ed) (talk) 21:45, 10 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Ian,

We are finalizing our wiki project! It would be really good if you could take a quick look and give us your valuable feedback.

This is our draft page: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:China_Artificial_Intelligence_Development_and_Global_Interactions. Thank you so much for your time!

Best, Zifan Zhao

--Zifan Zhao (talk) 15:37, 11 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Can you please look into User:Tamdra's edits? Check the filtered 1346 (hist · log) logs here [1]. And these aren't urls with a chatgpt parameter (which could happen from using chargpt as a search engine, i.e. not a problem), they are raw oaicite refs that are typically associated with unreviewed LLM-generated content. These are often [2] infobox creations, but sometimes [3] involve adding article prose as well. Maybe there is an explanation here - they are made in quick succession so I wonder if they are adding these for students? But I'm reaching out because this is an instructor. NicheSports (talk) 11:25, 13 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hello colleagues,

We have an edit-a-thon, that's why this is happening. I have slowed down.

Thank you,

Drake Tamdra (talk) 13:03, 13 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

See WP:OAICITE, these almost always suggest that raw and unreviewed output from ChatGPT is being added. --Gurkubondinn (talk) 13:46, 13 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Gurkubondinn@NicheSports - Thanks for letting me know. These shouldn't have come up as our classes, we're not involved with these editathons. I'm guessing it was supposed to be on the P&E Dashboard. Ian (Wiki Ed) (talk) 20:05, 15 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

NP. Just curious, what is the resolution here? Will you handle the edits or should we revert? NicheSports (talk) 20:16, 15 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@NicheSports I'm still a bit flooded with end-of-semester stuff (too many people trying to get things done right at the end of the semester) so I'd be very appreciative if you had the time to clean it up. Ping me (or my alter ego) if there's anything that needs deletion. Ian (Wiki Ed) (talk) 20:21, 15 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The filter logs have been inundated with Wiki Ed LLM edits recently, so I can imagine ha. Gurkubondinn and I can handle this, will let you know if anything comes up but I think we should be fine. NicheSports (talk) 20:23, 15 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@NicheSports I didn't realise there was an edit filter alert for that. (We're running everything through Pangram.com, which seems to work pretty well.)

And thanks so much! Ian (Wiki Ed) (talk) 20:28, 15 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

1346 (hist · log) and 1325 (hist · log) catch a lot. 1346 more so, 1325 is a bit out of date post ChatGPT-5. A lot is still going through though. NicheSports (talk) 21:56, 15 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The markdown syntax filter 1369 (hist · log) also catches a lot of the more clueless stuff. --Gurkubondinn (talk) 22:02, 15 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Ian (Wiki Ed) Note that this hashtag is displayed on this wmflabs page: https://outreachdashboard.wmflabs.org/courses/Wikimedia_Community_Usergroup_Uganda/Community_Mega_Wikipedia_Edit-a-thon_2025/home. Is WikiEd separate from the wmflabs' edit-a-thons? David10244 (talk) 04:37, 18 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I wanted to add: I'm not asking you to do anything, and I just realized that this was started by a user group and not a university. Thanks. David10244 (talk) 04:41, 18 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@David10244 Yes, we're separate from that.

The m:Programs & Events Dashboard is a tool that anyone in the movement can use to track some group of editors or articles. It's used for edit-a-thons, for Wikipedians in Residence, for GLAM projects, and for education projects that we're not involved with. The Wiki Education Dashboard is used for our programs. It's the same software, and Sage (Wiki Ed) maintains both instances, but the P&E Dashboard is hosted by WMF. Ian (Wiki Ed) (talk) 21:56, 18 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Got it, thanks for the explanation! David10244 (talk) 02:35, 22 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Good morning. I am working as an intern - not for tris, but for the Josh Powell - one of the Authors on the HEALing Communities Study. I made changes to the page and one of the editors said I had a conflict. First, Niciceptin is not a product - which seems to confuse some of the editors.

Here is a link to my changes. I am not sure how to move forward. HELP!

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Nociceptin&oldid=1323923314

Agnes. Agnes R Waite (talk) 15:53, 15 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Agnes R Waite I can only support student editors who are involved with Wiki Education-supported courses, especially at this time of year. I suggest you visit the WP:Teahouse - the folks there are nice, and good at helping new editors. Ian (Wiki Ed) (talk) 19:57, 15 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I am one of the regular chemistry editors. The student projects that we see are often substandard, so here is an idea. On our project page, Wikipedia:WikiProject_Chemistry there is a section called things you can do" which lists diverse tasks for fixing or creating chemical content. Maybe some instructors would be interested in those ideas?--Smokefoot (talk) 14:59, 18 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I just randomly checked on the article I made a long while back, and someone removed the digital drawing of the person that I did calling it "worse than nothing." I reverted the change. Is this going to be an issue? Margaret Helen Harper page. Kristinbell (talk) 23:42, 28 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @Kristinbell, I happened across this page and saw your post. I looked at the edit in question, and my feeling is that the edit summary calling the image "worse than nothing" is not helpful or informative. It doesn't tell us why the edit was made. I have notified the editor about this here. Hopefully, they will respond and explain why they found the image problematic.

Happy New Year! OrdinaryOtter (talk) 06:55, 1 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Apologies to @Kristinbell, I should have been more clear when I removed the image. I removed it because digital portrait drawings are unusual for biographies, and I felt the use of a digital drawing was distracting. I will not remove it again. I think it can be replaced with the yearbook photograph, but that is a separate issue. Helpful Raccoon (talk) 07:49, 1 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

The photograph in the yearbook PDF looks very small and low resolution, so I'm not sure it would work for the page. Good idea, though 😀 OrdinaryOtter (talk) 08:08, 1 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia guidelines are generally against trying to modify low-resolution images like the drawing does because they inevitably introduce inaccuracies and guess at details. See the guidelines MOS:COLORIZED and MOS:AIUPSCALE, which discourage related modifications that are much smaller than creating a new drawing. The only potential obstacle to adding the photograph is that it might be non-free content (which is one of few reasons why Wikipedia occasionally uses drawings in place of photographs). It seems likely that the yearbook is public domain (unless the scan omitted a page with a copyright notice), and even if it is copyrighted, the photograph would still probably pass WP:NFCC. Helpful Raccoon (talk) 08:59, 1 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks so much for your help here @Helpful Raccoon and @OrdinaryOtter. Ian (Wiki Ed) (talk) 20:46, 5 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Hello,

I just wanted to offer some feedback on recent Wiki Ed additions on this page. The course page can be found here, and this is the user who made the edits.

Unfortunately, the majority of the student's contributions are not supported by the sources they cited. I've been going through all their edits and sources carefully, and I've had to remove a lot of content because it was inaccurate or was subjective interpretation or original research. I'm not done with my review yet, but I wanted to make someone aware that, in this case, it seems like there was not sufficient oversight or review by experienced editors, and the student added lots of content that does not follow WP guidelines. Perhaps in the future there can be safeguards to prevent this from happening?

Thanks for your time,

OrdinaryOtter (talk) 06:42, 1 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

@OrdinaryOtter A lot of what's not supported by citations is AI-generated slop. We've added training modules to help students understand the problems with AI (and why it can't be used to generate Wikipedia content) and we're running all their contributions through an AI checker. I'm still trying to get better at dealing with this (I have a hard time reverting someone's work simply because it was flagged as likely AI, but after sorting through it all, I'm more comfortable that it's all unacceptable).

Thanks for flagging this to me, and please feel free to send cleanup my way. The instructor in this case is pretty has been pretty good with this, and hopefully things will work better this term. Ian (Wiki Ed) (talk) 20:45, 5 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Hey Ian, thanks for replying. Are you saying that most or all of the content added to the C-3PO page is likely AI-generated? OrdinaryOtter (talk) 00:24, 6 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

@OrdinaryOtter It's my suspicion, but I can't prove it. Ian (Wiki Ed) (talk) 14:35, 6 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Ian! Just wanted to say thanks for welcoming me. I look forward to working with you this quarter!

Best,

Athena Atnvilla (talk) 19:22, 14 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks @Atnvilla! Ian (Wiki Ed) (talk) 15:09, 15 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

The user DeMacbot (talk · contribs) in one of your courses was blocked for having a bot username. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 08:13, 22 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

The user has been renamed to DanDeLaVega (talk · contribs). This will need to be updated on the course page. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 23:09, 25 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks @LaundryPizza03. Their username will be updated on that page once it gets updated on the Dashboard. Ian (Wiki Ed) (talk) 18:30, 27 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Ian! I was going to contact User:Shalor (Wiki Ed), a Wiki Ed editor who worked with Princeton instructors before, but it says he is no longer active. I am a student at the library, and there are a few students complaining about hostile comments and borderline harassment on Wikipedia. At least two students have said they have been blocked by hostile Wikipedia editors, and a few more complained that they could not edit Wikipedia and were requested to make Wikipedia accounts in order to leave a comment. I would appreciate if you can help resolve the problem and stop editors from making hostile comments towards fellow students.

Several students were working on a draft about a prominent professor at Princeton, who is also a professor at Stanford and CMU. Draft:Tri Dao

The creator of the article was blocked, not allowed to respond to the false comments made on the draft, and shared information about it in larger computer science groups with other students. Students were enraged by some of the comments made on Wikipedia, more specifically this one:

An assistant professor does not pass WP:NACADEMIC for their role. They must go above and beyond. This one has not. Thus we return to WP:BIO and WP:GNG, neither of which they pass. They are a WP:ROTM person doing their job. 🇵🇸‍🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^{Talk to me} 🇺🇦‍🇵🇸 23:59, 14 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

The comment alleges, in plain English, that Professor Tri Dao at Princeton and Stanford University cannot be considered an academic for his role. I was going to ask Wiki Ed supervisor Shalor, who has previously worked with Princeton University professors, why such comments are made about professors at Princeton and Stanford specifically. The same editor who made such comments on the draft also declined it later, and failed to justify why he personally does not consider Nature journal an reliable and independent source.

A group of students then made straightforward questions asking to address such bizarre claims about an academic widely recognized in the field for his work.

Here: Draft talk:Tri Dao#comments. criterion 1

And here: Draft talk:Tri Dao#what software? false comments

The editor failed to produce any policy-based arguments, and within five minutes students were flooded with over a dozen hostile comments, such as: You actually have no "rights" at all here! Theroadislong (talk) 19:04, 24 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I think it is beyond inappropriate to send something like this to students who asked reasonable questions. The editor also failed to explain why the students were prohibited from making comments on Wikipedia, were forced to create Wikipedia accounts, and provide their emails. This is the message I am personally seeing: The IP address or range 155.190.3.0/24 has been globally blocked by Xaosflux for the following reason: open proxy. see the help page is you are affected. Block would expire on June 2027. I believe it was made by mistake, because it is a secure library network.

The students were threatened to be blocked if they edit the article, which is also absolutely inappropriate. The draft made by students is a good-quality article, with adequate citations and sources respecting Wikipedia policies. Wikipedia’s conduct guidelines emphasize respectful interaction and prohibit hostile or intimidating behavior toward contributors. In addition, it requires editors to assume good faith, particularly when working with new contributors, and explicitly discourages biting or discouraging newcomers. It does seem that someone may have personal issues with the students or with the subject, because such behavior appears inconsistent with these policies. The concerns of the students are absolutely valid, from my point of view. Lkmf456 (talk) 19:04, 26 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I will also pin @Brianda (Wiki Ed) here, in case she is the one who worked with Princeton or Stanford with together with @Shalor (Wiki Ed). Lkmf456 (talk) 21:31, 26 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

@Lkmf456, the comment does not say that Professor Tri Dao at Princeton and Stanford University cannot be considered an academic for his role. Several editors have tried to explain this to the student or students in question, who have become increasingly hostile. I'll look into this rangeblock for you. -- asilvering (talk) 22:16, 26 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, that is a proxy. You have to create an account in order to edit from that range. -- asilvering (talk) 22:21, 26 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, please, that would be very helpful. Most of library devices, in random order show the block range and describe it as a proxy. It some instances it allows to create the account, but still does not allow to make edits even after creating an account, showing the same comment - 155.190.3.0/24 has been globally blocked by Xaosflux for the following reason: open proxy.

As to the comment, I'd appreciate education editor to review it, and comments left by students. The original comment from FiddleTimtrent said, in plain terms that, according to Wikipedia’s notability guidelines, the editor does not consider Tri Dao’s role as an assistant professor sufficient to meet the academic notability standard. In other words, in the context of Wikipedia’s rules, they are claiming he does not “count” as an academic for the purpose of creating an article, this is exactly what the students interpreted.

In response to asilvering:

“The comment does not say that Professor Tri Dao at Princeton and Stanford University cannot be considered an academic for his role. Several editors have tried to explain this to the student or students in question who have become increasingly hostile”

This is at least misleading, or a way reframe the original comment as something less severe than what it literally says. The original comment literally makes a judgment about the professor’s status under Wikipedia rules (effectively saying he is not academic for his role, category Academic cannot be used to assess his notability, and thus we return to WP:BIO and WP:GNG,), but asilvering is saying it did not say that, which ignores the literal meaning and the context. Comments left by students were not hostile, and none of them were addressed; instead, they were met with remarks implying that students have no rights to edit the page, such as "You actually have no "rights" at all here!" Lkmf456 (talk) 22:33, 26 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

You have been told that he does not meet the guidelines at WP:NACADEMIC. That does not mean he is not an academic. It means that the alternative guideline for academics cannot be used to determine whether he meets the inclusion guidelines, and you have to fall back on BIO/GNG. -- asilvering (talk) 22:41, 26 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I would still appreciate the education editor's review. I assume they manage many classes. Princeton has participated in Education projects, and such situations are distressing. @Asilvering, thank you for your response, while I understand you are trying to make a response in Wikipedia policy terms, the way it is phrased minimizes the impact of the original comment and shifts the focus to “it doesn’t mean he’s not an academic.” It ignores the literal interpretation that the original comment made a judgment about his academic status and that students experienced it as dismissive and hostile.

Your response is implying that the students misinterpreted the comment, despite their interpretation being entirely reasonable given the wording. Your response also seem to deflects from addressing the hostility and (“ "You actually have no "rights" at all here!"”) that the students were experiencing and the substance of the complaint. It reframes a clear statement about notability into something “harmless” and blames the students for misinterpreting it.

This is what students read when they open the guidelines: Academics meeting any one of the following conditions, as substantiated through reliable sources, are notable. Academics meeting none of these conditions may still be notable if they meet the conditions of WP:BIO or other notability criteria.

Students asked 2 factual questions regarding Criterion 1, not in a hostile tone, implying willingness to make appropriate edits, including asking why Nature Journal, a globally known peer-reviewed scholarly publication, should be dismissed: Draft talk:Tri Dao#comments. criterion 1

Criterion 1 states, and this is what students read: The most typical way of satisfying Criterion 1 is to show that the academic has been an author of highly cited academic work – either several extremely highly cited scholarly publications or a substantial number of scholarly publications with significant citation rates. Reviews of the person's work, published in selective academic publications, can be considered together with ordinary citations here. Differences in typical citation and publication rates and in publication conventions between different academic disciplines should be taken into account.To count towards satisfying Criterion 1, citations need to occur in peer-reviewed scholarly publications such as journals or academic books.

Additionally, if library or campus has to submit request to fix the global block, please share those instructions with me if they are available, and someone would take care of it. That would be very helpful. Lkmf456 (talk) 23:02, 26 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

No, there is no "fix" for the global block. Editors wishing to edit from that range will have to create accounts. -- asilvering (talk) 23:13, 26 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

@Asilvering Thank you. As I wrote earlier, in some reported instances creation of the account still does not allow to make edits, but only read the content, showing the same comment - 155.190.3.0/24 has been globally blocked by Xaosflux for the following reason: open proxy. Lkmf456 (talk) 23:16, 26 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Yes. They will have to apply for a proxy block exemption in order to edit. They can do this with Wikipedia:Unblock wizard. -- asilvering (talk) 23:18, 26 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @Lkmf456, Are these students editing as part of a class for an assignment? I do not recognize or see any of the editors as being a part of our program.

When instructors collaborate with Wiki Ed to implement the Wikipedia assignment, we provide a range of support but we need to be in contact with the instructor and approve the assignment so it doesn't accidentally violate Wikipedia policies. Students will need to go through our trainings, etc., where they'll learn about notability and other rules on wikipedia and have access to support. Brianda (Wiki Ed) (talk) 00:43, 27 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Tri Dao was less than two weeks ago. After a well-attended discussion, there was consensus that this person does not merit an article at this time because he is not currently notable enough. While the door is open to looking for new sources and making new strong claims that weren't uncovered previously, it's going to be an unusually hard task for students to accomplish it and even experienced editors would probably not even bother so soon. Lots of editors looked at claims and sources, and found there simply isn't enough. The instructor really needs to coordinate with wiki-ed and the students working on this article need clear advice that they should probably pick a different topic. DMacks (talk) 00:59, 27 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

@DMacks, to be perfectly honest, I don't think we're dealing with an instructor asking students to edit wikipedia; I'm not even convinced we're dealing with multiple students. -- asilvering (talk) 01:04, 27 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Valid concern. I did not look closely at existing evidence or the discussion (and I don't have as magical goggles as you:), just adding something I didn't see mentioned before. DMacks (talk) 01:10, 27 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

@Asilvering To address your point, I did not state that I am an instructor. I have explained in my original message that I am graduate student from the library, which manages student resources and provides support, including when instructors run Wikipedia education projects. That is how I know Education project exists. My involvement is in a support and facilitation role and I am not teaching anyone. Lkmf456 (talk) 20:10, 27 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @Brianda (Wiki Ed)! No, the educational projects that involve Wikipedia have only been used by social science instructors, as far as I know. The instructor is absolutely not holding a Wikipedia class in order to create a Wikipedia article about himself. Students suggesting a school news article, about Wikipedia editors saying students have no rights and calling a Princeton/ Stanford professor not an academic, was funny in a way but also unnecessary, as some instructors actually use Wikipedia for projects and it would probably affect them.

I would appreciate it if @Brianda (Wiki Ed) or @Ian (Wiki Ed) could review this, as there has already been discussion on the draft. I said I would bring this to the attention of Wiki Ed and handle this issue. I suggest that someone address the valid concerns raised by students on the draft.

Alternatively, I can submit it in its current state to prevent further disruption and to avoid students receiving hostile messages. Hostility and student chats only create the notion that students would refuse to participate in Wikipedia projects suggested by instructors.

@DMacks The purpose of the AfD is already addressed on the page. 8 editors suggested that the article be draftified and then moved to mainspace because of the state it was in at the time. Comments such as that the academic category cannot be applied to an associate professor at Stanford/Princeton because of his role professor I mentioned above comes directly from the Articles for Deletion discussion @DMacks shared. The professor is teaching large classes, and I can see it more as matter of principle that students got enraged seeing such comments made about him, as there is an intense competition in some fields, especially computer science.

The same editor then declined the draft, stating that it does not meet any of the eight academic specific criteria, while refusing to address comments made by students, along with a range of hostile comments were directed toward students, some of whom could not respond or log in due to unclear open proxy blocks. It has been a heated discussion on the talk page of the draft as you can read.

I am also not sure about the point @Asilvering about "student or students" has been making. Students openly disclosing that they know each other. I also openly shared the actual address of the library, which I am certain can be tied to the real library that has been blocked from editing as an open proxy, despite serving several thousand students. I can confirm 3-4 people who said they cannot make comments or edit Wikipedia even after creating the account. Lkmf456 (talk) 20:05, 27 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I also created this yesterday as an example to show students: Draft: Percy Liang, to avoid such situations in the future. It is a page for another associate professor, a collaborator of Draft: Tri Dao. I think a proper example was what was missing and caused a lot of confusion. Feel free to address the example if it is not appropriate. Lkmf456 (talk) 21:58, 27 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for bringing this here Theroadislong, and thanks to Lkmf456, asilvering, DMacks and Brianda (Wiki Ed) for (kinda) sorting this out. Fun messes always happens when you take a couple days off :) Ian (Wiki Ed) (talk) 18:29, 27 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Well I hope you learned your lesson about taking time off from wiki. I mean, um, hope you had some nice time doing whatever else you were doing, including recharging for the next semester! DMacks (talk) 19:47, 27 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Theroadislong didn't bring this here; Lkmf456 (who initiated this thread) is just copying in previous users' comments from other discussions in ways that make it confusing who is saying what. FYI. Dclemens1971 (talk) 22:33, 27 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

@Dclemens1971 Thanks for the clarification. Ian (Wiki Ed) (talk) 13:50, 28 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Hallo Ian, have you seen Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Request for withdrawal of false accusations?

The tutor for Wikipedia:Wiki Ed/University of Pennsylvania/Medical missionaries to Community Partners (Fall 2025) seems to have difficulty with the normal interpretation of Wikipedia concepts such as Notability and New Page Patrolling. And this has been going on for several years, wasting a lot of time of other editors.

As you are the "Wikipedia Expert" for the course, perhaps you could have a word? PamD 23:18, 31 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for letting me know PamD. I'm sorry it got out of hand, and I missed what was going on over the weekend. Ugh. I see from Bish's message that he's been blocked, and I can't say I disagree with her rationale. Ian (Wiki Ed) (talk) 17:24, 2 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, Ian. I wonder if you're aware that User:Breamk, the instructor for Wikipedia:Wiki Ed/University of Pennsylvania/Medical missionaries to Community Partners (Fall 2025), has been blocked for 48 hours? Compare the ANI thread mentioned just above by PamD, and my rationale for the block here. Bishonen | tålk 09:08, 1 February 2026 (UTC).[reply]

@Bishonen Thanks Bish. I will ask Helaine to follow up with him. Ian (Wiki Ed) (talk) 17:22, 2 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. Who's Helaine? Bishonen | tålk 18:08, 2 February 2026 (UTC).[reply]

Sorry. Helaine (Wiki Ed). She's the one who wrangles the instructors, I'm one of two people (along with Brianda (Wiki Ed)) who herds cats supports students. Ian (Wiki Ed) (talk) 18:28, 2 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Ian, when you have a moment, could you please take a look at this message I left a few days ago? [4]. Best, Vanamonde93 (talk) 03:58, 2 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Hi! I am trying to edit the "Find Potential Articles" sandbox, but it's not letting me edit the page or type anything. Kcgirl2005 (talk) 15:10, 6 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

@Kcgirl2005 Can you let me know what you're seeing when you try to edit the page? You can email me a screenshot of what you're seeing at ianwikiedu.org - Ian (Wiki Ed) (talk) 01:30, 10 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I added citations for 2 sources and I encountered a message saying I formatted a date for a source incorrectly, but I am unsure how to fix it. Soil.climb (talk) 05:46, 9 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

@Soil.climb The problem is between the Cite tool and the reference template that generates the references. The |date= field requires either a year, or a year, month and day, but journals often just have a year + month. The Cite tool fills in something like 2020-12, but the template expects either just a year, or all three value.

I fixed them on that page. Ian (Wiki Ed) (talk) 01:39, 10 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

part of the trainings are to peer review my classmates article but since most of them havent posted much content on their respective wikipedia pages, it tells me to check their sandboxes. im not sure how im supposed to access that

Nicholas.Fulks (talk) 20:42, 10 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

There is a real answer to this question that I'll let Ian share, but an easy workaround if you have their Wikipedia user name is to use Special:Contributions, which is also linked in the sidebar as "User contributions" on every user page (such as this one; click it to see Ian's recent contributions). That will let you see whichever pages (including their sandbox) your classmates have edited. Cheers, Suriname0 (talk) 00:55, 11 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

@Nicholas.Fulks - if they haven't created their drafts yet I think you should ask your instructor how to proceed (maybe they can nudge your classmates).

And thanks @Suriname0. Ian (Wiki Ed) (talk) 17:36, 11 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Hello.

I need help with the scientific quality of my writing. Will you please read my edits in my sandbox and give any feedback you see as necessary? What additional changes would you recommend I make? Thank you!

Thefruitgirl

--Thefruitgirl (talk) 20:28, 11 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

@Thefruitgirl Your writing looks good. Also you want to write Wikipedia articles like you're writing to be understood by normal people. Academic writing is often dense and inaccessible to outsiders, and that's the opposite of what Wikipedia should be. The goal is formal, a bit boring, but easy to understand. Ian (Wiki Ed) (talk) 14:34, 12 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Ian, thank you for your feedback! I have continued working on the article "Ventifact" and would appreciate it if you would take another look at my sandbox. I am nearing my class deadline to move my edits to the main-space article and wanted to see what feedback you have. I would like to add info about coastal and periglacial ventifact formation but am struggling to find enough peer reviewed works on these topics. Do you think it is necessary to add these sections? Would you recommend any other portions of the article be added or altered? Thank you!

Thefruitgirl Thefruitgirl (talk) 05:02, 22 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Ian! the article I chose to edit for my WikiEdu course appears to be plagiarized from a reference.org entry. I pointed this out on the article's talk page, too. How might this affect the assignment going forward? I still want to edit the Lago Agrio article, but I am unsure how to proceed. StudentOfLif (talk) 20:47, 14 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @StudentOfLif The reference.org article says "Reference.org uses data and images under license from Common Crawl, Getty Images, MusicBrainz, TMDB, Unsplash, Wikipedia" and it's far more likely that the copying was from Wikipedia, not the other way around.

If you look at the opening paragraph, it's identical in both places, but the Wikipedia entry was written by seven different people between 2008 and 2020. (I'm using this Chrome extension to identify the authorship). So it was almost certainly written here, and copied by the other site. Ian (Wiki Ed) (talk) 21:20, 17 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for checking!

StudentOfLif (talk) 01:03, 19 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Ian,

Writing to you as a member of WikiProject Figure Skating. A student in one of the courses you oversee has chosen a few figure skating articles, which is a good thing because we always welcome as much assistance with the articles under our purview. Some of the articles they've chosen, though, may not be the best choices.

The individual competitions (Figure skating at the 2026 Winter Olympics – Men's singles; Figure skating at the 2026 Winter Olympics – Team event; 2026 U.S. Figure Skating Championships) already have had substantial work done on them, by User:Bgsu98 (who I'm pinging so that he's aware, hi Bugsu!), so I'm not sure the student would have much more to contribute. (Bgsu does the impressive work improving these and similar articles and brings them to GAR and FAC.) There are other competitions articles they can work on, though, but I'm not sure that a newbie editor would benefit from working on them, since they all follow a similar format and require a higher level of editing skills. Perhaps they can work on competitions from India, although figure skating does not tend to be very popular there. Perhaps Bgsu can come up with better options.

Figure skating jumps is an article I've worked on, and it's at the point where it would be hard to find anything to add. Actually, my thing is to improve figure skating articles about elements and rules, so very few of them would need anything, either. I also work on skaters' biographies, which is a neglected and much-needed topic, so perhaps the student can improve bios and focus on economics, especially in countries that don't support figure skaters.

I strongly advise against using History of figure skating in a student editing course, unless they focus on sections, because it's too large and sprawling for new editors. There are sections of Olympic Games that work, especially the one about the effect of television.

These are just suggestions. We at the FS WikiProject are here and always available for any assistance that you and your students require. Thanks and best, Christine (Figureskatingfan) (talk) 22:51, 16 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Good evening,

I understand that Wikipedia has an emphasis on using secondary sources to avoid copyright issues. However, for the article I was interested in editing for class, I have access to Mary Arvin's personal items. This would be a unique opportunity to have a photograph of her and evidence of the impact she had during her life. Some of her personal items include her purple heart/other medals, her sash of international pins from soldiers, letters, and original drawings from people she treated. My family has full custody over the items and have previously displayed them in a Kentucky museum.

I would also include the appropriate secondary sources for the article.

I wanted to reach out and see if any of this would be possible and what would be appropriate to use.

Thank you,

Julia

Jacana9 (talk) 02:32, 24 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Ian,

I am drafting a Wikipedia page for Aphyllon purpureum for a class project and can't figure out how to add a taxonomy chart to my page. Would you be able to assist me? Thank you!

Sincerely,

plantygb333 Plantygb333 (talk) 21:40, 26 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, what do you mean by "taxonomy chart"? Do you mean a cladogram (like the one in Physella acuta), the "scientific classification" information box, or something else? Suriname0 (talk) 21:07, 27 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for getting back to me! I meant the "scientific classification" information box, as well as the "conservation status" information box! Plantygb333 (talk) 09:11, 1 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

thank you for your help!!

Cheeeriooos (talk) 19:30, 27 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]