Jump to content

User talk:Shalor (Wiki Ed)/Archive 3

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< User talk:Shalor (Wiki Ed)

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Lowercase sigmabot III (talk | contribs) at 06:09, 27 February 2018 (Archiving 2 discussion(s) from User talk:Shalor (Wiki Ed)) (bot). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Archive 1Archive 2Archive 3Archive 4Archive 5→Archive 10

Need help request from Ds3630 (talk)

Hello.

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


--Ds3630 (talk) 04:07, 24 December 2017 (UTC)

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

Stray student

Hi Shalor. I may have come across a stray student wandering the halls of Wikipedia. Would you might taking a look at User talk:Marchjuly#Katryn Tappen photos and seeing if you have any suggestions for this editor. Apparently there have been some cases of company interns, etc. editing Kathryn Tappen in the past, but I'm assuming good faith that this editor is a student working on a project. FWIW, I don't think they are participating in a WikiEd project, but not sure. Thanks in advance. -- Marchjuly (talk) 22:16, 9 January 2018 (UTC)

  • I don't see anything in their edit history that shows participation in a Wiki Ed classroom assignment - typically they will have an edit to the Wikipedia page for their class showing that they've enrolled. I'll leave a message on their talk page, though. Shalor (Wiki Ed) (talk) 14:40, 10 January 2018 (UTC)
Thank you for taking a look at this and helping to explain things to that editor. -- Marchjuly (talk) 21:28, 10 January 2018 (UTC)

Signatures in Visual Editor?

Hi Shalor. Do you know if I can enable signatures for the page User:Reagle/QICs? Students like VisualEditor, but my understanding is no VE on talk pages, and signatures are grayed out on that user page...? I thought maybe there had been a change in policy, and surprisingly, there *is* an insert signature option in VE on that user page, but it is grayed out. -Reagle (talk) 21:44, 10 January 2018 (UTC)

Just testing

Thanks Sharon--Esamikhafe (talk) 03:09, 17 January 2018 (UTC)

New student editors

Hi there, Shalor. I have noticed by going through your contributions over the past few days that you have welcomed hundreds of students to Wikipedia. As far as I can see, their universities provide special training on Wikipedia and sooner or later they are encouraged to write articles of their own. I'm not sure how many actually progress to the stage where they write articles but it strikes me that at least some of them, especially the women, may be interested in reducing the gender gap on Wikipedia by writing biographies of prominent women in their field of study. I was wondering if it would be useful to draw their attention to WikiProject Women in Red which would provide them with the necessary background information and offer assistance to any who join the project. I'm not sure whether it would be useful to mention WiR in you welcoming message or whether we should leave it to a later stage when they have already come to grips with the Wikipedia essentials. Any ideas? Do you maintain an index of the universities and colleges participating in this initiative? Perhaps they could be sensitized to the problem too. Btw, I see that as Tokyogirl79, you have written quite a few women's biographries yourself and that you are on the main WiR mailing list.((cc Rosiestep--Ipigott (talk) 11:20, 17 January 2018 (UTC)

  • Hi Ipigott! I mention WiR quite a bit with educators - I'm definitely a staunch supporter of the project. :) I don't know if we can drop a note about it in the message or not - I can bring this up with my co-workers to see if there's any place we could have a more regular place to mention the WikiProject. Shalor (Wiki Ed) (talk) 14:08, 17 January 2018 (UTC)
Thanks for taking this up. Please let me know if you take any action. WiR itself could perhaps help you along.--Ipigott (talk) 14:10, 17 January 2018 (UTC)
  • (edit conflict) :*Hi Shalor! Thanks, Ipigott, for circling me in. I could see how it would be problematic for an employee of Wiki Edu to send a welcome message to these WikiEdu students which includes mention of Women in Red. In her role as [[User:Shalor (Wiki Ed)]], she is reaching out to students who are part of a specific university class which has a Wikipedia assignment. For this reason, the students should stay focused on their assignment, so mention of Women in Red might be confusing. That said, if someone in a "volunteer" role -you, me, Tokyogirl79- sent a communication at another time (May/June... end of semester) regarding Women in Red, that might be nice. If you think it would be worthwhile, we could continue this recruitment discussion at the Women in Red talkpage for broader comment? --Rosiestep (talk) 17:42, 17 January 2018 (UTC)
Rosiestep: This seems to be a case of nothing ventured, nothing gained. I just noticed that a fair proportion of the students receiving Wikipedia training are women. Maybe it would be possible to include something on the gender gap in their courses, around the time they are beginning to create articles. This may provide some of them with more incentives to continue Wikipedia editing after the end of their course. As far as I can see, not many do so. By all means bring this up on WiR. We can continue the discussion there.--Ipigott (talk) 11:42, 18 January 2018 (UTC)
See: Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Women in Red#New student editors. --Rosiestep (talk) 14:27, 18 January 2018 (UTC)

Need help

Hi Shalor,

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

Thank you in advance for your help,

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

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

Need help request from Nickn99 (talk)

Hello.

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



--Nickn99 (talk) 19:41, 18 January 2018 (UTC)

Ve'ahavta deletion

Greetings, thank you for advocating for the student work to be restored. I cannot believe how quickly this transpired. I quite disagree with you that the article is a mess. I've been working with students writing about organizations for years and have never had an issue like this. I see very little detail presented to justify G11. Generally the issue is a lack of external sources, which this article does not suffer from. This seems very hasty, and I am frankly troubled by the deletion of seemingly everything, including the student sandbox without any form of respectful, civil engagement. I have yet to hear a detailed argument as to why this material violates any Wikipedia policy. If the only definition of neutrality is that there must be criticism, then I would like to hear someone say and defend that. --Jaobar (talk) 20:52, 18 January 2018 (UTC)

  • Hi Jaobar - I wouldn't say that the article was a mess. It was more of a case of the article having a very persuasive tone that, when mixed with words that Wikipedia sees as buzzwords, comes across as promotional. For example, more detail is given than is really necessary for Wikipedia's purposes. An example of this is the activities section. The section contains a lot of overall information about issues that isn't really necessary in a Wikipedia article. One of the specific examples I gave was the International Crisis Response section. There isn't a need for a detailed overview of what this part of the organization has done in various countries and the reasons for them reaching out to these areas - that's seen as a bit indiscriminate, as far as Wikipedia goes, and can actually make a page unintentionally promotional when paired with cpersuasive writing.
I'm in the process of trying to get a sandbox version restored at the moment and I'm going to go through the page and help pare down some of the content that likely caused Largoplazo to see the page as promotional. Shalor (Wiki Ed) (talk) 21:07, 18 January 2018 (UTC)
  • Essentially, I think that the main cause for concern is a difference in writing styles - the article's tone is one that wouldn't be problematic elsewhere and wouldn't be seen as "sales-speak" in another setting, but on Wikipedia would come across as such. It can be difficult to pick this out at times, especially if this is a writing style that people are used to writing on a regular or daily basis. Shalor (Wiki Ed) (talk) 21:13, 18 January 2018 (UTC)
  • Hello. In case you didn't see my comments on the article's Talk page, the issue is that the article was written in the form of an appeal from the organization to the reader, as outreach, a means of engaging the reader to appreciate the organization and be inspired by its mission, and to call attention to the plight of the homeless. There's nothing wrong with that kind of outreach—on the contrary, it's admirable—and the organization merits it through appropriate vehicles, but that's a distinct purpose from that of Wikipedia, which doesn't advocate or justify or appeal. The article continually worked to share the organization's vision, to provide lots of background (such as a couple of paragraphs about other programs related to the homeless in Toronto) to frame how important its work is, to describe each of its activities in minute detail worded so as to inspire admiration. I didn't see any way that the article could be converted into a neutrally written reference article without starting from scratch. I'm sure that a fine article that meets Wikipedia's guidelines could be written about this organization. Largoplazo (talk) 21:17, 18 January 2018 (UTC)
  • Largoplazo, thank you for your comments. Let me begin by saying that I think efforts to remove the article, student sandbox and discussion within an hour of the edit, without thoroughly presenting a merit-based argument (and allowing a productive discussion) demonstrates a disheartening violation of a number of Wikipedia conduct policies. I did see your comments on the article talk page, and your reference to G11 (to which I responded), and I think you are incorrect. G11 states "This applies to pages that are exclusively promotional", which the article was not. Your comments on this thread, justify, at most, a flag that I'm sure you are familiar with, suggesting that the article is overly promotional and should be amended. This, more WP:Civil gesture, would encourage the editor and others to make corrections, in line with WP:AGF. Speedy deletion on the other hand ignores months of work, the possibility that others have debated the language and see it differently, and assumes an almost editorial control that also violates WP:Own. I'm sorry but I do not share your concern about a connection between the presentation of vision and a description of the organization's work. The organization is described this way in reputable external sources, which support the assertion that this presentation is in line with WP:Verify. Again, while I appreciate your efforts to protect the integrity of the encyclopedia, I do not agree with the merits of your argument. I hope you will reconsider. Sincerely, --Jaobar (talk) 21:40, 18 January 2018 (UTC)
  • I do feel that it was exclusively promotional. The language was written, end-to-end, in a manner that elicited admiration for the organization and suggested an appeal for readers's support of its mission.
You are arguing that by invoking G11, I was inherently violating WP:CIVIL and WP:AGF and exercising WP:OWNERSHIP. If that reasoning held, it would render G11 inoperable. Since G11 is an extant guideline that is invoked frequently, it is clear that good-faith invocation of G11 is not considered a violation of WP:CIVIL and WP:AGF or an exercise of WP:OWNERSHIP. If you would like to make the case that G11 shouldn't exist because it's a violation of WP:CIVIL and WP:AGF and an exercise of WP:OWNERSHIP, that's a matter to take up at Wikipedia talk:Criteria for speedy deletion or elsewhere on a project discussion page.
I have no doubt that many of the sources underlying this article describe the organization and its activities, deservedly, in glowing terms, but only the factual information, not the glowing terms, should become part of the language used in a Wikipedia article. Articles here serve a different purpose and are governed by different policies and guidelines and speak in a different one and from a different perspective from many of the sources from which information on this website are taken.
Since I take no issue with the truth of any part of the article, I'm not sure why you're bringing up WP:Verify, unless you believe that passing WP:Verify is sufficient to qualify an article. But while verifiability is required, it isn't the only criterion. Largoplazo (talk) 21:57, 18 January 2018 (UTC)
I was considering whether to suggest that the heavy attention given in the article to Ve'ahavta's cause, the plight of the homeless, amounted to a WP:COATRACK issue. I was just browsing through the WP:NOBLE essay on writing about "noble causes", and noticed that it covers that point in the first list item under the heading WP:NOBLE#Writing about a non-profit organization. (On the other hand, a neutral reference article on Homelessness in Toronto might itself be a good topic for a Wikipedia article.) Largoplazo (talk) 22:11, 18 January 2018 (UTC)
  • I think that a large chunk of the content in the activities section of the article could be placed in an article that is generally about the homeless population in Toronto, or at the very least, in a subsection in the main article for Toronto. Part of the issue here is that this information doesn't really belong specifically in an article about a non-profit. Non-profit content should be specifically about what the organization is doing, such as "The organization does this, this, and this." The first two sections in the activity portion under the title "Street Outreach and Homelessness Response" are very general and do not mention the organization. While yes, the information is why they're doing what they're doing, it isn't considered pertinent for an article that's specifically about an organization. To use an example, in Wikipedia's perspective it's akin to discussing the history of African-American performers in an article about Will Smith. While he is an African-American performer, this information would be superfluous in an article that is specifically about him.
I highly recommend, at the very least, creating a section about the homeless population in Toronto in the main article and merging the general information there. If possible, an article about this would be even better. I'm going to remove this information from the article on Ve’ahavta, although I will try to work it in as needed into other sections. 22:41, 18 January 2018 (UTC)

Heads up

Just in case you miss it on your watchlist - see here. - Sitush (talk) 01:02, 19 January 2018 (UTC)

Draft for Black American Music course rejected; notability

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

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

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

Draft:Issues in African American music : power, gender, race, representation (book) sheridanford (talk) 14:54, 5 January 2018 (UTC)

  • Hi SheridanFord - I tried my hand at salvaging the page as well. It was a bit surprising, but it looks like the book hasn't received any true coverage just yet - at least not enough to pass NBOOK. I know that textbooks can have a hard time, but you'd think that the contributor list would have enticed some reviewers at the very least. I'm not really sure where else this could be covered as far as the Wikimedia projects go - the only true option (if you want a page for this individual book) would be to continue to monitor the page and make periodic edits so that the draft stays undeleted. (Abandoned drafts are deleted after about 6 months.)
Now another option would be to see if the companion book would warrant an article and if so, include this information on that page. Hmm... would you say that this is a series of books? If so, then we could probably have a series page for this under "African American Music (series)", if the first book has enough coverage. It's often easier to justify a series page than individual pages and this would make it a little easier for your students work to survive. Shalor (Wiki Ed) (talk) 19:19, 5 January 2018 (UTC)
This is very helpful, Shalor (Wiki Ed) THANK YOU! I'll do some research on the series route.sheridanford (talk) 21:10, 20 January 2018 (UTC)

Step 5

did I do it? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mdaly8 (talk • contribs) 21:39, 21 January 2018 (UTC)

Hello

Hi Shalor, Thank you for having me! Julie Juhoang (talk) 03:16, 22 January 2018 (UTC)

Viability of adding a section to Bad Feminist article?

Hello Shalor

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

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

Thanks for reading!

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


P.S. I don't see how to delete that duplicate message that appears below. Very sorry about that. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Adaptordie (talk • contribs) 20:30, 21 January 2018 (UTC)

Thank you for the feedback, Shalor! Yes, I think it is accurate to say that she has popularized the term. I am also looking at whitesplaining as a content topic. I see it mentioned in the mansplaining article, but it only exists as a definition on wiktionary. I am not sure the relationship between wikipedia and wiktionary when it comes to my class project here. For example, is editing wiktionary the same or different? I do think that the wiktionary entry could be expanded into a wikipedia article. Even if it can't be, I see ways to improve the entry itself.Adaptordie (talk) 19:43, 22 January 2018 (UTC)

  • @Adaptordie: - Wiktionary is a totally different beast, so all that they'll have are very brief definitions of a term. You wouldn't be able to write an article for it over there. As far as here goes, this would likely be considered a neologism (ie, a very recently created term that hasn't gained a lot of in-depth coverage in scholarly, reliable sources) so you may want to just create a subsection in the mansplaining article that gives a bit more information about the varieties of "splaining" that are out there. I don't think that you could focus solely on whitesplaining, but I do think that a subsection about the various types would be good. I know that this isn't a completely new term, but it's relatively recently used and it can be hard to really gain the needed coverage to justify independent articles on Wikipedia. Shalor (Wiki Ed) (talk) 20:20, 22 January 2018 (UTC)

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

Error code when citing

Hi Shalor,

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

Cheers. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bdobrish (talk • contribs) 03:40, 23 January 2018 (UTC)

(talk page watcher) Hello, Bdobrish. There was a line feed as the 37th character of |title= in your citation. Jonesey95 fixed it for you. — JJMC89 (T·C) 05:24, 23 January 2018 (UTC)
  • Thank you JJMC89! Bdobrish, what basically happened is that the title of your source "The Charlottetown Conference and its Significance in Canadian History" appeared like this:
The Charlottetown Conference and its
Significance in Canadian History
In other words, the title was split into two lines, like someone had pressed the enter key in the middle of the title. It looks like this was done as a result of the way the journal article's title was set up. The only thing to really do to prevent this in the future is make sure that the title is all in one line. (No worries about this happening - it's happened to us all at some point.) Shalor (Wiki Ed) (talk) 15:11, 23 January 2018 (UTC)

Creating a new article.

Hello Shalor,

I am from the Qing China History class at UCSC. I have just finished writing an article about scholar Zhu Yun (1729-1781) and I believe I have submitted it for review. I am still new to this whole process, so is there anyway you could check what is currently going on with the article or when it will actually be created and go live onto Wikipedia? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Yfmai (talk • contribs) 02:01, 25 January 2018 (UTC)

Hello (resolved)

Hello Shalor,

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

Thank you.

Hi! this is Caroline Giovanie

Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/MarsLovesDogs

Please see the above report, which I just closed with comments. Thanks.--Bbb23 (talk) 23:31, 27 January 2018 (UTC)

Whitewashing

Is this article only about paint? Because it was assigned as an article for my Sociology of Gender class and I want to know if I can edit it so that it will also be about Whitewashing in the media/Photoshop/film, etc. --JohnsonB1999 (talk) 20:44, 30 January 2018 (UTC)

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

Need help request from S.sherif (talk)

Hello.

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



--S.sherif (talk) 21:19, 30 January 2018 (UTC)

Need help request from Hmedforth1 (talk)

Hello.

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



--Hmedforth1 (talk) 20:31, 31 January 2018 (UTC) Hanna Medforth

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

Need help request from Reyesluis119 (talk)

Hello.

I need help with...


Viola Casares

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

--Reyesluis119 (talk) 05:13, 1 February 2018 (UTC)

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

Need help request from Ebrault (talk)

Hello.

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



--Ebrault (talk) 16:39, 1 February 2018 (UTC)

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

Chatham Granite Club

Hello! Thanks for all of your tips and suggestions. In regards to the logo, the logo is an interesting case. I designed the logo back in 2016 for social media and the website of the club. That being said the official logo that is used by the club is not it digital form (it's actually a painting on a wall). So this logo is one of many that has been recreated for many different uses. I hope that helps. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Aidenpoole97 (talk • contribs) 02:58, 2 February 2018 (UTC)

  • Thank you - that gives me a lot of relief! I would still recommend that you check in with the club to see if they have the sole rights to that specific image, though - if you created it for them they most likely hold the rights to the image itself. Shalor (Wiki Ed) (talk) 16:06, 2 February 2018 (UTC)

Student checking if image ok to use

I wanted to use the image found here https://www.flickr.com/photos/internetarchivebookimages/14804030313/ to add to an article. I also want to crop it. It says on the page that there are no known copyright restrictions. Is it ok for me to use it and crop it? Gingerpeachy2000 (talk) 17:36, 4 February 2018 (UTC)

(talk page watcher) @Gingerpeachy2000: Yes, you can use it (and crop it). I've uploaded the original to Commons as File:Tommy at the wheel from Spunyarn and spindrift - a sailor boy's log of a voyage out and home in a china tea-clipper (1886).jpg. If you want to crop it, please upload the cropped version separately. — JJMC89 (T·C) 19:36, 4 February 2018 (UTC)
Thank you! Gingerpeachy2000 (talk) 19:42, 4 February 2018 (UTC)

Need help request from MGMoore (talk)

Hi Shalor,

I can't access my sandbox.

--MGMoore (talk) 23:02, 4 February 2018 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Shalor_(Wiki_Ed)/Archive_3&oldid=827871488"