|
Good job leaving a note on my talk page ( [1]). I see you did leave a proper signature ( Wikipedia:Signature), good. Good job with your other edits, including adding the diffs to my talkpage! Also, good job adding yourself to your group ( [2]). Keep up the good job, you are certainly one of the most advanced wiki explorers in our course so far - try making even more edits on Wikipedia to get a feel for it! -- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk to me 23:12, 3 September 2011 (UTC)
That's good enough for this deadline. -- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk to me 16:24, 22 September 2011 (UTC)
Glad to see edits like this, but don't forget to cite your sources. Ideally, each of your sentences will have a footnote cite - this will make it much closer to the GA quality we are aiming for at the end of this assignment. -- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk to me 02:12, 29 September 2011 (UTC)
While you should always reword the text (substantively, see Wikipedia:Close paraphrasing), you should also cite the source you've used, preferably after each sentence (see Wikipedia:Verifiability). If a given sentence is based on more than one source, than you cite more than one source. -- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk to me 16:35, 29 September 2011 (UTC)
Hey, I received your comment on adding a picture to my group's article. I already wanted to, but was unsure what to put on there. What do you think would fit the general gist of the article? Leishanda G. ( talk) 03:07, 3 October 2011 (UTC)Leishanda G.
It seems your article has some references which have been duplicated, and one of those versions is not used. The red text tells you which reference is not used. I've moved them all to the reference section, and organize alphabetically. Make sure there are no duplicates, that all references are used in text, and that each sentence has a reference. Let me know if this helps, -- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk to me 16:28, 5 October 2011 (UTC)
Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia. Although everyone is welcome to contribute to Wikipedia, at least one of
your recent edits, such as the one you made to
Grounds for divorce with
this edit, did not appear to be constructive, and has been
reverted or removed. Please use
the sandbox for any test edits you would like to make, and read the
welcome page to learn more about contributing constructively to this encyclopedia. Thank you.
Tide
rolls
23:25, 7 October 2011 (UTC)
There are several cleanup templates in your article: globalize at top, and bare URLs at the bottom. Try to address those issues, and then remove the templates when you think you've dealt with them. I hope this helps, -- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk to me 02:54, 8 October 2011 (UTC)
If this is the first article that you have created, you may want to read the guide to writing your first article.
You may want to consider using the Article Wizard to help you create articles.
Hello, I notice that you recently created a new page, "grounds for divorce" in other countries:. First, thank you for your contribution; Wikipedia relies solely on the efforts of volunteers such as yourself. Unfortunately, the page you created covers a topic on which we already have a page - Grounds_for_divorce_in_other_countries. Because of the duplication, your article has been tagged for speedy deletion. Please note that this is not a comment on you personally and we hope you will continue helping to improve Wikipedia. If the topic of the article you created is one that interests you, then perhaps you would like to help out at Grounds_for_divorce_in_other_countries - you might like to discuss new information at the article's talk page.
If you think that the article you created should remain separate, contest the deletion by clicking on the button labelled "Click here to contest this speedy deletion". Doing so will take you to the talk page where you will find a pre-formatted place for you to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. You can also visit the page's talk page directly to give your reasons, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the page meets the criterion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the page that would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, you can contact one of these administrators to request that the administrator userfy the page or email a copy to you. Additionally if you would like to have someone review articles you create before they go live so they are not nominated for deletion shortly after you post them, allow me to suggest the article creation process and using our search feature to find related information we already have in the encyclopedia. Try not to be discouraged. Wikipedia looks forward to your future contributions. AstroCog ( talk) 02:01, 21 October 2011 (UTC)
A good start. But several things need to be done before this can be considered for extra credit:
I'd suggest you reconsider this article as " grounds for divorce". You could briefly summarize parts of your US article, saying what grounds for divorce are, and how they are treated in the US. Then, you could have your current section as a counterpart, discussing this issue worldwide. -- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk to me 02:32, 21 October 2011 (UTC)
Thank you for your suggestions. I will start working on this article asap.-- Nas132 ( talk) 09:17, 21 October 2011 (UTC)
Please see this paragraph. This gives a good explanation of the underlying issue, and there is a larger article on the details of it. I'd strongly suggest you look at all of your edits, and if you think others need change, rewrite them now. I'll put off my review for a few hours, so if you fix all the remaining issues before I get back to my review, and if all is fixed by then, I won't need to adjust the credit points. Let me know if anything is still not clear. -- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk to me 01:01, 22 October 2011 (UTC)
Encouraging sign of progress: [7]. Keep up the good job, -- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk to me 20:41, 22 October 2011 (UTC)
Please note you have a response waiting at User_talk:Nikkimaria (not all wiki editors will reply at your talk page, unfortunately). -- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk to me 16:42, 29 October 2011 (UTC)
Hi Nas132,
Firstly, I would like to clarify that I did not "fail" the article's nomination. It was removed from the list because too much time has lapsed since the article's nomination, and it can no longer be considered as a new article. And as for "reconsider giving us that nomination", no editor has the power to do that, me included. This is because it cannot meet DYK's key criterion of being less than 5 days old. It can only be reconsidered after it has been expanded 5x again.
I also owe you an apology for passing the article too readily previously. I passed the article by assuming good faith that editors would not plagiarize, because I could not find the reference materials. However, after a re-assessment by another editor, it was discovered that the page contained many instances of plagiarism, and the editor failed it. Although we (me and other editors) can see that you have put in a lot of effort into solving the problem, we still cannot be completely sure that all instances of plagiarism have been solved because, as mentioned earlier, we do not have assess to all reference materials. And since there is a history of plagiarism, we cannot simply just assume good faith again.
In addition, although this article cannot be featured as part of DYK, it can still be improved up to the FA-class standard. Achieving this standard allows the article to be featured on the main page, and its editors will also be credited. Therefore, do not be disheartened by this failure and try to improve it to this standard. Lastly, please try to avoid instances of plagiarism in future edits. There is a previous Signpost article about plagiarism should you want to know more. If you need any further help in future, I will always be willing to do so, just drop me a message on my talk page. Happy editing!-- Lionratz ( talk) 13:26, 8 November 2011 (UTC)
I did not receive any email. -- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk to me 16:15, 8 November 2011 (UTC)
If she comes to our next class, please stay as a group and we can talk about it. Till then, I suggest you try to correct her mistakes, and this is going to reflect both on your grades (positively) and on hers (not so much). -- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk to me 00:57, 14 November 2011 (UTC)
I will be reviewing the articles within the next couple of days. You are welcome to ask the Good Article reviewer for extra comments, and if you addressed anything s/he asked you to, you should declare so in the review itself. Keep up the good job! -- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk to me 00:03, 16 November 2011 (UTC)
Hey! I've been researching material for this section, but relevant info is difficult to find (it seems more of a focus has been placed on the history of divorce, rather than the background on the grounds for it...at least from what I've been able to find). I'll still look up things this weekend, but hopefully we'll be able to get the extension so that the article can become more comprehensive. Ntj2 ( talk) 16:53, 18 November 2011 (UTC)
I suggest reading the source material, and then letting the ideas 'marinate' in your head. Don't write down any of the information you've read for at least ten minutes, just think about it. After that, try writing the relevant info, but putting it into your own words... How would you explain the topic to someone who is wholly unfamiliar with it? Try writing in that vein. Re: grammar issues… Since you can't access the writing center, perhaps you can make spell-check your friend, instead. You can turn on grammar check/readability stats, which will give you a better idea of where you've gone wrong. Maybe you could ask someone in the English department, too? If I get a chance, I could also look over your section ('no-fault,' yes?) Ntj2 ( talk) 17:47, 18 November 2011 (UTC)
Hey Natalie,
It's easiest to reach me by email or text (but I only answer emails when I'm on campus...generally on T/Th). I think it might help to bring a copy of the Wiki 'plain english' tutorial w/ you to the center, since that appears to be our issue. The article seems to have too much of a school/essay feel, rather than the encyclopedic tone that we apparently need. Ntj2 ( talk) 15:47, 21 November 2011 (UTC)
I'm at my internship, so I can't print it out. The reviewer said we should look over the MoS page, though (s/he links to it on the discussion page). Ntj2 ( talk) 16:00, 21 November 2011 (UTC)
"Plain English (sometimes referred to more broadly as plain language) is a generic term for communication styles that emphasise clarity, brevity and the avoidance of technical language – particularly in relation to official government communication, including laws. The intention is to write in a manner that is easily understood by the target audience: appropriate to their reading skills and knowledge, clear and direct, free of cliché and unnecessary jargon." --WP MoS
Basically, we need to 'dumb down' the article and fix the remaining (questionable...) grammar issues. Ntj2 ( talk) 16:06, 21 November 2011 (UTC)
Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current
Arbitration Committee election. The
Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia
arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability 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, you are welcome to
review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on
the voting page. For the Election committee,
MediaWiki message delivery (
talk)
16:52, 24 November 2015 (UTC)
|
Good job leaving a note on my talk page ( [1]). I see you did leave a proper signature ( Wikipedia:Signature), good. Good job with your other edits, including adding the diffs to my talkpage! Also, good job adding yourself to your group ( [2]). Keep up the good job, you are certainly one of the most advanced wiki explorers in our course so far - try making even more edits on Wikipedia to get a feel for it! -- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk to me 23:12, 3 September 2011 (UTC)
That's good enough for this deadline. -- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk to me 16:24, 22 September 2011 (UTC)
Glad to see edits like this, but don't forget to cite your sources. Ideally, each of your sentences will have a footnote cite - this will make it much closer to the GA quality we are aiming for at the end of this assignment. -- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk to me 02:12, 29 September 2011 (UTC)
While you should always reword the text (substantively, see Wikipedia:Close paraphrasing), you should also cite the source you've used, preferably after each sentence (see Wikipedia:Verifiability). If a given sentence is based on more than one source, than you cite more than one source. -- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk to me 16:35, 29 September 2011 (UTC)
Hey, I received your comment on adding a picture to my group's article. I already wanted to, but was unsure what to put on there. What do you think would fit the general gist of the article? Leishanda G. ( talk) 03:07, 3 October 2011 (UTC)Leishanda G.
It seems your article has some references which have been duplicated, and one of those versions is not used. The red text tells you which reference is not used. I've moved them all to the reference section, and organize alphabetically. Make sure there are no duplicates, that all references are used in text, and that each sentence has a reference. Let me know if this helps, -- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk to me 16:28, 5 October 2011 (UTC)
Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia. Although everyone is welcome to contribute to Wikipedia, at least one of
your recent edits, such as the one you made to
Grounds for divorce with
this edit, did not appear to be constructive, and has been
reverted or removed. Please use
the sandbox for any test edits you would like to make, and read the
welcome page to learn more about contributing constructively to this encyclopedia. Thank you.
Tide
rolls
23:25, 7 October 2011 (UTC)
There are several cleanup templates in your article: globalize at top, and bare URLs at the bottom. Try to address those issues, and then remove the templates when you think you've dealt with them. I hope this helps, -- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk to me 02:54, 8 October 2011 (UTC)
If this is the first article that you have created, you may want to read the guide to writing your first article.
You may want to consider using the Article Wizard to help you create articles.
Hello, I notice that you recently created a new page, "grounds for divorce" in other countries:. First, thank you for your contribution; Wikipedia relies solely on the efforts of volunteers such as yourself. Unfortunately, the page you created covers a topic on which we already have a page - Grounds_for_divorce_in_other_countries. Because of the duplication, your article has been tagged for speedy deletion. Please note that this is not a comment on you personally and we hope you will continue helping to improve Wikipedia. If the topic of the article you created is one that interests you, then perhaps you would like to help out at Grounds_for_divorce_in_other_countries - you might like to discuss new information at the article's talk page.
If you think that the article you created should remain separate, contest the deletion by clicking on the button labelled "Click here to contest this speedy deletion". Doing so will take you to the talk page where you will find a pre-formatted place for you to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. You can also visit the page's talk page directly to give your reasons, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the page meets the criterion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the page that would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, you can contact one of these administrators to request that the administrator userfy the page or email a copy to you. Additionally if you would like to have someone review articles you create before they go live so they are not nominated for deletion shortly after you post them, allow me to suggest the article creation process and using our search feature to find related information we already have in the encyclopedia. Try not to be discouraged. Wikipedia looks forward to your future contributions. AstroCog ( talk) 02:01, 21 October 2011 (UTC)
A good start. But several things need to be done before this can be considered for extra credit:
I'd suggest you reconsider this article as " grounds for divorce". You could briefly summarize parts of your US article, saying what grounds for divorce are, and how they are treated in the US. Then, you could have your current section as a counterpart, discussing this issue worldwide. -- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk to me 02:32, 21 October 2011 (UTC)
Thank you for your suggestions. I will start working on this article asap.-- Nas132 ( talk) 09:17, 21 October 2011 (UTC)
Please see this paragraph. This gives a good explanation of the underlying issue, and there is a larger article on the details of it. I'd strongly suggest you look at all of your edits, and if you think others need change, rewrite them now. I'll put off my review for a few hours, so if you fix all the remaining issues before I get back to my review, and if all is fixed by then, I won't need to adjust the credit points. Let me know if anything is still not clear. -- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk to me 01:01, 22 October 2011 (UTC)
Encouraging sign of progress: [7]. Keep up the good job, -- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk to me 20:41, 22 October 2011 (UTC)
Please note you have a response waiting at User_talk:Nikkimaria (not all wiki editors will reply at your talk page, unfortunately). -- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk to me 16:42, 29 October 2011 (UTC)
Hi Nas132,
Firstly, I would like to clarify that I did not "fail" the article's nomination. It was removed from the list because too much time has lapsed since the article's nomination, and it can no longer be considered as a new article. And as for "reconsider giving us that nomination", no editor has the power to do that, me included. This is because it cannot meet DYK's key criterion of being less than 5 days old. It can only be reconsidered after it has been expanded 5x again.
I also owe you an apology for passing the article too readily previously. I passed the article by assuming good faith that editors would not plagiarize, because I could not find the reference materials. However, after a re-assessment by another editor, it was discovered that the page contained many instances of plagiarism, and the editor failed it. Although we (me and other editors) can see that you have put in a lot of effort into solving the problem, we still cannot be completely sure that all instances of plagiarism have been solved because, as mentioned earlier, we do not have assess to all reference materials. And since there is a history of plagiarism, we cannot simply just assume good faith again.
In addition, although this article cannot be featured as part of DYK, it can still be improved up to the FA-class standard. Achieving this standard allows the article to be featured on the main page, and its editors will also be credited. Therefore, do not be disheartened by this failure and try to improve it to this standard. Lastly, please try to avoid instances of plagiarism in future edits. There is a previous Signpost article about plagiarism should you want to know more. If you need any further help in future, I will always be willing to do so, just drop me a message on my talk page. Happy editing!-- Lionratz ( talk) 13:26, 8 November 2011 (UTC)
I did not receive any email. -- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk to me 16:15, 8 November 2011 (UTC)
If she comes to our next class, please stay as a group and we can talk about it. Till then, I suggest you try to correct her mistakes, and this is going to reflect both on your grades (positively) and on hers (not so much). -- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk to me 00:57, 14 November 2011 (UTC)
I will be reviewing the articles within the next couple of days. You are welcome to ask the Good Article reviewer for extra comments, and if you addressed anything s/he asked you to, you should declare so in the review itself. Keep up the good job! -- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk to me 00:03, 16 November 2011 (UTC)
Hey! I've been researching material for this section, but relevant info is difficult to find (it seems more of a focus has been placed on the history of divorce, rather than the background on the grounds for it...at least from what I've been able to find). I'll still look up things this weekend, but hopefully we'll be able to get the extension so that the article can become more comprehensive. Ntj2 ( talk) 16:53, 18 November 2011 (UTC)
I suggest reading the source material, and then letting the ideas 'marinate' in your head. Don't write down any of the information you've read for at least ten minutes, just think about it. After that, try writing the relevant info, but putting it into your own words... How would you explain the topic to someone who is wholly unfamiliar with it? Try writing in that vein. Re: grammar issues… Since you can't access the writing center, perhaps you can make spell-check your friend, instead. You can turn on grammar check/readability stats, which will give you a better idea of where you've gone wrong. Maybe you could ask someone in the English department, too? If I get a chance, I could also look over your section ('no-fault,' yes?) Ntj2 ( talk) 17:47, 18 November 2011 (UTC)
Hey Natalie,
It's easiest to reach me by email or text (but I only answer emails when I'm on campus...generally on T/Th). I think it might help to bring a copy of the Wiki 'plain english' tutorial w/ you to the center, since that appears to be our issue. The article seems to have too much of a school/essay feel, rather than the encyclopedic tone that we apparently need. Ntj2 ( talk) 15:47, 21 November 2011 (UTC)
I'm at my internship, so I can't print it out. The reviewer said we should look over the MoS page, though (s/he links to it on the discussion page). Ntj2 ( talk) 16:00, 21 November 2011 (UTC)
"Plain English (sometimes referred to more broadly as plain language) is a generic term for communication styles that emphasise clarity, brevity and the avoidance of technical language – particularly in relation to official government communication, including laws. The intention is to write in a manner that is easily understood by the target audience: appropriate to their reading skills and knowledge, clear and direct, free of cliché and unnecessary jargon." --WP MoS
Basically, we need to 'dumb down' the article and fix the remaining (questionable...) grammar issues. Ntj2 ( talk) 16:06, 21 November 2011 (UTC)
Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current
Arbitration Committee election. The
Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia
arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability 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, you are welcome to
review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on
the voting page. For the Election committee,
MediaWiki message delivery (
talk)
16:52, 24 November 2015 (UTC)