User talk:HUM105

Welcome!
Hello, HUM105, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Unfortunately, one of your contributions does not conform to Wikipedia's Neutral Point of View policy (NPOV). Wikipedia articles should refer only to facts and interpretations that have been stated in print or on reputable websites or other forms of media.

There's a page about the NPOV policy that has tips on how to effectively write about disparate points of view without compromising the NPOV status of the article as a whole. If you are stuck, and looking for help, please come to the New contributors' help page, where experienced Wikipedians can answer any queries you have! Or, to ask for help on your talk page, and a volunteer should respond shortly. Below are a few other good links for newcomers: I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes ( ~ ); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you have any questions, check out Questions or ask me on my talk page. Again, welcome! —C.Fred (talk) 02:01, 15 March 2017 (UTC)
 * The five pillars of Wikipedia
 * Contributing to Wikipedia
 * How to edit a page
 * Help pages
 * Tutorial
 * How to write a great article
 * Simplified Manual of Style

March 2017
Please do not add commentary or your own personal analysis to Wikipedia articles, as you did to Inspiration porn. Doing so violates Wikipedia's neutral point of view policy and breaches the formal tone expected in an encyclopedia. Thank you. GABgab 02:26, 15 March 2017 (UTC)

Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to violate Wikipedia's neutral point of view policy by adding commentary and your personal analysis into articles, as you did at Inspiration porn, you may be blocked from editing. Additionally, the article should really be based on secondary sources, not YouTube videos of the person who coined the term. —C.Fred (talk) 02:42, 15 March 2017 (UTC)

You may be blocked from editing without further warning the next time you violate Wikipedia's neutral point of view policy by inserting commentary or your personal analysis into an article, as you did at Inspiration porn. —C.Fred (talk) 03:15, 15 March 2017 (UTC)

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 31 hours for persistently making disruptive edits. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions. If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you may request an unblock by first reading the guide to appealing blocks, then adding the following text to the bottom of your talk page:. DMacks (talk) 03:16, 15 March 2017 (UTC)

Hi, I am the instructor for this HUM 105 course, Intercultural Communication. My students have been working in groups to post articles. I am trying to read through these comments to understand what happened with the "Inspiration Porn" article. Some more useful, constructive information would be helpful.

With that said, I actually decided to cancel their assignment. Although you may not have intended this, referring to one of my students as "semi-literate" mocks international students who are learning a new language in a new country. I do not appreciate your administrators mocking the English of one my students. This is a learning experience for everyone and the continued posting of their edits was in no way a means to be disruptive, but rather to understand what was going on. He did the best he could with a site that is not the most user friendly. I fully respect Wikipedia's five pillars and policies, but bigotry is unacceptable. I do not want to subject anymore of my students to this form of mistreatment.


 * Sharing accounts, such as between instructor and student or among students, is strictly against our terms of service. You may want to better aquaint yourself with the policies and rules of any resources you use in a class prior to deploying it for your and their use. The Education program would be a good place to start, as they have infrastructure, help-sheets, and well-tested best practices ready to go. DMacks (talk) 17:23, 15 March 2017 (UTC)


 * But MER-C is right, that the request was not well written, which does not make a strong statement that this person is ready to contribute to a "live" encyclopedia. DMacks (talk) 17:25, 15 March 2017 (UTC)

Hi DMacks, I read everything I could find about using Wikipedia as an assignment (there is a lot to read) and did not see anything about this policy. Your feedback is noted. With that said, your dismissive response about calling an ESL student "semi-literate" actually validates my interpretation of MER-C's response. There actually is a difference between writing a formal article and having to, on the spot, interact with a person who holds an administrative function for the company. When English is not your primary language, the latter can be very difficult. Your comments demonstrate that Wikipedia administrators 1) don't know the difference between formal and conversational writing, and 2) don't have the basic skills to communicate in a respectful and constructive manner (which seems to violate your own guidelines for the Talk page). What this indicates to me is that Wikipedia is not a great learning space for students. I will not be assigning something like this again, and I will advise other instructors to do the same.
 * English language competency is a requirement for contributing constructively here. Even in informal communication, I expect the other party to string together a sentence and punctuate and capitalize correctly for the most part. This was barely understandable. I find that the informal communication is a better guide to someone's English skills, because in article space one could just copy and paste from elsewhere (against our policies) to compensate for language difficulties.


 * And yes, I agree that Wikipedia is not a great place to learn English. MER-C 00:39, 16 March 2017 (UTC)