User talk:Rojast07

Your first edits
Good job adding yourself to your group. Keep up the good job, don't forget to carry out other parts of the assignment, and try making more edits on Wikipedia to get a feel for it! --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus&#124; talk to me 23:21, 3 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Good job so far. Please note that the first deadline also required edits to the sandbox and to an article's talk page. Let me know when you do them if you want me to consider them for extra credit (it is too late to do them for the deadline). --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus&#124; talk to me 22:35, 12 September 2011 (UTC)

September 2011
Welcome to Wikipedia. Although everyone is welcome to contribute constructively to the encyclopedia, adding or significantly changing content without citing a reliable source is not consistent with our policy of verifiability. Take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. If you are familiar with Citing sources, please take this opportunity to add references to the article. —  Jeff G. ツ (talk)   02:02, 19 September 2011 (UTC)

Please do not remove content or templates from pages on Wikipedia, as you did to Family honor with this edit, without giving a valid reason for the removal in the edit summary. Your content removal does not appear constructive, and has been reverted. Please make use of the sandbox if you'd like to experiment with test edits. Thank you. —  Jeff G. ツ (talk)   02:04, 19 September 2011 (UTC)

Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to blank out or remove portions of page content, templates or other materials from Wikipedia, as you did to Family honor with this edit, you may be blocked from editing. —  Jeff G. ツ (talk)   02:05, 19 September 2011 (UTC)


 * Please note that Wikipedia is a collaborative project, and other editors will make additional edits. While we appreciate the improvements to the articles, the fact that you are a student doing this for a class does not require Wikipedia to change its nature to facilitate that - instead, it's up to you to understand how best to work within a collaborative environment.
 * For example, if you save intermediate edits to a page, other editors are perfectly within their rights to modify those edits. You do not own the articles, and cannot mandate that others leave them alone until you are done. Instead, it may be beneficial to draft all of your edits prior to saving them (for example, instead of clicking "Save page", you can click "Show preview").  Alternately, you might find it beneficial to draft all your edits within a subpage of your own namespace, such as at User:Rojast07/sandbox - where you can save all your intermediate edits, then copy your completed draft over to the live article after you've completed all of your change. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 02:24, 19 September 2011 (UTC)

Faith, I reviewed your edits (they are still in article's history, so you don't have to worry that your effort is wasted). I see what you are trying to do. Where you put the parenthsis, like (28), you should put the reference itself, with the proper page number, link to the page, and a distinct name. Where you put a reference, the footnote will appear (so since you put the code at the top of the page, if you look here at how it looked after you saved the page, you see the footnote [1] appears at the very beginning of the article - not where you wanted it, is it? Now, you used the following code:

Compare it to

I changed the reference name, to reflect the page number, added the full title to the title, added a url parameter to the google book page, added the book access date, and fixed the book number. Now, try to add this reference for other pages (hint: just change the page numbers in the name, url and page parameter). If you want to play with it without risking a revert, or somebody finishing the task for you, like that did at the divorce page, use a sandbox, or preview the page, as Barek mentioned above, till you are satisfied that your live page edit will not need any further tweaks. PS. If you can fix the citation in the family honor article within the next few days, I will consider it for the use-cite-templates extra credit assignment. Keep up with experimenting! --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus&#124; talk to me 03:41, 19 September 2011 (UTC)

Talkback
Sorry about the warnings, but it's improper to keep removing info without explanation. —  Jeff G. ツ (talk)   15:04, 19 September 2011 (UTC)

Plagiarism issue
Faith, will you be able to address the close-paraphrasing problem in your section ASAP? I will try my best to fix it but you are most familiar with that source... Esery (talk) 13:36, 17 October 2011 (UTC)
 * As I mentioned in class today, this is quite serious. I expect your work in the future will be sufficient to address those problems. See also here; this does threaten your Did You Know assignment attempt. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus&#124; talk to me 21:20, 17 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Thank you for your note on my page but I am concerned that you are not listening. You seem to imply that because you took a lot of effort to copy other people's work then we should allow you to do this. I do hope I misunderstand your suggestion. If you really believe this then can you not see that anyone looking at your academic qualifications should discount their value as they may just be the result of self justified plagiarism. Victuallers (talk) 06:37, 22 October 2011 (UTC)


 * Please add correct page references to your edits. For example, all deSilva content is claimed to come from page 336, but I see that in fact much of it comes from the pages in the 20-40 range. Most sentences in the first para of the "Group values" are missing a reference, it needs to be added, and this para - for example - has too much close paraphrasing to page 41 in the book (ex. "[synonym] [synonym] from any activities [dropped word] that will hinder the group's survival", or "Groups will use considerations of [slight paraphrase] to reinforce [word moved] [synonym] what behaviors and goals [synonym] [tense] [word moved]"). Please reword your additions further, or they will be treated like plagiarism. Remember: Close paraphrasing is plagiarism. You're not that far from being able to properly rewrite your edits, so it would be a shame to keep them at the current problematic level. Replace all not jargon words with synonyms, change the sentences structure further, and reference all sentences properly. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus&#124; talk to me 16:42, 22 October 2011 (UTC)
 * I am afraid that as I see no sign of trying to fix or even comment on the problems, I have to start applying the grade adjustment as noted in our class announcements. For now, this concerns the one sentence I cite above, but I'll do a more throughout review tomorrow.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus&#124; talk to me 15:06, 24 October 2011 (UTC)

I made edits last night, if you hadn't noticed concerning the plagiarism issue. I had changed the words around and tried to cite more. I have made further edits in attempt to correctly cite and put things into my own words. Let me know if my changes were significant enough. If not, I will further review my edits and finalize them tomorrow. Also, as far as my references go (throughout the paragraphs, and in the references list) is this correct? One question I have is about the multiple references that show up in the references list. Is that okay or is there a way to cite the references in a more condensed form? Thanks. Rojast07 (talk) 23:15, 24 October 2011 (UTC)
 * I think it is ok to have multiple references if they refer to multiple pages (I can help you with references later tonight), I looked at your edits and what a nice development to the article. I didn't get a chance to read all parts in detail but so far it looks good! Thanks Esery (talk) 15:40, 25 October 2011 (UTC)
 * I am glad to see the new edits, they are indeed an improvement. It is fine to have multiple reference to a sentence, if that sentence is based on multiple sources (so "xxx [1][2][3]" is ok). There are still some references in your article that have missing page numbers (See the list of references and which have the [page needed] tag - you can remove it after you've added the page numbers). There are also sentences that are not referenced, for example in Gener Roles, the first two sentences are not referenced, in Family Honor within Society, the first one, and more in the middle of several paragraphs. You will also want to revise the structure of the sentences, just changing a few synonyms is not enough. See the discussion at Template:Did you know nominations/Grounds for divorce for some useful examples. Oh, and some of your links were currently broken ("http://http://" is wrong - one "http://" is all you need, I'll fix them for you now, but in the future, please ensure the links work (and that they point to a specific page), compare: good link to p.131 and bad link to p.133, but in reality, the latter one just gives you the front cover; you can get page links by clicking the link button in the top right of the page view, and you can then get a nice template by using the link I posted on courseweb ; those tools can automate page citation generation to just a few seconds (copy link from GB, paste it to reftag, run it, copy the result, paste it to the article, you are done). PS. Thanks for the note on my talk page, that always speeds up my response. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus&#124; talk to me 17:28, 25 October 2011 (UTC)

Okay, I don't have time currently to fix it, but I will get to it by the end of tomorrow night. I'm unsure besides in Gender Roles which sentences still need to be changed. I referenced the book to make sure they were structured differently and a lot of the sentences were changed before I got a chance to edit them so the revisions of mine are only further revisions of someone else in changing the words. Are there many sentences? Because I made an effort to check the books so that they were different? I'm wondering specifically which sentences you are talking about? Rojast07 (talk) 21:07, 25 October 2011 (UTC)
 * The ones that are too similar to the source. See for example the top comment at the Template:Did you know nominations/Family honor. Note that your DYK nomination still has a chance of passing, if you address the close paraphrasing issue within the next few days. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus&#124; talk to me 23:24, 28 October 2011 (UTC)

Relevant books
Here are the two I mentioned earlier: http://books.google.com/books?id=uZi0V_mlCckC&pg=PA170&dq=family+honor+asia&hl=en&ei=rZ-5ToayIuexiQKRgs3BBA&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=8&ved=0CE4Q6AEwBzgK#v=onepage&q=family%20honor%20asia&f=false page 170 is relevant to your discussion about honor is inherited through male kin and http://books.google.com/books?id=Ek3fSY7jRDcC&pg=PA42#v=onepage&q&f=false page 42 is linked but discussion starts around p29 Esery (talk) 21:23, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

http://www.culturediversity.org/hisp.htm

Rojast07 (talk) 21:43, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

Replied
At Talk:Family_honor. You may want to leave a message on reviewer's talk page to ensure he is also aware of your comment at the talk/review page. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus&#124; talk to me 02:47, 26 November 2011 (UTC)