User talk:Nas132

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Welcome to Wikipedia!!![edit]

Hello Nas132! Welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. If you decide that you need help, check out Wikipedia:Where to ask a question, ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Please remember to sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. Below are some recommended guidelines to facilitate your involvement. Happy Editing! Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk to me 23:12, 3 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Getting Started
Getting your info out there
Getting more Wikipedia rules
Getting help
Getting along
Getting technical


Your first edits[edit]

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)[reply]

Good job leaving me the diiff,] but don't forget to sign your wiki talk posts properly. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk to me 19:38, 6 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Re: [3]. The edit itself is sound, but it is not "adding a citation", it is "adding a request for citation". --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk to me 03:15, 8 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Regarding your question about the reference: an excellent point. It is part of this assignment that you learn how to seek information outside Wikipedia. You could try looking at the article history, seeing who added the information, and asking him/her for a source. But it is much easier to search the web for the information, Google Books and Google should provide the answer. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk to me 17:09, 8 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Good start. Note several problems: 1) the link is broken (you appended Main_Page after the url, breaking it) 2) you need to add description to the link. I'd suggest you use [User:Dispenser/Reflinks this tool], and manually add whatever is missing. Or if the tool is too complex (we can look at it after the lecture tommorrow), just do it manually (see Template:Cite web) 3) the main problem is that the website you use is not reliable. It is a WordPress site (read: blog), maintained by somebody calling themselves "Jack". This is not a source you can trust. I'll again suggest you try using Google Books instead. When you find a source you want to cite, you can use this nice generator to generate a full citation. Learning how to find reliable sources and cite them is crucial for many jobs. Again, feel free to ask me questions on wiki, through email or in the class. Keep up experimenting; high activity can result in extra credit points! --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk to me 23:33, 8 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, a closer review suggests that it was that other site (blog) that plagiarized from Wikipedia. Numbers like [2] are a dead giveaway for that (this is what happens when somebody copies footnoted cites from Wikipedia and pastes them into another editor). There are many sites that reuse Wikipedia content without attribution, there are even some people who try to con others by selling them such content (up to and including in the book format). Learning how to recognize such repackaged Wikipedia content is another useful skill to have. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk to me 00:08, 9 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Excellent job so far; I've awarded you an extra 1.5 credit points for being one of the most active Wikipedia editors in our class! --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk to me 22:26, 12 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Hmm, you are getting there. It seems to me you are attempting to cite a web page, but the url points to the generic Hillman Library website ([4]). I cannot offer further comments on the source till the url is fixed. Let me know when you've done so! PS. If it is a book or an article you found through the library, you should be able to add a link to the journal article on the web, or to the book in the Google Books collection. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk to me 22:51, 13 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The link still does not work, the formatting tells me it is trying to access some target page through U of Pitt intranet, and redirects me to here. Even if I could access it, it will never work for anybody not affiliated with Pitt. Please try to use a link that will work on an computer outside Pitt network. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk to me 23:09, 13 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, thank you for fixing, your last edit did indeed insert the correct link. If you are citing a book, I suggest you use the Template:Cite book instead of Cite web in the future. Unfortunately, I had to revert your edit once again, because the source was, once again, unreliable, because it is a copy of Wikipedia content: see VDM_Publishing#Wikipedia_content_duplication and Books LLC for some background on this scam. As you can see, even Pitt libraries and Google Books can be duped. Bottom line, you can almost never expect to find content that matches Wikipedia line word to word, and treat it as a good source - it is either Wikipedia plagiarism, plagiarism of Wikipedia, Wikipedia fork, or an old, public domain source in needs of updating. Feel free to chat to me in class about it; I commend you on your continued effort to find a reliable cite for this text! PS. When you make a new edit you'd like me to review, please add a full sentence request to my talk page, rather than just editing the heading, which gives me a rather confusing notification (imagine your email headers changing...). --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk to me 00:23, 14 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Your new reference seems better, but 1) the url is broken - trying to access it, I get the Google Books page; make sure it works 2) the title should not be linked, not unless the book is notable. Let me show you a nifty trick: check out this webpage and try experimenting with it; it can give you nicely formatted refs (sometimes, you need to fill in the blanks, or adjust the pages - make sure that the link you feed to it comes from the Google page link, not the main browser URL. Again, feel free to ask me questions after the class, and you do not HAVE to use this webpage - but personally, I found it a great boon for citing books on Wikipedia). --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk to me 15:03, 14 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Excellent, this time it all works. I've modified the link to point directly to the page in question, but it is not a major issue. Btw, when you reply to something on my (or another) talk page, you do not have to start a new thread (heading) for each reply if you are continuing the conversation, just reply under the old one if the discussion is still relevant to it (like I do here). If you reply to this on my talk page, please consider combining your posts under one heading (delete unnecessary headings; you may need to move some of your comments around to ensure they are not mixed with posts by others). --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk to me 17:12, 14 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

To do list[edit]

That's good enough for this deadline. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk to me 16:24, 22 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Cite your sources[edit]

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)[reply]

Re: wiki ?'s[edit]

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)[reply]

Re: [5]. Don't forget the ref tags needed for making footnotes (see WP:CITE). And make sure to add the page or page range you used. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk to me 23:44, 29 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Family honor review[edit]

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.[reply]

Re: help[edit]

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)[reply]

You can duplicate references - for each full ref name= /ref one, you can have as many short ref/ ones as you want. See Wikipedia:Citing_sources#Repeated_citations. I hope this answers your question more precisely, but let me know if there is more to it. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk to me 16:51, 5 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

October 2011[edit]

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. Tiderolls 23:25, 7 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • Apologies for the templated message above. From my view, I saw you delete cited content leaving an incomplete sentence in the article. It would be helpful if you use the "Show preview" button before saving your edits. Also, indenting added content gloms the format...just so you know. Tiderolls 23:34, 7 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Dealing with templates[edit]

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)[reply]

Your contributed article, "grounds for divorce" in other countries:[edit]

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)[reply]

Grounds for divorce in other countries[edit]

A good start. But several things need to be done before this can be considered for extra credit:

  • title: what is "other countries"?
  • The lead sentence "It is imperative to state" is not good. Take a look at Wikipedia:Lead section, and consider how you can write a proper lead for that article.

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)[reply]

I see that the article has been moved by another editor, who shared my concerns over the name, see [6]. I hope you'll improve the new article per my comments above. I am sure others will help you if you ask them, this topic is, as you can see, of interest to many. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk to me 03:55, 21 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your suggestions. I will start working on this article asap.--Nas132 (talk) 09:17, 21 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Re:Grounds for divorce[edit]

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)[reply]

Here is an example for you. While the first sentence of the para was, I'd say, rewritten well, the second was almost identical, and the third also wasn't rewritten significantly, establishing a pattern that only a few words were changed. This is not good enough, but note how in my edit I've combinted the sentences, and changed their structure. This is a much better rewrite. Please rewrite all of your contributions to at least that extent as soon as possible. Basically, with the exception of legal jargon and such, which cannot be easily replaced, you want all the words to be your own, and you want your sentence structure to be different, too. A good rule of thumb is: "if it is easy to see which sentence of your text originated in which sentence of the original, and if the number and and length of sentences is very similar, you are doing it wrong."--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk to me 01:18, 22 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Encouraging sign of progress: [7]. Keep up the good job, --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk to me 20:41, 22 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I am not sure I understand your question to my talk page. If you mean a link I posted in the DYK discussion ([8]), it is a WP:DIFF link to your recent contributions to the article, showing what you have changed (red is changed). It should help you to find sentences that have not been sufficiently restructures; those are the ones from Nikkimaria's examples. Are the examples she cites not clear? Please fix all the sentences, so that neither she nor I will not be able to find any more examples of sentences that resemble those that are in the source. Again, look at the examples in the Wikipedia:Close paraphrasing. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk to me 17:39, 25 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The tool is not perfect, and it may show more (or less), it is just an approximation. You are of course not required to rewrite content by others, unless you think it has been plagiarized as well. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk to me 18:05, 25 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
There is much improvement. But I noticed that the paragraph that begins now with " However, there are some states that use different terminologies" is sourced to page 9 of the source, but I am not seeing most of the claims on that page (some is on 10). Can you check if all your page ranges are correct? I'll revisit the article and see if I have any further comments once you tell me that all the page ranges are fine. If you need to improve page ranges, don't hesitate to create new references (it is better to have one for page 9 and one for page 10 than just one for both pages). PS. The mentioned paragraph was the first that in [9] struck me as possibly not restructured enough, and thus meriting more careful checking, but I am having trouble with that due to the likely wrong page numbers to source. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk to me 19:57, 25 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Good, fix it and let me know when all other page ranges are correct. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk to me 22:04, 25 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, good to see the right page (I've added a link to it, in the future, try to add such links to your references to make it easier for the readers to visit the source). Please note that this para still has the structure that too closely resembles the original text, and needs to be rewritten. For that para, even the logical words and phrase such as "Regardless" or "in order to" are still present, this is still way too close paraphrasing. Please rewrite this para, and all others that share structure and words with the original text to this extent. If you are having trouble rewriting this paragraph, talk to me after the lecture, but basically, see my example from few days ago above (look for "Here is an example for you"). Also, the word dialect is not used correctly, consider the word terminology instead. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk to me 00:17, 26 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I think that paragraph is rewritten sufficiently. The prose may need tidying up just for the flow and logic, but I think you can now ask Nikkimaria for another look. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk to me 14:32, 28 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

Nikki replied at Template:Did you know nominations/Grounds for divorce. You can ask her to leave you a note on your talk page whenever she posts somewhere else. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk to me 19:26, 29 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I assume she means reference numbers here. In the future, there is nothing wrong with asking others to clarify what they wrote. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk to me 00:31, 30 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I think all is fine now, based on my spot check of the sentences which looked least rewritten. Even they are fine, as far as I can tell :) --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk to me 16:11, 30 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Sure, and make a comment to that extent at DYK page. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk to me 14:30, 31 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
*You can directly comment on the DYK at this page. Froggerlaura (talk) 00:36, 1 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

DYK nomination for Grounds for Divorce[edit]

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)[reply]

In response to your question, the article must first pass many other article ranks that are assessed by the relevant wikiproject(s) (in this case, please refer to Wikiprject Law). After it reaches B-class status, then I can come in. In the first place, I think I can only help with copy-editing, since I am not familiar with this area. However, I will try to do as much as I can. And please be advised that FA-Class is very hard to attain, and requires a lot of dedication on the part of the editor. I know that you are capable of that, after seeing your improvements on this article in such a short time. Happy editing! (PS:I cannot reply to any message until after November 24)--Lionratz (talk) 11:22, 10 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Re: Email[edit]

I did not receive any email. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk to me 16:15, 8 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I can certainly give you advise, online or after the class. We can discuss the details of your grade after the class, too, but overall you are doing well.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk to me 17:15, 8 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding your teammate[edit]

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)[reply]

Re: Grounds for divorce[edit]

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)[reply]

Re: History Section[edit]

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)[reply]

Re: Close paraphrasing/plagiarism[edit]

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)[reply]

Re: Contact[edit]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

"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)[reply]

Seeing how booked the center is, it is fine if you have to leave the class early to make that appointment. Good luck, --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk to me 16:59, 21 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom elections are now open![edit]

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)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Nas132&oldid=1089980081"