Wikipedia talk:Canada Education Program/Courses/Present/Genetics in Everyday Life (Tom Haffie)
Welcome to the talk page!
[edit]This is a place where you can ask questions, talk about problems, and discuss the Wikipedia assignment with classmates and other Wikipedians. Nikkimaria (talk) 20:22, 11 January 2012 (UTC)
Idiots
[edit]I'm running into a problem with too many idiots reverting my edits in the Ragnarok Online article. Reflecting back on regular moron behavior, I predict the next thing they'll do is ignore my logic, and ban me. What happens to my grading, if I get banned by idiots? Zeteg (talk) 07:03, 31 January 2012 (UTC)
- Hi Zeteg. The best way for you to avoid being banned would be to calm down, read WP:3RR and discuss on the talk page instead of continuing to revert. Even if you're right, Wikipedia is still consensus-driven, so you need to talk it out first before you get yourself into hot water. If you do end up being blocked we can talk about how that will affect your assignment/grade, but I think it would be much better if that didn't happen. (Oh, and please don't refer to other people as "idiots" and "morons", because that's also problematic). Nikkimaria (talk) 13:08, 31 January 2012 (UTC)
- The definition of moron and idiot are pretty clear - and that's obviously what he is. I deleted the article because it violates WP:Primary - do you disagree? He reverted it. It seems to me, that he's vandalizing the page. Oh, and personal attacks are completely valid, when a person keeps generating stupid ideas. Past stupid points/ideas are wonderful precedence for predicting current/future idea quality. That's why judges differentiate between first/second/third offence. It's not the severity of the crime, but also the quality of the person. Zeteg (talk) 03:08, 1 February 2012 (UTC)
- Personal attacks can be technically correct without being morally correct- a semantic distinction that will lead to trouble in these circumstances. There are two different editors reverting you at that page, so it's in your best interest to engage in discussion rather than reverting, whether you are right or wrong, as his edits are not considered vandalism. Nikkimaria (talk) 03:43, 1 February 2012 (UTC)
- This is No Child Left Behind all over again. Zeteg (talk) 08:15, 1 February 2012 (UTC)
- Look, Kris, you made a few mistakes. First of all, you quoted and referenced your own blog. Second of all, you're misundertanding the rules of wikipedia. The argument that the other people are making is that it is not enough to say that A is true and this other article says that somethiing that is A must also be B, therefore this thing is B. You need a verifiable source which specifically states that that inference is true. You cannot make any of your own inferences. Setsanto (talk) 18:03, 1 February 2012 (UTC)
- Zeteg. The "Any 5 Edits" Exercise in this course is intended to encourage members of the class to make edits to articles that they were familiar with - just to get used to editing before they turned to the less familiar topics in Genetics. If you can't bring this edit war to a peaceful close very soon, I'll have to ask you to take the fight elsewhere. I can credit you with the initial edit but I don't want to clutter this page with back and forthing and judgements of other wikipedians intelligence. PS. It will be hard to earn additional credit for the Wikipedia project if you are banned. TomHaffie (talk) 02:22, 2 February 2012 (UTC)
- Look, Kris, you made a few mistakes. First of all, you quoted and referenced your own blog. Second of all, you're misundertanding the rules of wikipedia. The argument that the other people are making is that it is not enough to say that A is true and this other article says that somethiing that is A must also be B, therefore this thing is B. You need a verifiable source which specifically states that that inference is true. You cannot make any of your own inferences. Setsanto (talk) 18:03, 1 February 2012 (UTC)
- This is No Child Left Behind all over again. Zeteg (talk) 08:15, 1 February 2012 (UTC)
- Personal attacks can be technically correct without being morally correct- a semantic distinction that will lead to trouble in these circumstances. There are two different editors reverting you at that page, so it's in your best interest to engage in discussion rather than reverting, whether you are right or wrong, as his edits are not considered vandalism. Nikkimaria (talk) 03:43, 1 February 2012 (UTC)
- The definition of moron and idiot are pretty clear - and that's obviously what he is. I deleted the article because it violates WP:Primary - do you disagree? He reverted it. It seems to me, that he's vandalizing the page. Oh, and personal attacks are completely valid, when a person keeps generating stupid ideas. Past stupid points/ideas are wonderful precedence for predicting current/future idea quality. That's why judges differentiate between first/second/third offence. It's not the severity of the crime, but also the quality of the person. Zeteg (talk) 03:08, 1 February 2012 (UTC)
Suggestions
[edit]Please make your students aware of:
- WP:COPYVIO and WP:CLOSEPARAPHRASE.
- WP:MEDMOS, WP:MEDRS and this dispatch on how to locate reliable sources for medical articles; medical articles aren't typically sourced to the laypress or to primary studies.
Removing copyvio and text sourced improperly to primary studies across multiple medical articles is time-consuming-- please review these basics with your students. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 08:45, 14 April 2012 (UTC)