User talk:Narahh: Difference between revisions

Content deleted Content added

Inline

Revision as of 21:01, 23 April 2024

This user is a student editor in Rensselaer_Polytechnic_Institute/Biological_Materials_(Spring_2024) .

Welcome!

Hello, Narahh, and welcome to Wikipedia! My name is Ian and I work with Wiki Education; I help support students who are editing as part of a class assignment.

I hope you enjoy editing here. If you haven't already done so, please check out the student training library, which introduces you to editing and Wikipedia's core principles. You may also want to check out the Teahouse, a community of Wikipedia editors dedicated to helping new users. Below are some resources to help you get started editing.

Handouts
Editing Wikipedia, a guide for student editors Choosing an article to edit Add images to articles Citing sources on Wikipedia
Additional Resources
You can find answers to many student questions in our FAQ.

If you have any questions, please don't hesitate to contact me on my talk page. Ian (Wiki Ed) (talk) 18:44, 13 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

April 2024

There have been several problems with your editing at Mussel adhesive protein, including the following:

You have provided no citations to sources to make the material you added verifiable.
Much of what you posted was unambiguously copied from a previously published source. You made many changes to the wording, but what you posted was still close enough to the original to make the copying unambiguous. That is unacceptable, as it infringes copyright. JBW (talk) 21:00, 19 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

If you persist in editing in ways which are contrary to Wikipedia's policies, you are likely to be blocked from editing by an administrator. JBW (talk) 22:15, 20 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I clearly added sources, the references are linked and listed at the bottom of the page.

I also did not directly copy any of the information, anything that you may feel is “directly copied” is factual information (ie protein composition and structural components) that cannot be changed, but it was paraphrased when added. After including factual information paraphrased from a source, I added my own analysis of that information in terms of how that structure helps the protein’s function. So I don’t understand why you are accusing me of direct copying, no sources, and just changing some words. Narahh (talk) 14:40, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi JBW, can you provide any evidence to support this serious accusation of plagiarism? Otherwise your comment bears little credibility in my view. MTLE4470 EFP (talk) 15:05, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@MTLE4470 EFP: No, because I have not made any accusation, serious or otherwise, of plagiarism. In fact I didn't even mention plagiarism. I could also manage without the passive aggressive tone of your message, complete with "Otherwise your comment bears little credibility in my view". However, in relation to the comments which I took the trouble to write to try to help Narahh to understand Wikipedia's copyright policy, here is one of many examples of material which was closely paraphrased from the original: "a large, central collagenous domain (40 kDa) flanked by elastin-like domains (11 kDa each); and small, histidine-rich domains (5 kDa) that flank the elastin-like domains" becomes "a large central collagenous domain, elastin-like domains flanking the collagen, small histidine-rich domains adjacent to the elastin-like regions". That is just one small example: there are many more. You are going to have an uphill struggle if you wish to persuade me that two different people independently came up with wording as close as that, time after time, throughout an extended passage. It is perfectly clear that a large proportion of what Narahh posted was substantially copied from one or more published sources, with paraphrasing, but, as I said above, still close enough to the original to make the connection between the two versions unambiguous.

As for the lack of citations to sources, I was mistaken, and I apologise. It seems that the sudden appearance of five accounts all making related inappropriate changes to the same day to what had for seven years been a stable redirect page resulted in my confusing aspects of the editing fom different accounts. JBW (talk) 20:49, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Although you did not use the word plagiarism, you did clearly make an accusation that content was "unambiguously copied from a previously published source"... which... is plagiarism. I was simply asking if you had any evidence to support that notion. Now that you've provided such an example, I agree with you. That sentence was indeed closely copied from a reference and thus deletion was justified. MTLE4470 EFP (talk) 21:01, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@@ Line 35: / Line 35: @@
 :: {{ping|MTLE4470 EFP}} No, because I have not made any accusation, serious or otherwise, of plagiarism. In fact I didn't even mention plagiarism. I could also manage without the passive aggressive tone of your message, complete with "Otherwise your comment bears little credibility in my view".  However, in relation to the comments which I took the trouble to write to try to help Narahh to understand Wikipedia's copyright policy, here is one of many examples of material which was closely paraphrased from the original: ''"a large, central collagenous domain (40 kDa) flanked by elastin-like domains (11 kDa each); and small, histidine-rich domains (5 kDa) that flank the elastin-like domains"'' becomes ''"a large central collagenous domain, elastin-like domains flanking the collagen, small histidine-rich domains adjacent to the elastin-like regions"''. That is just one small example: there are many more. You are going to have an uphill struggle if you wish to persuade me that two different people independently came up with wording as close as that, time after time, throughout an extended passage. It is perfectly clear that a large proportion of what Narahh posted was substantially copied from one or more published sources, with paraphrasing, but, as I said above, still close enough to the original to make the connection between the two versions unambiguous.
 :: As for the lack of citations to sources, I was mistaken, and I apologise. It seems that the sudden appearance of five accounts all making related inappropriate changes to the same day to what had for seven years been a stable redirect page resulted in my confusing aspects of the editing fom different accounts. [[User:JBW|JBW]] ([[User talk:JBW|talk]]) 20:49, 23 April 2024 (UTC)
+:::Although you did not use the word plagiarism, you did clearly make an accusation that content was "unambiguously copied from a previously published source"... which... is plagiarism. I was simply asking if you had any evidence to support that notion. Now that you've provided such an example, I agree with you. That sentence was indeed closely copied from a reference and thus deletion was justified. [[User:MTLE4470 EFP|MTLE4470 EFP]] ([[User talk:MTLE4470 EFP|talk]]) 21:01, 23 April 2024 (UTC)