User talk:Anastadi

Hi Anastadi! Thanks for contributing to Wikipedia.
Be our guest at the Teahouse! The Teahouse is a friendly space where new editors can ask questions about contributing to Wikipedia and get help from experienced editors like Dathus (talk).

Visit the Teahouse

We hope to see you there!

Delivered by HostBot on behalf of the Teahouse hosts

10:30, 5 April 2019 (UTC)

Welcome

Hi Anastadi, i'm your online tutor for this course. Please note that you have to choose a leader for your group and fill in the course page in the "Articles" chapter. Please note as well that all the changes MUST BE done in the sandbox of the leaders, not in your personal one. If you experience any kind of troubles feel free to contact me. Baldersdod (talk) 16:42, 8 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

May 2019

You have posted text to Wikipedia which has been copied verbatim from other sources, which almost certainly infringed legal copyright, and certainly violated Wikipedia's copyright policy. When you post anything to Wikipedia you release it for anyone in the world to reuse it, either unchanged or modified in any way whatever, subject to attribution to Wikipedia. In the very few occasions when authors release their content under such free licensing terms we require proof of the fact; we don't assume that content is freely licensed on the unsubstantiated say so of just anyone who comes along and creates a Wikipedia account. Also, much of the content which you posted was clearly written to advocate a point of view, which is not permitted by Wikipedia policy, which requires content to be written from a neutral point of view. JamesBWatson (talk) 12:52, 8 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

You have posted messages concerning the above issues on my talk page, and on the talk page of another editor. Usually when I am replying to a talk page message I do so on the page on which that message was posted, to avoid fragmenting conversations and making them difficult to follow. On this occasion, however, I think it may be helpful to have a record of what I say on the talk page of your account, so I am replying here.

When I received your message about your sandbox I thought I might have made a mistake, and since I did not have time then to check properly, rather than doing a rushed job and risking getting it wrong I gave you the benefit of the doubt, and restored the page for you to work on until I had time to come back to it. I have now spent a considerable amount of time checking. You have said that there are "only a few sentences" which, as you put it, "could be problematic". I have found not just a few sentences, but a large number of them, which are copied verbatim or virtually verbatim from various published sources. Moreover, while in some cases it is just a matter of individual sentences, in a significant number of cases you have copied more substantial passages. It is highly improbable that what I found is anywhere near the whole of the problem, because I searched for only a sample of sentences from your editing, and it is unlikely that I happened fortuitously to choose all or nearly all of the passages which were copied; however, even considering only the copied text which I have seen, the amount of copying is far more than enough to make your editing unacceptable under Wikipedia's copyright policy.

Here are just a few examples of what I found:

The passage you posted from "Murata and colleagues (2013)... " down to "...reducing emotional experience during regulation" was identical to a passage from "Current emotion research in cultural neuroscience" by Joan Y. Chiao save for the following three changes (1) "suppressing their emotions to highly arousing and unpleasant emotional pictures" as opposed to "suppressing their emotions highly arousing and unpleasant emotional pictures", (2) "These neural findings suggest that for East Asians, but not European Americans", as opposed to "These neural findings suggest that for Asians, but not European Americans", and (3) "showed reduced response during suppression in Asian, but not European American" as opposed to "showed reduced response during suppression compared to when attending in Asian, but not European American". Such minor changes do not in any way detract from the clear and evident fact that substantially you simply copied from another author.
You give "Cultural neuroscience research investigates whether and how the functional organization of the human brain is shaped by culture and by the interaction between culture and genes on different time scales", which is clearly a reworded version of "cultural neuroscience, which aims to understand whether and how the functional organization of the human brain is shaped by culture and by the interaction between culture and genes on different time scales", which appears in an abstract of a lecture given at the LMU-China Academic Network scientific forum November in 2015. (In this and other cases where I found a sentence or two duplicated in an abstract of an article to which I do not have access, I cannot tell whether what I am seeing is the whole picture, or just a small part of a longer passage which you have copied.)
The passage you gave from "The goal of cultural neuroscience studies is to investigate..." down to "...between interacting individuals and culture" is taken from "A Cultural Neuroscience Approach to the Biosocial Nature of the Human Brain" by Shihui Han, Georg Northoff, Kai Vogeley, Bruce E. Wexler, Shinobu Kitayama, and Michael E.W. Varnum, with a few minor changes, such as the omission of one sentence and the expansion of the abbreviation "CN" to "cultural neuroscience" each time it occurs.
I also found a number of cases of copying from papers included in The Oxfod Handbook of Cultural Neuroscience, edited by J. Y. Chiao, S-C. Li, R. Seligman, and R. Turner. Unfortunately a brief power failure led to the loss of the list I had compiled of those cases, and I do not think it would be a constructive use of my time to search for them again, but I have seen them, and they all contribute to the completely unambiguous picture, which is that the text which you posted to Wikipedia consists very largely, if not entirely, of content which you have assembled from other sources, sometimes with and sometimes without minor changes in wording.

(Incidentally, in a talk page to another editor you also mentioned plagiarism, and indeed it is plagiarism, as in no case did you acknowledge the source from which you were copying. However, that is between you and your conscience: plagiarism is not my concern, whereas infringement of copyright is.) JamesBWatson (talk) 12:49, 13 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

user:JamesBWatson,

In regard to the other editors they are my tutors in this project. We are new users in Wiki. In regard to your comments, we didnt have time to refine our text, we didnt publish it again and of course we are taking into consideration all the above. Please restore my sandbox so we can make the necessary changes. Thank you for all the time and interest

Anastadi (talk) 17:34, 13 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I can't restore copyright-infringing text to the publicly visible encyclopaedia, but I can email it to you if you like. On a different matter, I see that you repeatedly use the word "we". Does that mean that more than one editor has been using the account "Anastadi" to edit? JamesBWatson (talk) 08:31, 14 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]