User talk:FashProf

Your course page has been created! Blondebibliophile (talk) 18:58, 17 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Helping out

I've been fairly inactive lately except on Commons, but my time should be opening up in the next couple of weeks, so feel free to ask questions! - PKM (talk) 04:41, 18 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

History of Fashionable Dress (Spring 2014)

Hey—Jami of the WMF recommended me to you. I'm a Wikipedia online ambassador with a background in the arts. If it's all right with you, I'd like to help out with the class. I'll be checking in periodically and will otherwise be around (by talk page message) if you or your class have any questions. If you'd like, we can set up a time to talk or Skype and go over the remainder of your syllabus (I don't see it online) so I can be most effective. czar ♔ 04:28, 7 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Close paraphrasing and plagiarism

Hi FashProf, in reviewing some of the class's recent edits, I noticed a bunch of edits to 1850s in Western fashion had some very close paraphrasing to its source (which, additionally, is not a reliable source). I noticed this particularly because it was an online source—I did not attempt to check the offline sources used by the rest of the class. It may be worth taking a moment to discuss appropriate paraphrasing and source usage with your class, if you have a moment. I'm happy to discuss more of this with whomever, but let me know what your needs are as they arise. czar ♔ 05:07, 24 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your reply. If this reaches you before class today, the main point I'd make about close paraphrasing is that any paraphrasing should not resemble the source material in the slightest. It should not use the same turns of phrase or even the same jargon, if not necessary. If a phrase is vital to the sentence, adding it in quotes would be a good idea, but in the Internet age it's worth repeating for students that copy/pasting and changing a word or two does not constitute sufficient originality from the original, copyrighted source. This is a common mistake made by new student editors, so I'd encourage students to revisit their edits (especially those who used offline sources, which are therefore harder to check for plagiarism) and make the corrections themselves. Have a good one czar ♔ 13:53, 24 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Venus of 1742 and 1794

I found it in one of the early twentieth century Eduard Fuchs Karikatur books, but there really wasn't any more information about it there than what I included when I uploaded the image. (If you had left a message for me at Commons, where I uploaded the image, I probably would have replied sooner.) Churchh (talk) 13:58, 25 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Don't thank me too much; there are a number of big heavy Fuchs books to look through, and I doubt whether you'll find much additional bibliographic detail there. Churchh (talk) 14:45, 25 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

More information here... -- Churchh (talk) 21:38, 7 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Syllabus

Will there be more Wikipedia assignments upcoming in the class? I noticed the course assignments drop off on the course page after the second week czar ♔ 05:24, 14 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Neo-impressionism

Hello FashProf. In response to your inquiry regarding my revert of an edit to Neo-impressionism, the problems in the article were twofold. The first problem was copyright violation: your students used reliable sources, but copied them verbatim. This problem and its solution are well described above by Czar, so I'll move on to the second problem, which has to do with the destruction of wikilinks throughout the article. A comparison of the earlier edit with your students' edit shows mass losses of internal links, and the citations in the original article have been reduced to meaningless superscripts—in the first paragraph, for example, John G. Hutton is no longer identified as the source for the sentence beginning, "Seurat’s greatest masterpiece, A Sunday Afternoon on the Island of La Grande Jatte, marked the beginning of this movement when it first made its appearance..." It appears that your students copied and pasted the display text of the Wikipedia article into a word processing program, added their text to it, and pasted it back into Wikipedia. This procedure caused the loss of wikilinks and other markup, which would have been preserved if your students had started out by copying the text from the article's edit window rather than using the display text.

I hope this is helpful and your class will persevere for there's much to do here. Regards, Ewulp (talk) 01:58, 14 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Change in your user rights

Your Wikipedia account was previously granted a user right called "course instructor" by the Wiki Education Foundation. That right enabled you to create a course page through the EducationProgram MediaWiki extension. Starting in fall 2015, the Wiki Education Foundation has discontinued its use of this extension. Going forward, users should create course pages through the Wiki Education Foundation website. That application is more user-friendly, and any content is automatically mirrored to Wikipedia. To prevent confusion, we'll be removing your "course instructor" user right, as it is not needed with the new system. This is simply a notification of the technical change to your account. No action is needed from you at this time.

If you plan on teaching with Wikipedia for the fall 2015 term, please email me (helainewikiedu.org) for instructions how to create your next course page using our new system. --Helaine (Wiki Ed) (talk), sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 02:34, 21 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Wiki Ed/NA/History of Fashionable Dress (Fall 2017)

@Shalor (Wiki Ed):

After coming across a poorly formatted article with some really non-neutral point of view I traced this back to your class and found that the majority of the articles have been written in complete disregard of WP:NPOV and WP:MOS. I am all for students learning how to use Wikipedia and contributing but please inform your students of the importance of following the established guidelines for style and remind them to stay neutral. EoRdE6^{(Come Talk to Me!)} 18:27, 8 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

EoRdE6: The class is over, but I'll take a look at their work and try to either fix or tag things that need to be fixed. Shalor (Wiki Ed) (talk) 23:04, 8 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Shalor (Wiki Ed): I think the ones I found first were worse than the rest, the others aren't too bad might have been a bit harsh in my earlier message but thanks! EoRdE6^{(Come Talk to Me!)} 23:54, 8 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]