Wikipedia talk:School and university projects/IIT SSSUP polo Valdera

MEDRS and copyvio

@Alexmar983 and MatteoVissani:

Regarding this addition to Treatment of Tourette syndrome:

• Please educate your students regarding WP:MEDRS
• The relevant, recent secondary review of diet and TS treatment can be found at: PMID 29268618
• Once you have accessed that review, which is the source that should have been used to add content, you will understand that the text added was cut-and-paste plagiarism. Please supervise your students with respect to the important WP:COPYVIO policy.

Please do not reinstate a copyright violation, and please do not reinstate text which does not accurately reflect the recent secondary review. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:52, 20 May 2019 (UTC)

Done, secondary review incorporated; nothing new here. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:26, 20 May 2019 (UTC)

User:SandyGeorgia I educated them to copyviol. There was clear slide and was repated during the lesson. I even show to them the earwig copyviol detecotr. This addition was done few days ago and I have not started to review their addition one by one, because at the moment I cann access the original source. You can , but at the moment I cannot. I can only gave them bad not at the moment.--Alexmar983 (talk) 19:48, 20 May 2019 (UTC)

User:SandyGeorgia just a proof look at the object. he wrote copied from my personal sandbox because I told them very clearly that the CC BY SA already apply to the sandbox so if they copy and paste from one part ot another they must state the origin again to respect the license. than, some of them forgot by slip of the mouse, some of them clearly put a link to the sandbox but the very same fact he reported this mention is a proof how intensively I stated the concept of copyright and licenses at the lesson. So, if they get that and still copy and paste a text, brutally aparently, this is not really related to what I (did not) tell them. It's mostly his choice and he will get a bad note.--Alexmar983 (talk) 19:58, 20 May 2019 (UTC)

User:SandyGeorgia since you can access the journal (unless you send it to me by mail) it's up to you to complete the cleaning, I cannot take responsability of something I cannot check. We need to ask the removal of the editions from the history and the sandbox as well. So you do that yourself or you send the article to me?--Alexmar983 (talk) 20:05, 20 May 2019 (UTC)

@Alexmar983 and MatteoVissani: Regarding this addition, it is unacceptable to base biomedical claims on primary studies. Your students simply cannot claim that "There is a large body of literature demonstrating the benefit of DBS in Parkinson's disease. Specifically, various studies have shown a sustained general improvement after DBS implant in quality of life, tremor, dyskinesias, motor scores in patients whose motor symptoms were no-drug responsive" based on two trials. You'll note that DBS is cited in the Parkinson's disease article to Bronstein et al 2010 which is the review your students should have been using per WP:MEDRS. It's a pity that reading MEDRS isn't included on Wikipedia:School and university projects/IIT SSSUP polo Valdera as it's absolutely essential knowledge for any editor wishing to contribute to biomedical topics.

Are you likely to clean up the problems, or will you be leaving it for the editors at WikiProjact Med as usual? --RexxS (talk) 01:45, 21 May 2019 (UTC)

@Alexmar983:, since RexxS is an admin, perhaps he will do the favor of handling the one copyvio edit at Treatment of Tourette syndrome, which is this one. Since I got to it right away, cleansing the article history is not as difficult as it otherwise would be. User:MatteoVissani/sandbox can be deleted also. But I would not blame RexxS if he said that cleaning this up is not his responsibility.

Regarding access to the article, I had to call in a favor to get temporary access to it, I do not have a saved electronic copy (only a printout), and don't have an easy way to send it to you. (This is another of the problems caused when students aren't adequately supervised. I smelled a copyvio and problem with content because of the quality of the writing, but I do not have access to journals without driving an hour, so have to ask for favors). SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:03, 21 May 2019 (UTC)

@SandyGeorgia: I've deleted the sandbox as CSD#G12. I'd be happy to remove the copyvio in the article per WP:CRD, but I think I'd also have to revdel at least one or possibly both of the following two other edits by Alexmar983 and yourself in order to hide every instance of the text. On the other hand, Wikipedia:Copyright problems #Suspected or complicated infringement suggests leaving more complicated copyvios in the page history for future review unless the copyright holder asks WMF to remove them. I'm willing to be guided by your greater experience in these matters, so please let me know if you wish me to go ahead. Cheers --RexxS (talk) 02:31, 21 May 2019 (UTC)

Thanks so much, RexxS. I really don't have that much expertise on the adminly duties needed here-- I just know that the people who most often deal with copyvio are overburdened. My inclination, considering that the copyvio is in one edit and was quickly removed, would be to not worry about those two edits and just leave them in history. But if you want to test your new admin tools and try revdeling, I can reconstruct as needed, too. Up to you ... SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:55, 21 May 2019 (UTC)

You're welcome, Sandy. I've been able to hide the copyvio text from public view without affecting any other contributions, so that should be within policy. Thanks for your quick action; it made the job easy. --RexxS (talk) 14:28, 21 May 2019 (UTC)

User:SandyGeorgia and RexxS I write what I wrote this morining but I had to leave in a rush to get a trian. Copyviol should be always removed from page history as far as I know, I really want to meet who theorize the process that you are describing... it takes a cetain responsability to state otherwise. If you see it and you can spot it, you remove it. In any case in this not complicated, it's few lines. I handled stratified copyviol so many times, I am suprised it is considered so "critical". I guess if I got the article I could have fixed it easily, I see no big deal in putting a template.

From my answer you could guess I am likely to clean up the problems (how many people you have found that know the copyright of the dandboxes, something that maybe you do not know yourself? and even teach it?) and I won't be leaving it for the editors at WikiProjact Med as usual. I suspect that WikiMed users might apply some standard behavioral pattern, but I am not in those patterns. I am here. The class is not finished, most simply I am not online a lot in these days. I was told by some students they will have finished their exercises by May so I put on my calendar some free time on a week end of late May to revise them one by one. My wikitime is limited because of other wiki request in real life and I can revise the insertions when they are all complete for the evaluation. In the meantime I provided all the information I can.

Also, I did not skip the part about WP:MEDRS, I just focused on the step which was not fully handled, the copyviol, as soon as I noticed the sandbox was still untouched. It is reasonable, if you don't have time on line, to prioritize. Now, that guideline was not included because the class was supposed to be focused more on technological applications (I was expecting more the area of material science or robotics, because that centre is about that). Aparently, all students from SSSUP were invited even from a neighboring town. So, I was not in total control of the students the University sent to me. Now, if I add all possble guidelines for all possible fields, the page is not readable anymore, it's too much. I can show them single guidelines when the students decide a topic but I was expecting a dozen students, not double the number. So I can only give strong key concepts and dilute the revision control as soon as they are all finished. And I have access to the literature databases, which in these days I don't.

About following, I even came back again to the University to follow the student who asked me to revise the text before inserting it, but not all of them did so. Some of them were so kind to at least inform me about the version in the sandbox, but again not all of them. Yet, I still paid myself to come to see just one single insertion de visu. And that's for free, I am not even reimboursed. I noted down the topic they write and in one case I even sent mail to expert reseracher in other fields for a comment.

It could be also interesting to notice that they were not required an additional excercise, the exam is just a "pass" as far as I know, I am asking this to monitor them and give them a real rank because I really care. So they can learn more. And ranking require monitoring all the inserted content one by one. The xls evaluation file is ready on my computer (that's what i prepared while making a first glance) and ready to be filled. So far I could revised completely only three of them. So, dowloading the required articles, asking to friends for comment, using Earwig, pasting sentences in google scholar, writing feedback mail... all of that. For free.

So I am here and present not because you pinged me but because I have a defined strategy of revision, so you really didn't need to write what you did. I don't know what type of people you dealt int he past, but maybe you shouldn't put me in that scheme because you are not getting more than my current presence and certainly you are asking a person who is engaged. Do you prefer I use my time on line to revise these insertions or to reply to your procedural comments? if it is the first scenario, tell me about the content because this would speed up and improve my work, and I'd like to be committed to that. As an example: if I find the copyviol, I fix the sandbox and leave a request for cleaning, if you do you, you forget the sandbox and you split in two or three passages and you seem to find few lines a problem and all of that seems time-consuming and I would like not to consume my time this way because I don't have a lot of it right now. That being said, thank you and see you in few days if you have any other comment on the content.--Alexmar983 (talk) 20:29, 21 May 2019 (UTC)

@Alexmar983: Copyvios have to be removed immediately. There are no exceptions to that. When teaching new editors, particularly students who are being required to add content, it is crucial to ensure that they understand Wikipedia's policy on copyright violations.

It is equally important to make time in the teaching schedule to agree with the students the topics they will work on well before they start. That allows you to make sure that they have a working knowledge of any relevant topic-specific guidelines such as MEDRS before they start selecting sources. If you leave it until they have created work in a sandbox, it is too late. An ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure.

If you're having problems with creating a single resource page that covers all of the reference material you might need for the training, try using hyperlinks to sub-pages containing smaller pieces of content.

I also recommend that you consider the fact that although many students can learn underpinning knowledge by simply reading, most will not adequately learn skills, such as editing, without seeing a demonstration and making their own attempts under supervision.

We're all volunteers, not paid, and it's vital not to underestimate the potential time commitment required to adequately supervise students who are writing Wikipedia content. The result of far too many previous courses that add medical content has been that both the encyclopedia and the students have been poorly served. You only have to check the archives of WT:WPMED for numerous examples of the cleanup that the regular medical editors have had to do following some courses.

So you may be able to understand the frustration that is felt when yet another course has introduced content in violation of MEDRS, and days after bring that to the attention of the relevant editors, nothing has been done to address the issue. Did MatteoVissani have a working knowledge of MEDRS when they added the Parkinson's disease section to Deep brain stimulation, relying on sources all but one of which were primary? I've moved it to the talk page and pointed out the relevant secondary sources used in the Parkinson's disease article. --RexxS (talk) 20:36, 24 May 2019 (UTC)

RexxS I know there should be no exceptions to copyright violation, I am the one who notice how it was bizzare to state otherwise. So why are you saying to me that? I'd like to point out that the problem is that it looks like you are following a pattern instead of thinking of the person you have in front of you and what (s)he said. So I understand your frustation, I gave a tip to reduce it. In this case, for example, you could reduce your frustation just not pointing out something that was already said to someone who said it.

The class teached them to use good suorces (well cited scientific articles), don't copy and paste, formulate from more than 2-3 sources and focus on reviews. For the rest, I don't have any specific problem. this is called statistics, there is always something that works less. You can apply a previous pattern but it is not the point in this case so it has no real effect or change. If you want to reduce your frustation, don't do this when it is not necessary.

I have already answered to you, he did not read WPMED because he is one of the few ones who edited a topic deeply related to medicine and this was not the main target of the class when proposed. Plus, he was also alone, it was much easier to find more avarage topics in other groups. I am the first one who does not want to enter that field. You spent minutes to detail something but read what I wrote and you can see it's not the point. I am sorry but addressing people who are present (besides the fact I cannot be online in these days, but again I am present) is not going to improve the situation of your project. The same is for the pattern of "unanswered request". I wrote I'll have free time on a week end of late May. Now, it is still Friday. I just came back home 90 minutes ago. So as I told you already, you can point out that days after bring that to the attention of the relevant editors, nothing has been done to address the issue. I told you why I cannot address it so far and when I will address it so, what do you want to show exactly with this assertion? About the student, he has no reason to log regularly so he will see the ping when logged and he might not log in for a long time. I cannot send him a mail untill I have a clear request for him, which will be when I sit at my desk and read with the download article in front of me. The first ones on my list will be the one I have prepared the materials and got feedback by other researchers.

Let me get this clear, this is not about how to set up a class. Next time I will find more students at a class than intended I will show this page, show them how I do care and tell them that since I do not really deserve this, I will ask them to go outside of the door. Sorry for their credits. Problem solved, because it's not related to how the class is presented, but to the students arrived from other research laboratories and that they were a little bit too many. This way, I can follow them the way I planned including taking care of unexpected time consuming scenarios (I am barely on wiki in these weeks) and I don't have to spent, when I am busy, even more time than necesary to show I don't need to be told these points because I am already aware. Also, if they want to write about medicine I will tell them to do on Italian wikipedia, which has a different approach.--Alexmar983 (talk) 21:54, 24 May 2019 (UTC)

@Alexmar983: You wrote: 'I am suprised it is considered so "critical"'. So why are you now questioning my statement of the importance we place on it?

I reserve the right to make my criticism of these edits when it is apparent the student either doesn't understand or chooses to ignore MEDRS. Do you agree with that or not?

The class teached them to use good suorces (well cited scientific articles), don't copy and paste ... and focus on reviews. It clearly didn't. Above you see two glaring examples of a copy-paste copyvio and of a failure to use review articles. It not called "statistics", it's called "quality assurance"; and it's the job of the teacher to ensure their students meet a minimum standard for that before letting them loose on mainspace. I've given you ideas above on how to improve that aspect of your work.

he did not read WPMED because he is one of the few ones who edited a topic deeply related to medicine and this was not the main target of the class when proposed. Three out of the nine topics in Lesson and three out of nine topics in Homework were sufficiently biomedically related to warrant familiarity with MEDRS. That's not "few". You should have known that and ensured your students were thoroughly familiar with MEDRS. I've read what you wrote and that is the point.

I told you why I cannot address it so far and when I will address it so, what do you want to show exactly with this assertion? I want you to understand that the primary aim of editing Wikipedia is to improve the encyclopedia and any other considerations about your classes come a long way behind that. It is not acceptable to leave copyvios and unsubstantiated medical information in articles for weeks just because you have a busy schedule. If your model of quality assurance is to allow the students to make these sort of edits and then clean them up some weeks later, then it's not fit for use on Wikipedia. Before embarking on this sort of project you need to make sure you will have time to sort out major problems quickly, or take steps to ensure that predictable problems don't arise in the first place. Neither of those things appear to have happened here. Why can't you send a mail to the student pointing them to these discussions and asking him to fix the problems? That's a clear enough request. Are you seriously suggesting you're prepared to ignore the complaints posted by experienced Wikipedians like SandyGeorgia until you've "got feedback by other researchers"?

Next time I will find more students at a class than intended I will show this page, show them how I do care and tell them that since I do not really deserve this, I will ask them to go outside of the door. Don't be so melodramatic. By all means get it clear; this is precisely about how to set up a class. Many trainers manage to do it regularly with more participants than expected, with equipment that goes wrong, with folks who turn up on the day without an account. They've learned to anticipate what can go wrong and cope with it, not throw their dummies out of the pram. The best teachers have strategies to improvise when circumstances force them to amend their planned exercises, without letting the quality drop.

I don't need to be told these points because I am already aware. If you're not willing to listen to suggestions how you might improve your training, I feel sorry for you. The evidence of what you're aware of is apparent in the work your students produce.

I just looked at Osseointegration:

Recent research on users of bone-anchored upper and lower limb prostheses showed that this osseoperception is not only mediated by mechanoreceptors but also by auditory receptors.

That's a biomedical claim and it's referenced to Clemente, Francesco; Håkansson, Bo; Cipriani, Christian; Wessberg, Johan; Kulbacka-Ortiz, Katarzyna; Brånemark, Rickard; Fredén Jansson, Karl-Johan; Ortiz-Catalan, Max (2017). "Touch and Hearing Mediate Osseoperception". Scientific Reports. 7 (1). doi:10.1038/srep45363. ISSN 2045-2322. and "Hearing and touch mediate sensations via osseointegrated prostheses". www.eurekalert.org. Retrieved 2019-04-10.  – a primary source. How many more of these am I going to find? Did any of the students know about MEDRS? --RexxS (talk) 23:37, 24 May 2019 (UTC)

RexxS I am suprised it is considered so "critical" the process of removal. Read the overall comments. I told you that if I noticed before I would have fixed in three times less than what happened here. So your lecture has no impact, I am aware and competent on the subject, I showed to you (the sandbox? do you rememeber?)

Nobody of the students I followed directly did medical topic in the class.

I can have an emergency, which is not a busy schedule. Precisely, I had a call last minute and I was off line totally 5-6 days of Arpil, I contracted a stomach desease. You want some proof of this? I helped to write a grant for an event, it was scheduled for three days early May, I could attend only on for courtesy one morning. You want me to ping people to tell it to you? I can find a main journalist from a national newpaper if you want a reliable source, he was with me when i had a terrible attack of diarrhea. it took me weeks to get over it. Now I can take in charge an emergency call, a health problem, or a unexpected busy class with more students but not all of them. It can happen, and again what do you expect to change? I am resposible for my choices, not for the choice of a secretary to invite other student and not for a work last call that require being offline for a week, and not for health problems.

All the rest is a a gaussian distribution of results. Still, your assertion remain useless. Why pointing out something is happening if people tell you that is going to happen? If what you are writing now that's what you wanted to say, say it don't act like this. I am a responsible person, responsible people keep track of their duty despite problems. an I am here. Do you want me to fwd to you the mail when I tell the secretary I finally have time to complete the evaluation of the class? it happened before your ping, as far as i remember... I would have been here in any case.

Also I am consequential. You are melodramatic with this attitude, and I want nothing to do with it because I know it does not improve anything.

You are going to find what you search. You can stop searching and I will find them in any case (also, osteoporisis has a slight porblem of similar phrasing but below the limit, I have to look at the original article to be sure). And again, I did not follow any student who were editing about med topic directly, so I never arrived to discuss about MEDRS. I have already told you, so why are you so melodramatic in pointing this out? You are not going to depict me like sombody escaping, I was transparent the whole time.

Let me say. I know some main users of Med project on itwikipedia and I have always noticed how when they imporve an article the overall quality level is higher than here. This is also why I wouldn't like in general the idea of students editing on medical topics on enwikipedia, nor it would be my dream. So don't worry I am not around in this field, it was an accident and not something I really crave. BTW when I mean the quality is not at the same level I say so because for example I showed some good or featured articles to people with a medical degrees fluent in both language, and even if they are fewer itwiki users they agree they produce better results when they focus on an article. So I would not consider enwikipedia the best environment for students for this field even if I wanted to do it on purpose, it's different in other topics but in this case i don't think it's really the top. it's good overall but when there is effort it's underperfoming. In this case, I can feel why. There is an impressive amount of energy devoted to social aspects. Like pointing out what I already said about copyviol, assuming I am not following students, also removing text when with the same amount of time you can fix it, discussing about copyviol procedures which should take a click of the mouse. it's basically unefficient. But it's what you are used to, I suppose. That's why your quality is lower despite good overall workforce in this field, because you think this attitude increases it, but it does not.--Alexmar983 (talk) 00:08, 25 May 2019 (UTC)

@Alexmar983: Instead of trotting out trite excuses, you need to examine the consequences of this course that you agreed to work with. There were copyright violations in an article and multiple instances of misuse of primary sources in medical articles. You've been offered advice on how to avoid or mitigate such problems in future and your attitude is that you already know it all and don't need advice. The exact problems have been pointed out to you and you've been asked about whether you intend to help clean up the problems your students have caused, or at least to inform the students of the issues and solicit their help in sorting out the problems. Your response has been walls of text trying to defend the indefensible, and to blame everybody except yourself, and then to offer to look at the problems at some unspecified time in the future. The reason why I raised the issues here is to help you and your students to avoid them in future and to try to make you see the amount of work you and they have created for others. Fixing a copyvio is not just "a click of the mouse", nor is re-writing improperly sourced content, and you'd know this if you'd ever had any experience in this sort of clean-up work. Do you genuinely believe that you've done a good job with the students who worked on medical articles? If not, it's time for you to self-reflect, understand the part you played in that, and make a conscious decision to learn how to mitigate such problems in future. --RexxS (talk) 10:07, 25 May 2019 (UTC)

RexxS I have experience of copyviol, that's why for me is a click of mouse ot solve it. And that's what it takes to me if I arrive there before someone else who does not even know how that copyright apply to sandbox, so they don't have experience. What are you telling to those people?

I believe that I have done the best work I could under those circumstance I could not control, so I am reapeting you that whatever you do here the only thing it can change is that I will be brutal in avoiding the only circumstance under my power, that is students who are more than a certain quota that I might not handle in case of emergency, go out of the room AND those who want to edit medicine topics on enwikipedia are discouraged to do so. i will put a slide and tell them not to do it. I did not offer a class to a professor with those reserach line, so why I should accept it? I will tell the students that if for some reasons the want to edit medicine topic in any case, I will be available to follow them on itwikipedia. Certainly , it is not worth it to interact in the Medicine "environment" here if people show your approach. It's different in other field, but in this case it's this way. it's clear that a user do not deserve to be treated like this, assuming the worst since the first step, needing to disclose personal information just to be told when it's done that they are "wall of text" and so on. So the world is big and let's avoid it. You might assume the worst but you have already done it so it does not really change the current situation.

Now at this point I would like to dedicate my week end the work I had to postpone for various reasons. Unless you have some clear and concise request about the content, with a positive approach if possible, I will not answer to you at least for a while. Before I was mostly unable to download publications, so I had time to discuss with you here (even if I could have sent some emails for feedback that I had to psotpone), but now I have something to do that is more focused on ns0. Have a nice day.--Alexmar983 (talk) 11:06, 25 May 2019 (UTC)

@Alexmar983: No, you can't solve a copyvio with "click of a mouse" and nobody with any experience would think so. There's a procedure to follow, documented at WP:CV and you should try to understand the complexities involved before proclaiming how quickly you would sort it out. Not that it's relevant to your conduct, but as you ask, I always caution my students on the problems not only of copyright violation, but of over-close paraphrasing, and of plagiarism. Those concepts are foundational to editing on Wikipedia, and I believe it is incumbent on the trainer to ensure that their charges are not going to make the mistake that your student did.

As you believe you did the best you could in the circumstances, I'll ask you to reflect on whether it was good enough. Other trainers are able to run events and courses where things don't go to plan without it resulting in copyvios and improperly-sourced content being placed into articles. If the numbers of students exceeds what you expected and you don't have the time available to properly supervise all of them, one alternative would be to seek extra assistance from other editors willing to help out. This is a collaborative project, and I've never known a request for assistance at WT:WPMED turned down, but I see no evidence that you ever considered that.

I think you will find that teaching students about something as nuanced as MEDRS and how Wikipedia views primary, secondary and tertiary sources will require more than "putting on a slide and telling them not to do it". You're going to have to invest some time in explaining the concepts and the background, as well as being prepared to give examples for those who have difficulty with the concepts.

Now, let me say I resent your implication that there is something wrong with how I approached these issues. As you know full well from the interactions you have already had here with more than just me, there have been grave concerns raised, and you have not taken any responsibility for them. I intend to protect the encyclopedia from these problems, and I intend to make sure you understand your part in causing them. If you find that difficult, that is your problem to deal with, but I refute completely your pretence that my response to your behaviour has in any way contributed to the problems that you allowed to happen. --RexxS (talk) 12:45, 25 May 2019 (UTC)

RexxS I have no interest in teaching students abot Med topic on enwikipedia as i told you already.

The way you described my competence about copyright is not correct at all. I teached them everything, I revised them one by one when I could be in front of their screens (again, it'ìs you assumption I just put a slide, I did not ust do that), I can prove I did (the sandbox, how many people teach about the copyright of the sandboxes? it gives you an idea how much I insisted), i never had problem with my quota of students in a focused topic. One student made a copy and paste and just because I noticed I could have handled easily than done here (which is true) you don't believe me. I handled tons of copyrght problems and for me it's a click on the mouse to solve them, it's not very complicated, now you are squuezing an expression out, would you like people to do this to you? I need to have the original sources in front of me, but it's not complicated. I am the one who opposed keeping the copyviol in the history, who cared about the sandbox and you ignored it and talk me like I did not. Why do you do that?

You had partially this approach since the beginning and it was and remains unnecessary. You did not offered "collaboration" most of the time but accusations. Now that I am ponting this out you are changing your approach,but gosh it was hard to get there. Collaborative environments mean also you have to trust people, did you do so in my case? You invested energy to depict me in a way that was not supported by my actions, despite the fact it was told to you it was not the best move. Why you did that?

I am here revising all insertions as expected one by one, sending mail to all groups one by one (as started in the previous weeks), and my time is still devoted to discussing woth you but why? I told you I am not interested in MED and I won't be in the future, it was purely incidental. I always staid far away from the topic here and I plan to do as well in the future. I told you even how. You called melodramatic. What you prefer? that I act like if I did in the future even if I know it won't happen? Why you think this is better?

And about asking advice, first I make a compelte revision and than at the end to minimize the impact I write for the final adjustments to the projects if necessary. In order to respect the time of volunteers. That is if after a series of passages and revisions and everything I have a doubt, I ask. it's easier for a single-topic event to inform a project but this one came out more fragmented, there were too many topics at the same time. If it were one single topic, I would have done like I did in the past but in this case, it was different. So I mostly focused on other aspects (such as open access and so on) and concetrated the excercise to one or two simple sentences. it's avery small impact, it was planned to do so. And I had not been also sick, it would have been completed by the next two weeks.

So if you wanted a discussion about how to improve this scenario in the future, I told you that this cenario won't happen in the future and why. If you want to describe how you handle multitopic edit-a-thon please show me your previous examples (you seem to refer to single topic edit a thon/lessons). but for one moment please think about what would have happened if I came to your porject that very same day. Now I come to you and I tell you that I am organizing a class that came out to be full of students of medicine topic which I have no interest. Based on how you bahave here would you have been collaborative as you claim? Would have accused me of not caring enough and expecting volunteer to do my "job"? And this for three or four projects at the same time! basically it measn no lesson at all. So I oriented my time to give more time to all the students I could. it was my choice but based on the circumstance I don't regret it. I took the blame for that in any case but at least I was more present when needed to the students instead of typing on talk pages of projects.

Still, you really have to explain to me why you are increasing this pressure right in the days I am actually revising the content. Please in the spirit of wiki collaboration and your expertise explain to me why you think that talking me to me right now in this way removing time to my content evaluation is the best option? --Alexmar983 (talk) 13:41, 25 May 2019 (UTC)

@Alexmar983: "I have no interest in teaching students abot Med topic on enwikipedia" And so you let a third of them work on medical topics without teaching them.

"it'ìs you assumption I just put a slide" No, it's a quite from your exact words: "i will put a slide and tell them not to do it. Do you expect me not to be concerned about that?

"One student made a copy and paste and just because I noticed I could have handled easily than done here" Indeed you could if they had been taught not to copy-paste other peoples' work; and if you'd supervised them adequately, you'd have spotted the copyvio before SandyGeorgia had to bring it to your attention. There were two whole days that the copyvio stood in one of our articles and you wonder why I'm not happy about that?

"now you are squuezing an expression out, would you like people to do this to you?" I'm not the one who let my students produce copyvios and breaches of MEDRS. You need to to quit deflecting and take responsibility for your own actions.

"I am the one who opposed keeping the copyviol in the history, who cared about the sandbox and you ignored it and talk me like I did not" That's pure fabrication. Sandy cared about the article and the sandbox enough to raise concerns that you've tried to make excuses for. I was the one who removed the copyvios from the page history and deleted the sandbox. You haven't done a single thing to fix the issues and you have the nerve to question my commitment. I have offered you my advice on how to avoid the problems you encountered from the first. I have encouraged you to take an active part in cleaning up the problems you caused. I have had nothing back from you but obfuscation, ABF, and ill-grace. You have threatened to kick students out of your class ("Next time I will find more students at a class than intended I will show this page, show them how I do care and tell them that since I do not really deserve this, I will ask them to go outside of the door") and you call me melodramatic. Get a grip. I have said nothing that wasn't backed up by fact and I've produced the proof of what I've said on every occasion.

"I mostly focused on other aspects ... concetrated the excercise to one or two simple sentences. Thank you for admitting where the problem lay. We both know that is insufficient to teach students about MEDRS. You can't ignore MEDRS as you propose to do when dealing with any topic in the sciences, because any biomedical claim in any article is subject to MEDRS. If you want to ensure that your students don't edit on a topic requiring a knowledge of MEDRS, you need to agree the topics with them before you start teaching them, so that you know what to teach. Your current approach needs to be revised with that in mind.

"this one came out more fragmented, there were too many topics at the same time" Lots of courses run into that issue, but it doesn't have to be a problem if you have the resources to deal with it. If there are too many topics, seek some advice and assistance. There are many experienced Wikipedians who would be glad to help. Again, I've seen no evidence of you making use of the experience available in our WikiProjects to help you deal with those issues. I'm sorry to hear that you've been ill. That does, however, reinforce the need for you to collaborate. Many course leaders take the courtesy step to inform relevant Wikiprojects that the students will be working on articles within their scope. Having established a relationship, no matter how brief, you will find it easier to solicit assistance if you find yourself indsposed at crucial times.

"I told you that this cenario won't happen in the future and why." I'm afraid I you have given me no reason to accept that at face value. You say you'll avoid medical topics, but you don't seem to know what topics the students are working on beforehand, so I find it difficult to see how you'll accomplish that.

"If you want to describe how you handle multitopic edit-a-thon please show me your previous examples" I've been involved as an educator in many forms for almost 50 years, across all branches of education from nursery to adult education, with all stages in between, and I've been doing outreach on Wikimedia projects from before you registered an account, so I don't need to prove my credentials to you, but if you want an example of a large multi-topic editathon, make a start with this one: https://blog.wikimedia.org.uk/2014/06/a-global-editathon-teaching-wikipedia-to-barclays/ – "378 articles edited or created across 18 different language Wikipedias from 12 different Barclays sites. The topics edited ranged from ABBA to Zeng Jenlian." I'll give you more details if you're genuinely interested.

"Based on how you bahave here would you have been collaborative as you claim?" Pure deflection again, but the answer is "yes, I'm happy to collaborate with anyone who wants to collaborate with me", and I've got a lifetime of work to back that up. The ball's in your court if you want any help to avoid these problems in future.

"Please in the spirit of wiki collaboration and your expertise explain to me why you think that talking me to me right now in this way removing time to my content evaluation is the best option?" Nobody is forcing you to write on these talk pages. You choose to do that yourself and you can stop at any time. I'd be grateful for answers to some of my questions, but it's not crucial. I'd be happier to see you using your time to clean up problems that the course has produced. You've already promised to do that this weekend, so I'll gladly be patient. By the way, do you also intend to sort the problem I indicated at Osseointegration, or do you want me to do that? --RexxS (talk) 21:47, 25 May 2019 (UTC)

RexxS Actually, I told you clearly, that next time if they want to write those topic, I say no. I will not be tolerant of their request, so you are assured. i will write it in the mail. I will link this very same discussion, as I told you, to the secretary and the students there and say: this is what happens, I don't want that, no medicine please. I avoided topic related to medicine as much as I could, and on purpose (I told you way, I already didn't like the medicine environment on enwikipedia), I plan to do as well with no sacrifice. Please explain to me why this shouldn't work. You assertion will be reasonable if I did already did this time, but I did not. I was tolerant of the students need. Don't call me melodramatic, you gave me the reason I needed. Next time, out of the door.

Also, this is the first time I found a totally different scenario than expected, I shrunk the lesson removing the image upload part but i told you why it was not possible to post a request in all projects, there was no time at that point. Do the math. So, I reduced the task to a writing few simple sentences with sources, a very limited workload. I have seen people stuffing wikipedia with long articles at editathon with users making much less than a big deal of what you are doing now. Your example is an edit-a-thon with trainers, I have attedned many of those in three or four languages so far. Always been one the most attentive teacher, the one fixing the problems of other people, running from one desk to another. I am constalty called to do them because people tell me I am reliable. But this was not that type of scenario, it was an editathon expected to be one person, maybe two (the other potential person did not arrive), for circa 15-18 users about one or two defined topics and was revealed to be 3-4 topics for 20-22 students during the very same morning. The problem is not how to handle a multitopic edit a thon, that0s not complicated, is how to handle an edit athon that turns multi topic at the very last minute. Was that the case you are describing in your example?

That being said, writing yourself the sentence "nobody is forcing you" now I don't expect to be accused of not answering to you, sorry but based on your comments on copyviol I have to protect myself. I am really scared by people acting like you. Make fun of me as much as you like fro telling that but I really am.

about the osteoporosis article, you can see the work I have done so far and take your ideas. If you want to do something, go on. So far I had huge problem to understand your approach and your cooperation, so pardon me if i try to keep the path as separate as possible. I would be here revising them even without you, so do as you prefer or fell. My working experience with you was mostly miscalibrated by 1) your attempt to ignore my competence in copyviol (the fact that a student copy and paste at a certain point is not related to my competence which I proved it to you) 2) when you described as "misleading content has been on display to the public" the insertion in Deep brain stimulation in the talk page, something that still puzlles me because a insertion can have all the problems but it's unexpected that medical concept revised by a real doctor with a clear research background as acceptable is declared "misleading". As a matter of comparison, who is the person you ask advice (it can be you), with a clear medical degree and experience as a doctor to evaluate when a text you habdle is misleading? Based on the fifth pillar, everything can be questioned at the procedural level, even the sources can never fit in a category or another precisely 100%, but the good sense of human nature goes beyond that. That a medical information is correct before insertion is a conditio sine qua non, the one I tried to solve as soon as possible despite everything in this scenario. And there is no personal presumption here, if a medical text is misleading is something that can only come from a real doctor, so what is the doctor who judged such text as misleading from your side? Clearing this aspect would be useful.--Alexmar983 (talk) 22:32, 25 May 2019 (UTC)

@Alexmar983: I'm pleased to see you've understood the importance of planning well ahead, and I'm reassured by your intention to agree the topics with your students before delivery. Of course, you'll find occasions when a student makes a biomedical claim in a non-medical article and MEDRS will then apply, but I'm sure you'll be alert to that now.

When you've had more experience with things going wrong, and learning to cope with them, hopefully you'll place a greater value on having assistants. A course with as many as 18 students will always benefit from having more than one trainer, and the secondary benefit is that your assistant(s) will learn something about how to train from you as well. Coping with deviations from a plan, like students wanting to do unexpected topics, requires your time and attention in one-to-one interactions, so again having assistance will make the experience better for both you and the students.

I really don't mind if you don't answer me when I can see you're using your time productively working on the articles. That's the best answer you can give.

Please don't be scared of my actions. They are only ever intended to protect and improve the encyclopedia; and when you're doing the same thing, our interests align.

Now, let's get to the point of our disagreement over this addition to DBS:

(1) Do you agree that WP:MEDRS requires that "all biomedical information must be based on reliable, third-party published secondary sources"?

(2) Do you agree that being a "real doctor" is not a prerequisite to understand what constitutes "biomedical information", or "third-party", or "secondary sources"?

If so, then why are you introducing a pointless appeal to authority? Are you trying to say that your doctor friend can identify content that meets MEDRS and I can't?

(3) Do you agree that the first four of the five sources cited to support the content added to Deep brain stimulation are primary sources?

(4) Do you agree that all of the content added except for the last sentence constitute biomedical information supported solely by primary sources?

if so, what reliance can you put on your doctor friend's assurance that the text is not misleading? What reliable, secondary sources are they depending on for their judgement? Because from my point of view, we mislead our audience when we make biomedical claims solely on the basis of primary sources, as is fully explained in MEDRS.

If you want to put your real doctor's judgement to the test against mine on this matter, feel free to raise the issue at WT:WPMED. There are plenty of real doctors there who will be happy to settle the issue for you. --RexxS (talk) 12:36, 26 May 2019 (UTC)

RexxS I agrre with all of bullet points, if this is what you need to listen.

But I am saying that a real doctor (or a group of them) is the only one who can evaluate if the content of a text is actually misleading. How did you define the insertion as misleading otherwise? Not adhering to the guideline does not mean something is misleading. The point is not that I don't know what is written in the guideline, I have alredy reassured you (you probably don't trust me on that as with the copyright) and I never said they are better sourced. I can agree with you but you complicated your life because I never disagreed with you on that. I simply said that the content was not misleading as you claimed. You called it that way and this is not correct. Unless you ask a qualified doctor you cannot state if you are not a doctor if it is a misleading content from a medical point of view. It's brutal but I aplly ro myself. I can evaluate a source, I can choose it, I can write from it but no way i can define a medical content that results from my or somebody's else process as miselading.

I can make a distinction about such two aspects is because I know what is inside a guideline but also what it is not. While it is a problem if you use a primary source, and that can lead to a misleading content, especially a recent ones, not all text sourced with primary sources are misleading per se.(and by the way, they were told to use reviews, you see that in some insertion, but you can't expect that all students listen the same way, and again if I can't follow becasue I don't have time I cannot correct them all there until now). You can have a text that can be sourced poorly but report correct medical information. I am aware that the text were correct, because even if I couldn't sit at a table and refine the sources with calm immediately, I could however send a mail ask for a revision of the core information. So I acted in respect of the pillar and good sense, which is the minimal situation I could pull there. I never acted to leave them poorly sourced, I simply had no time to revise their job up to now. Do you want a prove? Compare with Wikipedia:School and university projects/Capellini-Sauro. those are very simple tasks (it's a high school), they were revised one by one. So I will be here as soon as I have time. That's actually the part I like the most.

Your concern that I will do it again is not necessary (you actually gave a useful tool to avoid it). I don't want to come close to the Med project nor I want to change it, the problem is not what you write in a guideline but how you act about it and that can never change with a discussion, it's a social thing. Besides the feedback to students, in retropatrolling and patrolling the core question when you evaluate a text is if the text is correct and which source can be found to evaluate if it is correct, it's not why the current sources are wrong, most of these sources in the medical field become "wrong" very easily because they simply age. So when you aim to long-term quality that is actually a second-rate aspect to start with. it's easy to repeat it, but guidelines are however just a tool and not a goal of a discussion, and since usually med on enwiki is considered a rigid project on that aspect, it's not unusual that people try to avoid. Why spent time to discuss about core distinctions about type of sources that are mostly there by an accident of unfortunate circumstance where in the same time you can discuss with a person with a medical degree, publications, who has trust, is not focused to a procedural checklist and go stick to the point about the real content? It kinda feel that on the Med Porject on enwiki people spend more time than necessary assuring themself that what they are doing brings good quality or is necessary for good quality than actually producing it. they produce a lot of quality, but they actually undersperfom compared to other porject with less users. So if you want to write med topic with students enwiki would not be considered a first choice. Like there is no way a med users on itwikipedia come on a talk page assuming by a single copyviol that it was not teached to student. the conversation with an avarage editor there would be "the student did a copyviol" "ok, I clean" "thanks, do you need something else". Why somebody should avoid that, that is actually more effiencent, for this?

BTW I plan things ahead. Right in these days I have sent a mail about another edit a thon. I organize events almost every 1-2 months in different fields and platforms (but I am on hiatus since Apr, 10th), they just don't go on websites. That's why I know by experience that 1) they can go wrong and it's no big deal 2) what really helps in practice. Like I spot so many copyright violation by expert users at edit a thon over the years (but they are closer to some sysop so they are not noticed)... Especially if you are competent you know how bad things happen in any case, and you are calm with this. The competence of experience, not of appearance. That's why I receive every day call for help, people want such help, they want people who can solve quickly a copyright issue and not find complicated to read a simple history with few edits, they want people that know and remind about copyright rule such as sandboxes, people that notice how one bad copyviol our of a dozen task is standard and not make a big deal about it. Because they work. You don't see that because the right edit a thon is actually below the radar.

Talking about helping in that specific morning, yuor suggestion of going to the project does not help in the practical world. An example. last year I was at Uffizi gallery, one trainer was missing, I was put to follow two users at the same time, the only one. I can handle but just in case I open an (active) project in one wikipedia (but I don't see a lot of difference in different language editions), I asked for a precise request, "please we miss one person, I can gear it, just find me these sources because the PC they gave us to find them and help the students is currently frozen". it's a simple task, I was not helped at all. Instead, I received a lecture on a how to organize an edit-a-thon, for example "Use the sandbox". it was surreal. But it's usually like that. They say it's full of people to help but it's not, because instead of assuming that people know how to do things and that they are part of unexpected circumstances when they ask for help, they just teach how to do it because those are standard speechs. Helping wikipedia is considered much easier making assumptions than analyzing a scenario, but this consumes the time of people in exchange of nothing especially when they really need it. I needed time in that circumstance, not somebody to remind what I know. So the choices were 1) go to a project and has in 70-90% of the case a time-consuming reminder which is not the point and try to act politely because if you point this out people will be pissed and tell they are not your servants 2) when students decide to edit medicine contact a doctor who is 100% available and ask if the text is at least clearly correct from the medical point of view. I take resposnability for such choice. You want me to do the other one? Fine. I just jope never to do it, and stay away of striclty medical topic on enwiki as I always tried to do.--Alexmar983 (talk) 14:14, 26 May 2019 (UTC)

@Alexmar983: "I am saying that a real doctor (or a group of them) is the only one who can evaluate if the content of a text is actually misleading." I completely refute your assertion as it is antithetical to how Wikipedia works. Wikipedia is built by the contributions of editors of all backgrounds. Your suggested elitism was thrown out years ago, and if you think we should have a project that's controlled by experts in each particular field, you need to take a good look at what happened to Nupedia.

"Unless you ask a qualified doctor you cannot state if you are not a doctor if it is a misleading content from a medical point of view." I'm afraid that is further nonsense and seems to display a lack of understanding of how Wikipedia works. Content on Wikipedia is misleading if it makes biomedical claims without having quality evidence to back it up. Let's take a concrete example. This is part of the content that your student wrote: "... various studies have shown a sustained general improvement after DBS implant in quality of life, tremor, dyskinesias, motor scores in patients whose motor symptoms were no-drug responsive." That sentence misleads the lay reader because it implies that the studies actually demonstrate the effects that it suggests. Primary studies do not demonstrate biomedical effects. What's so difficult to understand about our guidance? Did you read MEDRS where it states

A reason to avoid primary sources in the biomedical field ... is that they are often not replicable. and are therefore unsuitable for use in generating encyclopedic, reliable biomedical content. Drug discovery scientists at Bayer in 2011 reported that they were able to replicate results in only ~20 to 25% of the prominent studies they examined; scientists from Amgen followed with a publication in 2012 showing that they were only able to replicate 6 (11%) of 53 high-impact publications and called for higher standards in scientific publishing. The journal Nature announced in April 2013 that in response to these and other articles showing a widespread problem with reproducibility, it was taking measures to raise its standards. Further, the fact that a claim is published in a refereed journal need not make it true. Even well-designed randomized experiments will occasionally (with low probability) produce spurious results. Experiments and studies can produce flawed results or even fall victim to deliberate fraud (e.g. the Retracted article on dopaminergic neurotoxicity of MDMA and the Schön scandal.)

Studies may suggest or imply particular effects, but we rely on secondary sources to analyse and validate them. Take a look at Bronstein et al {2011), and see the differences from what your student is claiming, particularly the caveats that Bronstein makes about the suitability of DBS, and the setting needed for successful results. No matter how much you try to claim otherwise, your student's contribution is misleading to a lay reader, and they need to have read the secondary sources before ever typing a word. "not all text sourced with primary sources are misleading per se" – but in this case it was, and you're once again trying to defend the indefensible. Just make sure your students don't use primary sources for biomedical content; that's all it needs. And before you tell me that it's all just the English Wikipedia making unreasonable demands on editors, I've read it:Stimolazione cerebrale profonda and that backs up its biomedical claims using pmid:19273170 and pmid:19273169 (both reviews). The Italian Wikipedia employs secondary sources in the equivalent article, and won't thank you for dropping substandard material in there.

"I never acted to leave them poorly sourced, I simply had no time to revise their job up to now." That's the same excuse you've kept trotting out. Wikipedia is a collaborative project and content shouldn't be left in a poor state simply to fit your schedules. If you don't want to clean up after your students in a timely fashion, that's up to you; but it doesn't mean everybody else has to wait until you get around to it; and it doesn't mean that others are not entitled to criticise you for allowing the unacceptable work in the first place.

"Like there is no way a med users on itwikipedia come on a talk page assuming by a single copyviol that it was not teached to student." Have you any evidence to back up this unlikely assertion? When WP:CV is taught properly to students, they remember it.

"Talking about helping in that specific morning, yuor suggestion of going to the project does not help in the practical world." Of course it does. If you had found out ahead of time the topics your students were going to be working on, you could have told WPMED about it, had some advice on teaching MEDRS, and asked some of the editors there to check sandboxes or articles for you. You would have been met with a friendly, helpful response, and your students would have had the benefit of assistance from other experienced editors. Ask JenOttawa about her experience with WPMED when she ran a course for Queen's University.

All of your defensive braggadocio about about your experience and how you plan ahead is clearly contradicted by your students' performance in creating a copyvio that stood for days before another editor cleaned it up for you, and by your students' lack of knowledge about sourcing standards in medical articles. That is indisputable, as is your persistent refusal to take any responsibility for what happened. --RexxS (talk) 21:39, 27 May 2019 (UTC)

RexxS I read from your profile you are a teacher. Now as a teacher you know that you can make clear a concept as much as you want, there will be a student who does not follow it. For all the reasons. Please notice that I actually have a very low record in my activities of copyviol. As far as I remember, almost nothing. Among platforms. i saw however happening so many time so I will use the tolerance I had for other people.

Also, really it does not help. Look at this scenario here. the person who noticed the copyviol was not aware that it applies to the sandbox, considered it complicated to remove 8it is actually quite simple). You invested energies in proving I am not competent (which is not true) and even explaining to me a concept I told first in this conversation.

In your dealing with the primary sources, you applied the strongest way instead of using template:medref. It does exist for this reason. So instead of doing what takes a limited amount of time, you went fo the longer way.

here you discuss about me without even pingin me. This is a common concept of "collaboration" it happens a lot in many projects. it is more common when there are strong social dynamics.

In other wors your friendly, helpful response does not show, becasue the behaviours follows social pattern. A friendly response is always firendly since the beginning. I wuld have been with suspiscioun as this page proves. More importantly, I did not need that day, I was still waiting for a help, I had a sufficent amount of contact to be sure that the content would have not been worng, and I was expected to be there soon after. And Med project on enwikipedia does not have a friendly reputation in general. You are actually showing it here. You were never friendly, you assumed the worst since the beginning and insisted on that. you took the less friendly approach on anything even if you had a choice.

this is the standard dynamics of many projects, and it does not really help. you can inform them, I even did in the past, but you expect the worst. There is nothing worng or bad, it's usually like that. I accpet it. In some projects it's better, in other one is not but when you are in an emergency sitation like that, multypling this by a factor of four or five asking various projects is really unpractical.

Also please notice that the fact that a misuse of source can lead to a mislaeding text does not mean all texts with poor sources are misleading per se especially when they are witten and revised by competent people. That's why I was reverted for example here by one fo a competent user of this wikipedia with a strong medical background, because that is not a misleading text at all. It does not bring you anywhere wrong, it only brings to improve it. So if you say something correct, that is in many reviews, established knowledge but you use a primary source, replacing the source is quite simple especially if you are from the field, but that text is not misleading.

the italian wikipedia has users who wrote dozens of quality articles and have medical backgrounds. I talking to one right now and had no problem with those insertions at all. Nobody said they will be "dropped", simply that they have a much simpler way than here (which is not even applied by other users in this wiki). Because you don't act as if a text is wrong when it's not. it's actually part of a frendly environment to do so.

So they will act as Ian Furst, thinking that in fact a removal is more convoluted than necessary. I do think so, but honestly I really hope to quit this as fast as possible and discuss about the content somewhere else where it's just more productive.thta0s why I prefer to remove it. i am also fixing of course, no problem, but again I have a competent and friendly environment, don't blame me if I prefer it.

Simply I want real collaboration, not an explanation about collaboration.

I have really no idea anymore what confession do you want for me, but your attitude is the reason why I am scared.--Alexmar983 (talk) 22:18, 27 May 2019 (UTC)

@Alexmar983: If you read my profile, you'd know that I was a teacher, but I'm now retired after a varied career. It seems you also missed the point that I'm also a scuba diving instructor, and that's one position where you can't take the lackadaisical attitude of "there will be a student who does not follow it". Because if you do, you'll end up with a dead student. So, no: if a concept is important a good teacher finds ways to teach it, reinforce it, and check that it's been learned.

"the person who noticed the copyviol was not aware that it applies to the sandbox, considered it complicated to remove 8it is actually quite simple" That's downright untrue. SandyGeorgia is perfectly aware that copvio policy applies everywhere on Wikipedia, and if you carry on making demonstrably false accusations about other editors, I'll take you to ANI and seek sanctions against you. You should retract that PA immediately. The only reason Sandy mentioned the sandbox was because only an admin can delete it, and deletion was the proper course. Does your misrepresentation of what happened show your competence? I think not.

Template:More medical citations needed is for sections with medical or health content that need additional references or are using sources that are unreliable and/or outdated. That is not the correct template to mark a concern about a statement that violates MEDRS by virtue of having only primary sources. The template you meant is Template:Medical citation needed. The purpose of adding maintenance templates to articles is to attract other editors in an effort to fix a perceived problem. That doesn't happen if the text is not suitable to be left in place. When an editor adds a block of text that violates MEDRS, we move it to the talk page for discussion and to see if it can be fixed. We don't leave articles with misleading or inaccurate information, or that violate our policies and guidelines. You would obviously prefer to keep the bad work in the article so that your student can be assessed, but that's putting your course before Wikipedia; we have a pride in the quality of medical articles on Wikipedia, and I wish you would share it.

"In other wors your friendly, helpful response does not show" That's because you haven't seen my friendly, helpful response. You've only seen my annoyance that yet another course of students are damaging medical articles, and my frustration that the course teacher refuses to take any responsibility for the damage, or to correct it. I've invested far more time than you deserve in trying to get you to see your mistakes and to take steps to avoid them in future. All I've had back from you is a load of trite excuses that I've heard a hundred times before, bad-mouthing of one of the best Wikiprojects in existence, and a personal attack on a fellow editor.

Simply put, the only thing I want from you, when editing here, is for you to put Wikipedia before your courses, and if you can't do that, to stop using Wikipedia as a convenient test bed for your experiments in education. --RexxS (talk) 23:28, 27 May 2019 (UTC)

RexxS the text you removed was not misleading. I say so not because I think so bu because I revised with a person with a medical degree. In general, you approch was relatively excessive for the sitation, and you can see that where you were not present, things evolved much better with less effort.

I don't think I accused User:SandyGeorgia, I am simply trying to express the concept that she looked a little bit more lost than me... I could have handled it with less passages. And this is an example of the help of projects you sometimes get, many thing take actually more steps in these circumstances. When you miss time becasue of a critical situations, it's not what you hope to get.

The sitation in the class is closer to a class at school than in the scuba lesson... I was resposible for example for safety in labs, people could die if I did a poor job, but I would never compare oranges and apples. If I do, it's called risk management, and it's part of risk management to assess a situation. As an expert users of edit athons there is no sign here that a fact that such brutal copy and paste is related to the teaching. he is an isolated student, the onyl one who did not work in a group, it could be sign of a less interacting personality. God knows why he did what he did. Maybe he though he was late for the task, under pressure for something else, he assumed he coudl do it and go away with it. Certainly not that fact he was not told. In different passages. Next time I can try with empathy. I show this and I say, "look this what happens to me when you do this depsite my clear indication". Plus, if there is a rank system I will drop the atomic bomb. But as a person who was also in charge of a lab and therefore related risk management, I warn you that people who put excessive enphasis on a detail, miss the big picture. On the long term, you end up consuming energy to chase a ghost.

I put WIkipedia before them, this is like when you cited COI. Again, you say I missi the friendliness but look what you write? So much energy trying to make a character assasination of me. BTW Are you likely to clean up the problems, or will you be leaving it for the editors at WikiProjact Med as usual? is not friendly... you projected on a person you knew nothing your vision of the word.

it's late, did I miss something?--Alexmar983 (talk) 23:56, 27 May 2019 (UTC)

oh yes ou would obviously prefer to keep the bad work in the article so that your student can be assessed, but that's putting your course before Wikipedia now this is the sort of thing that toward you will make you think about personal attack :D. Now, i don't want that. My students can be assessed in many other ways. For example i am sending their mark and we will fix the content on itwiki later. No, the reason is that with somebody diffent than you it would have been easier to put the right sources (the content is not bad as you claim). The reason why I prefer to move them to itwikipedia is not because it's easier from the content point of view there. Not at all, quite the opposite, it requires more study, they have higher standard. They are not reassured by linking a guideline, or describing it, it's more about the beef. They are busy (since they are much less for the same amount of articles) so I don't even expect them to look for sources for me. Like the idea of somebody adding a source (the example I showed to you) would be unusual. I expect that I have to do it. Which is totally fine, It's however just easier in the end because they are collaborative in a substantial way. Like they will never criticize a text more than necessary, the feedback is more calibrated. So my goal is to produce quality. Make a good use of the bad circumstances that I had no control, still to produce it. Something that interacting with you is difficult.--Alexmar983 (talk) 01:04, 28 May 2019 (UTC)

@Alexmar983: The text I moved to the talk page was misleading, and I've explained clearly why. There is no appeal to authority on Wikipedia, and I do not agree that gaining a medical degree qualifies someone to grant a piece of content exemption from a Wikipedia sourcing guideline. So you explain to me why I should leave text that violates MEDRS, a central sourcing guideline for medical articles, in an article.

It's called "deflection" when you attempt to deflect criticism of your own actions by trying to find fault with the person bringing the criticism. Now it's your turn to justify why you would allow one student to add a copyvio and another student to add biomedical information based only on primary sources. Please explain how you think the encyclopedia benefits from leaving content that violates MEDRS in an article, rather than moving it to the talk page.

"I don't think I accused User:SandyGeorgia Excuse me? What does this mean then: That's a pretty clear judgement on what Sandy doesn't know, and it's completely false. There are very few medical editors with more experience or competence than Sandy. If she "looked a little bit more lost" to you, I think you need to stop jumping to those sort of conclusions.

Nobody said the situation in the class was like a scuba lesson. The point I made is that in any teaching situation there are ways to make sure that a student has learned, and I gave you an example of when such quality assurance is vital. In that sense, the context is immaterial; it's the pedagogy that is analogous. Risk management depends completely on context, so I do a risk assessment on the site where I am teaching divers in open water. Making sure that they know not to hold their breath is quality assurance on the teaching of the underpinning knowledge. Picking a site where the depth is strictly limited to six metres by the bottom is risk mitigation. The former is part of the absolutely essential learning for the student and the instructor has to ensure it is learned; whereas the latter is a technique the instructor may be able to use to improve safety and is not part of the student's learning process. I sincerely hope you can appreciate the difference.

there is no sign here that a fact that such brutal copy and paste is related to the teaching. I beg to differ. The responsibility for ensuring that a student knows that they mustn't violate copyright rests with the teacher, and there's no reason why a teacher should not satisfy themselves that their students know that. In the real world, I've sanctioned teachers who have either knowingly or carelessly allowed students to submit copied work for public examinations.

the reason is that with somebody diffent than you it would have been easier to put the right sources (the content is not bad as you claim) The content is as bad as I claim. Are you now suggesting that it's okay for students to add copyvios and biomedical information sourced only to primary sources? How is that "not bad"? And how on earth do you get to blame me for your abject failure to teach the students to find the right sources? You've really outdone your previous efforts there.

I apologise unreservedly for my "will you be leaving it for the editors at WikiProject Med as usual" remark. It is a truism that far too many student courses end up with WPMED editors having to clean up the articles edited by the students, but I should not have prejudged you. I really hope you will now prove my initial cynicism wrong. --RexxS (talk) 01:21, 28 May 2019 (UTC)

So, when i handled a copyviol I don't do it step by step, I remove than I comment if it's a quite simple one (and this was linear, I counld't see it but was described as copy and paste). For me when User:SandyGeorgia came here it looked like an unnecessarly slow process. If i see a copyviol I remove from the sandbox, if you make no citation I assume you don't know about it. than you use the proper templates or you go directly to request for sysops. If you explain everything why not pointing out that too? In the end, that's not reeally the point, the point is that if I had informed the project and I had been a copyviol (which I know how to handle fast and also to detect if I am online decently) I would have had more passages for something I can do in one. Can I say I usually act faster if I am on line in these circumstance?

Now taking responsability for what a student does, does not mean that yuo cannot point out that he would have probably done no matter what. If I think about all the edit a thons I attended, or analyzied it's not so rare . I remember a funny picture uploaded before a class. Than gender-gap initiatives, the one I was in I recall no issue. Another event in September, the ones I followed were fine I did nothing different than usual here. He was told, he was shown why not. At a certain point you said I put students before wikipedia (in the talk of the article), now you seem to say I do not show enough resposnability for them. I care about them, but not to take the entire blame if somebody copy and paste a text so brutally. It could happen, I see it happen to other people and I did not make such a fuzz. The only thing I can do is to add another step, as I told you, mostly emotional I'd say. But it's a homework, I am not even there when he does it. I can remove totally the homework part. it's less work for me. So if they do later, it's not formally under my responsabilty, it's their choice. They are adult. But surpsrisingly, in practice this mean I take less resposnabilty, not more. And sorry but the fact that In the real world, you've sanctioned teachers who have either knowingly or carelessly allowed students to submit copied work for public examinations does not apply. I did not do knowingly nor carelessly induce the behavior. You said yourselves I care more about my students than wiki, so doing so mean I give to them a lower grade. And as a son of a teacher myself I am quite surprised that such sanction is applied outside of iterative or mass behaviour. That sounds unfair. I don't expect a school system with such rule to be optimal. It lacks depth. Looks more like appearance than result. such as a school that "solves" problems discharging on a weakest link, because a teacher takes a blame for one single action. teachers don't eed to be scared, they need to be supported. (especially if they deal with minors).

I did not blame you for the insertion. I simply said that without you it would have been easier to fix it. I don't think it is a misleading content, the use of DPS for Parkison is constantly reviewed. At the same time, I asked for an additional comment. It was not considered misleading, and again it's more subtle then applying for the authority here. I told you that only someone with a medical degree can state this correctly, not you or me. And in wikipedia, the only think you should stick to if it respects the guideline but not everything that does not respect is by default a misleading content. It just makes clear what is the ideal long-term result, not the best pathway in the present to reach it when such perfection is not there. At the procedural level, it's a choice based on personal approach and hopefully also medical competence. For example in the example I showed to you a person who knows the guideline but also is a doctor decided such text could be reinserted and removing it was more complicated than fixing. Based on the fact it is more or less misleading or not you can go the hard (removal) or the soft way (template, fixing you directly aparently), but since there is no authority it's difficult to define a medical content as misleading when you are alone in front of it. You can only say when it's missourced or clearly wrong. So since it's not clearly wrong and everybody can decide to go the soft or hard way, my opinions is that going the soft way was possible in that case and would have lead to better result. With no critical loss of image for wikipedia, no more than all the unsoruced statement you have and real doctors actually find misleading. Than again I am sorry that it was published but I already took all the actions so it won't happen again.

And you describe me as somebody who says he want an exemption from a Wikipedia sourcing guideline. No. I said that making it follows the guideline would have been easier without your approach. I ams ure you did based on your experience, but based on my experience it could have been different and more successful. I am comparing it with other cases. Again, you are investing a lot of effort to put in my mounth a behaviour I did not have. Should I start to act more melodramatic?

What are you in practice protecting wikipedia from, right now?

(a) insertion of copyviol? It happened, he decided to copy and paste. i can add additional step but there will alwys be a copyviol in some classes. Not just my classes, classes in general. I will never deny this fact just because it sounds more pure. it does not make me a person who does not care, or does not put effort. i think it's more honest. Show me a man who does do mistake, I will show you one who does nothing.

(b) unsourced medical insert? I told you, I never wanted to enter this field since the beginning. I actually gave a solution, you call me melodramatic, but it's an effective one. it also help the copyviol because I can reduce the students I have in front of me. I aslo told you in the medicine field I come from expereince in a project that has a higher level of quality in evaluation but much more flexible social patterns, so it's possible that the approach is different. I worked with people on medical article that do not repeat a guideline, they discuss the content.

(c) not informing the project. I assured you I will. But you have to accept the personal experience when I tell you that reality is not as easy as you depict. It was not the best move there to add 3-4 projects in the mix. Plus, in any case, I don't have reason to do it because I don't want to edit in the field. i didn't want even before it.

(d) taking responsability. I take responsability for not informing the project, I told you so. I take resposnability for not inserting the specific guideline. But not for the copyviol the way you put it because I think this generalization is unfair and useless in practice, you dont crucify a person for a copy and paste of a student. Nobody deserves that . And this is because i don't do it with other people as well. I have seen very competent users becoming enraged when you spot a copyviol at their classes, it's like their word of perfection crashes and they don't know how to handle it, they don't know how to imagine themselves all the time the gave a lecture about it, they look so aggresive and unhappy so I know how sensitive it is. I opted for tolerance. So if for once it happened to me this way, I cannot lying just to please the person I have in front of me.--Alexmar983 (talk) 02:48, 28 May 2019 (UTC)

'Tis a mystery to me why this conversation is still going on. Alexmar983, I seem to detect some extreme but really unnecessary defensiveness. Short message: there have been long-standing serious problems with student editing, and if you are more responsible than the typical supervisor of student editing, kudos on you, and thanks for at least engaging (few do).

Perhaps I furthered some of the long discussion by asking RexxS if he would be willing to handle the copyvio, and suggesting that I otherwise would be fine avoiding the history purge (knowing it was unlikely that it could be dealt with anytime soon). Yes, the technically correct path involves templates and posts to places where ... there are simply not enough admins to deal with the amount of copyvio that exists on Wikipedia (a good amount attributable to student editing), most of which is never dealt with, leading experienced editors to shortcut the templating process for a quicker solution whenever feasible. Trying to train up student editors in copyvio is a waste of time, since they never return to become helpful editors. Yes, I know the process; it is backlogged, there is a short supply of admins willing and able to do the work, and the effort of tagging, templating and dealing with student editors is lost as the lessons are not taken on board to create editors who will add good content in the future.

I appreciate that RexxS was willing to deal with the copyvio directly so I didn't have to go through all the gyrations and then wait months for someone to deal with it. I am sorry to have drug RexxS into this lengthy and unproductive discussion, which I hope will end quickly. All persons supervising student editors who are adding biomedical content should engage a curriculum which forces the student to FIRST identify the recent secondary reviews they are planning to use; that would solve a lot of problems. Had the student adding the dietary information on Tourette syndrome first identified the most recent secondary review, they would have seen that there is nothing new, and nothing to add. I hope that lesson will be carried forward to future students. I understand it is near impossible to get students who are forced to edit for a grade to care about copyvio. Regards, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 13:38, 28 May 2019 (UTC)

User talk:SandyGeorgia this is it, you say "Trying to train up student editors in copyvio is a waste of time, since they never return to become helpful editors", actually even if I know they are rarely future editor, trying to teach them copyviol is related to licence and copyviol in their professional life. Recognizing for example licences of open access, different types, how a small rephrasing is more tolerated in a scientific article than here, how professional pusblisher deal with it and how sometimes aggressive policy make you loose time. In another edit a thon, i showed them the example of a boss who was so unaware he forced to redo an image that was free to be reused. So I don't feel as a waste of time, I put in a structured contest. It'ìs actually quite refined. So it's very unusual to see a student do a brutal copy and paste like that in my experience. They actually are quite engaged. i had to cut the image part which is moslty on that topic but the text part was there. This student was more isolated, you see he even put a group on his own. Also, the grade is something I give for them, the exam is a "pass". So long they do not make a terrible disaster, they actually just... pass. It's a very light event, asked to be done at the very last minute. I take it seriously, more than necessary. i couls have avoided as I said a home homework and give a "pass" directly.

And as long as admin will react this way there will be not enough of them to deal with the amount of copyviol. In the time it was spent to prove that I was dishonest about my competence, RexSSS could have detected two or three of them. If you shot in the wrong place, you might run out of bullets. But I told not to follow social pattern, didn't I?

In any case this discussion was not unprodctive, it showed how as I always assumed med topic should be avoided as much as possible on enwikipedia. So you won't have to deal with me, this is a promise. But this discussion will be used, in the way I depicted. it will help me to scare them, which is quite useful.--Alexmar983 (talk) 14:05, 28 May 2019 (UTC)

It should be obvious that expecting students to effectively add medical content is a stretch—or, as a friend once said to me, "Louisa May Alcott is not cholera"—but it's not, and courses turn unprepared students loose on important medical topics all the time. Adding misinformation in the biomedical realm can have consequences unlike adding misinformation to Louisa May Alcott. And yet, courses continue to use a live encyclopedia, and articles with consequences, as a training ground, which is disrespectful and creates an unnecessary burden on the few medical editors striving to keep unreliable content out of articles. If the professors cannot adequately supervise their students, they shouldn't be expecting us to, and they shouldn't be using Wikipedia as a training ground. That there are too few of us, having to clean up after too many poorly supervised students adding biomedical information that readers may take seriously, is a problem; if the conclusion is that students should not be casually editing medical content without full supervision for sourcing and copyvio, I guess that's a good conclusion. Student editing projects use Wikipedia to train students in real-life lessons; that is not compatible with the goals of an online encyclopedia, and it's "not our job". One way to solve that problem is to NEVER let students move content out of sandbox unless it has been vetted by a professor knowledgeable about Wikipedia. But ... since editor JBMurray, there is no such thing, so ... Regards, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:40, 28 May 2019 (UTC)

User:SandyGeorgia yes but they were supervised for copyviol. I can find copyviol even in courses of expert users (I suppose what i just found), that does not mean they are unspervised... and I am not expecting you to do anything, since the beginning my core message was that beside the unepected cirucmstance, I could handle. I was never believed. And you "all the time" is my "once". So as long as I can understand your point, I simply tried to make clear there was no reason to worry. Wikipedia is a limited fraction of my class, I can always skip it especially in this field. Or make a different combination (for example go to another language when this "immunitary system approach" is structured differently). So, since I have some problem understand what RexxS really try expect from me when I honestly disagree with some assertions, and you seem clam, what do want for example from me right now? I am glad to give it to you. I so much want a real calm long-term driven conversation like the one I had with User:Geoide for years discussing about details, stuations and work to do.--Alexmar983 (talk) 16:50, 28 May 2019 (UTC)

... what do want for example from me right now? To consider this conversation over, so I won't get pinged anymore for a situation that is hopefully resolved. In fact, was resolved a week ago ... SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:56, 28 May 2019 (UTC)

User:SandyGeorgia it did not reping the first time, right? But as a proof I just put a speedydeletion template on a bad copyviol on a page, so you can be assured (sorry, but I need to prove it in general) that I do care abut copyright and procedure. My behaviour was not coming from me not caring, but from my experience of analyzing dozens of edit a thon. Also please if you agree with the part where I was told I was kinda insulting you or accusing of false concept (or somehing like that) is true, please let me know. Have a nice wiki. it was glad interacting with you.--Alexmar983 (talk) 17:00, 28 May 2019 (UTC)

RexxS the article you sent me had no link tot he Barclay's edit-a-thon you cited as an example, as far I could see. I have found Wikipedia:Barclays edit-a-thon. In the talk there are cited "378 pages edited or created". Where is the list? Thank you.

The artcle is from June 2014. In one of the artcile cited Zeng Jenlian I found no edit in 2014 in English, but it could be another language. In any can you show I recent edit a thon you have attended? Thank you--Alexmar983 (talk) 22:50, 27 May 2019 (UTC)

@Alexmar983: You are still trying to deflect. Read the WMUK blog I gave you the link to, as it tells the story of the event. I gave you that link, as you requested, for you to learn how a multi-topic, multi-lingual editathon can be organised. That event was a huge success and none of the many folks involved in making it a success is going to take kindly to your attempts to denigrate it. --RexxS (talk) 23:28, 27 May 2019 (UTC)

RexxS that's a odd answer. You are accusing me of denigrating? the core aspect was a edit a thon that turned multitopic unexpcetedly, which is not the case of that one but this is still acceptable as an example. You kinda said you are available for questions but you don't act accordingly. it's true that your example is strange. Usually, edit-a-thon pages have a clear list of users and modified articles. But it could be old, can you show me please a more recent one? I really need to understand how you work in practice. It's not about showing your credentials (which however you ask to me) but understanding you. You talk about collaboration but you are full of accusations. Can I please have a recent example? thank you.--Alexmar983 (talk) 23:36, 27 May 2019 (UTC)

@Alexmar983: When you asked for a link to a multi-topic, multi-lingual editathon, why didn't you follow up by asking about how things were organised? I find it odd that you start questioning whether an edit was made to a particular article and by demanding a list from five years ago. How do those help you understand? You call the organisation strange because it doesn't have a page with a clear list of users and modified articles. Indeed, and that's because all edits from Barclays anywhere in the world went through their proxy servers and we were able to get their tech department to filter their server logs and produce the list of every edit made, by whom, and to which article. That means we had actual data of every participant who made an edit, not a prediction based on who signed up on a wiki page as most events have.

There are two ways to avoid being caught out by an editathon turning multi-topic unexpectedly: (1) Plan so far in advance that you know what topic every participant is going to edit; and (2) expect it to be a multi-topic editathon. The first is most practical when you have a rigidly delineated audience: for example, I recently did an workshop/editathon for the Theoretical Roman Archaeology Conference 2019 at the University of Kent. The numbers were unknown, so I made sure there was also a local trainer, whom I've trained with in the past and with whom I have a good rapport. Nevertheless, there was absolutely no doubt that that they would be editing on topics related to Roman archaeology, so I didn't have to teach them about MEDRS! The second approach means that you may be faced with a participant editing on a topic that requires MEDRS, or a participant wanting to create a new article on a living person (which means you need to teach them about WP:BLP and WP:NPERSON, assuming you already covered WP:GNG). In those sort of cases you have to make a decision whether to teach the policy as a group exercise (best if multiple participants need it), or to work with someone one-to-one during the practical editing session or while a co-trainer is delivering other content. --RexxS (talk) 00:22, 28 May 2019 (UTC)

RexxS yes I help at events about BLP, but instead of listing all these details my request is much more simple. Can you please link to me a page of an edit a thon with newbies that you organized with a list of users and related edited pages, please?--Alexmar983 (talk) 00:27, 28 May 2019 (UTC)

@Alexmar983: Why? What will you learn from that? --RexxS (talk) 01:27, 28 May 2019 (UTC)

How you actually handle them, I don't need a list of general guidelines I know. i want to see what you show here. And the type of edits. For being a person with such a strong opinion, you should have expereince, so there should be pages that prove such experience. For example I want to look at the amount of insertions, the type of mistakes by users and how they were corrected. So again, please can you link to me an edit a thon you organized? giving a lecture in room is the easy part, I want to see how it filetered down here on ns0.--Alexmar983 (talk) 02:33, 28 May 2019 (UTC)

Oh I see. You're deflecting again. I thought for a minute you genuinely wanted advice at last. You want me to prove to you that I have experience. And then what? You get the chance to go through the articles looking for the slightest issue to troll me with. Do you think I'm stupid? This is about your failures in teaching, not about my record in outreach. Do your own homework, if you don't know who I am. When you're ready to listen to someone who's capable of giving you the advice you need, ask for it genuinely and honestly, instead of playing silly games. In the meantime, sort out your present course before even thinking of criticising someone else's. --RexxS (talk) 03:28, 28 May 2019 (UTC)

RexxS actually you are deflecting. You cannot give so many kb of advice and strong opinions without giving a practical example. Show, don't tell. You mostly link to "windows" such as website not the on-wiki stuff. you say my expertise does not show so far, but your does not show either in the field of organizing edit a thon. Of course there will be mistakes, who cares. it's not the mistake I care, is how you handle it. that's your real expertise. I never teach something if not by strating by my mistakes. Did you notice when I said i will show this page? that's it. I really need to see how you handle them to understand you, beacuse that's the only chance i have to really communicate with you here. Who is the RexxS who organize edit a thon and deal with the mistakes of newbie no matter how hard he tries? i don't understand why do you think this approach pays off? In my experience it never did. So plaes show me an example of an edit-a-thon with newbies you organized, it is important if you want to discussion to go somewhere.--Alexmar983 (talk) 04:00, 28 May 2019 (UTC)

@Alexmar983: Is that the best you can do? There's only one person here who screwed up and it's certainly not me. If you want to ignore good advice, do so, but don't start demanding that I have to prove myself to you in order to give it. You don't believe I'm able to give you advice? I became a qualified teacher in 1973, what's your teaching qualification? The only thing you've shown so far is that you did a bad job of teaching this course and you have no interest in improving. You want to see me delivering a course? I'll notify you of the next one I run, and you'll be welcome to take part and learn.

"Of course there will be mistakes, who cares" You should care, and it's a pity that you don't. You want to criticise my outreach work? Fix your own work first. You promised to fix the problems caused by your students this weekend. You haven't, so it will be WPMED editors again having to clean up the mess left by the likes of you.

When are you going to take responsibility for your lack of forethought and supervision that allowed your students to violate WP:CV and WP:MEDRS? I've asked this several times and received nothing more than broken promises to fix it. You should be ashamed of your conduct. --RexxS (talk) 04:22, 28 May 2019 (UTC)

RexxS I worked the whole week end on the articles, I am waiting for their last feedbacks on some details. There are currently some mails I am waiting for a reply by the students and if you want to state what is still to be fixed in ns0, please. It's simple to show that in no way I avoid the workload. The dad of a student died so I think I will skip that task. also, what is removed to be discussed on itwiki will not be put here. I told you why.

I was transparent to my bad job, I only asked you to be transapent to your good job. not the future, the past, it's much easier to link... Which will have some mistakes in any case, and I don't care if they are there because that's... life. Where I said I don't care about my mistakes? I think I have stated that I tresure them. You have no reason to be defensive based on my values. I told you many times I do not treat people like I don't want them to treat me... so come one, show an example of a past edit a thon with newbies you did, let me see.

I was direct, you just don't notice those sentences, I still try to understand how you want them to be written. I took responsability for not informing the project I think twice, but this is not separeted from the fact of telling why I did not do it. Just one thing I cannot agree with you and is your position of copyviol. it is excessive, based on my experience helping so many others users, especially since I did tell the students carefully and something like that can simply occur soon or later.

Teaching is not my main job but I did it sporadically in many fields. Sometimes paid, mostly for free (I avoid problem with taxes) Actually I never wanted to do it full time (I was suggested) because I saw the terrible life my mother did. Unapreciated. I even helped when she was in the union for her job. I am invited to teach because of my qualifications, my job is the only qualification I have to do it. It's acutally more difficult without a qualification to teach, you really need to show step by step everyday how much you care and you are worth it. i don't "experiment" like a game, it's not a hobby, it is the mission I do in exchange for the choice of not doing it full time like my mom did. I don't blame me, I just think that as long as I can help another teacher, I feel good doing it. So I am sorry about this situation because it's a spot I wanted to avoid but at the same time I know that I am in good faith, I am not hiding it, I have made many other good things and I already fixed it for the long-term. The only difference is that we process in a different way. Tht's why I need to understand you on that aspect, we will never speak the same language otherwise.

also "no interest in improving" sound unfair if not false. I have already cited two or three things I will do next time. I will inform the project (in reality, I won't touch these topics but fine), I will remove additional students out fo the room, I will show to them this page to scary them to death not to copy and paste. I can tell you that I will put a link to WP:MEDRS... again I can put you everywhere even if it is not relevant to the edit a thon. Please see these things.

And with all due respect, I should not be "ashamed" of my conduct, I am a trasparent person that never hide his mistake (that's why people like you think they should insist this way, they think if there is one, there will be more...): I care about wikipedia. So Don't be melodramatic?--Alexmar983 (talk) 05:03, 28 May 2019 (UTC)

Ok since I was at a certian point asked to prove some assertion I have also asked User:Geoide, one of top medical contributor on itwikipedia, to come here and describe me. I have no other way, I really don't know what else I can do. She understands English but you can stick to very precise questions, maybe. I can make a bullet point list of critical aspect and she can express her opinion if they are true. This is however getting surreal. Hoping this is not called a "deflection" or something like that.--Alexmar983 (talk) 00:01, 28 May 2019 (UTC)

@Alexmar983: Sure, just ask ask her to repeat the assertion so that I know what you're both talking about. When we've done that, you can make a bulleted list of the things I've criticised you for, and we can ask somebody from WPMED (they are the top medical contributors on enwiki) to express their opinion if they are true. Does that sound fair? --RexxS (talk) 01:27, 28 May 2019 (UTC)

The equivalent would be that they verify assertions you made about yourself. So you claimed:

you have direct experience of multifacted and composite edit-a-thons (that's good actually I hope they can list me some deep-rooted examples here, I hope)

you always remove text the very same way you did in that page (which I think it's true, BTW)

what else?--Alexmar983 (talk) 04:09, 28 May 2019 (UTC)

Good afternoon @RexxS: and @Alexmar983:. I am here because I've been "tagged". I left Wikipedia a few months ago, mainly because of these absurd discussions.

I appreciate your sincere interest towards both all students and readers, but the problem is that you are "too" tied to your personal vision. I do believe that medical data cannot be misleading: there's a need for the sources to be implemented and corrected. Copyviol is all right - even in good faith.

Alexmar is an extremely professional teacher and a serious tutor when it comes to edithatons. However, unfortunaltely, things can happen. And you can't always control things.

I believe in the future of this mutual cooperation, but I also believe that it would be necessary for everyone to think twice about their own positions.

Please, make love, not war. Good luck. P.S.: Sorry about my English.--Geoide (talk) 13:12, 28 May 2019 (UTC)

Thank you. I hope if as requested you can aslo find some time to explain the type of discssion we had at the Med project on itwiki (for example the evalutaion of quality articles when I helped with the revision) and how they are quite different than the approach shown here. Which is more similar to approach in other areas of itwiki, that's true. I am also tempeted to put the "retired users" template here. The only position I cannot rethink is the rigid position describe dhere that a copyviol violation is a sign of critical situation. it's not. I have had many events with no critical situation of copyviol, I have found many copyviol is other events by entitled competent users, this position is not realistic. I only wish to work with people with practical and coherent approach. I am not sure this will "protect" enwikipedia but it's not my main business so I am happy to leave as soon as possble. I will show what happen here to future editors, what happen somewhere else, they will decide the environment they prefer.--Alexmar983 (talk) 13:46, 28 May 2019 (UTC)

Hi RexxS just as way to show my competence since I had some time in this hour and I ams till waiting for the last students' reply, I make some check.

When you asked to be an event coordinator you did not have to put any link at all to the pages of your previous events on enwiki even there? There should be pages in seven years that can used a clear procedural reference. Try to understand how much is bizarre to face a platform where an event flag can be given to a user with a simple self-declaration, but the worst can be assumed by one event for another user. I mean if you care so much because of your professional past, maybe you should have been more clear there. This is one the reason why we have communication problem I suppose here, I don't get your style. it's uneven.

What is a "lead trainer"? is it a formal position in WMUK? Does it require that a panel of possibly independent users verify the events attended by the user before giving such title? I actually asked for it in one of my chapter (that's how i take resposnabilty here and in the real world), I would be glad to discover if such procedure existed somewhere, that would be very professional. BTW I also register people days in advance but I never had that problem because my rate is almost 100% there. So it's good to know I am more effective than an expert like you user under such aspect. That's something.

I also looked in the log if I could find any movement of flag to users to find some event you could have been involved. I still don't see a lot of activity but from this one I have found Wikipedia:GLAM/Ikon.

First of all there is a weak separation between tutors and students in the page. The list of information is limited but it could be because you had enough experienced tutors. Than, for being such ratio of expert users there should not be many mistakes right?

First click I did was to go for FrancJonsn because he did not sign himself aparently. He left a sandbox User:FrancJonsn/Colin Dick that is copied from an article of The Guardian here. The sandbox is May 2018, this is also a wayback machine of the article in 2017. Now i can go further but it does not really matter, it's just the only way I try to show you how unfair your approach on copyright is. i don't think you or the main organizer are bad tutors. Can you please understand this aspect?--Alexmar983 (talk) 16:41, 28 May 2019 (UTC)