Changes

:::Joaquin, unfortunately just putting quotation marks around the entire section does not solve the problem.  It is unethical to take an article written by someone else on another site (and a commercial one at that), and copy the entire thing into an article here.  When you do this, you are taking traffic away from the original site.  On a commercial site, the author (or the site owner) makes an income from their writing via the ads on the site.  The income is based on the number of pageviews and other site statistics.  When you copy the entire article here, you eliminate the need for the reader to click through to the original site, thus depriving the author of appropriate compensation for their work.  It's stealing, and the original author is losing income because of it.  Even if the site is created by a government agency, and therefore is in the public domain, when you take traffic away from their web site, they lose pageviews, which ultimately could affect their funding and in turn the existence of their job.  The appropriate way to use another author's material is to quote '''part''' of it, with a reference to the rest.  You might say "Author Jane Smith, in her article ''This and Such'', argues that "whatever the quote is". <nowiki><ref>Jane Smith, ''This and Such'', retrieved 01/01/08 [URL]</ref></nowiki>  As a basic guideline, if you are cutting and pasting something without integrating the material into the existing article, then you are probably plagiarizing.  I am removing the "Ten Arguments Against Abortion" material, and I'll leave it to you to decide how you'd like to incorporate some of the information into the existing article. --[[User:Hsmom|Hsmom]] 12:19, 11 October 2008 (EDT)

:::Joaquin, unfortunately just putting quotation marks around the entire section does not solve the problem.  It is unethical to take an article written by someone else on another site (and a commercial one at that), and copy the entire thing into an article here.  When you do this, you are taking traffic away from the original site.  On a commercial site, the author (or the site owner) makes an income from their writing via the ads on the site.  The income is based on the number of pageviews and other site statistics.  When you copy the entire article here, you eliminate the need for the reader to click through to the original site, thus depriving the author of appropriate compensation for their work.  It's stealing, and the original author is losing income because of it.  Even if the site is created by a government agency, and therefore is in the public domain, when you take traffic away from their web site, they lose pageviews, which ultimately could affect their funding and in turn the existence of their job.  The appropriate way to use another author's material is to quote '''part''' of it, with a reference to the rest.  You might say "Author Jane Smith, in her article ''This and Such'', argues that "whatever the quote is". <nowiki><ref>Jane Smith, ''This and Such'', retrieved 01/01/08 [URL]</ref></nowiki>  As a basic guideline, if you are cutting and pasting something without integrating the material into the existing article, then you are probably plagiarizing.  I am removing the "Ten Arguments Against Abortion" material, and I'll leave it to you to decide how you'd like to incorporate some of the information into the existing article. --[[User:Hsmom|Hsmom]] 12:19, 11 October 2008 (EDT)

=="Silly" edits==

=="Silly" edits==

I appreciate that the grammar of my edit was suspect at best (I blame the lateness of the edit), but I think that the fact that taking of life has to be with malice for a civilised society to not condone it.  As many civilised societies permit capital punishment.  Sure having that fact there weakens the arguement made in the point, but not having it there will mean that many people will reject it out of hand --[[User:J00ni|J00ni]] 04:50, 11 October 2008 (EDT)

I appreciate that the grammar of my edit was suspect at best (I blame the lateness of the edit), but I think that the fact that taking of life has to be with malice for a civilised society to not condone it.  As many civilised societies permit capital punishment.  Sure having that fact there weakens the arguement made in the point, but not having it there will mean that many people will reject it out of hand --[[User:J00ni|J00ni]] 04:50, 11 October 2008 (EDT)

: I agree, and would reinstate your change, except that I'm going to delete the whole section as discussed in the ''Plagiarism'' section above.  [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 07:49, 11 October 2008 (EDT)

: I agree, and would reinstate your change, except that I'm going to delete the whole section as discussed in the ''Plagiarism'' section above.  [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 07:49, 11 October 2008 (EDT)