Difference between revisions of "Talk:Wasilla, Alaska"
From Conservapedia
(thanks) |
|||
| (2 intermediate revisions by one other user not shown) | |||
| Line 4: | Line 4: | ||
:::I'm sure he'll agree as well, it was reverted out. But in your case, LyleT, there are much better - and more respectful - ways of pointing out problems within the site. I'm sure you have wisdom enough to realize that. [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 22:33, 1 September 2010 (EDT) | :::I'm sure he'll agree as well, it was reverted out. But in your case, LyleT, there are much better - and more respectful - ways of pointing out problems within the site. I'm sure you have wisdom enough to realize that. [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 22:33, 1 September 2010 (EDT) | ||
::::Thank you for your help, Karajou. I'll try to beef this page up a bit. I'm sorry if I came across as overly rude -- given my own past experience, I have very little respect for plagiarists and those who defend them. --[[User:LyleT|LyleT]] 22:35, 1 September 2010 (EDT) | ::::Thank you for your help, Karajou. I'll try to beef this page up a bit. I'm sorry if I came across as overly rude -- given my own past experience, I have very little respect for plagiarists and those who defend them. --[[User:LyleT|LyleT]] 22:35, 1 September 2010 (EDT) | ||
| + | |||
| + | Plagiarism is the taking, without attribution, for academic gain, according to none other than Professor R. J.Jensen. [[User_talk:RJJensen#Post_Office]] The site was government site, it appeared to me, and is attributed. LyleT, troll somewhere else. --<big>[[User:TK|'''ṬK''']]</big><sub>/Admin</sub><sup>[[User_Talk:TK|/Talk]]</sup> 22:36, 1 September 2010 (EDT) | ||
| + | :While this article doesn't meet the technical definition of "plagiarism," it does seem to be in violation of the Conservapedia Commandments. #1 forbids directly copying material from other sources unless you produced them. I have noticed this sort of copying on several pages, in fact. Am I misunderstanding the guidelines? --[[User:DrewJ|DrewJ]] 14:50, 2 September 2010 (EDT) | ||
Latest revision as of 18:50, September 2, 2010
This page is plagiarized, there's nothing more to it. I don't understand why pointing this out is "trolling". --LyleT 22:18, 1 September 2010 (EDT)
- As an admin, TK is more than qualified to judge what constitutes plagiarism, particuarly compared to a user with a dozen edits. As a former admin, I would instruct you to drop this immediately. JacobBShout out! 22:25, 1 September 2010 (EDT)
- This is not a case where judging whether it's plagiarism is necessary: it is absolutely cut-and-dry word-for-word cut and paste, down to the missing apostrophe. I'm sure TK will agree when he returns, given the wisdom that admins possess. --LyleT 22:28, 1 September 2010 (EDT)
- I'm sure he'll agree as well, it was reverted out. But in your case, LyleT, there are much better - and more respectful - ways of pointing out problems within the site. I'm sure you have wisdom enough to realize that. Karajou 22:33, 1 September 2010 (EDT)
- Thank you for your help, Karajou. I'll try to beef this page up a bit. I'm sorry if I came across as overly rude -- given my own past experience, I have very little respect for plagiarists and those who defend them. --LyleT 22:35, 1 September 2010 (EDT)
- I'm sure he'll agree as well, it was reverted out. But in your case, LyleT, there are much better - and more respectful - ways of pointing out problems within the site. I'm sure you have wisdom enough to realize that. Karajou 22:33, 1 September 2010 (EDT)
- This is not a case where judging whether it's plagiarism is necessary: it is absolutely cut-and-dry word-for-word cut and paste, down to the missing apostrophe. I'm sure TK will agree when he returns, given the wisdom that admins possess. --LyleT 22:28, 1 September 2010 (EDT)
Plagiarism is the taking, without attribution, for academic gain, according to none other than Professor R. J.Jensen. User_talk:RJJensen#Post_Office The site was government site, it appeared to me, and is attributed. LyleT, troll somewhere else. --ṬK/Admin/Talk 22:36, 1 September 2010 (EDT)
- While this article doesn't meet the technical definition of "plagiarism," it does seem to be in violation of the Conservapedia Commandments. #1 forbids directly copying material from other sources unless you produced them. I have noticed this sort of copying on several pages, in fact. Am I misunderstanding the guidelines? --DrewJ 14:50, 2 September 2010 (EDT)
