Talk:Wasilla, Alaska

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. JacobB_{Shout 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)

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)