Talk:Drama queen
From RationalWikiWiki
[edit] Blatant plagiarism
Amazing. Are you really down to cutting and pasting articles from RW now? You could have at least acknowledged it - or for that matter me, as I wrote 99% of it.--False Flag 16:17, 3 June 2009 (UTC)
- It should have been here. In copying it I do not take credit for the work, I am merely doing my job here (adding content). --Arthropleura 16:34, 3 June 2009 (UTC)
- If your job here is simply plagiarism then you are doing well. If your job is to produce interesting original content then you are not.--False Flag 17:20, 3 June 2009 (UTC)
- Your point? --Arthropleura 17:30, 3 June 2009 (UTC)
- Do I take it that reading is not your strong point? My point is that you should produce original content and not plagiarize the work of others.--False Flag 17:37, 3 June 2009 (UTC)
- [1] --Arthropleura 17:39, 3 June 2009 (UTC)
- You also lost all rights when you wrote it. --Arthropleura 17:46, 3 June 2009 (UTC)
- If you do not understand the concept of plagiarism then I have no more to say to you.--False Flag 17:49, 3 June 2009 (UTC)
- Check the page moron. Little 'note' at the end. --Arthropleura 17:54, 3 June 2009 (UTC)
- Although my real point is simply about the morality of copying other work, if you want to get technical about it and refer to the GNU, I'd say that section four paragraph (I) says that you need to include the document history, and section (J) says that you need to link back to the original. In other words you need to acknowledge the source and link back to it.--False Flag 18:24, 3 June 2009 (UTC)
- Then why not just do that? You can edit it just as well as CUR can. Or if you think it should be deleted from RWW, then say so. weaseLICIOuS Bite Me 18:51, 3 June 2009 (UTC)
- Fair comment. Although my objections to CUR's plagiarism remain. But if nobody objects here, I shall presently edit the article to credit its origins.--False Flag 19:44, 3 June 2009 (UTC)
- Then why not just do that? You can edit it just as well as CUR can. Or if you think it should be deleted from RWW, then say so. weaseLICIOuS Bite Me 18:51, 3 June 2009 (UTC)
- Although my real point is simply about the morality of copying other work, if you want to get technical about it and refer to the GNU, I'd say that section four paragraph (I) says that you need to include the document history, and section (J) says that you need to link back to the original. In other words you need to acknowledge the source and link back to it.--False Flag 18:24, 3 June 2009 (UTC)
- Check the page moron. Little 'note' at the end. --Arthropleura 17:54, 3 June 2009 (UTC)
- If you do not understand the concept of plagiarism then I have no more to say to you.--False Flag 17:49, 3 June 2009 (UTC)
- Do I take it that reading is not your strong point? My point is that you should produce original content and not plagiarize the work of others.--False Flag 17:37, 3 June 2009 (UTC)
- Your point? --Arthropleura 17:30, 3 June 2009 (UTC)
- If your job here is simply plagiarism then you are doing well. If your job is to produce interesting original content then you are not.--False Flag 17:20, 3 June 2009 (UTC)
