| Revision as of 09:35, 4 March 2012 editGandalf61 (talk | contribs)Autopatrolled, Extended confirmed users, Pending changes reviewers16,144 edits →Your incorrect accusations of plagiarism at Big Bang: new section← Previous edit | Revision as of 13:41, 4 March 2012 edit undoViriditas (talk | contribs)Autopatrolled, Extended confirmed users, Pending changes reviewers169,074 edits →Your incorrect accusations of plagiarism at Big Bang: You are wrongNext edit → | ||
| Line 37: | Line 37: | ||
| In the edit summaries of your recent edits at ] you have twice accused other editors of plagiarism. This is a serious accusation, even when hidden in an edit summary. I think you may have misunderstood the meaning of the word here. Plagiarism is defined as misappropriating someone else's thoughts or ideas and representing them as your own. As the sentence you removed was attributed to R.J. Russell's book "Cosmology: from alpha to omega", it cannot possibly be plagiarism. At worst, it was using a phrase from the book without identifying it as a direct quote - an error which I have now fixed. You may wish to consider apologising to the other editors concerned. ] (]) 09:34, 4 March 2012 (UTC) | In the edit summaries of your recent edits at ] you have twice accused other editors of plagiarism. This is a serious accusation, even when hidden in an edit summary. I think you may have misunderstood the meaning of the word here. Plagiarism is defined as misappropriating someone else's thoughts or ideas and representing them as your own. As the sentence you removed was attributed to R.J. Russell's book "Cosmology: from alpha to omega", it cannot possibly be plagiarism. At worst, it was using a phrase from the book without identifying it as a direct quote - an error which I have now fixed. You may wish to consider apologising to the other editors concerned. ] (]) 09:34, 4 March 2012 (UTC) | ||
| :I'm sorry, but you are mistaken. On Misplaced Pages, plagiarism is clearly defined. At ], we can identify plagiarism when an editor copies "from a source acknowledged in a well-placed citation, without in-text attribution". To quote from the guideline, "Here the editor is not trying to pass the work off as his own, but it is still regarded as plagiarism, because the source's words were used without in-text attribution." If that's not making sense to you, feel free to ask questions or consult the guideline. ] (]) 13:41, 4 March 2012 (UTC) | |||
Revision as of 13:41, 4 March 2012
 | In this world, hatred has never been defeated by hatred. Only love can overcome hatred. This is an ancient and eternal law. –Dhammapada (1:5) |
| This is Viriditas's talk page, where you can send him messages and comments. |
|
| Archives: Index, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37, 38 |
Re: Urgently needed expertise
Done. :) SlimVirgin 01:47, 25 February 2012 (UTC)
Religious big bang article
Um, that's a University website edited by Edward L. Wright - maybe you want to reconsider your tag? Dougweller (talk) 10:43, 29 February 2012 (UTC)
- It was supposed to say "verify source". Instead, it came out as "verify credibility", which displays "unreliable source". The statement tagged is, "Some accept the scientific evidence at face value, while others seek to reconcile the Big Bang with their religious tenets, and others completely reject or ignore the evidence for the Big Bang theory." This statement is ambiguous (some, others) and does not accurately represent the context (false equivalence) and specific examples cited by the source; it is more of an unattributed interpretation of the section about science and creationism. When we are dealing with controversial articles, it's best to use explicit claims made by published sources, not interpretations of web pages. I'm sure Wright's website is accurate, but that does not mean it was used appropriately in this article. Viriditas (talk) 12:34, 29 February 2012 (UTC)
- Ok, that makes much mores sense! Dougweller (talk) 05:26, 1 March 2012 (UTC)
WikiProject Horticulture and Gardening invitation
 Thank you for your contributions to Horticulture– or Gardening–related articles. I'd like to invite you to join WikiProject Horticulture and Gardening, a WikiProject to improve horticulture and gardening articles on Misplaced Pages and coverage of these topics. If you would like to participate or join, please visit the project page for more information. Thanks! Northamerica1000 04:05, 2 March 2012 (UTC) |
|---|
Your incorrect accusations of plagiarism at Big Bang
In the edit summaries of your recent edits at Big Bang you have twice accused other editors of plagiarism. This is a serious accusation, even when hidden in an edit summary. I think you may have misunderstood the meaning of the word here. Plagiarism is defined as misappropriating someone else's thoughts or ideas and representing them as your own. As the sentence you removed was attributed to R.J. Russell's book "Cosmology: from alpha to omega", it cannot possibly be plagiarism. At worst, it was using a phrase from the book without identifying it as a direct quote - an error which I have now fixed. You may wish to consider apologising to the other editors concerned. Gandalf61 (talk) 09:34, 4 March 2012 (UTC)
- I'm sorry, but you are mistaken. On Misplaced Pages, plagiarism is clearly defined. At Misplaced Pages:Plagiarism, we can identify plagiarism when an editor copies "from a source acknowledged in a well-placed citation, without in-text attribution". To quote from the guideline, "Here the editor is not trying to pass the work off as his own, but it is still regarded as plagiarism, because the source's words were used without in-text attribution." If that's not making sense to you, feel free to ask questions or consult the guideline. Viriditas (talk) 13:41, 4 March 2012 (UTC)