|
Nominations and Campaigning for the 2024 RationalWiki Moderator Election are now open |
Fun talk:Drama queen
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
I was going to put this on RWW but, for various reasons, decided to put it on fun here. Please feel free to amend the scoring system.--False Flag 18:10, 13 April 2009 (EDT)
Scored 1.75. Scoring system OK. Totnesmartin 18:12, 13 April 2009 (EDT)
- I think the article is partially about CUR. What does that mean? Oh, and I think I may score nought, but I have used sockpuppets for various nefarious purposes, so I don't know. Educated stupid Hoover! 18:19, 13 April 2009 (EDT)
- You just posted your score, which is an attempt to direct discussion to yourself. 1 point.
18:20, 13 April 2009 (EDT)
- That's not fair. You obviously hate me! Totnesmartin 18:22, 13 April 2009 (EDT)
- Actually I was thinking about at least four editors (past and present) when I wrote this.--False Flag 18:25, 13 April 2009 (EDT)
- Susan and CUR spring to mind, but I can think of no others offhand. Do tell. Educated stupid Hoover! 18:27, 13 April 2009 (EDT)
- EC:Actually I'd rather not. I've simply described the syndrome. The diagnosis I shall leave to others.--False Flag 18:31, 13 April 2009 (EDT)
- Teresita, me (on arrival), CUR, Susan, Shaytoyah (dunno), and I think there may be others... JĀvąṢ₡ä₰ hi there 18:29, 13 April 2009 (EDT)
- You? Before my time then. Shayatoyaah(?) wasn't really significant. Educated stupid Hoover! 18:32, 13 April 2009 (EDT)
- Is everyone your sock if you're a solipsist? --
YossieSpring in Fialta 18:43, 13 April 2009 (EDT)
- From the WAAAYYY back machine, I present the Piece de Resistance. Damn, I was confrontational then. O_o JĀvąṢ₡ä₰ hi there 00:30, 22 April 2009 (EDT)
- Is everyone your sock if you're a solipsist? --
- You? Before my time then. Shayatoyaah(?) wasn't really significant. Educated stupid Hoover! 18:32, 13 April 2009 (EDT)
- Susan and CUR spring to mind, but I can think of no others offhand. Do tell. Educated stupid Hoover! 18:27, 13 April 2009 (EDT)
- Actually I was thinking about at least four editors (past and present) when I wrote this.--False Flag 18:25, 13 April 2009 (EDT)
- That's not fair. You obviously hate me! Totnesmartin 18:22, 13 April 2009 (EDT)
- You just posted your score, which is an attempt to direct discussion to yourself. 1 point.
Blatant plagiarism[edit]
Now copied wholesale to RWW by User:Arthropleura without acknowledgment. Methinks that this is indicative of a dreadful lack of imagination over there.--False Flag 16:25, 3 June 2009 (UTC)--False Flag 16:25, 3 June 2009 (UTC)
- It should have been there in the first place. Therefore, since the article was of RWW topic, I see nothing wrong with moving it to where it should be. --
16:33, 3 June 2009 (UTC)
- Did you read my edit comment at the very top of the this talk page? If I had wanted to put it on RWW I would have done so. Nevertheless you have taken it upon yourself to decide where I "should" have posted the article and simply cut and pasted it without acknowledgment - thus making it look like your work.--False Flag 17:21, 3 June 2009 (UTC)
- But it is of the type of content that RWW is on, not RW. Therefore it makes little sense to post it here. -- 17:29, 3 June 2009 (UTC)
- You are obviously unable to understand the concept of plagiarism, and I find that I have little wish to continue this dialogue of the deaf.--False Flag 17:40, 3 June 2009 (UTC)
- It says very clearly that if you do not want your writing to be, "edited mercilessly and redistributed at will, then do not submit it here." You have lost all rights to the article. It isn't 'yours.' Got it? -- 17:44, 3 June 2009 (UTC)
- It says very clearly that if you do not want your writing to be, "edited mercilessly and redistributed at will, then do not submit it here." You have lost all rights to the article. It isn't 'yours.' Got it? --
- You are obviously unable to understand the concept of plagiarism, and I find that I have little wish to continue this dialogue of the deaf.--False Flag 17:40, 3 June 2009 (UTC)
- But it is of the type of content that RWW is on, not RW. Therefore it makes little sense to post it here. --
- Did you read my edit comment at the very top of the this talk page? If I had wanted to put it on RWW I would have done so. Nevertheless you have taken it upon yourself to decide where I "should" have posted the article and simply cut and pasted it without acknowledgment - thus making it look like your work.--False Flag 17:21, 3 June 2009 (UTC)
And the two Drama Queens stamp their pretty little feet and flounce away. Silver Sloth 17:54, 3 June 2009 (UTC)
- CUR, it'd be simple courtesy to acknowledge on RWW that the article was originally written and published here. SJ Debaser 18:23, 3 June 2009 (UTC)
- That was my original complaint. Also having read the copyright license I think that RWW is obliged to do this even though both sites are covered by the same license.--False Flag 18:29, 3 June 2009 (UTC)
- Do we really need this argument to be ongoing on both wikis simultaneously? Please discuss it at RWW since it relates to the appearance of the article there rather than its presence here. Wěǎšěǐǒǐď
Methinks it is a Weasel 18:48, 3 June 2009 (UTC)
- It's on both wikis for a number of reasons. First of all because the two wikis are seperate and not everybody who edits RW visits RWW. Secondly because the question of what the GNU allows is presumably of wider interest to the RW community. Thirdly, and linked to those two points, it affects both wikis differently - at RW the question is what can be copied from here; at RWW it is a question of what can be copied to there. Nevertheless, it's obviously not the biggest issue in the world and I'm fully prepared to let the matter drop is people think it's not important.--False Flag 19:40, 3 June 2009 (UTC)
- I gave you credit, see here -- 21:04, 3 June 2009 (UTC)
- I gave you credit, see here --
- It's on both wikis for a number of reasons. First of all because the two wikis are seperate and not everybody who edits RW visits RWW. Secondly because the question of what the GNU allows is presumably of wider interest to the RW community. Thirdly, and linked to those two points, it affects both wikis differently - at RW the question is what can be copied from here; at RWW it is a question of what can be copied to there. Nevertheless, it's obviously not the biggest issue in the world and I'm fully prepared to let the matter drop is people think it's not important.--False Flag 19:40, 3 June 2009 (UTC)
- Do we really need this argument to be ongoing on both wikis simultaneously? Please discuss it at RWW since it relates to the appearance of the article there rather than its presence here. Wěǎšěǐǒǐď
- That was my original complaint. Also having read the copyright license I think that RWW is obliged to do this even though both sites are covered by the same license.--False Flag 18:29, 3 June 2009 (UTC)
