Talk:Garner Ted Armstrong
Why can't I copy/paste and call that work?
Peristant Article Vandalism Reported
- Get stuffed! Spud (talk) 15:18, 12 April 2018 (UTC)
- The nest time you consider editing this article, please try not to make it such obvious plagiarism. That is viewed as abusive and is considered vandalism. Cosmikdebris (talk) 15:22, 12 April 2018 (UTC)
- Why does this article contain this header box? A new editor makes a vast improvement and is told to "get stuffed" by an admin??? How can one be an admin here, who reacts and responds like a two year old, or bratty teenager throwing a tantrum?
And if admins/editors Spud, GrammarCommie and Cosmikdebris are now aware the article needs help, why have they not taken the time to help it out with what they would view as required and necessary, by their definitions? I read the reverted edit and it clearly was an overwhelming improvement to the article, complete with references. Where was the plagiarism? Where was the whitewashing? The reverted edit was complete and factual, and credibly sourced.
Is not the article calling for improvement? Clearly it needs improved which is what the following states above the article
This page contains too many unsourced statements and needs to be improved.
Garner Ted Armstrong could use some help. Please research the article's assertions. Whatever is credible should be sourced, and what is not should be removed
BTW, what of this commentary in the article "(why, oh why, is this so predictable?)", and thoughts about late night tv informercials?! These opinions and random thoughts belong in the article as sourced facts? — Unsigned, by: Stallionapp / talk / contribs
- All you did was right click the top of the Wikipedia article, dragged your curser to the bottom, select copy, edited it slightly, then pasted the result in the article page. That's plagiarism, the fact that you radically changed the tone of the article from critical to neutral is whitewashing. ☭Comrade GC☭Ministry of Praise 03:57, 13 April 2018 (UTC)
@GrammarCommie No sir, you are so wrong. I did not edit the article. Yet you accuse me of the edit, then block my account with the following lie:
p This user is currently blocked. The latest block log entry is provided below for reference: 03:47, 13 April 2018 GrammarCommie (talk | contribs) blocked Stallionapp (talk | contribs) with an expiration time of 3.14 months (account creation disabled) (Block evasion: Your previous account had a 9 hour block, the fact that you feel the need to evade that with an alt says something about your credibility. PS, we're mostly atheists here.).
- It's been said. The article needs improvement. Adding a load of plagiarized text from Wikipedia was nothing like an improvement. And I noticed how you removed the fact that those nice things said about him in the 1970s were in the wank mag Penthouse. There was a nice bit of whitewashing! The vandalism that was done to this article yesterday was definitely not done to it by me or other sysops. If you're looking for a place where you can copypaste text that other people have already written on Wikipedia and pass it off as a new and original article, you've come to the wrong place. And if you're looking for a place to write puff pieces about how great certain Christians are, you've come to the wrong place. Spud (talk) 13:27, 13 April 2018 (UTC)
LOL! Too funny @Spud This little boys club is a plagiarized third rate copy and paste of Wikipedia, hastily set up after you boys were blocked there for too many temper tantrums. Whitewash this sites history and creation. Congrats on achieving admin rank in this preschool of toddlers. — Unsigned, by: 220.127.116.11 / talk
- Two things, one you still haven't figured out how to properly format and sign your posts. And two, given your insistence on insulting us it would be you who is a quote "bitchbaby" endquote.
- PS: Really? The best insult you have is bitchbaby? I've heard (and said) worse. ☭Comrade GC☭Ministry of Praise 19:39, 13 April 2018 (UTC)