RationalWiki's 2018 Fundraiser

There is no RationalWiki without you. We are a small non-profit with no staff — we are hundreds of volunteers who document pseudoscience and crankery around the world every day. We will never allow ads because we must remain independent. We cannot rely on big donors with corresponding big agendas. We are not the largest website around, but we believe we play an important role in defending truth and objectivity.

If everyone seeing this today donates $5, we will meet our goal for 2018.

Fighting pseudoscience isn't free.
We are 100% user-supported! Help and donate $5, $20 or whatever you can today with PayPal Logo.png!

Donations so far: $2835Goal: $5000

User talk:X-Factor

From RationalWiki
Jump to: navigation, search
New logo large.png Welcome to RationalWiki, X-Factor!

Please see our guide for newcomers and our community standards.

Tell us how you found RationalWiki here!

If you are interested in contributing:

--It's-a me, LeftyGreenMario! 22:33, 12 May 2017 (UTC)

Thank you, though I'm not sure how much help I will be. X-Factor (talk) 03:44, 14 May 2017 (UTC)
I'm fairly new here, though I think your edits are all good so far. I'm just not into the topics you're talking about like the Catholic Church and only know about some parts of right-wing extremism (which is a broad subject), but any edits you make, they're mostly fine. You don't need to go out there and masterfully construct an article that turns gold in three days, ha ha. --It's-a me, LeftyGreenMario! 18:34, 16 May 2017 (UTC)

New Zealand[edit]

I rolled back your edits to NZ. All of the information you provided is some 20+ years old. --DamoHi 02:50, 14 May 2017 (UTC)

Also, it would be helpful if you added references to your edits when appropriate. Bongolian (talk) 02:52, 14 May 2017 (UTC)

Damo-Historical information is always going to be old, but I know more recent demographic data is preferred unless it's to establish some kind of changing historical trend. If I can find more recent studies on the same statistics I will add them, but I need to know the acceptable age range. Personally I think the information should be restored just as a place holder for the update, but that's really not up to me to decide.
Bongilian-The article cited does include the references which I should have added in addition will add them before another further main space editing.
Sorry for any inconveniences this may have caused, it won't happen again. X-Factor (talk) 03:44, 14 May 2017 (UTC)
OK, thanks! Bongolian (talk) 05:01, 14 May 2017 (UTC)
No need to apologise, just wondering where you got all that information from? Things have moved on considerably since then, though mostly for the worse. In any case I'm very sceptical that it is fair to say that the Maori are not mentioned in the Constitution. Since NZ doesn't have a formal constitution this is a largely meaningless statement, but it's also misleading since it ignores the constitutional conventions that do exist which refer to Maori (ie Maori seats/roll; reference throughout SOE legislation etc). --DamoHi 05:48, 14 May 2017 (UTC)

To do list[edit]

Hollywood science adviser
Ant-Man (2016 film)
Inception
Color psychology
Hentai
Aesthecization of violence
Catholicism and far-right politics
Eastern Orthodoxy and far-right politics

um bro[edit]

ur kinda being weird around the wiki so

might wanna calm down bro Koi "The spelling's on purpose!" development 21:21, 15 May 2017 (UTC)

Will do, I don't have any more painful questions to ask anyways. though they still seem valid. I'll admit the phrasing was too snarky and I apologize for that much, calling the catholic church pirates is one thing. Why church sponsored artistic depictions of hell ignore a particular hellish topic, whether 2 BDSM studies are well researched enough to include yet, whether we should have a section about the science of alcoholism and mental illnesses effect on the capacity to consent from a scientific rather than jurisdiction by jurisdiction legal standpoint and whether there's child custody cases that cite religion are all interesting topics and on mission.
I'm ready to take a break as I'm not in the mood for studying any more atrocities at the moment, until I feel up to going through Eastern Orthodox and Catholic right wing extremism at a much later date. Fake medicine and cult leaders really much of a light hearted alternative either, I noticed there are a couple of Fun: articles, but I think I'll just call it quits for now, I accomplished what I set out to do. I honestly do appreciate your concern. X-Factor (talk) 02:13, 16 May 2017 (UTC)
It's all good! You made good edits and your attitude is fine. Keep up the good work. --It's-a me, LeftyGreenMario! 18:32, 16 May 2017 (UTC)

Sandbox[edit]

I'm not entirely sure if LGM was done in the sandbox, so use this sandbox instead. Thanks. Vive Liberté! 11:30, 17 May 2017 (UTC)

Thanks, I'll stick to my sandbox; I was hoping someone else would have something to add about driver less cars because I'm having my doubts that there's enough on mission information for anything more than a stub. There only seems to be one injury case so far [1], it was the 14th accident in six years and about 1.9 million miles of testing, and according to Google it's cars have not caused any of the collisions. Chris Urmson head of Google's self-driving car program says 11 of 14 of the incidents were being rear ended by drivers distracted by their phones and that an automated honking system would be annoying. Mountain View police responded to the most recent incident, but did not file an accident report thus it appears none of the incidents have ever been major enough to make it to court. X-Factor (talk) 17:12, 17 May 2017 (UTC)

Talk pages[edit]

Hey there, talk pages are there for a reason. Please use them! Thanks! Vive Liberté! 14:58, 17 May 2017 (UTC)

Hmmm.. I'm feeling weird today. Sorry to send mixed signals. Anyway, you obviously don't have to use talk pages for every single edit, just super major ones. I re-read that medival edit and it looks good to me. Vive Liberté! 15:22, 17 May 2017 (UTC)
I think it would also be appropriate to comment on the killing of cats due to their association with witchcraft being a contributing factor after the Vox in Rama declaration from Pope Gregory IX in 1233, however his wikipedia page says there is some debate that the plague was not bubonic and rather a pneumonic plague spread from person to person so I think it's alright if it remains where it is for now as an alternative explanation that's seriously considered. Bubonic plague is mainly spread by infected fleas whose bite pierces the skin, although someone with open sores bleeding into the baptismal font could possibly spread the illness to someone else with open sores, I'm guessing that making the holy water wont filled visibly with blood probably wouldn't have been allowed similar to vomiting out the Eucharist being something that get's people thrown out, though the written records on day to day church hygiene are scarce so it's hard to say. However the 1854 Broad Street cholera outbreak makes me think the church itself, particularly the baptismal font would have probably acted as a focus of infection at some point, like the pump on broad street.
I agree that making a bunch of new sections is something which should really be discussed on the talk page beforehand, particularly when there's already a discussion about how to organize the article. Thanks for your input, it's been helpful. X-Factor (talk) 17:12, 17 May 2017 (UTC)

Copypasting from Wikipedia is NOT permitted[edit]

Stop doing so this instant. Yes, including single sentences. And unratwikified refs.

I'll be checking, believe you me — and if I run across one more submission from you that's taken outright from Wikipedia (without as much as the ordering of the ripped words having been tossed about by you first) there will be hell toupée.

But seriously; do it once more and you're officially in the drunk tank. Consider this your stern, but fair, warning. All the best, Reverend Black Percy (talk) 10:39, 21 May 2017 (UTC)

Understood, I read what a rationalwiki article is and is not. Combining select text from multiple wikipedia entries can present a better overview, but large stretches of a NPOV desert of dry encyclopedic facts does not help with humor or with supporting an arguable thesis. Sorry about that, I'll go through some of the edits I've made recently rewording and weighing the effectiveness of the supplemental info. X-Factor (talk) 18:25, 21 May 2017 (UTC)
Much appreciated. Good and bad edits regardless, I will be following yours closely. Th hug.gif All the best, Reverend Black Percy (talk) 17:47, 22 May 2017 (UTC)

Close, but no cigar[edit]

You're copying straight from the article (s) you cite. Good cites, but you need to write your own submissions, or — not to mention the key issues with ripping other people's text — the tone of our articles get way messed up. Where's the SPOV in that paste? Please quit taking text and please start writing it. I'm serious. Reverend Black Percy (talk) 04:53, 25 May 2017 (UTC)

I'm having a much harder time being snarky with global authoritarianism than I thought I would; I'll need to learn a lot more about these countries to make any decent comedic commentary on them. X-Factor (talk) 21:12, 27 May 2017 (UTC)
I'm glad to hear you're unwilling to start forcing "comedy" into your writing — considering BFANJS (or, Be Funny And Not Just Stupid) is also a rule at the site. That being said; I'd also love for your writing to actually be your writing. You feel me?
I mean — if you feel that, once deprived of the ability to simply paste in other people's writing from elsewhere, you have much less to add? Then that's good. That's because ripping text is as easy as it is against the rules (and sometimes even illegal).
Writing stuff yourself may be easy or hard, but what it will take is: more effort than copypasting. That's kind of a given — and ultimately, it's actually part of what makes writing your own text worthwhile in the first place. Indeed; the greatness of a deed is lessened by its convenience — and especially when that convenience stems from "borrowing" the hard work of others. All the best, Reverend Black Percy (talk) 00:55, 30 May 2017 (UTC)
I'll leave lengthy quotations of interest that lack an attempt at original commentary to the talk pages, after rephrasing what I can, summarizing what's important and trying to be funny. Lifting strings of paragraphs from the corresponding wikipedia page didn't help with Adam Carolla's extended career history or the technology behind Self-driving cars. I think the Johnson Amendment in particular needs more comedy and commentary, it's still half copied. X-Factor (talk) 20:29, 30 May 2017 (UTC)

Runny nose? Try runny penis![edit]

Check this out. All the best, Reverend Black Percy (talk) 00:58, 30 May 2017 (UTC)

Do androgens really increase the risk of prostate cancer? X-Factor (talk) 20:29, 30 May 2017 (UTC)

Seriously, stop[edit]

Large parts of the Jesus Christ Superstar article you made were copied directly off Wikipedia, stop. Christopher (talk) 13:48, 31 May 2017 (UTC)

That tears it[edit]

SlowDown.jpg
SLOW DOWN!


This talkpage's for regular postin',

Not for fancy postin'!

Congratulations. You just got yourself vandal binned, effective immediately.

Your way out of the bin is straightforward enough — use the select few edits you get to prove you're no longer in the business of butchering text you found online and passing it off as your own.

The banhammer hangs in the air. Best of luck, Reverend Black Percy (talk) 14:11, 31 May 2017 (UTC)

I would gladly cut the copied criticisms section, but it seemed to be the only thing that made that film related to the site's goal of anti authoritarianism and fundamentalism. Large parts of Nuke Mecca relating for the Korean war are also copied, but without them the idea isn't put into a broader context.
I was thinking of making the page for exercise woo after researching the subject in more depth, but that's about all I'm interested in on the to do list or the extant pages, at the moment. The experience of editing this wiki has been insightful to me though; I'm sorry I can't think of a more original way to rephrase history. Would you please show me an example of how you would translate this text to an acceptable phrasing on either of these two pages? If not that's fine, it's not your responsibility to teach me; I won't be a bother much longer and it wasn't my intent to be a pain. Thank you for your help. X-Factor (talk) 15:02, 31 May 2017 (UTC)

Stop[edit]

At a glance this edit appears to be copied from here, I could be wrong as I haven't had a chance to properly check. Christopher (talk) 18:37, 3 June 2017 (UTC)

How hard could it be to comprehend that one simply must not steal text outright!? Sourcing and missionality seem more or less excellent — so why not bother summarizing their content from scratch, in your own words!? Facepalm.png Reverend Black Percy (talk) 09:32, 4 June 2017 (UTC)
Switching the order of the paragraphs around and replacing "television" with "TV" isn't enough. Christopher (talk) 09:34, 4 June 2017 (UTC)
Precisely! It's not even a question of "how much obfuscation is required before it's no longer theft". X-factor, you have to write your own text. It's not even supposed to "mirror the phrasing in the source"; you've got creative license! Use it! Reverend Black Percy (talk) 09:38, 4 June 2017 (UTC)
You'da been kicked outta school by now mate. Please use your wonderful brain and write your own text. I promise it isn't difficult once you start to do it. Decidedly not a sock of User:FareehaA 13:13, 4 June 2017 (UTC)

Now that your ban has expired, can you confirm whether I was right about that edit also being copied? (Obviously you answering no doesn't mean anything due to your history of dishonesty/plagiarism). Christopher (talk) 17:25, 9 June 2017 (UTC)

Power word yes if I really needed to say that to trigger some mechanism in the rules of rationalwiki you've not provided a link to prove the existence of. Do you really need me to confirm that, just compare the text to the minimally required number of word variations...which is for the record and education of others is what I ask you? Also I'm a bit taken back that at no point did anyone say to me some iteration of, "If you found a section of a reference you like, than put it on the talk page so eventually someone can make it funny for you or communicate the same information with an acceptable number of differing words as to constitute a new species of thought." As I would have complied with that sensible advice to give someone trying to help but failing by a narrow margin of success.
Do you like the new section? I've added other sources as well, are there any other that need correcting such as this last one? As I said I've written most of what I set out to write, I was thinking of editing Jesus Christ Superstar into an acceptable format and maybe Africa before starting a longer project. For the most part the vandal break won't effect working on the to do list, after a while thought that will probably become boring and being auto confirmed would allow me to complete this wiki's mission faster.
Also, what do you think of a Rationalwiki charitable foundation to compete with the charity actions of major religious organizations and attempts by Richard Dawkins to set up something similar? [2] I know the servers must cost a lot to maintain but building a well in an impoverished country or buying something more scientifically impressive like a series of water filters or medicines would get good PR and more mention by the media. [3]. If you want me gone I'll leave, just ask however I've found on my own and been presented with no guidelines that indicate clear punishment on these matters. For the record I prefer the term reverse engineering, as forgery/plagarism requires passing it off as your own and not admitting you copied it which can be easily confirmed with a page number in the reference, [4], a topic which ties into authoritarian militarists and copyright violation such as for aircraft like the Soviet Tu-4 copied illegally from the American B-29. X-Factor (talk) 18:19, 9 June 2017 (UTC)
It's quite hard to understand what you're saying, thanks for at least being honest about the plagiarism (which is still plagiarism as you did attempt to pass it off as your own). If you started making good edits (even if they're just typo corrections, I don't think I've ever done anything genuinely useful and I'm a tech) you'd get out of the vandal bin. Christopher (talk) 18:32, 9 June 2017 (UTC)
Could you specify how many good edits I appreciate you saying they can consist of typo corrections. Also if you could please elaborate why it is word salad, that's a terribly short review and about as long as useful a term as [[[fake news]]. I'm familiar with the snarky snarl words word salad but you must explain why this is an example of that category through dissecting the text.
Are you aware of the term Post Script, perhaps I need to use it so you don't get confused by two different topics separated into two distinct paragraphs. Ask and I will give you a 140 character word limit like Twitter, you might find that easier to follow if two topics is too much for you to deal with. Or have you not heard of the concept of constructive criticism?
I'm deeply offended that you've insulted me with internet meme gibberish instead of citing a proper logical fallacy and I don't think I want to continue to work here if everyone is as helpful a team mate as you. I would like an apology or at least an explanation to your all too brief responses that beg the questions I've asked you twice now. You've failed to answer my questions concerning the charity idea and the correction to Rupert Murdock which prompted your intervention. For the record, do you intend not to answer? X-Factor (talk) 19:01, 9 June 2017 (UTC)
I don't understand the entire situation. However, call it "reverse-engineering" or whatever, what you did counted as plagiarism. For the effort you've done to copy-paste words and change a few around, you could've just rewritten the thing, to be honest. Also, plagiarism will get all of us in trouble which is why we have to notify you and take precautions in the first place. Just write things in your own words. Have trouble understanding? Put it in the talk page. --It's-a me, LeftyGreenMario! 19:03, 9 June 2017 (UTC)
Due to the fact you continued to plagiarize after you were given multiple warnings you'll have to make quite a few good edits (and asking "how much longer until I get x right" won't help your case), I'm not the person to ask about setting up a RW charity and I'm understandably suspicious that your latest edition to Rupert Murdoch is still plagiarized. Christopher (talk) 19:18, 9 June 2017 (UTC)
Christopher: Sir I must imagine you or another highlighting the lifted sections, as it will not happen in our reality only yours. You may find this article interesting, you still haven't defined whether a text can share a series of 3 or 4 words in a sequence and not be considered plagiarism and I'm curious why you aren't citing a concrete definition of the term. [5]. Another source says the magic number is 5 [6], I would like to see something from the a more official source confirming this is the definition used by professionals.
LGM: Would you please be kind enough to remove the offending entries so I can understand which ones are and are not acceptable? Colombia and three other countries use text from How many more edits do you want until you're willing to take me at my word that I won't copy? The edits to the catholic church pages use a lot of quotations from public religious texts. I know I was asked to stop with the four country pages with text from the human rights organization FIDH. I was under the impression that the information on indigenous people on the pages for America Canada and Australia is from the Australian government document and thus acceptable to reuse: also no one mentioned it at the time it was posted.
What other pages do you want me to clean up except for the deleted page for Jesus Christ Superstar, or are there no other pages you consider plagiarism? I don't have that many edits so whatever damage I've caused at this point is easy to review and list for those to whom it is a binnable concern. Wikipedia text like still remains on Middle Ages is technically creative commons and public domain text so a different word like copy pasta is specific to that; although I'm aware I've been asked repeatedly not to use it and it's Wikipedia text that triggered the 4 day block. Thank you LGM just tell me what needs to be corrected in addition to new edits so you will all treat me like an equal instead of like this. You all must have some edit I've made you consider constructive to balance the ones you think are vandalism, otherwise I'd be gone by now.
"Newscorp created the website for" is 5 words which if I share with any of the sources will result in me getting banned under the 5 contiguous word rule that seems to be the official line of plagiarism cited by no institution or dictionary as being definitive. Would someone please provide a more clear definition of plagiarism? X-Factor (talk) 19:56, 9 June 2017 (UTC)

Once again...[edit]

...you copied text near-verbatim from another source. You have been warned before not to do so; I have therefore blocked you for another 3.6 days.--JorisEnter (talk) 16:12, 11 June 2017 (UTC)

Latest edit to sandbox on concussions in sports was called plagiarism and I got a 3 day block, even though it did not have [5 contiguous words, you are using plagiarism as a snarl word without an explanation as to why it constitutes plagiarism, which could very well be cyber bullying. Can you or someone who agrees with your block please explain how this is different from the Women's Studies and why the previous verbatim text for hentai wasn't removed if this is such a big deal in terms of copyright, which the concussions text most certainly is not? #Fakeplagiarism, please unblock; also you misspelled before. X-Factor (talk) 17:26, 11 June 2017 (UTC)
We don't care if it's technically plagiarism or not, we care if you copied it from somewhere else which you clearly did, rephrasing it so it doesn't have five consecutive words is irrelevant. Christopher (talk) 17:18, 15 June 2017 (UTC)
If you're admitting your hentai stuff was copied I'm removing it. Christopher (talk) 21:12, 15 June 2017 (UTC)

It appears you were on fairly thin ice with your addition to the Residential school article. I'm minded to let it pass, but I'll defer to the judgment of people who have been more involved in this affair. Hertzy (talk) 19:27, 19 June 2017 (UTC)

Linking to Wikipedia[edit]

In mainspace we tend not to use "[[w:[Wikipedia article name]]], use {{wpl}}. Christopher (talk) 15:50, 16 June 2017 (UTC)

Note also that most times a {{wpl|}} link is relevant (outside of talkpages), it should be a {{wpa|}} link inside <ref> tags instead. Reverend Black Percy (talk) 15:59, 16 June 2017 (UTC)

Articles for deletion[edit]

Hi there. When you insert an "afd" template on a page calling for its deletion, you should also start the debate with your reasons. You can do this by going back to the Celibacy in Buddhism page, clicking on the "Preload debate" link near the top, and then replacing the word "Reason" with your argument. Bongolian (talk) 17:53, 17 June 2017 (UTC)

Actually I was just about to do that, as half an hour has elapsed. As I am still vandal binned having not yet proven myself trustworthy, this process takes me a while, which is unfortunate. Now to restart the clock. X-Factor (talk) 17:58, 17 June 2017 (UTC)
I've created the deletion discussion copy pasting your reason from the afd template. The vandal bin must be really annoying. Christopher (talk) 18:43, 17 June 2017 (UTC)

Latest block[edit]

Is the paragraph Hertzy mentions, the only section with too many contiguous words? I'm done editing main space for the time being, I don't really feel like making the switch from religion to politics right now. I'd be more than happy to discuss this and the deletion of women's studies and work with you both and anyone else interested on how to salvage these additions. Feel free to compare Women's Studies with [7] the reference included. The women's studies page was rephrased and included snarky commentary and was more original than what passes the legal plagiarism test over at the Copy and Paste, I already mentioned how I thought it could use more sources than just 2, but that's a problem of addition not deletion.
Also on a personal note, now is as good a time as ever to officially quit; which should make what ever decision is reached about me easier to make. We have nothing more to learn from each other and I'm annoyed that no one is willing to give me an actual hard definition of the accusation of which I'm accused. X-Factor (talk) 20:51, 19 June 2017 (UTC)

The definition we seem to use is if anyone can tell where it came from it's copied, sorry if that wasn't made very clear previously. Christopher (talk) 20:57, 19 June 2017 (UTC)
The paragraph I mentioned isn't one with too many contiguous words (which you have been told is not how we define plagiarism). In fact, in isolation that constitutes putting a toe across the line which I personally would have let slide from anyone else. You, however, had been repeatedly banned for your problems with that particular line, which is why I chose to pursue the matter. Hertzy (talk) 21:14, 19 June 2017 (UTC)
Normally in laws, vaguely worded offenses with serious penalties are major authoritarian issues, like what constitutes public displays of homosexuality. Neither of you has given any requirements for plagiarism so far outside of defining the 5 contiguous word rule is not applicable. Hertzy specifically noted the importance of entering a passage of text and getting a google search result, which is a very millennial way of looking at things and lacks academic rigor as a standard. It's a very interesting idea for a measurement however one that places the bar too high and does not seem to be supported as a definition of plagiarism outside of this wiki, but here what ever the superiors say is the law of the land and I won't argue with that clearly stated law, unless it isn't stated clearly. X-Factor (talk) 21:52, 19 June 2017 (UTC)
I did not highlight the importance of entering a passage to Google and getting a result. That is simply one way of identifying possible sources of plagiarism, and the fact is that I managed to use that particular method to identify the source of plagiarism. You are in fact correct that the definition of plagiarism is fuzzy, but that is pretty much beside the point since you have been told that verbatim copying from another source with only a few alterations counts as plagiarism. Regardless of this, you have insisted on copying verbatim from your sources with only minor alterations. In fact, the extent of your alterations looks less like an honest attempt not to plagiarize and more like an attempt to conceal your plagiarism, especially combined with your continued efforts to lawyer about plagiarism. (As an aside, Wikipedia cites several definitions of plagiarism that mention using language/phraseology/words without quoting) Hertzy (talk) 05:21, 20 June 2017 (UTC)
While it doesn't seem to be referenced in the help pages, the plagiarism page has existed for a decade, and has advised consulting plagiarism.org as a way to avoid committing such since December 2008. While writecheck.com (the 'Check for Plagiarism' link) is paywalled, the bulk of the site may prove useful. https://searchenginereports.net/plagiarism-checker will give a %unique rating and link to the source its algorithm matched the provided content. If nothing else its a resource for showing earnest of good faith. I point out that I'm yet to stress test the site to get a feel for whether the algorithm can be gamed, but there is now has a shiny new bookmark right next to my rbutr and google scholar buttons. Daev (talk) 06:18, 20 June 2017 (UTC)
EDIT: After some tests (done with the lede's from a few random articles, minus markup ofc); it does not take much paraphrasing at all to upgrade a 50% unique to a 100% unique. Daev (talk) 06:48, 20 June 2017 (UTC)
By-the-by, your previous posts has in the summary "...Google doesn't decide what is and isn't plagiarism by an algorithm, nor do universities..." Yeah no. That is exactly how most Universities will check for plagiarism nowadays. Daev (talk) 07:11, 20 June 2017 (UTC)
I don't disagree that it's a starting point for an investigation, but the end? Why didn't you cite a piece of university policy indicating google search is used as such, is there a reason they don't all use Yahoo or Bing? I want to see a written statement from a university supporting the claim you made, obviously you can provide one by researching it like any other subject on this wiki, it still seems odd that no one can find any plagiarism guidelines they are willing to link to as definitive and just assumes that's what they say.
Anyways, have enjoy making fun of creationists, politics and alternative medicine; it gets old and repetitive fast, like blocks that don't include any links to support claims. X-Factor (talk) 22:55, 21 June 2017 (UTC)
restarting indents
Or you could do your own research before making your own claims on how Universities do things. Or after coming across a claim which contradicts your own view. However the following are just grabbed from my history after googling 'how do universities detect plagiarism' yesterday.
University of Adelaide
To quote "As part of the University's procedures for identifying academic dishonesty, work submitted by students for assessment may be subject to testing using text or code comparative software."
University of Technology Sydney which itself cites Whitley, B. E., & Keith-Spiegel, P. (2002). Academic Dishonesty: An Educator’s Guide.Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
University of Melbourne
To quote from MIT's Resources for Teachers, How to Detect Plagiarism: 'One technique to detect plagiarism is to enter an unusual phrase or sentence into a standard search engine (e.g., Google) and see if a match is found.'
One popular tool is http://turnitin.com/en_us/higher-education
As for plagiarism guidelines; when you were first accused of plagiarism, did you not just search RW for the term? Because that is the first thing I would have done, and did before my previous post. It led me to the RW page I listed earlier, which includes the "How to Avoid" that I pointed you towards. In the absence of an explicit guideline in the help pages, I would think that a reasonable person would agree that becomes the "common-law" guideline.
Daev (talk) 10:50, 22 June 2017 (UTC)

Why do you keep plagiarizing?[edit]

In Western Academia, plagiarism is a sin.

I have three questions.

  • Do you not understand why plagiarism is wrong?
  • Why don't you understand why plagiarism is wrong?
  • What is your ethnicity?

How to improve[edit]

  1. Before typing up your edits, write it down first.
  2. During your block, I request you write a short story. Here's a generator if you need ideas.
  3. Come up with an unique image description of this goat.
Goat.jpg

FAQ[edit]

What is an image description? How do I add alt text to images?

If you succeed in writing an unique image description, please go through our articles and add alt text with image descriptions to our images.

ClickerClock (talk) 13:05, 22 June 2017 (UTC)