User talk:Infinitysnake/Archive

Plagiarism

Hi there!

I noticed the dispute over the image Image:Sbcross.jpg in the Brigid's cross article (I have listed the image on Wikipedia:Copyright problems, from whence it should be deleted shortly), and I see that you've come into dispute with some other Wikipedia users over your removal of content which you say is plagiarised from your own work. A suggestion: to make things proceed more smoothly, when removing such content, it would be great if you could put the URL of the page from which it was copied into the edit summary.

Thanks! And my apologies on behalf of the Wikipedia community that you've had to do this - sadly some people are very quick to cut'n'paste in the thought that they're doing a good deed for the encyclopedia, when in fact they're just creating more work for others to clean things up and keep it legal. --Stormie 13:37, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

Thanks, Stormie- that's good advice.

I've deleted the image in question. Wikipedia does not condon copyright violations and/or plagerism. I apologise for the delay.Theresa Knott | Taste the Korn 15:04, 29 January 2006 (UTC)

-Ril-

Hello, I'm sorry you have had to deal with User:-Ril-, he is a fairly well known problem. Claiming copyright to something he did not actually create is about the worst thing that could be done, as it not only affects him and the copyright holder, but can also get the entire project into legal trouble. Your evidence, with its links to dated pages and the Internet Archive, seems quite conclusive. I have just launched a hearing on -Ril-'s behaviour in other matters, if you would like to add a report about your altercation with him feel free. Simply go to Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration#-Ril-_2 and add a "Statement from Infinitysnake," and briefly outline the dispute with a couple of links to prove you case. - SimonP 15:08, 29 January 2006 (UTC)

Thank you Simon, you're an angel.

I will add my statement tomorrow. This one seems to be doing this for the sole purpose of picking a fight.

Infinity edit

I reverted your edit. If you could cite the original copyrighted location for this text, then the removal would appear legitimate; however, simply claiming something is copyrighted (especially such generic text) is too vague. Thanks. Quaeler (talk) 11:03, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

February 2009

Please do not add promotional material to Wikipedia, as you did to Medical prescription. While objective prose about products or services is acceptable, Wikipedia is not intended to be a vehicle for advertising or promotion. Thank you. I see what's going on here now. See WP:COI. WHOIS on this domain lists: Administrative Contact:

   Emick, Jennifer  
  (address and phone redacted)

I'm going to revert your other similar edits. Please don't re-add them or you'll be blocked. Quaeler (talk) 11:13, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

Please stop. If you continue to blank out or delete portions of page content, templates or other materials from Wikipedia, as you did to Infinity, you will be blocked from editing. You must define the reference whose copyright is being violated; you can't simply delete passages saying "this violates a copyright". Quaeler (talk) 11:16, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

Then I will make a copyright dispute, which could have been avoided had you given me five minutes to complete my comments on the talk page. I can prove conclusively the text is mine (I coined the term 'infinity snake' myself and use it to find plagiarism) so I'm not that concerned about it. You however seem to have a personal issue with me (or a simple power trip) that you're acting on very inappropriately, and if you can't have a mature discussion, I'm going to have no choice but to request arbitration.Infinitysnake (talk) 02:50, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

See what happens when one admin goes on a power trip? Instead of allowing a few minutes' discussion over a small segment of text, we have a page nobody can read. Now everyone loses time they'd rather spend doing other things, nobody can read the page, and the end result will look exactly the same as it did yesterday.—Preceding unsigned comment added by Infinitysnake (talk • contribs)

The resolution of the sockpuppet case, documented here, is that i was at fault and the case was without merit. Quaeler (talk) 15:27, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

Interesting Discoveries and a Warning

First, the warning: don't be a douche on the internet. You never know who's watching (hint dumbass: I go by my married name irl and we've met!) Especially don't make accusations of [redacted, you know what I mean] when you're part of an incestuous group of cross-promoters who occasionally forget their own logins and frequently post links to their own (for-profit, even) projects and materials. Next time your pal commits some accidentally-on-purpose plagiarism, myob instead.

Replied

I'm not sure whether you're watching my talk page; in case not, i've replied to your addition. I really think there's some kind of conflict of interest — perhaps i'm on crack about that, perhaps i'm on crack about Sockpuppetry (which looks to be likely the case given the recent Clerk note), this will be hashed out in the sockpuppet review.

WRT the infinity text, thanks for your citing of the grounds for the copyright removal - i can see that you have a valid cause. As an aside, this bit you wrote in the sockpuppet case, "The user is also offended I removed copyrighted material from a page; this was reverted before I even finished commenting on the talk page for the article." is disingenuous, no? I mean, one can simply look at the time log for your contributions - my reversions went on like 16 hours before you did any talk page edits; so to paint this as though there was some "I was _Just_ about to explain my case on the talk page." seems to be twisting time reality, no?

At any rate, see my talk page at your leisure for that reply, and we'll see what shakes out of the sockpuppet case. Thanks. Quaeler (talk) 10:02, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

No, it's not disingenuous. When I saw you'd done it (the second time), I did not post the edit. I went to bed and revisited the issue today, at which time I DID post it, along with additional evidence. Your attitude is arrogant and I'm not sure what you're doing here, really- looking at past vituperative comments you've made to more or less innocent editors over minor gaffes in Wiki etiquette paints a an ugly picture. Power trip much? I'm not retarded, I know how wiki works, as do you, which is why I suspect your motives. My (four year) post/edit history is wide open and my identity is not difficult to discover. It also should have been obvious after you whois'ed me that I was in fact the author of the original cited articles as well, and that I've made a fair enough contribution of material, research, and fact checking along the way.Infinitysnake (talk) 10:17, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

I totally call shenanigans — looking back: i reverted once, asking very clearly "You need to cite the reason you're making this claim of copyright violation" to which your response was nothing. You simply reverted — nothing in the revert comment like "Hey - i'm reverting, but i'm going to discuss this", nada. Then i reverted again. So shenanigans to that.

As far as arrogant ('vituperative' is fine word, but i'm rarely verbose in my initial censure), perhaps this is what long term vandalism patrolling does to a person; that whole, when one expects to find evil, one finds evil thing. But 'arrogant', nah - i'm totally fallible; i'd posit that the paragraphs posted between here and the sockpuppet case are worded, while not super-diplomatically, far more open than someone who believes themselves to be 100% correct. (In order to avoid doubling our work, i'm just watching this page for replies.. (or we can pick my page - whichever)) Quaeler (talk) 10:27, 27 February 2009 (UTC)