User talk:75.66.125.155

May 2016
Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to vandalize Wikipedia, as you did at Black Knight satellite, you may be blocked from editing. LuckyLouie (talk) 21:23, 6 May 2016 (UTC)
 * If this is a shared IP address, and you did not make the edits, consider creating an account for yourself so you can avoid further irrelevant notices.

Your recent editing history at Black Knight satellite shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you are reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the article's talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. The best practice at this stage is to discuss, not edit-war. See BRD for how this is done. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection.

Being involved in an edit war can result in your being blocked from editing&mdash;especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring&mdash;even if you don't violate the three-revert rule&mdash;should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly. LuckyLouie (talk) 21:27, 6 May 2016 (UTC)
 * If this is a shared IP address, and you did not make the edits, consider creating an account for yourself so you can avoid further irrelevant notices.

Anonymous users from this IP address have been blocked from editing for a period of 31 hours for persistent disruptive editing. If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you may appeal this block by first reading the guide to appealing blocks, then adding the following text to the bottom of your talk page:. Bishonen &#124; talk 22:17, 6 May 2016 (UTC)
 * If this is a shared IP address and you are an uninvolved editor with a registered account, you may continue to edit by logging in.

Excuse me? Disruptive editing? By removing opinions that are not supported by fact? If you want to create or edit posts on wikipedia, please learn to site scientific sources,  not blogs and magazines....like an adult.


 * You did not communicate very well. You were just repeatedly removing stuff without talking. What is plagiarised and from where? Please be specific. HighInBC 15:28, 7 May 2016 (UTC)


 * I note that you have been removing referenced information from the article, apparently in an attempt to make the article imply that the alleged satellite was real. In particular, you have removed the claim that "the mythical object is most likely a conflation of several disconnected stories". I have checked the sources, and they say precisely what the article does; the article does not distort them. - Mike Rosoft (talk) 15:29, 7 May 2016 (UTC)

Note: In 1973, Scottish author Duncan Lunan analyzed the long delayed radio echoes received by Hals and others and speculated that they could possibly originate from a 13,000 year old alien probe located in an orbit around the earth's moon. He suggested that the probe may have originated from a planet located in the solar system of star Epsilon Boötis. Lunan later retracted his conclusions, admitting he'd made "outright errors" and characterizing his methods as "unscientific".[4][2][1]   This is one particular statement that was removed previously...and a great example. The entire paragraph is sited with 3 different articles, none of which state anything mentioned above. You can see for yourself the only thing listed in quotes are the words "outright errors" and "unscientific" ..while the gaps are filled with speculation made on the editors part. Either site the entire statement, or leave it out. This is an example of plagiarism...as you cannot cherry-pick copyrighted content and post it in online forums in such a manner. This is not even open for debate...it is outright dishonest, not to mention illegal. If you want to list an article as a source, that's fine. However if you want to copy information from an article and paste it somewhere else, completely cherry-picked and out of context, without consent from the original author....that is plagiarism. So I say to Mr. Mike Rosoft...your statment that the article does not distort what the article says in nonsense...because I just gave you an example. Also I fail to believe that you checked all of those sources in a matter of 10 minutes...as it took me well over an hour, and I found several more discrepancies, which was my reason for editing the article to begin with. I might not have communicated well....but communication is not REQUIRED by Wikipedia to edit an article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.66.125.155 (talk • contribs) 15:43, 7 May 2016‎


 * I don't think plagiarism means what you think it means. Surprising for someone who has been a journalist for 25 years.


 * If you think the sources are being misrepresented explain your position on the talk page after your block has expired, but that is not the same thing as plagiarism. HighInBC 15:45, 7 May 2016 (UTC)

pla·gia·rism ˈplājəˌrizəm/Submit noun the practice of taking someone else's work or ideas and passing them off as one's own. I'm not sure that can be made much clearer? Why? What do YOU think Plagiarism means? I also do not appreciate the tone in which you refer to my line of work. However rest assured that this conversation will definitely find its way into several news and media outlets, and well as public media forums...not to mention the several magazines that I contribute material to. I'll be sure to site you in particular by name...and we will let the public decide what is, and is not, considered plagiarism. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.66.125.155 (talk • contribs) 15:56, 7 May 2016‎


 * Plagiarism is when you copy someone else's work and pass it off as your own. For example when you copied that definition from the dictionary without attributing it or quoting it you were engaging in plagiarism. Putting information from another person's work into your own words and attributing them is not plagiarism.


 * Please don't threaten us, it is only going to make you less welcome, and I don't find your threats credible either. As it is you will be allowed to edit again in 31 hours. HighInBC 16:00, 7 May 2016 (UTC)

Is there a "management dept" or something at Wikipedia where we can report abusive admins such as yourself? I find your arguments to be uninformed...maybe too much weed Mr HighInBC? Firstly because you site the fact that I posted a dictionary definition on the TALK page as plagiarism ...when the definition of a word cannot be coprighted, and can be copied and pasted however I like. Meaning the dictionary does not own the definition. Also I do not feel the need to attribute or quote a dictionary post...especially on a talk page. It is clear that saying "For example when you copied that definition from the dictionary without attributing it or quoting it you were engaging in plagiarism." was meant as an insult...or maybe just a passive aggressive comment. In reality it only shows your ignorance. Your next sentence states "Putting information from another person's work into your own words and attributing them is not plagiarism." ...this is actually the definition of plagiarism...which as stated previously...is defined as "the practice of taking someone else's work or ideas and passing them off as one's own." Note that the definition says nothing about whether you attribute the source or not...because that fact is irrelevant. I understand that this is not your doing...however Lawsuits happen...so best to be careful. "Putting into your own words" and "passing them off as your own" mean the same thing in a court of law. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.66.125.155 (talk • contribs) 17:17, 7 May 2016‎


 * No, summarizing material from a source using your words and properly attributing it does not constitute plagiarism. By definition, you can't pass ideas as your own when you clearly indicate that they aren't yours and say who their actual author is. (Conversely, you can be in violation of copyright if you copy a work, even if you say where you copied it from. However, ideas themselves aren't protected by copyright; only their particular presentation is.) And let me inform you that legal threats are strictly prohibited on Wikipedia, and users who make them may be blocked for an extended amount of time, until/unless the threat is withdrawn. - Mike Rosoft (talk) 20:26, 8 May 2016 (UTC)

As I stated before, your interpretation of the definition of plagiarism is neither relevant, or credible. In short, this means it is not up to YOU or any member of the wikipedia team to decide what does, and does not, constitute plagiarism. That is up to a court to decide. −		 −	Also, I have yet to make any statements that could be considered a "legal threat". All I stated was that I would notify the authors of the sources sited, to let them know their writings were posted out of context, and sourced inaccurately...which they were. −		 −	However, the statements that have been made to me from HighInBC, and now yourself, definitely constitute harassment. An example is in the statement listed above, where HighInBC stated "I don't think plagiarism means what you think it means. Surprising for someone who has been a journalist for 25 years." ...clearly meant as an insult, or a passive aggressive comment. Rest assured I have a keen understanding of what constitutes plagiarism...much more so than you, or anyone else in your department. −		 −	Also he previously stated "Please don't threaten us, it is only going to make you less welcome, and I don't find your threats credible either." even though no threat was made. I failed to understand the context of this statement....other than to demonstrate that Wikipedia will apparently ban users because they do not like them...which is an ignorant policy. −		 −	Also, you stated "legal threats are strictly prohibited on Wikipedia]], and users who make them may be blocked for an extended amount of time, until/unless the threat is withdrawn." which again...no legal threat was made. I stated "I would strongly recommend unblocking my account ASAP...or I will be forced to contact the various sources which are sited in the Black Knight article, and make them aware of the changes made to their material. Wikipedia is not copyrighted...but the sources sited in this article are, and I don't think they would take kindly to plagiarism." On what planet is that considered a legal threat? I never mentioned going to court...or contacting a lawyer. I mentioned contacting the owners of the sources that were linked for the material. Do you guys even read what is posted? Or do you just pull random threatening statements from a hat? IF you think you can intimidate me...you are wrong. In fact...I find this whole thing hilarious...and look forward to our next conversation, where I can further point out your ignorance. Ban me if you wish...I'm not even logged in...and this is a coffee shop IP address...so rest assured i'll be right back tomorrow with a new one. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.66.125.155 (talk • contribs) 14:27, 12 May 2016‎

Your block expired. What do you want? HighInBC 14:31, 12 May 2016 (UTC)