User talk:TechnologyIsPower

Pinkstrawberry02  ™ talk  01:50, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

November 2011
Welcome to Wikipedia, and thank you for your contributions. One of the core policies of Wikipedia is that articles should always be written from a neutral point of view. A contribution you made to Samsung Electronics appears to carry a non-neutral point of view, and your edit may have been changed or reverted to correct the problem. Please remember to observe this important core policy. Thank you. Cntras (talk) 03:44, 5 November 2011 (UTC)

Moore's law
See Talk:Moore's law, section near the bottom. You can comment there. I've reverted to before all your additions, due to what appears to be extensive copyright violation. Dicklyon (talk) 03:59, 5 November 2011 (UTC)

I have reverted the majority most recent edit to Moore's law because, as stated above, most of it is a violation of Wikipedia's copyright policy. In addition, much of it was a violation of the policy that Wikipedia is not a crystal ball and should not contain speculation about the future. Insanity Incarnate (talk) 13:34, 5 November 2011 (UTC)

Your recent edits seem to have the appearance of edit warring&#32; after a review of the reverts you have made on Moore's law. Users are expected to collaborate and discuss with others and avoid editing disruptively. Please be particularly aware, the three-revert rule states that: If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's talk page to discuss the changes; work towards a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at an appropriate noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases it may be appropriate to request temporary page protection. If you engage in an edit war, you may be blocked from editing without further notice. SudoGhost 13:36, 5 November 2011 (UTC)
 * 1) Making more than three reversions on a single page within a 24-hour period is almost always grounds for an immediate block.
 * 2) Do not edit war even if you believe you are right.

Before making any further edits, you need to read the links I provided above. Do not make any further edits to Moore's law without reading these links, or you will risk violating Wikipedia's policies and getting yourself blocked. The direct copy-pasting of any text is a violation of Wikipedia's policies, even if you provide the source from which you copied. You are allowed to directly quote a source, but only if you make it clear that it is a quote&mdash;your edits imply that you were the original author of the text added. If you are citing a source (as you are) that can be restated without changing the meaning, it is highly recommended that you do so&mdash;rewrite the relevant information in your own words, without using a blockquote, and add the proper citations in the correct format (see WP:Citing sources). However, I would recommend against redoing the edits that I have reverted in this manner, because in addition to the copyright problems, these additions to the article make speculations about the future (Wikipedia is not a crystal ball) and they show a clear bias towards Intel, violating Wikipedia's neutral point of view policy. Please take these policies into consideration before you make any further edits. If you continue to wage edit war on this article, merely making the exact same edits over and over, you will be blocked. Insanity Incarnate (talk) 14:20, 5 November 2011 (UTC)

Moore's law
Please stop reinserting what has been removed from the Moore's law article. What you are adding has a few problems; If you come to the talk page and explain what you are adding. Edit warring, as you are doing just now, will only get you blocked. Thanks. -- Escape Orbit (Talk) 14:28, 5 November 2011 (UTC)
 * First of all, it is not neutral. It puts forward several opinions that aren't sourced to anywhere.  Whose are these opinions?  Who says so?
 * How do you know what Paul Otellini is "indirectly referring" to? Did he say this?  Have you asked him?
 * Who says that Ray Kurzweil is the most famous Futurist in the world? Whose opinion is this?
 * It is speculative. Wikipedia doesn't do guessing about the future, unless reflecting what a recognised authority says.
 * A lot of what you are adding and linking to appears to have little to do directly with Moore's law. Who says DNA Computers will affect Moore's Law?
 * Phrases like "An unprecedented combination of performance improvement and power reduction" just sound like adverts. Who says it is unprecedented?
 * The nature of many of your edit summaries suggest you are not approaching your edits in an impartial and neutral manner. Stop SHOUTING about how great you think Intel is.
 * Wikipedia doesn't work to what is "true". It works to what is verifiable.  Simply saying "I know it's true!" doesn't mean it should be in Wikipedia.  How does anyone know you are right?

You've been reported for edit warring
Please see WP:AN3. Join the discussion there and promise to stop, please. You are in line for a major block if you keep going on this way. EdJohnston (talk) 15:10, 5 November 2011 (UTC)

You have been blocked temporarily from editing for edit warring. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions. If you would like to be unblocked, you may appeal this block by adding the text, but you should read the guide to appealing blocks first. During a dispute, you should first try to discuss controversial changes and seek consensus. If that proves unsuccessful, you are encouraged to seek dispute resolution, and in some cases it may be appropriate to request page protection. ( talk→  BWilkins   ←track ) 15:12, 5 November 2011 (UTC)

Copyright v plagiarism
Judging from the edit summary to this edit, you seem to be unclear as to the nature of copyright, and perhaps you are confusing it with plagiarism. Using someone else's work without acknowledging the source, so as to give the impression it is your own work, is plagiarism. Clearly it can't be plagiarism if you say where you copied it from. However, copyright is a completely different issue. If I write something, then you have no right to copy it and use it unless I give you permission to do so. If you go ahead and use it without my permission then you are infringing my copyright. The fact that you say you have copied it from me does not make it all right: in other words citing your source does not stop it from being a copyright infringement. JamesBWatson (talk) 11:05, 8 November 2011 (UTC)