User talk:Trabucogold

Welcome

Welcome!
Hello and welcome to Wikipedia. Thank you foryour contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. The following links will help you begin editing on Wikipedia:

Please bear these points in mind while editing Wikipedia:

Respect copyrights - do not copy and paste text or images directly from other websites.
Maintain a neutral point of view - this is possibly the most important Wikipedia policy.
Take particular care while adding biographical material about a living person to any Wikipedia page. Particularly, controversial and negative statements should be referenced to multiple reliable sources.
If you are testing, please use the Sandbox to do so.
Do not add troublesome content to any article, such as: copyrighted text,libel, advertising or promotional messages, and text that is not related to an article's subject. Deliberately adding such content or otherwise editing articles maliciously is consideredvandalism, doing so will result your account or IP being blocked from editing.

The Wikipedia Tutorial is a good place to start learning about Wikipedia. If you have any questions, see the help pages, add a question to the village pump or ask me on my talk page. By the way, you can sign your name on Talk and discussion pages using four tildes, like this: ~~~~ (the software will replace them with your signature and the date). Again, welcome! Dougweller (talk) 17:20, 21 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. The changes you've been making to metaphysical naturalism are damaging to the article. Please stop.

If you disagree with me, visit talk:metaphysical naturalism and discuss it. Spotfixer (talk) 18:53, 11 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

August 2009

Your recent addition to Scriptural geologists has been removed, as it appears to have added copyrighted material to Wikipedia without permission from the copyright holder. For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or printed material; such additions will be deleted. You may use external websites as a source of information, but not as a source of sentences. Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously and persistent violators will be blocked from editing. This was clearly copied from works by Terry Mortenson - please don't do this again or you'll be blocked. I'll give you a welcome menu, I strongly suggest you read our policies and guidelines. Dougweller (talk) 17:17, 21 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I went to great pains to rewrite the material to make it a paraphrase and encyclopedic. Have you even seen the original???? Do you even know what it says??? Unless you have the original in your hands, you don't have a clue what is original and what is paraphrase. You CANNOT KNOW if it a copyright infringement unless you HAVE A COPY IN YOUR HANDS. I challenge you to prove ANYTHING that you say above!!!! Trabucogold (talk) 18:09, 21 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Even paraphrasing isn't enough often, but in this case it was just straight copy and paste. I took large chunks, put them in quotes so I'd get an exact match, and found the matches. I don't understand why you think you weren't copying from Terry Mortenson's book and articles, but I repeat what I suggested above, read our guidelines and policies. I spent quite a bit of time on this, I didn't do it after 30 seconds of searching. Dougweller (talk) 18:25, 21 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This was not cut and past from AiG. sure there were some sentences that were the same, but the vast majority of the article was rewritten. And more was to be done, as you could see by the history, I had been changing and rewriting the article many many times. I think that the only reason why this was such a top prioity with you is because of the topic. I'm sure that this copyvio is a convenient way to censor anything you don't like. Trabucogold (talk) 18:42, 21 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

And now I have to warn you for making personal attacks. Please read WP:AGF. 'More to be done' sounds as though you meant more copyright material to be rewritten, which is not the way to write an article. You can't start with copyright material and then rewrite it. You can take this to WP:DRV, By the way, a lot of it was also in Mortenson's The Great Turning Point: The Church's Catastrophic Mistake on Geology. Dougweller (talk) 19:05, 21 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

In any case, anything from Mortenson would fall under WP:RS#Extremist and fringe sources, given his AiG connections. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 19:23, 21 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, you may not be happy but I've restored the full talk page and a tiny bit of the introduction. You really need to read Wikipedia:Close paraphrasing and don't put anything in the article that might be seen as copyvio. You definitely need to use other sources besides Moretenson, including critical sources to keep the article within our WP:NPOV policy. I also found copyvio from [1]. Dougweller (talk) 19:31, 21 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Personal attacks

I must warn you again about making personal attacks such as the one you made recently at Talk:Scriptural geologists. Dougweller (talk) 04:57, 22 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Paraphrasing vs. Plagiarism

Hi, Trabucogold. From the above discussion with Dougweller, it seems that you may have an misunderstanding about paraphrasing. I wanted to jump in here and clarify a couple of things. Close paraphrasing can still constitute plagiarism and is a copyright violation. Altering the sentence structure or adding synonyms will not relieve text of copyright infringement. A finding of plagiarism does not require exact wording, but takes into account the structure, format and content of the presentation of an idea -- as well as the quantity of similarities. Reading the essay Close Paraphrasing can provide more information.

Unfortunately, most of the article you wrote constituted copyright infringement. Dougweller was absolutely correct in deleting the text. Here are just a few examples:

Your text read:

They believed the then dominant Christian view within church history and in their own time that Moses was inspired to write Genesis 1-11.

The source states:

These scriptural geologists held to the dominant Christian view within church history and in their own time, namely, that Moses wrote Genesis 1–11

Your text read:

From an early age he demonstrated a great interest in science. Though he eventually attained the M.A. and PhD degrees, it was said by contemporaries who knew him that "he was literally self-taught" and therefore was a great example to young people placed in disadvantageous circumstances.

This source states:

...from an early age John demonstrated a great interest in science. Though he eventually attained M.A. and Ph.D. degrees, it was said by contemporaries who knew him that ‘he was literally self-taught’ and therefore was a great example to young people placed in disadvantageous circumstances.

Your text read:

He matriculated, without taking a degree, from Magdalen College, Oxford in November, 1780, and then became an assistant chief clerk in the War Department. His major work on geology was A Comparative Estimate of the Mineral and Mosaical Geologies. It was first published in 1822, received a supplement in 1823 in response to Buckland's theory on Kirkdale Cave, and was revised in light of criticism and greatly enlarged to two volumes for a second edition in 1825.

The source [2] states:

He matriculated, without taking a degree, from Magdalen College, Oxford, in November 1780, and then became an assistant chief clerk in the War Department... His major work on geology was A Comparative Estimate of the Mineral and Mosaical Geologies. It was first published in 1822, received a supplement in 1823 in response to Buckland’s theory on Kirkdale Cave, and was revised in light of criticism and greatly enlarged to two volumes for a second edition in 1825.

These are all clear examples of plagiarism. Although we must be faithful to the sources, that is more a requirement for understanding the subject matter than using exact wording. This is why it is always suggested to read many different sources first, understand the material, and than put them aside while writing an article from scratch. After writing a draft, check the sources to verify the meaning is correct. This method helps avoid the problems of paraphrasing. Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously -- not only to protect the encyclopedia, but also the valuable work of the sources. If you have any questions, please feel free to ask. — CactusWriter | ^needles 13:44, 22 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If the first one is copyright infringement, the pope is jewish. The others were edited from the original and had not yet been rewritten to make them copyright free, given the size of the article and the short time the article was on-line. There is no way that anything written by me especially on this topic would ever be allowed on WP following the suggestions you give above. It would be immediately and automatically deleted as OR. It is impossible to write any kind of summary on this topic based on the method you describe and expect it to be accepted. And, the source for this WAS NOT from AiG, it is from the actual PhD thesis. AiG put parts of the thesis on-line about 10 years after the Thesis was published. And where did you find the article since it had already been deleted from WP before you wrote anything? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Trabucogold (talk • contribs)

CactusWriter is an Administrator. Virtually nothing is ever really deleted and Cactus and I can read deleted articles. Cactus is telling you what our guidelines and policies say and the way we expect editors to work. Please, we don't want to have a big argument with you, we are trying to help you. Other people are able to write articles the way Cactus suggests and I'm sure you can do the same. Dougweller (talk) 06:03, 23 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

My experience has been that on the topic of Creationism, otherwise good WP policies are used as excuses or are twisted to censor important creationary information, because it conflicts with the personal beliefs of some of the editors. It is very easy to see this. And certain people have been targeted so that ANYTHING they write, no matter what it is, is automatically deleted, regardless of it's value. "For the good of WP" is often just a phrase used to silence opposition by appeal to authority. Anything written by a creationist following the method described by CactusWriter is automatically deleted as OR simply because a creationist wrote it. Instead of longtime editors helping improve material submitted by Creationist, their real purpose is to censor. Creationists are automatically WRONG, no matter what. There is no such thing as a neutral editor that I've seen in the experience of others or that I've experienced on this topic. Trabucogold (talk) 16:25, 23 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

That's no excuse for writing a bad article or copyvio, although it does come across as an excuse. You've got lots of avenues open if you write something the way Cactus suggests (which would not be OR if you source it) and get deleted. Dougweller (talk) 16:37, 23 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

We cannot permit copyright infringement. The theft of anybody's writing is morally and legally wrong. Period. On the other hand, reading and understanding the conclusions of source materials, and then describing those conclusions in your own words is fine and is not original research. Rather it is the fundamental basis for creating an encyclopedia article. Original research means drawing your own conclusions, while writing for an encyclopedia means presenting others' conclusions without regard to one's own personal opinions. These two essays on compiling information and expert materials might clarify the difference for you. — CactusWriter | ^needles 19:56, 23 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

That is all fine and well, but it doesn't fly in the creationism/evolutionism debate. Anything written the way you describe is ALWAYS eliminated as OR. The only things that are NOT deleted are direct quotes. And when a topic is about a minor group or unpopular idea, sources from that group or from those that support the unpopular idea are censored because they give "Undue weight" or "extremist", "fringe", etc. HuH? But that's what the article is about? The only sources allowed are those that are critical of whatever the topic may be. This is especially the case with ANY article about creationism. The WP policies are great. And I like to see them followed. But some are being twisted by over zealous 'defenders of truth' to censor and editorialize some articles. Trabucogold (talk) 20:30, 23 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Your reasons are Ad hominem attacks and not a justification for poor article writing. We are discussing a single article -- Scriptural geologists. Even setting aside the gross copyright violation, the entire article that you wrote came from a single source. It ignored all other modern sources, of which there are many. Any article created in such a manner, regardless of the subject, could come under scrutiny and be properly criticized for lacking neutrality. Especially concerning topics for which people might feel great passion -- as I think you are aware. I'm sorry you feel editors have been biased against you. I, myself, find that the vast majority of editors are open to reasonable discussion. If you have not already, I would suggest that you join some Wikiprojects like WikiProject Alternative Views or WikiProject Religion or WikiProject Bible. There you will find experienced editors with whom you can collaborate to create fundamentally sound articles. — CactusWriter | ^needles 07:56, 24 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

What I was reporting was facts about how things that some editors don't like are treated. It is not Ad hominem, just simple facts that can be seen by reading though the article histories (which is a rather daunting task). In the creationistm/evolutionism topics, there are no neutral editors. And the articles are not npov. Those who are evolutionists think the article are npov. But for those who are creationists the articles are highly pov. But, creationsts are never allowed to help neutralize the article because the evolutionists think it already is npov. I don't know how to get it to a truely npov. And I really dislike the lies and falsehoods that appear in the several articles that deal with creationism and related topics. But it is impossible to change them, because creationary editors are automatically wrong, because everyone knows that creationists are "fringe", "extremenist", etc. In other words the deck is stacked against creationists. You would expect that articles about creationary topics would at least reflect what creationists actually think, but what creationists actually think and write are not allowed in the articles because they are fringe, etc. So the result is that the articles are wrong, biased, prejudiced. Again, the proof of these accusations is found in the histories of the articles. There needs to be a disinterested group of administrators (if such a thing can exist) to over-site these pages. Trabucogold (talk) 14:51, 25 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You are misinterpreting WP:NPOV. Wikipedia is based on reliable sources, which for articles like the ones you are discussing are basically academic sources - see WP:RS. It is true that Creationists will not be happy with our policies, I don't disagree with that, and they will think that the articles show a bias towards mainstream science, which is of course what they should do according to our policies. How far do you think I'd get editing a creationist wiki or Conservapedia? I am sure that I would have a much harder time on those wikis then Creationists do on Wikipedia. And yes, Creationist viewpoints should reflect what Creationists actually think, within the limits of our policies and guidelines. Dougweller (talk) 15:11, 25 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Check out another encyclopaedia

You may be interested in this encyclopaedia, an encyclopædia with a biblical worldview. LowKey (talk) 02:57, 3 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Vandalism?

You want to be particularly careful of tossing around that accusation, T - especially when you are suggesting such of a removal of unsourced and likely synthesized text. Doubly so when the person doing the removal explains precisely why its being removed. Triply so when the person doing the removing takes the time to move the removed text to the discussion page and initiate a discussion on the matter. I am going to presume that you just assumed that, because an IP made the edit, it must be vandalism. Please be more careful in the future; that sort of unfriendliness tends to scare away new contributors. - 207.181.235.214 (talk) 10:20, 12 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Alternate account?

Is this account User:MTDinoHunter yours? I see some similarities between you two and thought you might have an alternative account for another computer perhaps. Auntie E. (talk) 00:29, 2 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

If there is someone out there with similar thoughts, then good. --Trabucogold (talk) 02:06, 2 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

unblo==Sockpuppetry case==

Your name has been mentioned in connection with a sockpuppetry case. Please refer to Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Trabucogold for evidence. Please make sure you make yourself familiar with the guide to responding to cases before editing the evidence page. Auntie E. (talk) 00:03, 3 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

Trabucogold (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

I just discovered that I could protest. This block is nonsense. My editing was done in a university with free-to-the-students computers. As a result many people used the same computers that I did. I know others that use this same computer access system and edited WP who had similar interests as I, but I am in no way responsible for their editing. Aunt Entropy was a fanatical conspiracy theorists who saw sockpuppets invading WP like an alien invasion. She "retired" in protest because WP checkusers were not as fanatical as she about sockpuppets. And it looks like several other innocent newbie editors got sucked into this imaginary conspiracy quagmire, apparently because of similar interests. This whole thing stinks of over reaction. I expect to see level headed thinking unblock my account. Trabucogold (talk) 18:45, 9 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

So, then, these are friends of yours I assume? Out of the millions of pages on Wikipedia, these accounts all edit the same ones. Between the 7 confirmed accounts all linked to you, there are 60 pages that were edited by between 2 to 5 of these accounts. So we have 7 different accounts, who just happen to be at the same school working on the same pages. I don't buy it, this is a very clear and obvious case of sockpuppetry from you. Let's look further, let's just compare your account and 8teenfourT4. 8teenfourT4 was created at about the same time you returned to Wikipedia after a 5 month absence. There are just little connections here and there between these accounts which make them more and more obvious. -- Atama頭 19:26, 9 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.