Welcome!
Hello and
welcome to
Wikipedia. Thank you for
your 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:
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)
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)
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)
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)
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:
The source states:
Your text read:
This source states:
Your text read:
The source [2] states:
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)
You may be interested in this encyclopaedia, an encyclopædia with a biblical worldview. LowKey ( talk) 02:57, 3 February 2010 (UTC)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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.
Welcome!
Hello and
welcome to
Wikipedia. Thank you for
your 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:
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)
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)
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)
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)
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:
The source states:
Your text read:
This source states:
Your text read:
The source [2] states:
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)
You may be interested in this encyclopaedia, an encyclopædia with a biblical worldview. LowKey ( talk) 02:57, 3 February 2010 (UTC)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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.