Internal quotation fixed so as to make mdayonliner’s meaning clear:

Quote from: DdmrDdmr on Today at 05:22:38 PM

Quote from: mdayonliner on Today at 09:02:47 AM

<.> Question to those merit senders (DdmrDdmr (2), OgNasty (1), ETFbitcoin (1), mk4 (1), 20kevin20 (1), GazetaBitcoin (1)),

Did it look like the introduction (2 paragraphs) was entirely the author's (@Ratimov) own words when you sent the merits?
I am sure the answer will come Yes

Since I’m quoted here for meriting (albeit this being an irrelevant fact) the thread being deconstructed, I’ll provide my input as to what I saw when reading through the referenced thread.

It is not irrelevant. As I myself said before mdayonliner raised this issue, in the internal quotation:

Quote from: nullius on Today at 10:00:35 AM

As I myself observed further up the thread, the problem with the merits is not with the senders—to the contrary! I myself almost sent merit to this post. I would have felt cheated if I had. It is one of the reasons why I am focused on this topic—one of many good reasons.

Quote from: nullius on Today at 06:00:31 AM

Plagiarised Post

N.b. the merits from reputable users, who would not knowingly merit a copy-paste. As I noted earlier, I had intended to merit it myself, and to make a thoughtful reply.

Merited by DdmrDdmr (2), OgNasty (1), ETFbitcoin (1), mk4 (1), 20kevin20 (1), GazetaBitcoin (1)

Quote from: Ratimov on December 03, 2020, 01:33:06 PM

Quote from: DdmrDdmr on Today at 05:22:38 PM

I therefore did assume, as I’d generally do on mentally vetted profiles, that the non-quoted parts of the post were indeed essentially @Ratimov’s wording, not original content, since drafting original content when laying out historical information is not that common.

Now, don’t you feel cheated that you sent merit to Ratimov for a rip-off Google Translate copy of another author’s work?

By the way, I know that there are people here, including myself, who do draft original content on this forum—including in “laying out historical information”. Ratimov’s plagiarism cheapens their (our) work.

Quote from: DdmrDdmr on Today at 05:22:38 PM

Now is this plagiarism?
It depends on the prism we are using.

Definitional plagiarism is plagiarism.

Quote from: DdmrDdmr on Today at 05:22:38 PM

From the perspective of the forum, the reference/s are there, so it complies with what is ordinarily common law around here, and cannot be deemed as Bitcointalk rule-type interpreted tradition plagiarism, as (unofficial) rules stand.

Nonsense. A buried, unlabelled reference at the bottom of a long post which begins with an explicit claim of this being Ratimov’s article—say what!?

Quote from: DdmrDdmr on Today at 05:22:38 PM

From an academic point of view, any thesis with this degree of non-original wording would be pointed out, and the author would by all means fail his thesis.

Wrong. With “this degree of non-original wording” in an academic thesis (!), i.e. all but the first two sentences (!!), the plagiarist would be expelled from university and permanently blacklisted from admissions. Furthermore, any degrees previously awarded may be retroactively stripped, depending on the circumstance.