Search content
Sort by
Showing 20 of 872 results by PnP
Then why do you seem more concerned with the outcome than steklomoy themselves? Why are "they" not here asking for their account to be unblocked?
Didn't you think that the "steklomoy" account cannot write something here because of the ban? Or are you a moron like suchmoon?
Maybe consider dropping the charade that steklomoy isn't your account.
I hope your charade has conclusive evidence?
Личный aкк, тpacт нeйтpaльный, пpoдaю вмecтe c poднoй пoчтoй.
Personal account, trust neutral, I sell with my own mail.
Probably doesn't qualify you as a valuable member worthy of unban.
Who told you that I am asking you to unblock the "PnP" account? We are talking about a "steklomoy" account. Or does your dementia not make it clear?
Although, I do not mind if you bring this up
We are waiting for the decision of the global moderators. Therefore, please do not clutter the topic with your subjective moral teachings.Thank you...
Send an e-mail to the address given in your ban message and lock the thread instead of cluttering it with your misleading attempts to twist forum rules to your favor.
don't tell me what to do, and I won't tell you where to go
Well, I repeat again, for the imbecile. The rules of the Russian section prohibit exactly plagiarism, and not copying news headlines. Therefore, I do not need to prove anything, since the text under discussion is not plagiarism in the literal sense of the word, like the appropriation of other people's ideas, because the text does not contain any thoughts and ideas, but is news, and everyone can check its reliability through a search engine.
Would have you been struck by lightning had you put a damn link under a text you copied from the Internet? Seriously, I don't get it. Moreover, your definition of news is likely wrong since some news may well contain thoughts and ideas. Imagine you were a journalist, you spent a lot of time collecting, analyzing, transforming information into readable text, and later you would know that someone just copied your work without citing the source. Wouldn't you be upset?
You also wrote above that this is an isolated case in the entire history of posts by steklomoy. Moreover, it has nothing to do with malicious intent. The person just forgot to give the link. Is this the crime of the century?
However, I believe that a temporary ban would be sufficient in this case because there is just one mistake, and he did it not to earn some money from signature campaign or not to raise his activity.
So what's the problem with making a temporary ban?
Forum rules do not prohibit the creation of multiple accounts, as well as their sale. By blocking such accounts, the administration is breaking its own rules. If you don't like what I write, you always have the option to ignore my messages.
... Thus, according to the rules, this account of yours should also be banned. Once your one account is locked out, you cannot write and use the other account. The only thing you can do is create a new account for the sole purpose of filing an appeal in the META section.
With what joy they will ban me if I write only here? Can you read and write in Russian or only diagonally?
Да действительно, было бы хорошо услышать ответ о том, что делать в подобной ситуации.
Ответ чрезвычайно очевиден - ждать когда срок бана закончится. В это время разрешается завести или использовать другую учётную запись, чтобы писать в Meta о своём бане, но только в Meta и больше нигде, иначе другие учётки тоже забанят с формулировкой "уклонения от бана" (если дословно).сколько и куда слать BTC?!
https://bitcointalk.org/donate.html Чем больше, тем лучше.
The rules of the Russian section prohibit exactly plagiarism, and not copying news headlines.
We have notes under the list of rules and here is one of the note about plagiarism:Пpимeчaния:
8. Плaгиaт зaпpeщён, в тoм чиcлe в видe кoпиpoвaния, либo пepeфpaзиpoвaния чyжиx cooбщeний или тeкcтoв из ceти Интepнeт. Ecли выклaдывaeтe кoпипacтy, тo oбязaтeльнo yкaзывaйтe ccылкy нa иcтoчник.
Translation:8. Плaгиaт зaпpeщён, в тoм чиcлe в видe кoпиpoвaния, либo пepeфpaзиpoвaния чyжиx cooбщeний или тeкcтoв из ceти Интepнeт. Ecли выклaдывaeтe кoпипacтy, тo oбязaтeльнo yкaзывaйтe ccылкy нa иcтoчник.
Plagiarism is prohibited, including in the form of copying or rephrasing other people’s messages or texts from the Internet. If you are posting something which is copied, you must include a reference to the source.
However, I believe that a temporary ban would be sufficient in this case because there is just one mistake, and he did it not to earn some money from signature campaign or not to raise his activity.
I didn't pay attention to the notes. I admit my mistake. Although, copying should be written in detail in article 33 of the Russian rules, so that users clearly know what threatens even a part of the text or news headline for copying and pasting.
It doesn't matter who the author is or where the text was copied from? Is your head all right?
It matters only if steklomoy is the original author. If you can prove that with timestamps etc - that's great. So far all evidence shows otherwise.
This is not a court of law. No one is going to prison. User was shown to have copied text from somewhere else and passed it as their own => ban. It's been that way for years here and you're not the first one attempting to bend the rules. That's not a winning strategy. You should focus on whether steklomoy's positive contributions to the forum are sufficient for him to get leniency in this case, instead of continuing to argue that copypasta is ok. It's not.
Well, I repeat again, for the imbecile. The rules of the Russian section prohibit exactly plagiarism, and not copying news headlines. Therefore, I do not need to prove anything, since the text under discussion is not plagiarism in the literal sense of the word, like the appropriation of other people's ideas, because the text does not contain any thoughts and ideas, but is news, and everyone can check its reliability through a search engine.
But hey, it's not up to me to decide. See how the appeal goes, OP. You might get lucky, but use this as a learning experience if you get unbanned.
As a rule, plagiarism hides “selfish interest”.
In the case of glass, a simple warning would be enough. I am sure that if it gets unbanned steklomoy will take this lesson into account.
I agree. But what did @Ateobreaking, who is called the author of the idea, come up with?
Quit the fallacious bullshit. It doesn't matter if @Ateobreaking was the original author or copied from somewhere else. The fact is that steklomoy copied it from somewhere and posted as their own. End of.
Does it matter who the author is or where the text was copied from? Is your head all right?
Everything is simple here; there is no need to say heresy, passing it off as reality.
Provide compelling evidence that the text is plagiarized, otherwise the account should be unblocked.
Not all copy-paste is plagiarized. I never tire of repeating that plagiarism is the theft of ideas or thoughts, and not sharing messages to the public.
It's very simple: if you didn't come up with it yourself, add a source.I agree. But what did @Ateobreaking, who is called the author of the idea, come up with?
copy/pasted
Not all copy-paste is plagiarized. I never tire of repeating that plagiarism is the theft of ideas or thoughts, and not sharing messages to the public.
It looks like a little of an article (what I see by google translate). It's generally done by some newbies or some users who want to promote their blog here in this forum. Just add a title and post the link to the article (Though it's not a good way). But they put the reference there. You did a mistake by not putting a reference link there.
Let's see what actually the rule saying.
Let's see what actually the rule saying.
...
33. This includes both copying parts or the entirety of other users' posts or threads and copying content from external sources (e.g. other websites) and passing it as your own.
33. This includes both copying parts or the entirety of other users' posts or threads and copying content from external sources (e.g. other websites) and passing it as your own.
In fact, in the rules of the Russian-language section, this article looks much more prosaic:
33. Заниматься плагиатом запрещено.
Which in translation means - plagiarism is prohibited.
Plagiarism, in my understanding, has exactly the same meaning as in Russian dictionaries and Wikipedia. That is exactly what I wrote about above.
LoyceV, I think you do not quite understand what plagiarism is. First of all, plagiarism is the issuance of someone else's intellectual work under one's own name. Now answer a simple question: how could steklomoy arrogate to himself the rights of the Nexta channel by spreading the news about the award for the arrest of Lukashenka?
What you are now trying to call plagiarism is called the dissemination of information, and in connection with the recent events in Belarus - quite important information.
What you are now trying to call plagiarism is called the dissemination of information, and in connection with the recent events in Belarus - quite important information.
No, it's called plagiarism. The user didn't put any effort into attributing the text and posted it as their own. The sentence doesn't even sound like it's coming from Nexta, it is about Nexta.
No and no. In the context of plagiarism, the text should be someone's unique thought. But this is not a thought that belongs to Ateo Breaking. This is Nexta's statement shared by Ateo Breaking and steklomoy on their own initiative. Learn to separate the wheat from the chaff.
This is not a scientific article or creative work, but news about an award for the capture of Lukashenka. Can't you see the difference?
That doesn't matter, it can still be plagiarism.Losev, I think you do not quite understand what plagiarism is. First of all, plagiarism is the issuance of someone else's intellectual work under one's own name. Now answer a simple question: how could steklomoy arrogate to himself the rights of the Nexta channel by spreading the news about the award for the arrest of Lukashenka?
What you are now trying to call plagiarism is called the dissemination of information, and in connection with the recent events in Belarus - quite important information.
Or the link to your thread here so that the matter can be clarified.
OK thanks.
I have to agree with the OP in this case. Here is the translation of the plagiarized reply;
"The founder of HEXTA announced a $ 1 million reward for arresting Lukashenka or any other way to remove him from power."
The post does not explicitly suggest the writer was claiming ownership of the reply which is sort of common knowledge at the time. It's a news headline, and we regularly see different media houses use very similar headlines for their publications. If the op had written more which was copied without including a source, it would then be in the realm of plagiarism, imo.
"The founder of HEXTA announced a $ 1 million reward for arresting Lukashenka or any other way to remove him from power."
The post does not explicitly suggest the writer was claiming ownership of the reply which is sort of common knowledge at the time. It's a news headline, and we regularly see different media houses use very similar headlines for their publications. If the op had written more which was copied without including a source, it would then be in the realm of plagiarism, imo.
Everything is correctly formulated!
This message has been reported in the Staff section for plagiarism :
Quote
Copy:
Ocнoвaтeль HEXTA oбъявил o вoзнaгpaждeнии в 1 миллиoн дoллapoв зa apecт Лyкaшeнкo или любoй дpyгoй cпocoб eгo ycтpaнeния oт влacти.
Original:
Ocнoвaтeль HEXTA oбъявил o вoзнaгpaждeнии в 1 миллиoн дoллapoв зa apecт Лyкaшeнкo или любoй дpyгoй cпocoб eгo ycтpaнeния oт влacти.
Original:
Quote from: https://tgstat.ru/channel/@Ateobreaking/16976
Ocнoвaтeль HEXTA oбъявил o вoзнaгpaждeнии в 1 миллиoн дoллapoв зa apecт Лyкaшeнкo или любoй дpyгoй cпocoб eгo ycтpaнeния oт влacти.
This is not a scientific article or creative work, but news about an award for the capture of Lukashenka. Can't you see the difference? Also, this announcement came from the NEXTA channel]https://youtu.be/em1M_bjWPqE?t=6442]NEXTA channel, which the steklomoy mentioned in his post.
Hello. Today the "steklomoy" account was blocked for alleged plagiarism. I would like to see evidence of plagiarism. And if there are none, please unblock this account. Otherwise, a feeling is created that they are blocking all the unwanted on the principle of "friend or foe", "pulling by the ears" the article of the rules for which the blocking is provided.