User talk:Bendersghost

Wikipedia is operating a policy of stealth plagiarism by taking unique information that is published by authors, to correct its own errors, and then justifying not citing the authors whose unique discovery they just plagiarized on the grounds that the site where they published it is deemed by Wikipedia to be unreliable. Wikipedia has been publicly shamed for it here:

I would like to know what will be done to correct this disgracefully psychopathic, irrational, self-serving unethical behavior.

Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to vandalize Wikipedia, as you did at Moral panic, you may be blocked from editing. --Orange Mike | Talk 23:29, 10 April 2013 (UTC)

You, Orange Mike, are merely operating within a cult that thrives by lazily plagiarizing the original work of mythbusters. The consequence of your behavior and that of other Wikipedia editors is to produce the unintended consequence of ensuring that fallacies are now going to stay in the public domain for longer than would otherwise be possible by utilization of internet technology. Your lazy plagiarism of innovative myth busting originators will stop them from freely entering the results of their endeavors into the public domain because the likes of you are pretending (plagiarizing new information) that you bust the myth. Consequently, easily corruptible academics will take information from Wikipedia and remain silent while the whole world thinks they discovered new information. I see your attempts to rationalize your plagiarism were shot down in flames on the Best Thinking site where your fellow Wikipedians stole unique information. And you have the audacity to call me a vandal SHAME ON YOU!!! You immoral plagiarizer! Everyone look here at how Orange Mike fails to justify being a shameless plagiarizer: http://www.bestthinking.com/thinkers/science/social_sciences/sociology/mike-sutton?tab=blog&blogpostid=20733

Please do not attack other editors, as you did to User talk:Bendersghost. Comment on content, not on contributors. Personal attacks damage the community and deter users. Please stay cool and keep this in mind while editing. Thank you. Bullshit. Facts cannot be copyrighted; thus, there is no plagiarism involved. Sutton is just in a snit because he is not getting sufficient (in his arrogant opinion) props for his unearthing of facts. That's not the attitude of a scholar; it's the attitude of a would-be "Internet celebrity" with his knickers in a twist. --Orange Mike | Talk 21:38, 12 April 2013 (UTC)

Orangemike Clearly you are unable to comprehend anything outside the rules you are blindly following. You confuse copyright with citation ethics. Surely you realize the two are completely distinct. And you fail to comprehend the meaning of plagiarism. Why? because it serves your purpose to fail to do so. You can't debate the issue at all because you are wrong. You resort to childish name calling - snit? knickers? Wikipedia's reputation is suffering from your and other editors unethical childish behavior and that of all Wikipedia editors who are failing to cite the work of those who discover the bullshit that you talk of. But you don't get it do you? Why not? Why don't you get it Orangemike? Because to get it you'd have to admit that your beloved Wikipedia is actually spreading myths and through misappropriation of the work of those who bust those very myths by stealing their work and failing to cite the fact that they bust the very myth you were spreading - you can pretend that YOU discovered it was a myth - it is your own ego that is under threat. Might I suggest you actually go and do something original rather than parasiting off the work of scholars and pretending it is your own work. Stealth plagiarism is a phrase that is going to haunt Wikipedia for the way it hides its errors by stealing the work of those that discovered them and pretending that Wikipedia did so. You underestimate the influence of the groundswell of the skeptical community that fully understands the meaning of unintended consequences.