User talk:Bjork53

Copyrights

Wikipedia articles may NOT include text that you copied verbatim from an external website. When you edited Bismarck State College, you took your material from this website. That is unacceptable and your edits have been removed. Anything that goes into a Wikipedia article must be in your own words. --MatthewUND^(talk) 21:07, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You still don't seem to be aware that material from an external website may not be used in Wikipedia articles. As long as you continue to include such material, your edits will be reverted and you may eventually be blocked from editing. Because you tried to once again include material from the BSC website [1], I have once again reverted your edits. So you can't claim that the article is in any way biased against BSC, I have also removed the discussion about the size and stature of the college. I encourage you to add to the article in your own words, but you may not add material taken verbatim from any external website to Wikipedia articles. --MatthewUND^(talk) 02:39, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You ask "So if I include material about BSC that is written in my own words, you will not attempt to redit it with biased and inaccurate information?" Yes, as long as your edits to the article do not include any text found on an external website and as long as your edits do not contain biased or pov material, you are welcome to edit the article. You should probably take not of a caveat that is placed on every page that is being edited: If you don't want your writing to be edited mercilessly...do not submit it. --MatthewUND^(talk) 02:42, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You ask "I can't include any text, any words that might appear, however inadvertantly, from any other text? That's unreasonable". It is not unreasonable; it is the law. Copyright infringement is a serious topic and I encourage you to read Wikipedia:Copyrights. Material may not be taken verbatim from external websites and used on Wikipedia. You mention "inadvertantly" taking text from an external website and using it here. However, your previous edits to the BSC article were a verbatim copy-and-paste from the BSC website...that's not inadvertant. --MatthewUND^(talk) 03:11, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You ask "You know, I think it's very interesting that you chose to trash BSC while writing fairly comprehensive entries about all the other ND schools. I guess I am curious: Why are you using Wikipedia to trash BSC?". Please don't insinuate that I have anything against BSC. I have hardily ever even thought of this school...I certainly have not developed any feelings towards it. Also, don't think that I have any obligation to work on any particular college or university article. I am a student at UND and I have worked extensively on both the UND and NDSU articles. I have done almost no work on any other ND school article. Feel free to look at any of the other ND schools articles...other than UND and NDSU, most are very short, under-developed, and I have personally done very little to them. Also, yes, anything that I have added to either the UND or NDSU articles has been strictly my own words. I fully realize the importance of copyrights and I would enevr include material in an article that I had taken verbatim from another website. --MatthewUND^(talk) 06:54, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

An Automated Message from HagermanBot

Hello. In case you didn't know, when you add content to talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion, you should sign your posts by typing four tildes ( ~~~~ ) at the end of your comment. You may also click on the signature button located above the edit window. This will automatically insert a signature with your name and the time you posted the comment. This information is useful because other editors will be able to tell who said what, and when. Thank you! HagermanBot 02:47, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion within articles

Discussion about a particular article does not belong in the text of that article itself. You recently shared your opinions within the text of an article: [2]. Any such discussion belongs on the article's talk page and not in the text of the article itself. To get to the talk page of an article, simply click on the tab that says "Discussion". --MatthewUND^(talk) 08:08, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Help Desk Question / 3 Revert Rule

Hi, just to remind you we're waiting for a reply on the Wikipedia:Help desk: I asked you "Could you indicate a specific occasion where you feel that Wikipedia's policies have been misrepresented, and which specific policy you feel is being misrepresented? Thank you".

I also should formally remind you of Wikipedia:Three Revert Rule and point out that if you revert this article any more in this period you will be liable to be blocked from editing. You should also realise that trying to keep count and exploit this system can lead to blocks anyway. In fact, it should never come to even two reverts: differences should be resolved (not just started, but discussed until consensus) on the talk page. I hope this will give a better insight into how Wikipedia works. Notinasnaid 20:31, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

A note to mention that I have also warned User:MatthewUND. Notinasnaid 20:57, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

BSC

Dude, you need to chill the fuck out. Get a grip. There are much bigger things in life to get all pissed off about. Its the internet for christsakes.

(Opes)