User talk:FrittataOhio

Plagiarism[edit]

Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia! I've noticed that you've made a series of edits citing that you are removing plagiarism. However, I checked Google and did not find any source texts that appeared to be plagiarized. Could you please provide the sources for all of this? Cheers. -- Irn (talk) 18:31, 6 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, FrittataOhio. You have new messages at Irn's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Talkback[edit]

Hello, FrittataOhio. You have new messages at Ronhjones's talk page.
Message added 18:59, 6 September 2011 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.[reply]

Ronhjones ^(Talk) 18:59, 6 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

September 2011[edit]

Hello, FrittataOhio. You have new messages at Aranea Mortem's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

I would give up the deletion for now, looks like you won't get enough support to get your point across, unless there is some way you can show there is a copyright problem. Therefore, I suggest the only thing you can do is to raise a list of problem pages at WP:CP and give as much detail as possible. The copyright experts there may have an alternative way of verifying your claims. C'ést la vie. Ronhjones ^(Talk) 23:30, 6 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

If you report it, explain that the material you are trying to remove all comes from one editor (User:OSUHEY and various sockpuppets) Ronhjones ^(Talk) 23:39, 6 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

All your edits are back in place (except the discussion page additions). If, as you say, you have access to a pay site where the offending materials is hosted, you may still use the material as a source, and as a reference, provided that you have paraphrased or re-written the substance of the material so that it is no longer a facsimile of the copyright material. Takes a lot of work but it is commonly done. Velella ^{Velella Talk} 19:04, 7 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Help[edit]

User:Stemonitis has been helping me to recontribute deleted articles onto Wikipedia. I have been having discussions with him the last few days on how to create legitimate articles, and having them reposted. I have diligently been working on Larry Obhof, who was previously deleted by a banned user. However, I have done what Stemonitis has encouraged and am now ready to have it reposted on the "main page". While he is out of town, he told me to consult with other administrators on having these reposted. Do you think you'd be willing to take a look at my user page and see if it is ready to publish, as well as find an admin for me that is willing to do so? Also, feel free to look at my conversation with Stemonitis. ThanksFrittataOhio (talk) 16:42, 9 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Looks pretty good to me. I went ahead and changed the help template to an admin help template, or, you can go to this page and add a request to have the page unprotected.--Unionhawk ^Talk ^E-mail 17:12, 9 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I've unlocked page creation, so you shouldn't have any problem making the page. Cheers! Reaper Eternal (talk) 12:48, 10 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Help, again[edit]

{{admin help}} User:Stemonitis has been helping me to recontribute deleted articles onto Wikipedia. I have been having discussions with him the last few days on how to create legitimate articles, and having them reposted. I have diligently been working on Sean O'Brien (politician), who was previously deleted by a banned user. However, I have done what Stemonitis has encouraged and am now ready to have it reposted on the "main page". While he is out of town, he told me to consult with other administrators on having these reposted. Do you think you'd be willing to take a look at my user page and see if it is ready to publish, as well as find an admin for me that is willing to do so? Also, feel free to look at my conversation with Stemonitis. FrittataOhio (talk) 14:42, 13 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Banned users are not allowed to create articles. JamesBWatson (talk) 10:46, 14 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Ohio politicians[edit]

Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia. I don't know whether you're writing these contributions yourself, or retrieving the information from some where else, but I'm going to ask for your help in trying to improve the style and reduce the number of grammatical errors. There are are lot of redundant words in these articles, and some things that are just plain wrong.

"Webster was one of three Republicans who sought to succeed him in the Ohio House of Representatives...." -- Only one of them could replace him unless they were going to sit in each other's laps in the House, which I am pretty sure isn't allowed. Instead of using "opted", which is an over-used example of journalese, usually the past tense of the main verb works better. in this case, we need a different verb, because it is not the decision of the three Republicans - it was the decision of the Republican leadership. So "sought to replace" is a correct description, and "opted to replace" is wrong.
"was formerly" and "is currently" are redundant: the past tense indicates things that happened in the past, and the present tense indicates the current condition of something, so simply using the past or present tense works much better. Is there a difference between "Joe Blow is a member of the Finance Committee" and "Joe Blow is currently a member of the Finance Committee"? No, there is no difference at all, except the second sentence is longer without adding any meaning. If the article says "Joe Blow was previously a member of the Finance Committee from 2007 to 2010", is that different from "Joe Blow was a member of the Finance Committee from 2007 to 2010"? No, again the first one is just longer for no reason.
It is the same with words like "initially", "ultimately" and "went on to". If the sequence of events is set out in order in the sentence, as it should be if the article is written simply and clearly, then there is no need to hit the reader over the head by reiterating the order of events. It is just cumbersome and boring to read. Encyclopedia articles don't have to be this tedious. I cam across one sentence where we were told "the seat ultimately was later won", which means the same thing as "the seat was won", but with two extra (and thoroughly redundant) words.

With your help, we can make these articles more readable, and have fewer grammatical errors. Cheers. Ground Zero | t 03:00, 14 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not seeing instances of blatant plagiarism on the information I've seen you remove from the politician articles I have on my watchlist. All of them are properly sourced and where the link is not dead, the wording in the Wikipedia article and the wording in the reference is quite different. If it's an instance of cut-and-paste or cut-and-paste with a few words changed around, then yes, it's obviously plagiarism (especially if it has no source), but I'm really not seeing that here. Quotes can also be used on Wikipedia as long as they are properly sourced. --JonRidinger (talk) 04:49, 14 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, FrittataOhio. You have new messages at JonRidinger's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

As with the others, you appear to be unjustly removing material claiming plagerism, with no evidence. Some of it on the Ross McGregor page I added myself, and know this to not be true. If this continues, your account may be referred to Wikipedia administration.--Chimino (talk) 06:57, 14 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I have a strong suspicion that you're confused on the plagiarism issue. The material you removed from Kris Jordan does appear in multiple sites, but that's because all of them mirror Wikipedia. I searched through a number of passages that you deleted and found none that matched copyrighted text. Furthermore, the text is stylistically so poor that I find it hard to believe it would have been copied from a copyrighted source. I noticed that you make it a personal project to delete "plagiarized" material, then just refer back to your own talk page that gives absolutely no explanation. If you've gone through the trouble to research the issue and have actually found a plagiarized source, please have the courtesy to cite it in the Talk page for the respective material--for example, in this case, for Kris Jordan. Without it, your corrections are absolutely unverifiable. Chimino is correct--unless you quit doing what you've been doing, you risk being banned for what may well be a legitimate exercise (and I am not convinced that it is). If you don't edit or revert Kris Jordan material or provide evidence of plagiarism in 24 hours, I will do it myself. Others should review your changes on other pages.Alex.deWitte (talk) 16:16, 14 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I guess, it's pointless to wait for a response if you've been banned by another user. I am not sure why he claimed sockpuppetry, but the result is the same. Sockpuppetry, of course, is only a legitimate accusation if someone keeps doing the same thing after having been banned under the main account. If this is not what happened (and it is possible that it is not), you should appeal for a ban reversal. But if the charge is accurate, you're shit out of luck. Alex.deWitte (talk) 18:23, 14 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Ban evasion[edit]

I have made a careful examination of your editing history, and compared it with those of a number of other accounts which have been blocked for sockpuppetry. I am left in no doubt that you are the same person, so I have blocked this account indefinitely from editing. As you are aware, you have been banned from English Wikipedia. If you wish to appeal against the ban then you should contact to the Arbitration Committee (arbcom-l@lists.wikimedia.org). Simply ignoring the ban and continually creating more sockpuppet accounts is not the way to do it. JamesBWatson (talk) 10:45, 14 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]