All I needed was the first author's name and a date or the title, and I gave the name and title and all the names.

-------
"One of the Germans... would frequently snatch a child from the
woman's arms and... tear the child in half... Such incidents...
occurred all the time." - A Year in Treblinka, Yankel Wiernik,
Treblinka's "most authoritative eyewitness"

---

there was no URL, just a DOI link, which the moderator may not have understand what it was or how to use it, so he went by what he was given in the MR, which was the draft study. it's an understandable mistake. there's no reason to blow this out of proportion.

---

I don't think it was either understandable nor acceptable.  If the moderator does not know what to do with a DOI link, the moderator should either figure it out or find another individual who does.  It is absolutely uncalled for to warn somebody, either informally or formally, for a legitimately cited article just because the moderator in question can't figure out a DOI link.

---

Quote: from marshmellowman at 1:13 pm on Oct. 17, 2009

---

there was no URL, just a DOI link, which the moderator may not have understand what it was or how to use it, so he went by what he was given in the MR, which was the draft study. it's an understandable mistake. there's no reason to blow this out of proportion.

---

 
I don't think it was either understandable nor acceptable. If the moderator does not know what to do with a DOI link, the moderator should either figure it out or find another individual who does. It is absolutely uncalled for to warn somebody, either informally or formally, for a legitimately cited article just because the moderator in question can't figure out a DOI link.

---

---

the warning can be cleared from their record you know

---

I know, but I'm just saying I think the warning was given way too hastily given that it shouldn't have been given at all.  More should have been done to check and make sure that the source Kidd Rune had cited was actually the draft Laurence had referred to.

---

Quote: from SpRiNgS at 1:19 pm on Oct. 17, 2009

---

the warning can be cleared from their record you know

---

 
I know, but I'm just saying I think the warning was given way too hastily given that it shouldn't have been given at all. More should have been done to check and make sure that the source Kidd Rune had cited was actually the draft Laurence had referred to.

---

mistakes happen

-------
pressure becomes real only the moment we acknowledge that it can affect us

---

Quote: from marshmellowman at 1:13 pm on Oct. 17, 2009

---

there was no URL, just a DOI link, which the moderator may not have understand what it was or how to use it, so he went by what he was given in the MR, which was the draft study. it's an understandable mistake. there's no reason to blow this out of proportion.

---

 
I don't think it was either understandable nor acceptable. If the moderator does not know what to do with a DOI link, the moderator should either figure it out or find another individual who does. It is absolutely uncalled for to warn somebody, either informally or formally, for a legitimately cited article just because the moderator in question can't figure out a DOI link.

---

Moderators aren't infallible, you're acting like this is some egregious mistake. It IS understandable. It is a legitimate mistake because springs didn't know what it meant and just used the link to the draft, which all in all seems quite reasonable. Should he have looked into it a bit more? Sure, but from his standpoint it seemed fairly simply given the link he received and the claim, so he probably felt there was no need to talk to another moderator about it.

I don't see why you're getting so riled up about this. It is evident that a mistake was made, and as such it will be rectified in due course. He made a mistake, he's learnt from his lessons, it's time to move on.

-------
and victorious in war shall be made glorious in peace.

Why else would he have blocked me from PMing him?

-------
"One of the Germans... would frequently snatch a child from the
woman's arms and... tear the child in half... Such incidents...
occurred all the time." - A Year in Treblinka, Yankel Wiernik,
Treblinka's "most authoritative eyewitness"

---

Waaaah let's cry over a little warning! LOL internet

---

This was unneeded, and such a threat shouldn't have occurred.

Unlike you I don't post on LW for the sole purpose of insulting other's and posting fake pictures and claiming it's them, which is more suitable for warning than this shit was.

-------
"One of the Germans... would frequently snatch a child from the
woman's arms and... tear the child in half... Such incidents...
occurred all the time." - A Year in Treblinka, Yankel Wiernik,
Treblinka's "most authoritative eyewitness"

---

Quote: from A Failure at 4:29 pm on Oct. 17, 2009

---

Waaaah let's cry over a little warning! LOL internet

---

Read the OP link:
"If you do not follow after this warning you will be banned"

This was unneeded, and such a threat shouldn't have occurred.

Unlike you I don't post on LW for the sole purpose of insulting other's and posting fake pictures and claiming it's them, which is more suitable for warning than this shit was.

---

never seen you give support

-------
Want to know the old pedos on LW? Msg me

---

So you're expecting every moderator to be well versed in using journals online and DOI links, and find out what the hell it means?

---

Not at all.  I'm simply expecting the moderators to not act when they don't review all the information available to them.  Like I said, if the moderator in question can't figure out a DOI link, they should either figure it out themselves or find some individual who does know.  To do otherwise is irresponsible.

---

Moderators aren't infallible, you're acting like this is some egregious mistake. It IS understandable. It is a legitimate mistake because springs didn't know what it meant and just used the link to the draft, which all in all seems quite reasonable. Should he have looked into it a bit more? Sure, but from his standpoint it seemed fairly simply given the link he received and the claim, so he probably felt there was no need to talk to another moderator about it.

---

I simply have concerns about the moderators taking action against a member without reviewing all the information they have available.  Is it really such a bad thing to hold the moderators here to this standard?

---

I don't see why you're getting so riled up about this. It is evident that a mistake was made, and as such it will be rectified in due course. He made a mistake, he's learnt from his lessons, it's time to move on.

---

It's not that I'm so riled up - I'm simply trying to assert my expectation that the moderators review all the information available to them before they start handing out informal or formal warnings.  It's an honest mistake sure, but I'm trying to make myself clear that this sort of thing shouldn't happen and hopefully won't happen again in the future.