I'm an active committer and PMC member of Apache MyFaces Project, known as (lu4242) Leonardo Uribe.

A year ago I posted this answer

Difference between Mojarra and MyFaces

But it seems somebody else is claiming that the info was posted by he but in reality it was me who created the post, because I spent a long time to study it and resolve it.

Please revert the changes done over my post. My blog is this:


In this link you can see the first mail send over this feature in MyFaces dev list.


Take a look at the PDF of the report:


  • No need to shout; and only use the spam tag for actually spammers please. – Martijn Pieters Mar 1 '13 at 17:33
  • 2
    The edits were made by a moderator, so there is something more going on here. – Martijn Pieters Mar 1 '13 at 17:34
  • 1
    But is this the right place for this request? Could somebody help? – lu4242 Mar 1 '13 at 17:36
  • 7
    To be fair your answer was June 2011 and you are supposed to have copied it from a post with /2012/02/ in the URL. Seems unlikely unless you have a time machine. – Martin Smith Mar 1 '13 at 17:37
  • 1
    Just look on markmail.org with the words myfaces and lu4242 and you'll see I'm the real expert. – lu4242 Mar 1 '13 at 17:37
  • 2
    @lu4242: This is the right place, and I you may have a case, just trying to figure out what is going on here. – Martijn Pieters Mar 1 '13 at 17:38
  • @MartinSmith Look at the revision history. A substantial portion of that answer was added months after 02/2012. – Bill the Lizard Mar 1 '13 at 17:39
  • 2
    @BilltheLizard But the edit changes the entirety of the post to a quote, indicating none of the content is original. If only a few edits were accredited to this other blog post, the citation should indicate that. – Servy Mar 1 '13 at 17:40
  • I was the one who did the answer first and then I did an update. The first post was on this article: lu4242.blogspot.com/2011/06/… – lu4242 Mar 1 '13 at 17:40
  • I created the answer, and then did a research and updated it – lu4242 Mar 1 '13 at 17:41
  • 2
    @BilltheLizard - The only edit before today was Revision 2 that is not particularly substantial. – Martin Smith Mar 1 '13 at 17:41
  • My name is Leonardo Uribe, Apache MyFaces PMC member and the one who do the releases for this JSF implementation. – lu4242 Mar 1 '13 at 17:42
  • 9
    That blog is copying other SO content as well, for example What are the main disadvantages of Java Server Faces 2.0? is copied to kumarnvm.blogspot.co.uk/… – Martijn Pieters Mar 1 '13 at 17:44
  • @MartinSmith Ah, you're right. I misinterpreted the diff as meaning that everything after UPDATE MAY 2012: was added on that day. I'll fix this, then get my eyes checked. – Bill the Lizard Mar 1 '13 at 17:44

Ok...my bad. It wasn't immediately obvious or clear that this was your original work. If that happens again please provide a link when flagging.

Can I recommend that you add a pre-amble at the start of your answer along the lines of:

I wrote about this on my blog here: http://lu4242.blogspot.co.uk/2012/05/understandingjsf-2-and-wicket.html

That will reduce the chances of this sort of thing happening again.

Again, sorry about that.

| improve this answer | |
  • 2
    I must say that a few moments paying attention to the dates would have made it clear the post could never have been copied from that blog. The rest of that site is (to me) an obvious ad mill. – Martijn Pieters Mar 1 '13 at 17:54
  • Ok, no problem. Thanks guys for your help. I'll add the preamble. – lu4242 Mar 1 '13 at 17:57
  • But Kev, you didn't change the SO answer to state that it was pulled from lu4242's blog, you stated that it was pulled from kumarnvm's blog. If you had cited lu4242's blog it wouldn't really be [much of] a problem. – Servy Mar 1 '13 at 17:58
  • 1
    @Servy - as I said, it wasn't clear at that time and when he/she flagged the answer that the work originally came from his blog. The answer was flagged as a copy-paste from (what we now know) the imposter site. – Kev Mar 1 '13 at 18:00
  • 4
    @Servy: Actually, he did provide his own links at the very bottom of his answer... where most readers wouldn't have looked. – BoltClock's a Unicorn Mar 1 '13 at 18:01
  • 1
    I put the links on the top, so now I hope it will not be misunderstanding. – lu4242 Mar 1 '13 at 18:01
  • @Servy and in my defence what BoltClock just said. – Kev Mar 1 '13 at 18:01
  • @lu4242 thanks for doing that. – Kev Mar 1 '13 at 18:02
  • 2
    @MartijnPieters - we handle a lot of flags each day (2.2k so far today)....mistakes happen, we're only human but the problem is now resolved which is the important thing. – Kev Mar 1 '13 at 18:04
  • 2
    @Kev: Of course! I understand how the error happened. It's just that your post has a hint of a suggestion the OP could have prevented the problem by linking to their own blog post. – Martijn Pieters Mar 1 '13 at 18:06

That blog is a Internet copy machine, mostly BalusC (Bauke Scholtz) posts:

I have yet to find any post on that blog that is not copied from somewhere else.

The fact that this fooled a moderator is unfortunate; we'll sort this out and get your post fixed up again, I'm sure.

Seeing as this is a blog-post copying operation, and that it copied your own original post, you should file a copyright infringement notice with Blogger.

| improve this answer | |
  • 1
    Is it possible that the owner of the blog is in fact that person? – Servy Mar 1 '13 at 17:47
  • @Servy That has to be investigated, but I think that the right people to do so are the SE staff. – yo' Mar 1 '13 at 17:48
  • 2
    @Servy: No, BalusC is a Dutch guy living in the Dutch Antilles. His name is not Kumar. – Martijn Pieters Mar 1 '13 at 17:49
  • @Servy: The third blog entry does say This is a copy of my answer on stackoverflow. – David Robinson Mar 1 '13 at 17:49
  • 17
    Damn, I wish I was moderator for the entire Internet. – Bill the Lizard Mar 1 '13 at 17:49
  • @MartijnPieters Because someone not named Kumar could never have a blog alias of "Kumar"... – Servy Mar 1 '13 at 17:49
  • 1
    @Martijn Pieters: For all we know his parrot Chichiray may be some obscure translation of the name Kumar, so it may very well be his parrot running that blog. You know how parrots love copying humans! – BoltClock's a Unicorn Mar 1 '13 at 17:50
  • 1
    @Servy: Bauke keeps a blog here instead: balusc.blogspot.no – Martijn Pieters Mar 1 '13 at 17:51
  • 5
    @BilltheLizard be ware what you wish for :) nightmares ahead :) – Aristos Mar 1 '13 at 17:52
  • 4
    @David, even that line is copied from BalusC's own blog. – Arjan Mar 1 '13 at 17:54
  • @MartijnPieters Would you repost it in meta.stackexchange.com/questions/131846/… including the links? Or I can do it if you wish. – yo' Mar 1 '13 at 18:24
  • 1
    @tohecz: I am more and more convinced that this site is copying individual blog posts, not from SO itself. That's a difficult edge-case, the blog authors themselves could certainly make a compelling DMCA case against that site via Blogspot though. – Martijn Pieters Mar 1 '13 at 18:28
  • @MartijnPieters Still, it steals contents of SO/SE, too, even when indirectly. (Which arises a question: If I wanted to reblog my answer from SE, do I have to follow the contribution rules, too?) – yo' Mar 1 '13 at 18:33
  • @tohecz: You license your text to SO under the CC-wiki license. You are still the author and can do with it as you see fit. It could be that SE can make a case under that license, but the copies are not verbatim (but they are verbatim from those blog posts). – Martijn Pieters Mar 1 '13 at 18:35

If http://kumarnvm.blogspot.co.uk/2012/02/mojarra-or-myfaces.html is not your blog, that this is copying without following attribution rules. The correct place where to claim it is:

Report sites that use Stack Exchange content without following attribution rules here

Once you publish your contents on SO, you do so under a cc-wiki licence which allows people to repost it wherever they want, as long as they attribute it properly.

| improve this answer | |
  • 2
    While the OP may have a claim that some other blog "stole" his content, that's not what this meta post is about. A moderator is claiming that the OP is the one who copied the content from that blog post, and cites that blog as the source. The post should be edited to indicate that it is the original source of the content. – Servy Mar 1 '13 at 17:44
  • @Servy Yes, you are right. But this has to be done too, doesn't it? – yo' Mar 1 '13 at 17:45
  • 4
    Yes, but it's not what this post is about, so it's not an answer to this question. It's also most likely of much lower importance to the OP. What's on some blog full of plagiarized content is not something too many people care about, but when the original author is accused of copying from someone when he never did, that's...likely frustrating. – Servy Mar 1 '13 at 17:46
  • 3
    Yes, that's the case. This guy Kumar is claiming that the answer comes from his blog, but its site is just a copy of many post of real people. The answer comes from my blog. – lu4242 Mar 1 '13 at 17:53

You must log in to answer this question.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged .