User talk:Tamzin/Archive/Old/1

Hi. You keep reverting my deletion, and threatening to ban me. I don't know if you're a robot or a human, but please stop. I am only deleting it because it is lying about me and making malicious claims.Charles35 (talk) 04:23, 5 November 2012 (UTC)

(I've moved this to its own section for style reasons. I'll respond in just a minute.) — further, Francophonie&Androphilie sayeth naught (Je vous invite à me parler) 04:30, 5 November 2012 (UTC)

Hi, Charles35. I am indeed a human. Per Wikipedia regulations, all bot accounts must prominently and universally identify themselves.

I reverted your deletion because it was in violation of the Wikipedia behavorial guidelines on editing others' comments. The relevant guideline is that while editing others' comments is acceptable in the name of "removing harmful posts," "This generally does not extend to messages that are merely uncivil; deletions of simple invective are controversial. Posts that may be considered disruptive in various ways are another borderline case and are usually best left as-is or archived." I have read through most of the comments in question, and while they may get passionate at times, they do not appear to be malicious, either in terms of how the guidelines define this, or in terms of your description. If I missed a serious personal attack against you, please refer me to it, and I assure you that I will apologize profusely for misjudging your actions. Otherwise, it would appear to me that the comments that offended you do not meet the (fairly narrow) criteria for deleting others' posts.

I am just a lowly editor like yourself, however. I have no inherent authority to stop you from doing anything. Here are some things you can do if you still feel like an injustice has been done to you:

• If you believe that an editor has violated a Wikipedia behavioral guideline, politely inform him of it and ask him to stop.
• If you believe that this violation has been severe, or if the editor repeats the violation, or says he will not comply in the future with your request not to violate said policy, you can leave a notice at his user talk page asking him to stop violating the relevant policy (just like I did to you about your text deletion).
• If you truly believe that someone is "lying about [you] and making malicious claims," and you either try the above actions, or feel that the violation has been so egregious that it necessitates immediate response, take it up with the relevant authorities. — further, Francophonie&Androphilie sayeth naught (Je vous invite à me parler) 05:08, 5 November 2012 (UTC)

Okay I have several things here:

- I see you increased my warning level. Is that permanent? Does it go down? Can you take it down if I say sorry? :)

- The claims weren't blatantly uncivil or things like that. They weren't outright rude. They were clever and passive. They continually said things like, "If you want anyone to take your odd claims seriously, then you must give a reliable source and stop citing your personal opinion for your edits on wikipedia," with sarcastic links. This is so hard to explain, which goes to show how clever this person is. The issue I take is that I am not trying to post anything as content on wikipedia. I was only saying things as a discussion on wikipedia. I didn't intend to write any of them on the actual article and 'pass it off' as content. I hope that makes it clear.

- Can you inform me as to what I should do about an ongoing content dispute that won't resolve after I've tried everything I can think of? I read some of the suggestions and tried to reach a consensus and compromise and things like that. But this person will not compromise at all and manipulates the issue and my words into something they are not. And she "owns" the article in question, which I saw is illegal. I saw that formal mediation is the last resort. How can I go about doing that? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Charles35 (talk • contribs) 05:48, 5 November 2012 (UTC)

"Warning level" only refers to the severity of the warning I left at your page. It does not have any effect on your status as an editor, nor does it have any future ramifications (aside from the fact that someone giving you the warning again might be a bit less forgiving, though since this discussion is attached to the warning, I imagine they'd see that you were unaware of your mistake, and very courteous once you came to understand it). And I only gave a second warning because you'd undone my reversion of your deletion (that's a mouthful! ;) ). So basically, don't sweat it.

Since I'm not overwhelmingly familiar with this article (I came upon your deletions when they were flagged by a bot as potential vandalism), what I'd advise is this: Keep it all about the article. You seem to be doing that fairly well, but once you get into arguing ideologies, you can't hope to accomplish much — you're going to believe what you believe, your opponents will believe what they believe, and that will be that. What you can do is address problem sections, point by point. That way if someone responds with pure POV, you can call that out for what it is. Remember, you don't need to prove that the POV is incorrect; you merely need to prove that it is, in fact, POV. So identify everything that's biased, item by item, and request that it be changed. Do not explain why those who support the POV are wrong. Editors who are trying to push a viewpoint tend to try to distract other editors by arguing about the viewpoint itself. But, please, please, please, assume good faith. WhatamIdoing is an established editor, and even wrote this essay criticizing editors of some of the exact conduct you were accusing her of. I have no idea if either of you is at fault here, but the Breast cancer awareness page does strike me as biased, and that's the best thing to focus on. If you keep things very professional and polite, and another editor tries to escalate, and won't respond to the actual content of your (solely content-related) points, then that's something you can use in dealing with the more extreme options (mediation, etc.). However, keep in mind that your primary goal should be to work with the other editors to improve the page, not to demonstrate that they are wrong about what they think the page should do.

If things do come to that, you can request mediation at WP:RFM and request administrative intervention (which is for more severe situations, which I don't think things will come to, but just in case) at WP:ANI. — further, Francophonie&Androphilie sayeth naught (Je vous invite à me parler) 06:44, 5 November 2012 (UTC)

Thank you. This is exactly what I am talking about. I am trying to work with her to establish a consensus. I gave a list of sentences that need to be changed. All she can say is "you need to get a reliable source." So I did, and she keeps saying "you must get a reliable source" and doesn't even try to say that my sources are wrong, she just continues the charade.

Even worse is the fact that my issues with the article have nothing to do with sources! I found them just to stop her whining. But the real issue is revising the content that is already there. And she continues to say 'you need a reliable source.' So what, she expects me to get a source that says, "If there is an article on wikipedia called breast cancer awareness, and it happens to have biased info on it, then you should revise it to get rid of the bias"? That's ridiculous!

I can call her out for POV and bias as much as I want, but it doesn't change anything. No one else really cares, so as long as she keeps saying "you need a reliable source," then nothing changes! Why do I even need her permission to revise the article? Oh, that's right, because she owns it! What can I do to encourage another editor to get involved? Is the only option to request formal mediation? And if so, how do you expect I go about doing so? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Charles35 (talk • contribs) 20:15, 5 November 2012 (UTC)

Since Charles35 is complaining about me, let me reply: Yes, I really am insisting that you produce reliable sources to back up your claims. For example, if you want to change this sentence that you're complaining about on the talk page today:

"These symbolic actions do not prevent cancer, improve treatments, or save lives."

to match your point of view, which is "this is flat out false. These have saved many lives and improved treatments.", then you need to find a proper, published reliable source that directly says that symbolic actions have prevented cancer, improved treatments, and saved lives.

I realize that the article's contents do not match your preconceived notion of the subject. However, as far as I can tell, it does accurately reflect both the scholarly and the non-scholarly independent reliable sources on the subject. Matching the sources, rather than matching the preconceived notions of readers and editors, or matching the claims of advertising campaigns, is Wikipedia's goal. To convince me that the article does not match the sources, you need to find a source that directly says something about breast cancer awareness that differs from the article. For example, you could try to find a magazine article (or something like that) that says symbolic actions do save lives. And if you can't find such a source, after a diligent source, then please consider the possibility that this sentence is accurate and unbiased exactly as it stands, even if that fact is not what you expected to be true. WhatamIdoing (talk) 22:30, 5 November 2012 (UTC)

Reader - please read all of my response. It is the epitome of what is wrong with this article. I have tried to assume good faith this whole time. But it's getting real tough...

Yes, WhatamIdoing, you've said it over and over again. You keep narrowing it on down to one example (that I don't really care about) and focusing on that. You try to create the illusion that this single example sums up the whole discussion. This isn't about a single example. It isn't about two examples. It isn't about three. It's about the whole article. And I'm sure you can pull some WP:xxx out of thin air and try to get away by saying that I'm breaking the rules. But blurring the lines between what is and what isn't against the rules is, well...against the rules (related to WP:lawyering, I believe...).

Your example is, of course, flawed, for several reasons. First off, it's simply based on falsities. This personal opinion you're talking about here which you say is original research that I am trying to pass off as fact is, in fact, not something that I am trying to implement on wikipedia. I am using it rhetorically to make a point in a discussion that we are having. I didn't put any sources there, so I'm not trying to add it to the article (yet). You need to stop putting words in my mouth (which is against the rules). You are telling me what my preconceived notions are? They are MY notions. I'll tell you what MY notions are. Stop putting words in my mouth!

Second - as usual, you are making a false equivocation. This, again, allows Sulik's content to get away without accountability and responsibility. This is what I mean by blurring lines and using misleading wording. Of course 'symbolic actions' don't save lives. After all, they are symbolic ones (ie ones that do nothing but symbolize)! Nobody in the world believes that wearing a piece of polyester and showing it off to the world saves a life. Nobody thinks that wearing a piece of polyester substitutes for medical treatment. Nobody thinks that! So why are you saying that it isn't true? I'll tell you why - because you are trying to make the point that BCA in general saves no lives (which is different than simply wearing a piece of polyester). You want people to think that BCA in general is absolutely pointless. You say 'symbolic actions save no lives,' effectively conveying that argument. But what you fail to mention is that the only thing you're talking about, and the only statement you can actually back up, is one saying that wearing a piece of polyester doesn't save lives. Yes, but what about the funds donated to hospitals and research institutes? People shouldn't be aware of how that does save lives? You are over-simplifying a ginormous issue. Whether it is intentional or not, it is extremely misleading.

For the record: this issue, among others, is the problem I have with this article. There are a myriad examples like this that I would like to fix. Francophonie&Androphilie - I hope you're reading this, because I need someone to help me fight this nonsense.

Lastly, I found you several sources that say otherwise! Probably somewhere around 100, actually (and I could find 100 more). They all believe that awareness is a good thing and in fact, that we need more awareness! Not every piece of content on wikipedia must be exact wording from a source. Sure, I can't find a source that says "Wearing a piece of polyester cures cancer." If I could, it wouldn't be a reliable one, now would it!? But I've found many sources that agree that BCA is good, and that it saves lives. So it is wrong for you to use the technical definition of 'symbolic' to mislead readers into thinking that the funds gained in awareness don't save any lives. This sort of deception is just wrong. If you want to make the argument that simply being 'aware' changes nothing, then go ahead. But do it openly and crystal-clearly and don't deceptively try to pass it off as a different argument. Let the reader judge for him/her-self if your argument is good. I bet you can come up with some WP:deception-is-allowed-if-you're-WhatamIdoing, but I will maintain WP:IAR.

Listen, Ms. Whatamidoing. I am sorry if I've hurt your feelings. I've apologized several times to you. But that doesn't give you an excuse to say that EVERYTHING I do is wrong. And there is no reason for you to be so unwilling to work with me. I have told you several times that I am willing to compromise and reach a consensus, but you don't seem eager to do so yourself (if I am wrong about this, please tell me; I'd be glad to hear it), which is a pity, because I value your opinion on this subject very much, and, since you seem to care a lot about this article, I would love to work with you to reach a reasonable conclusion. You clearly not only know a lot about BCA, but a lot about constructing wikipedia in general, with sources and citations, etc. I would love to get your input on that. And if you don't want to, that's fine, but that gives you no excuse to continue owning the article (WP:OOA).

But, as I've said, many of these things don't involve sources or new content at all (disclaiming, rewording, moving, removing, et al). Again, this issue has been diverted from the original point. This example that you chose to use does not apply to my non-source changes, which comprise the bulk of what I am trying to do. Charles35 (talk) 01:10, 6 November 2012 (UTC)

If symbolic actions don't save lives, then why did you directly say that "These [symbolic actions] have saved many lives and improved treatments"?

The article does not say that BCA is bad or worthless, and never has. It directly names many important things that BCA in general achieves, including saving lives and getting breast cancer diagnosed earlier. But this sentence is about symbolic actions, which don't do these things. The symbolic actions produce something else, namely promotion of the pink ribbon culture. And if you believe that these symbolic actions—not BCA in general, but specifically the symbolic actions associated with it—produces something else, then fine: show me a reliable source that says BCA-related symbolic actions produce something else. Just quit confusing "what symbolic actions produce" with "what BCA in totality produces". WhatamIdoing (talk) 02:35, 6 November 2012 (UTC)

I obviously don't think that. Your entire argument hinges on this trivial technicality. It is misleading and you know it. I won't address this again.Charles35 (talk) 03:41, 6 November 2012 (UTC)

Was wondering why you went straight to a Level 2, instead of giving a Level 1 for the first occurrence? Thanks, Shearonink (talk) 05:06, 5 November 2012 (UTC)

I looked at both templates, and it appeared to me that the Level 1 was more intended for a wholly benign deletion of comments, since it discusses copy-editing others' comments, as well as basic rules of Wikipedia. Is there a guideline against skipping levels? If so, I was not aware of it, and I apologize to both you and Charles35. Or is your point that his actions did not warrant beginning with a Level 2? My rationale was that he was clearly aware of what he was doing, and even included a message explaining that he was deleting WhatamIdoing's comments because "[he] would not let that be said about [him]." Is that insufficient rationale to start with a level 2? It didn't strike me as particularly harsh... it seemed like the appropriate response to an intentional but not altogether malicious deletion: It doesn't accuse the respondent of anything outright, but it also doesn't beat around the bush. But, as I said, if I'm misunderstanding the process here, or if the situation didn't warrant a Level 2, I truly apologize. I'm a bit new here, and I know there will be some things that I misunderstand. — further, Francophonie&Androphilie sayeth naught (Je vous invite à me parler) 05:27, 5 November 2012 (UTC)

Look at the discussion you're now having above with the editor in question, he's talking to you right? Discussions can get heated on talkpages, new editors (heck, even old ones like me) make mistakes. The Warning Levels are there for a reason, usually the first disruption warrants a Level 1, 2nd a 2 and so on. I also take a look at the editor's contributions and talk page before considering what Level to give them...are they brand-new? Have they gotten a 'Welcome yet? Are they a habitual offender with multiple warnings and maybe even a block in their history?...Then I decide what to do. It's a matter of editorial discretion but, as Wikipedia:WikiProject user warnings states:

You should check that the user has made harmful or disruptive edits before issuing a warning, and that they have not already been warned for the same action by another editor. The user must be given a chance to see, and react to each warning given.

and Wikipedia:WikiProject user warnings/Usage and layout#Levels discusses the different Levels an editor can warn another editor with. Sometimes I might even actually post on their talk page... "I see you're a new editor, but you've removed comments from a talk page...why? doing so is against Wikipedia guidelines. You're also basically attacking another editor, on that talk page article - talk pages are for discussing improvements to the article, nothing more." or something similar. I've left you a Welcome above... Welcome to Wikipedia! Cheers, Shearonink (talk) 15:16, 5 November 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for the explanation! I spent some time last night experimenting with RCP, and I think I got a much better handle for warning levels/types/etc. — further, Francophonie&Androphilie sayeth naught (Je vous invite à me parler) 23:17, 5 November 2012 (UTC)

Here's wishing you a belated welcome to Wikipedia, Francophonie&Androphilie. I see that you've already been around a while and wanted to thank you for your contributions. Though you seem to have been successful in finding your way around, you may benefit from following some of the links below, which help editors get the most out of Wikipedia:

• Introduction
• The five pillars of Wikipedia
• How to edit a page
• Help pages
• How to write a great article

Also, when you post on talk pages you should sign your name using four tildes (~~~~); that should automatically produce your username and the date after your post.

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! If you have any questions, feel free to leave me a message on my talk page, consult Wikipedia:Questions, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and ask your question there.

Again, welcome! Shearonink (talk) 15:12, 5 November 2012 (UTC)

So, are you going to participate with the BCA article? I'd like to know because if not, I'll ask other people and move on. I thought I should give you the opportunity to make yourself clear before I do that.Charles35 (talk) 19:14, 6 November 2012 (UTC)

Thank you for your recent help with disruption of pages related to Freedom of speech and Portal:Freedom of speech. Perhaps you'd like to join WP:WikiProject Freedom of speech? — Cirt (talk) 18:28, 8 November 2012 (UTC)

Just a quick note to let you know that I removed the speedy deletion template you placed on Roberto Beccantini because the article did not seem to meet the speedy deletion criterion A7. It is not necessary for an article to demonstrate notability, or contain references to external sources, to pass A7. It only needs to contain a credible claim of significance, which in my opinion, it currently does.

Please be aware that is usually inappropriate re-add a speedy deletion template when another editor (other than the creator of the article) has removed it in good faith, because speedy deletion is only for obvious and incontestable deletions. If you believe the article still needs to be deleted, please consider WP:PROD or WP:AFD which can be used for deletions which are not covered by the speedy deletion criteria.

I am not an administrator and I do not have any special authority in this matter. If you feel that I have made a mistake, please feel free to contact me on my talk page. Thparkth (talk) 00:36, 9 November 2012 (UTC)

No, I think you're right. It has less material when I first speedy'd it, but I probably should've taken the template down myself earlier. — further, Francophonie&Androphilie sayeth naught (Je vous invite à me parler) 00:42, 9 November 2012 (UTC)

It has been improved since you tagged it.... all for the good :) Thparkth (talk) 00:45, 9 November 2012 (UTC)

• And I removed the speedy deletion template from Maciste All'Inferno. Neither A1 nor A7 applies--A1 doesn't because the article defines clearly enough what the content is, and A7 explicitly does not apply to albums. I urge you to be much, much more careful. Thank you. Drmies (talk) 03:38, 9 November 2012 (UTC)

• Just so you know, I only put that tag up because the article's creator had previously deleted it himself... Wasn't sure what the proper protocol was there (when a creator deletes a tag that isn't very well-founded), so I do apologize if I didn't take the best course of action. — further, Francophonie&Androphilie sayeth naught (Je vous invite à me parler) 03:40, 9 November 2012 (UTC)
• N.B. I hadn't put up the previous CSD tag, incidentally. — further, Francophonie&Androphilie sayeth naught (Je vous invite à me parler) 03:41, 9 November 2012 (UTC)

• OK, I see. Protocol here probably would be to have a different edit summary--like "restored CSD tags removed by article creator", that would make that clear. But when you do that, it's usually a good idea to check if those tags are valid in the first place. Click on the criteria and double-check to see if they apply--in this case, these tags don't apply. Now, there's all kinds of other things wrong with these articles, but that's another matter and I'm going to have a look at them. Thank you, Drmies (talk) 03:58, 9 November 2012 (UTC)

• I'm glad we cleared that up. Sorry for the mistake. More generally, if you have any concerns about my overall CSD nomination tendencies, feel free to look over my CSD log (which is missing a few I did manually - see my contribs) and my PROD log. — further, Francophonie&Androphilie sayeth naught (Je vous invite à me parler) 04:05, 9 November 2012 (UTC)

• Look at the first version--A1 applies there, though I'd take issue with A7 there as well. Anyway, part of the article is a copyvio so I'll zap it quickly, as I did with that Sea Shepard thing you tackled. Drmies (talk) 04:12, 9 November 2012 (UTC)
• Oh wait, you can't look at that anymore, haha. It was just a tracklist, without even the name of the band mentioned. In a subsequent edit, they added a sentence that was lifted from Discogs. Thanks, Drmies (talk) 04:14, 9 November 2012 (UTC)

I was splitting content from X-rays to X-ray detectors without being aware of the copyvio nature of the text that I was splitting out. Even before I had any chance to evaluate the extent of the copyvio, I found the entire section deleted from the source article.

A copyvio notice on the section would have been appreciated rather than immediate deletion, so that I would have had a chance to examine the text to see what can be salvaged.

Thanks, Stigmatella aurantiaca (talk) 06:46, 9 November 2012 (UTC)

Sorry about that! I was trying to keep to strict copyvio standards, and it appears I may have been a bit too strict (per the above discussion). Article-split away! — further, Francophonie&Androphilie sayeth naught (Je vous invite à me parler) 06:57, 9 November 2012 (UTC)

You flagged Two vics for speedy deletion at the exact same time as me, and you used THE EXACT SAME CRITERIA THAT I WAS GOING TO USE! Great work, francophonie. Passengerpigeon (talk) 09:23, 10 November 2012 (UTC)

Thank you! And haha I hate when someone beats me to the punch by a second. ;) But you gotta love the A7-G11-G12 triple-threat... is it weird if I have a favorite set of CSD? — further, Francophonie&Androphilie sayeth naught (Je vous invite à me parler) 09:26, 10 November 2012 (UTC)

I want to let you know that I removed your A1 speedy tag from Chandrakala; (It now has sufficient context). Some new editors may not write the full content in the first edit. A1 and A3 tags should not be marked immediately after the article is created. Give the user some 10 or 15 minutes to put some content. You can learn more nuances by reviewing and analyzing your past CSD taggings in your CSD log. --Anbu121 (talk me) 10:51, 10 November 2012 (UTC)

Good to know. Sorry about that. I actually was just about to remove it myself when you did, and didn't even notice that you'd beaten me to it until I was done with my cleanup revision. — further, Francophonie&Androphilie sayeth naught (Je vous invite à me parler)

No issues. Cheers. --Anbu121 (talk me) 11:16, 10 November 2012 (UTC)

It's also a good idea to avoid routine cleanup in the first few minutes. Edit conflicts are a major source of frustration for new editors. If something needs fixing, then let it sit for a while. Work in another browser tab and then go back to it.

We spend a lot of time begging New Page Patrollers to ease off on the seconds-old pages. It's more fun to work on brand-new pages, if your idea of fun is to tag the most for deletion. After all, working on seconds-old pages lets you spam CSD tags into pages whose only problem is that someone clicked "save" when they meant to click "preview". But you'll get the most accurate view of the pages if you work on pages that are at least one hour old, because that short delay has given the editor time to finish up himself. WhatamIdoing (talk) 22:22, 10 November 2012 (UTC)

Fair point. Since this little incident, I've been trying to wait 10-15 minutes before tagging any pages that have even a chance of being constructive. Now I normally only give an immediate tag if the page is obviously spam/vandalism/the like, or if I've already dealt with the editor for unconstructive creations. Thank you, though, for your feedback; it's gratifying to know that other editors are just as interested in helping me improve as I am. — further, Francophonie&Androphilie sayeth naught (Je vous invite à me parler) 22:28, 10 November 2012 (UTC)

Sorry, i wasnt aware of breaking any promo or copyright wiki laws, is it alrigth if i do a brief watered down summary in my own words, with far less text ? thanks for your feedback. Coleboltboy (talk) 13:07, 10 November 2012 (UTC)

Sure! Most of what was in there was salvageable, but a lot of it looked like either copies of portions of the school's website, or perhaps earlier versions of some pages there. Equally important, though, is that you make sure you maintain an encyclopedic tone, instead of speaking from the school's perspective: A lot of the stuff I deleted was all "we do this," "we hope that." It's important that Wikipedia not appear to be representing or promoting any organizations, institutions, or points of view. — further, Francophonie&Androphilie sayeth naught (Je vous invite à me parler) 13:13, 10 November 2012 (UTC)

Hi there, ive watered it down and made some changes and use a more encyclopedic tone like you said, is this OK. Coleboltboy (talk) 15:10, 10 November 2012 (UTC)

Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia. This is a notice that WORLD DECLARATION ON HIGHER EDUCATION, a page that you created, has been tagged for deletion. This has been done under two or more of the criteria for speedy deletion, by which articles can be deleted at any time, without discussion. If the page meets any of these strictly-defined criteria, then it may be soon be deleted by an administrator. The reasons it has been tagged are:

• It appears to be a clear copyright infringement. (See section G12 of the criteria for speedy deletion.) For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or printed material, and as a consequence, your addition will most likely be deleted. You may use external websites as a source of information, but not as a source of sentences. This part is crucial: say it in your own words. Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously and persistent violators will be blocked from editing.

  If the external website belongs to you, and you want to allow Wikipedia to use the text — which means allowing other people to modify it — then you must verify that externally by one of the processes explained at Wikipedia:Donating copyrighted materials. If you are not the owner of the external website but have permission from that owner, see Wikipedia:Requesting copyright permission. However, even if you use one of these processes to release copyrighted material to Wikipedia, it still needs to comply with the other policies and guidelines to be eligible for inclusion. If you would like any assistance with this, you can ask a question at the help desk.

• It covers a topic on which we already have an article - [[:{{{article}}}]]. (See section A10 of the criteria for speedy deletion.) Please note that this is not a comment on you personally and we hope you will continue helping to improve Wikipedia. If the topic of the article you created is one that interests you, then perhaps you would like to help out at [[:{{{article}}}]], or to discuss new information at [[Talk:{{{article}}}|the article's talk page]].

If you think that the page was nominated in error, contest the nomination by clicking on the button labelled "Click here to contest this speedy deletion" in the speedy deletion tag. Doing so will take you to the talk page where you can explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. You can also visit the page's talk page directly to give your reasons, but be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be removed without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but do not hesitate to add information that is consistent with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Tgeairn (talk) 07:47, 12 November 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for the revert (again) to redirect. This notice probably would have been better placed with the editor adding the copyvio material, apologies for the noise. I will watchlist as well. Cheers! --Tgeairn (talk) 07:52, 12 November 2012 (UTC)

Ah, 'tis quite fine, sir! Nothing like a little friendly fire to keep the veins pumping on NPP. ;)

Jest aside, I've left another copyvio notice at Sourabhchakrobarty's talk page (that's a mouthful! [keyboardful?]). I always hate when we have to ban editors who just don't get it, but looks like that's what we might have to do if he re-adds the material a few more times. (Speaking of which, do you know, perchance, the name of the essay about editors who "don't get it?" I wanted to cite it just now, but can't seem to find it... an admin used it in a block he handed down per my recommendation a few days ago, and it seemed pertinent.) — further, Francophonie&Androphilie sayeth naught (Je vous invite à me parler) 08:01, 12 November 2012 (UTC)

Yes, quite the finger-twister there. I'm not sure which essay it would be, although it sounds familiar. There's always WP:CIR, but I don't think that's the one you mean. Enjoy. --Tgeairn (talk) 08:14, 12 November 2012 (UTC)

It is, in fact! Much obliged. — further, Francophonie&Androphilie sayeth naught (Je vous invite à me parler) 08:18, 12 November 2012 (UTC)

In this edit you removed a bunch of text [1] Are you sure it is not this site [2] that is plagiarizing from us? Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 06:43, 9 November 2012 (UTC)

Restored the content in question. If you look at the images on the JPI website you will notice that all three are from Wikipedia uploaded by different users at different times. This site JPI is copying from us without proper attribution. This by the way is very common. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 06:52, 9 November 2012 (UTC)

My apologies. I very much considered that this could be the case, but since the site said "All rights reserved," I figured we didn't have grounds to assume otherwise without the WMF sending a SLAPP order to JPI. But if there's precedent to the contrary, then I apologize for my ignorance. Just a NPP'er trying to do the right thing. ;) — further, Francophonie&Androphilie sayeth naught (Je vous invite à me parler) 06:56, 9 November 2012 (UTC)

Sure no worries. This is definitely important work. I have however seen others plagarism more from Wikipedia than the other way around. Check out this as an example [3] and this one here [4]. These where two major textbooks. I have uploaded nearly 2000 medical images and when they are reused am only attributed about half the time :-) Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 07:00, 9 November 2012 (UTC)

By the way here is our site in 09 http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=X-ray&oldid=312499823 and the JPI does not look like it was made till 2010 [5] How accurate this last estimate is though I do not know. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 07:07, 9 November 2012 (UTC)

Another useful tool is this one. http://www.seologs.com/dns/domain-check.html Their (JPIs) site was created in Jan 2010 yet we already had the content up. Thus an easy way to determine who copied who. Otherwise one needs to go back to see in what single edit did the content appear. Cheers Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 07:12, 9 November 2012 (UTC)

The most recent case has not been reported on. Do you know anyone who would be interested? It is a huge problem because people than either 1) try to use these sites as references which gives us a circle 2) people think Wikipedia is the one plagiarizing. Anyway battery dying :-) Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 07:14, 9 November 2012 (UTC)

Do you have contact info for Craig Silverman? Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 04:50, 14 November 2012 (UTC)

Help please Francophonie & Androphilie ! We are a group of French students. We begin on Wikipedia. We built an article in French on Laurent Gervereau (artist, novelist, philosopher, specialist of images...). With the help of one French tutor we improved and now the French article is "wikified". It is good

Could you help us to do an English version ? We have worked on it (you may see) but it is very difficult for us and we are not very good in English and in wikifying...

Many thanks ! (PlurofuturoPlurofuturo (talk) 19:29, 10 November 2012 (UTC)

Article Laurent Gervereau

Our French version is perfect now with some help we got.

The English one summurise it

Many thanks Francophonie&Androphilie for your first help

It looks better. Could you stop the Speedy deletion nomination ?

There is still one problem : the language. We are not very good in English. Could you help us as you said you are good in French ?

All the best

PlurofuturoPlurofuturo (talk) 07:21, 11 November 2012 (UTC)

D'abord, l'article n'est plus nominé pour suppression immédiate. Il était nominé seulement quand c'était en français. Avec le traduction, oui, je vais continuer de vous aider en le traduire; je vais bien regarder la version française. Est-ce que vous préféreriez que je vous parle en français ? Je ne le parle pas complètement couramment, mais si vous pouvez me bien comprendre, je crois que ça vaudrait mieux. ( Oh, et, aussi, à l'avenir, s'il vous plaît, parlez à moi dans cette section de la page [ celle-lui qui dit « Laurent Gervereau » ]. Merci. ) — further, Francophonie&Androphilie sayeth naught (Je vous invite à me parler) 23:33, 11 November 2012 (UTC)

Laurent Gervereau

Ah, c'est vraiment super cette aide, merci Francophonie & Androphilie ! Oui, on peut se parler en français, c'est plus simple. L'article français, avec l'aide de plusieurs amis et membres du réseau wikipedia, est maintenant très complet et bon. On peut le prendre pour modèle si tu veux. Comme tu es anglophone, ta traduction sera évidemment bien meilleure que notre premier résumé-brouillon où nous avions tenté de donner succintement les éléments essentiels dans un anglais basique.

En tout cas, merci beaucoup

PlurofuturoPlurofuturo (talk) 07:03, 12 November 2012 (UTC)

Tu as pu relire pour améliorer l'anglais ? Un grand merci en tout cas pour cette aide

PlurofuturoPlurofuturo (talk) 22:46, 15 November 2012 (UTC)

Peux-tu ajouter des catégories en copiant sur celles de la page française ? Un très grand merci

PlurofuturoPlurofuturo (talk) 22:20, 16 November 2012 (UTC)