Content deleted Content added
ViperSnake151 (talk | contribs) →Re: Brick Like Me: new section |
|||
Line 11: | Line 11: | ||
* Unfortunately, in Wikipedia by its rules an editor cannot "own" an article in main space or treat it as his private estate. [[User:Anthony Appleyard|Anthony Appleyard]] ([[User talk:Anthony Appleyard|talk]]) 21:25, 28 April 2014 (UTC) |
* Unfortunately, in Wikipedia by its rules an editor cannot "own" an article in main space or treat it as his private estate. [[User:Anthony Appleyard|Anthony Appleyard]] ([[User talk:Anthony Appleyard|talk]]) 21:25, 28 April 2014 (UTC) |
||
*:No, but when someone wrote an article, it is and will be his work all the time. And this rule is in Wikipedia, too. And the text that someone wrote is definatly his "OWN" work (NOT the article, the text somone wrote.). Is that English good enough for you to understand? Otherwise we could talk in German. --[[User:M(e)ister Eiskalt|M(e)ister Eiskalt]] ([[User talk:M(e)ister Eiskalt#top|talk]]) 17:37, 29 April 2014 (UTC) |
*:No, but when someone wrote an article, it is and will be his work all the time. And this rule is in Wikipedia, too. And the text that someone wrote is definatly his "OWN" work (NOT the article, the text somone wrote.). Is that English good enough for you to understand? Otherwise we could talk in German. --[[User:M(e)ister Eiskalt|M(e)ister Eiskalt]] ([[User talk:M(e)ister Eiskalt#top|talk]]) 17:37, 29 April 2014 (UTC) |
||
== Re: Brick Like Me == |
|||
That's not how we deal with "internal copyvios"; we can fix that by [[Wikipedia:History merge|merging the history]] of the two articles together. <span style="border:1px solid #f57900;padding:1px;"><font style="color:#8f5902">[[User:ViperSnake151|ViperSnake151]]</font> [[User_talk:ViperSnake151|<font style="color:#fff;background:#fcaf3e;"> Talk </font>]] </span> 17:54, 1 May 2014 (UTC) |
Revision as of 17:54, 1 May 2014
Please use my talk in the German Wikipedia. --M(e)ister Eiskalt (talk) 18:48, 27 April 2014 (UTC)
Brick Like Me
- Regrettably, I have felt it necessary to revert your recent reversions of my recent edits to Brick Like Me (The Simpsons) and Brick Like Me. My reasons for those edits are:
- You asked for Brick Like Me (The Simpsons) to be moved to Brick Like Me, deleting what was at Brick Like Me before. But:-
- Brick Like Me has a long orderly series of edits about the topic.
- Brick Like Me (The Simpsons) has a short disorderly series of copyings from Brick Like Me alternating with revertings to a redirect.
- Please why do you want this to be done? There is nothing else called "Brick Like Me" to need to distinguish it from. The existing page Brick Like Me is much better. Anthony Appleyard (talk) 07:32, 28 April 2014 (UTC)
- I wrote the article, so I should be mentioned in the view history as that one. That's the rule. --M(e)ister Eiskalt (talk) 12:46, 28 April 2014 (UTC)
- And I don't a aree that some one else copied the Text so that he is the author of the text! That's not correct. And I insert the text of Koala15 correctly in Brick Like Me (The Simpsons) because I mentioned him in the Edit summary as the author.
- Unfortunately, in Wikipedia by its rules an editor cannot "own" an article in main space or treat it as his private estate. Anthony Appleyard (talk) 21:25, 28 April 2014 (UTC)
- No, but when someone wrote an article, it is and will be his work all the time. And this rule is in Wikipedia, too. And the text that someone wrote is definatly his "OWN" work (NOT the article, the text somone wrote.). Is that English good enough for you to understand? Otherwise we could talk in German. --M(e)ister Eiskalt (talk) 17:37, 29 April 2014 (UTC)
Re: Brick Like Me
That's not how we deal with "internal copyvios"; we can fix that by merging the history of the two articles together. ViperSnake151 Talk 17:54, 1 May 2014 (UTC)