Bryan Derksen (talk | contribs) Merge-and-delete violates the GFDL |
|||
(One intermediate revision by the same user not shown) | |||
Line 56: | Line 56: | ||
For future reference, if material from an article on AfD gets merged into another article it's not legal under Wikipedia's usage of the GFDL to delete the original's edit history. I've redirected and restored [[Tucker's kobolds]], [[Kobold (Dungeons & Dragons)]] would have become a copyvio otherwise. [[User:Bryan Derksen|Bryan Derksen]] ([[User talk:Bryan Derksen|talk]]) 17:39, 14 March 2008 (UTC) |
For future reference, if material from an article on AfD gets merged into another article it's not legal under Wikipedia's usage of the GFDL to delete the original's edit history. I've redirected and restored [[Tucker's kobolds]], [[Kobold (Dungeons & Dragons)]] would have become a copyvio otherwise. [[User:Bryan Derksen|Bryan Derksen]] ([[User talk:Bryan Derksen|talk]]) 17:39, 14 March 2008 (UTC) |
||
: That's one of the most ridiculous things I've ever heard. Got a reference for that claim? Either the original material was released under the GFDL -- in which case it is valid to use it in any way -- or it was not, in which case it was a copyvio to begin with. Deleting an article's history has no relationship to whether or not given material is a copyright violation. [[User:Nandesuka|Nandesuka]] ([[User talk:Nandesuka#top|talk]]) 18:54, 14 March 2008 (UTC) |
Revision as of 18:56, 14 March 2008
Archives: Archive 1 Archive 2 Archive 3 Archive 4 Archive 5 Archive 6 Archive 7 Archive 8
"In a variety of positions"
After reading the bit on the BLP noticeboard, I have accepted the reason it does not belong in the intro and have moved that quote down to the "complaints of media conspiracy of silence" section, where its relevance is crystal clear (in the context of a discussion of how many reporters and editors were widely aware of the rumors and knew Fitzgerald's name, but never seriously investigated them ... the innuendo in the Post's choice of phrasing was not lost on anyone at the time.
I wish you had cited the BLP noticeboard instead of getting cute in your initial edit summary. I would have understood. There was no need for animosity here. Daniel Case (talk) 21:42, 5 March 2008 (UTC)
Addendum: I added two sources to back up that interpretation of the phrase. Daniel Case (talk) 21:59, 5 March 2008 (UTC)
- And the original Post article, to remove all doubts. Daniel Case (talk) 22:11, 5 March 2008 (UTC)
March 2008
Welcome to Wikipedia. Although everyone is welcome to make constructive contributions to Wikipedia, at least one of your recent edits, such as the one you made to Erection, did not appear to be constructive and has been reverted or removed. Please use the sandbox for any test edits you would like to make, and take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. Thank you. I'm guessing this was a bad undo, not intentional vandalism! richi (talk) 14:45, 7 March 2008 (UTC)
Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia, as you did to Erection. Your edits appeared to constitute vandalism and have been reverted. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. Thank you. Another mistaken undo? richi (talk) 00:03, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
- If my edits appeared to you to constitute vandalism, then that suggests you weren't looking closely enough. Good day. Nandesuka (talk) 01:21, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
- Please take a look at the diffs from your two edits: [1] and [2]. I guess it should be obvious why they might look like vandalism. However, please note all of my comments above, including the assumption that these were just bad undo, not intentional vandalism ... richi (talk) 01:35, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
Silent protagonist AFD
The obvious best solution for this article is a merge. From experience, however, merges tend to be badly done after AFDs, hence my reluctance to advocate it on that page. Furthermore, there's enough to the topic to "technically" warrant a separate article with a bunch of wikilawyering. In the best interest of the encyclopaedia, I'd suggest doing a merge right now, because it would convince a lot of people and save a lot of KB of discussion. My time is limited to a few minutes right now, but I'll contribute to any merge efforts. User:Krator (t c) 23:23, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
Hoping to discuss
Hello, Nandesuka. I'm sorry I put "factual error" in the edit summary when I reverted the edit in the Maharishi article. (Assume that's why you said to KNOCK IT OFF.) I guess I've been influenced by the sources I've read and have come to think of the detailed versions of Cynthia Lennon and others as factual. And I had thought we had reached consensus on this. But after your revert I reread the discussion and saw that your suggested revision indicated that you didn't see it the same way. My mistake. Anyway, I'm hoping you will discuss this on the Talk page. It's sort of a minor thing, but I'd like to strive for accuracy and to fairly represent a range of sources. Thanks. TimidGuy (talk) 15:24, 11 March 2008 (UTC)
f. gulen page
hi nandesuka. i realized that you protected the page onto a version that is missing many well-documented information. will you please be careful about what is really going on the page before protecting it. the user heapyfy is adding some information with irrelevant links (not english). the claims he is adding is rejected by the official courts as documented in the current version. he is adding it to the intro section while there is a specific section for controversies. the paragraph is already in the controversies section. thank you in advance. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.26.144.151 (talk) 19:44, 11 March 2008 (UTC)
- Please read m:The Wrong Version. Kind regards. Nandesuka (talk) 19:51, 11 March 2008 (UTC)
- ok, well, i see, but, i still cannot accept that a person is insisting on his version while all the others (Falcofire, 140.254.95.149, Lambiam, and many others in the history) agree on another. do you really think that it is reasonable to put an NPOV tag on an article just because the location of a paragraph is different? although heapyfy is suggesting edit after discussion, he does not follow what he suggests. all the best. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.26.144.151 (talk) 20:05, 11 March 2008 (UTC)
Hi, you deleted this article recently and I'm wondering how you determined there was a consensus to delete it? It appeared to me there was no consensus. --Pixelface (talk) 13:08, 12 March 2008 (UTC)
- The administrative guidelines for determining consensus can be found here, and make for good reading. It's not uncommon for those who disagree with a decision to believe that that means there was no consensus. The consensus on this article was, to me, fairly clear, so to the extent you think that consensus didn't exist we'll simply have to disagree.
- Consensus, in the deletion context, does not mean unanimity, or even counting heads, but is affected the strength of the underlying arguments. When I close AfDs, I tend to discount discussion that focuses on the quality of the article ("I like it!" or "I don't like it!"), and give greater weight to arguments based on our content policies. I hope that helps. Nandesuka (talk) 23:12, 12 March 2008 (UTC)
- So which arguments based on our content policies did you think were strongest? --Pixelface (talk) 03:39, 13 March 2008 (UTC)
- If you can't explain why you ignored the editors who suggested keep and merge, I plan on taking this to DRV. --Pixelface (talk) 14:10, 13 March 2008 (UTC)
- I think I explained it fairly straightforwardly, but I get the feeling that further explanation isn't going to change your mind. Therefore, feel free to do as you please. I'll be happy to discuss this further at DRV.
- However, in the interests of transparency, I'll say that one of the "keep" votes consisted of nothing more than "I like it", Le Roi-Le Grand Roi des Citrouille's seemed like a WP:POINT vote to me -- essentially stringing together several sentences of the form "No, it doesn't!". Both your and DGG's comments were thoughtful, but were outweighed by the concerns, raised by many other editors, of a lack of secondary sources and of notability. Nandesuka (talk) 14:35, 13 March 2008 (UTC)
Dr. Eggman's flying fortresses
Hi. I've just put Dr. Eggman's flying fortresses up for AFD, and I'd like to know whether the content of List of Dr. Eggman's vehicles was similar enough to justify speedy deletion under CDS G4. Would it be possible to get a userified copy of the deleted page for comparison? Percy Snoodle (talk) 15:30, 12 March 2008 (UTC)
- Sure. User_talk:Nandesuka/Eggman_snapshot. Let me know when you're done with it so I can delete it. Nandesuka (talk) 23:15, 12 March 2008 (UTC)
- OK, done, thanks. They are substantially different. Percy Snoodle (talk) 07:40, 13 March 2008 (UTC)
Merge-and-delete violates the GFDL
For future reference, if material from an article on AfD gets merged into another article it's not legal under Wikipedia's usage of the GFDL to delete the original's edit history. I've redirected and restored Tucker's kobolds, Kobold (Dungeons & Dragons) would have become a copyvio otherwise. Bryan Derksen (talk) 17:39, 14 March 2008 (UTC)
- That's one of the most ridiculous things I've ever heard. Got a reference for that claim? Either the original material was released under the GFDL -- in which case it is valid to use it in any way -- or it was not, in which case it was a copyvio to begin with. Deleting an article's history has no relationship to whether or not given material is a copyright violation. Nandesuka (talk) 18:54, 14 March 2008 (UTC)