:I've deleted it as a [[WP:CSD#G2]], with a friendly note. I think the way you handled it was fine, although I'd be inclined to target your PROD rationale to the creator next time, as it seems likely to me that this contributor is young. :) His or her only other contribution, [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Sandbox&diff=prev&oldid=219179914 here], seems to be good faith, but the article was blatantly unencyclopedic. I think it might very well have been created as a test, to see if it could be done. --[[User:Moonriddengirl|Moonriddengirl]] <sup>[[User talk:Moonriddengirl|(talk)]]</sup> 00:03, 14 June 2008 (UTC)
:I've deleted it as a [[WP:CSD#G2]], with a friendly note. I think the way you handled it was fine, although I'd be inclined to target your PROD rationale to the creator next time, as it seems likely to me that this contributor is young. :) His or her only other contribution, [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Sandbox&diff=prev&oldid=219179914 here], seems to be good faith, but the article was blatantly unencyclopedic. I think it might very well have been created as a test, to see if it could be done. --[[User:Moonriddengirl|Moonriddengirl]] <sup>[[User talk:Moonriddengirl|(talk)]]</sup> 00:03, 14 June 2008 (UTC)
::Thanks. I really had no clue what to tag it as. There is no <nowiki>{{</nowiki>[[Template:db-unencyclopedic|db-unencyclopedic]]}}... [[User:J.delanoy|<font color="green">J'''.'''delanoy</font>]][[User Talk:J.delanoy|<sup><font color="red">gabs</font></sup>]][[Special:Contributions/J.delanoy|<font color="blue"><sub>adds</sub></font>]] 00:08, 14 June 2008 (UTC)
::Thanks. I really had no clue what to tag it as. There is no {{tl|db-unencyclopedic}}... [[User:J.delanoy|<font color="green">J'''.'''delanoy</font>]][[User Talk:J.delanoy|<sup><font color="red">gabs</font></sup>]][[Special:Contributions/J.delanoy|<font color="blue"><sub>adds</sub></font>]] 00:08, 14 June 2008 (UTC)
Welcome. To leave a message for me, please press the "new section" tab at the top of the page. Remember to sign your message with ~~~~.
I attempt to keep conversations in one location—so much easier to follow them in archives down the road!—), so I will likely respond to you here (if I've already been talking to you at your page I may continue to place my comments there, if it seems necessary for context). Please watchlist this page or check back for my reply. If I think it would be helpful to you, I will leave a note at your talk page letting you know that an answer is available.
If you have questions about a page I have deleted or a template message I have left on your user page, let me know civilly, and I will respond to you in the same way. I will not respond to a personal attack, except perhaps with another warning. Personal attacks are against Wikipedia policy, and those who issue them may be blocked. You may read more about my personal policies with regards to deletion here.
So you're like me! Refactor reply - I replied on their talk page, but copied it to my page. Improper usage of the term? As far as getting the hang of things, I've so far only blocked the test accounts (naughty, naughty test accounts), but I've deleted a potentially sensitive revision. Other than that, haven't done much. Was busy yesterday, and still getting my thank-spam out. =) xenocidic (talk) 17:17, 5 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Great addition to the TPS page there. and you thought you didnt have it in you ;>. i wouldn't mind you taking a quick look at my deletions - I've been really sticking to the non-controversial for now, but what I've been doing is watching some of the more controversial ones, saying in my head what criteria I would've used and seeing if it matches the closing admin's action. I goofed on one of the deletion reasons at -4UTC-15:52, June 6, 2008 (pasted the wrong thing)... no biggie? it was during all that page-move vandalism madness. also, you might be interested in checking out my admin dashboard. Feel free to steal borrow whatever you want, or you can even transclude the page and it should work fine (and then you can benefit from any additions as I improve it ;>). xenocidic (talk) 02:56, 7 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
It all looks good to me. I like your substitution of rationale at J.D. Mann. (And I like that I can discuss this with you with only links, since you can see it yourself. :)) I didn't look at your U2s and your G6s. I looked through all of your A10s and verified that the authors had been warned by the taggers. (So as I could see if you filled in that step when it was missed. It's not required, as it is with G12, but it's jolly good practice. :))
The only one that I would have handled differently is Logan Haffner. It needed to be deleted, but I don't think it technically fit the criterion, even though I see a lot of people tag (and delete) that kind of stuff that way. It made sense to me. :) I myself would have deleted it as a G3, vandalism, as a blatantly unencyclopedic page. (Blatant and obvious misinformation, in this case. Note that the definition of vandalism also includes "creating nonsensical and obviously non-encyclopedic pages, etc".) If I delete an article as vandalism, I always make sure that the creator has either a uw-create template left on his or her page (generally I started with Uw-create2 or, if the creation seems to have been more silly than malicious, I'll sometimes leave Uw-joke1. In any event, the article needed to go, and I don't think that the majority of admins addressing CSDs would have any issue whatsoever with your deleting it as G1, though I can think of a couple of regulars at Talk:CSD who would. :)
By the way, I had a look at User talk:Apokolypz to see that the tagger treated it like vandalism (which I think is good), but that talk page really raised my eyebrows. The contributor has one contribution. Seems he is also Tonykeeper (talk·contribs) and Dislecksik (talk·contribs), based on the history of the usertalk page. Very odd.
Occasionally I've goofed on deletion rationales. I don't think it's a big deal, unless it's a case where the creator may later visit the deletion log to learn a reason and be misled. In those situations, we'd probably undelete and redelete with the correct rationale. In this situation, I wouldn't worry about it at all. :D
How is it going with watching to see what other admins are doing? One caveat there: before following suit, you might want to check the admin's talk page to see how often they come up at DRV. :) I can think of a couple of admins who are quite liberal in their application of the tools.
I have myself branched out in the last month to more controversial deletions. I did CSDs for about 7 months before really delving into AfDs. Now, when I have time (busy time at work) and the CSD backlog is small, I'll head over to see what's been hanging around. Naturally, the ones that are hanging around are the ones nobody wants to touch. :)
I've taken a look at your dashboard--seems quite handy! If I can find a good place in my userspace, I may transclude it. Otherwise, I might just link to it and click over to look at it in your place. --Moonriddengirl(talk)12:07, 7 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks moon, I'll definately take those suggestions under advisement. I came across this one today: Tendai Madzorera. Not sure why the writer is requesting deletion, as the article meets the inclusion criteria, in fact, I even found a source via Google News. what is the reccomended course of action in a case like this? (never mind, that news article was for someone else with the same name) P.S. as for the dashboard, I don't know if you noticed it but it has some neat functionality where if there are more than 0 attack pages or wikipedians looking for help, or more than 50 articles needing CSD, those rows turn red. when there are more than 0 empty or user-requested pages for deletion, those rows turn green. xenocidic (talk) 22:48, 7 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I feel that your deletion of User:Ziggy_Sawdust/Avril was not compliant with CSD G5, given that the page had substantial contributions from other users, as far as I can see. My personal opinion is that the page should go, but unless at attempt at rougeness is being made, CSD isn't the way to go... Martinp2317:38, 7 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Dear friend, just please tell me how can I convience you that WIAS is my patented invention and as it's going to be manufactured I need to publish it on the net and say to the world what is WIAS and how it works.
At the next days my website would be published and you can see more about WIAS.
I'm ready to e-mail you my patent in order to see WIAS is mine.
Please don't remvoe my article on wiki.
Just tell me what i've to do in order not to speedy deletion!
--Schahinap (talk) 06:23, 8 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Hello. Your latest version of this article was deleted before I logged in today by another administrator. It seems to me that what you need here is to locate a webhost that is appropriate for this material. There are several policies and guidelines that apply here. First, we have a standard of notability. While there are several other specific factors that may make a topic notable, the standard here is widespread coverage in reliable sources, such as newspapers, magazines or independent websites. Also, as I explained at your talk page, Wikipedia is not for promoting material or for publishing original inventions. And, again, it is problematic that you have a clear conflict of interest in this case.
There is no one that I know of disputing that WIAS is your patented invention or that it's going to be manufactured. At issue here, though, is that Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, a compendium of previously published information. It is not here to spread information about new products or inventions. If at some point WIAS meets the notability guidelines, it is quite likely that someone will create an article about it. However, that should not be you.
I am realtively new to wiki and was hoping you could provide some of your expertise. I had some photos I thought were properly annotated with fair use rationale for the sam & dave wiki site. Apparently they werent, so they were taken down
I notice you did a nice fair use for the hold on im comin sam & dave cover. Would you be willing to assist me in re-posting several images to the sam & dave wiki site? I would be happy to send you the images, I just want to make sure the bases are covered with a proper fair use disclosure. They include some pr shots that were distributed publicly, a magazine cover and a a few album covers.
I can be reached at <email blanked for privacy concerns>
Hi. When working on albums on Wikipedia, I follow the steps listed here to upload an album cover. I have on occasion ventured into the world of book covers, as set out here. That's the extent of it. And even if I were 100% dead familiar with Wikipedia's policies on adding images, I do not know how the sam & dave wiki feels about it. (I spent a few minutes, but couldn't locate a sam & dave wiki. I thought perhaps they might have an image policy page I could find.) What I'm saying here, basically, is that images are not my strong point, and that what I believe to be true of Wikipedia's policies may not apply to another Wiki. Wikipedia:Non-free content even indicates that it applies to the English Wikipedia, which means that it wouldn't necessarily be true on the hundreds of other language Wikipedias run by the Wikimedia Foundation.
So, from what I understand from that policy as applies to English Wikipedia, PR photos and magazine covers may not fit Wikipedia's fair use guidelines for non-free content. That policy says of PR photos, "A photo from a press agency (e.g. AP), unless the photo itself is the subject of sourced commentary in the article. This applies mostly to contemporary press photos and not necessarily to historical archives of press photos (some of which are later donated into the public domain: example)." I have no idea when a photo becomes historical. That's one that I would have to ask about myself if I wanted to post the photo here. With the magazine cover, it could come down to how it is used. Wikipedia lists as unusuable "A magazine cover, to illustrate the article on the person whose photograph is on the cover" but adds that "However, if the cover itself is the subject of sourced discussion in the article, and if the cover does not have its own article, it may be appropriate." I would interpret that "may" to mean that if the cover itself is notable and discussed, it's probably okay. For example, Demi Moore made some big waves when she posed nude & pregnant for _Vanity Fair_ in 1991. It still gets press coverage 17 years later.(See here and here.) If I weren't entirely sure if it was notable enough for discussion, I'd probably seek feedback on that, too. As far as album covers are concerned, Wikipedia is okay with their use in articles about the albums, but is not okay with their use in discographies. There are also issues related to the size of the image; Wikipedia requires that they not exceed a certain size to reduce the risk that they will be used to create bootleg covers.
In your position, I would probably look for a help desk or image policy page on the Wiki where your images were removed and ask for assistance there from somebody familiar with the image policies in place there. Failing to find that, I'd try to track down the administrator who deleted them to ask for assistance in figuring it out. On Wikipedia, there is a deletion log to tell users which administrator deleted what.
If I can provide you any more assistance from this end, I would be happy to, but in terms of uploading images on your behalf, I'm not sure I'm the best person for the job. :) If you'd like assistance looking for a help desk or image policy page, feel free to give me the URL for the wiki and I'll see what I can come up with. Good luck! --Moonriddengirl(talk)11:58, 8 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Besides, his reverting does not meed the standard of the naming convention for Korea or Koreans (WP:NC-KO), surname always comes first, but he carelessly revert it to Japanese naming convention. That kind of behaviors does not look from good faith--Appletrees (talk) 11:18, 9 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I have given him a final warning, as he has now reverted the page twice since his last block. Your second edit was not a reversion, but an obvious effort to create a consensus version, here. I strongly encourage you to find reliable sourcing to put an end to the dispute. Find some source to support the man's genre as a writer or to support what genre the publication is, and you will be in a far better position to persuade others in the content dispute that your opinion is the correct one. There is not a lot else I can do here at the moment. I can protect the page, but a protected page will be saved in whatever version it is in at the time protection is implemented. I do not see that edit summary as a blockable personal attack. The fact that he is himself gaming the system and his filing at ANI shows he knows better, almost. --Moonriddengirl(talk)12:28, 9 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. I also realized that the original version (which means the version before he or the OCN anon edited the article) did have have enough references to explain its publication as manhwa. I've been searching reliable resources since our initial edit warring occurred, but there is very scarce English sources on that. (the term manhwa is more known to France or Germany than the US or English speaking world), so I think I have to translate contents in likelihood of backup for my claim from Korean sources to English. In the process, I'm also getting to know that the animated movie was made from a cooperation by a Japanese and Korean company. So I think I will shape my claim in a better position. However, it would take some time for me to do such things, so we have more time on this. As for his edit summary, I admit that I'm very sensitive and easily getting upset to any verbal attack or incivility. Of course, WP:CIVIL policy should be applied upon me as well. --Appletrees (talk) 12:53, 9 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, I checked the history of the article further and know that I missed {{User|Azukimonaka or the OCN anon's blanking the info regarding the collaboration with a Korean and Japanese company in the introbox. So anime (the term for Japanese animation) is not fit in the case as well as Jazz claims --Appletrees (talk) 13:02, 9 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Non-English sources are fine if there is no English equivalent. WP:V indicates that "any material challenged or likely to be challenged should be attributed to a reliable, published source using an inline citations." I think that sourcing must be your answer here. As far as civility is concerned, I am sympathetic. The general Wikipedia perspective is that unless incivility is severe, it's generally not met with a block unless it's systematic. And I do mean severe. This edit did not receive an immediate block, though the editor was eventually blocked for sockpuppetry. WP:CIVIL suggests ignoring incivility if you can. If you can't, you may want to visit WP:WQA, but I would only go with clear examples of strong incivility. --Moonriddengirl(talk)13:54, 9 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
If the expression to Appletrees' conducts was too hard words to recognize mere a criticism, I'm sorry for you all. I am not Engish native speeker, so I am not good at imaging the word's hardness. Simply to say, I only want a citation for Appletrees' edit that the work was translated from manhwa version as WP:source says. So I was astonished of Appletress writings in my notes. To tell the truth, I don't know what can we do in that situation, when I'm not all of them. Jazz81089 (talk) 15:55, 9 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The thing to do at this point is to civilly discuss your differences at the article's talk page. I'd recommend keeping your edit summaries related to the nature of your edits and avoid discussing another editor's behavior at all in them. Meanwhile, you may want to search for sources as well if you believe that your version is correct, because to this point the label of "manga writer" is no more verified than the label of "manwha writer". Evidently Appletrees is looking for sources. As a final note, though, do let me point out that neither of you should bring your sourcing here. My interactions with the two of you make it imperative that I remain neutral, so I will not be weighing in on the content dispute, only taking whatever action may be necessary in the event of further disruption. --Moonriddengirl(talk)16:23, 9 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Other people in the talk page without him and I pointed out the writer wrote manga not manhwa, because the works was published in manga magazin in Japanese and manga style first(this is fairly unusual that the Korean writer's work was serialized in manga magazin, so this work is famous for manga fan. I think IP's is one of them). So we can read in easyly. I think the writer can be either manga writer and manhwa writer, so the writer could be call manga writer and manhwa writer. But the works cited are manga only, and the Japanse version was firstly published in the citions(other version is not cited), so we think that it(not the writer) shoud be call manga now. But as Appletress said, the work was taranslated in manga from manhwa, and if the citation is made, I will chime in his opinion of cause. Jazz81089 (talk) 16:38, 9 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
It sounds to me as though what you're saying here is that you might agree that the writer should be referred to as both a manga writer and a manhwa writer, but that you believe that the work itself should be referred to as manga, unless a citation is found to verify that the work was printed as manhwa first. I'm restating this because there is a bit of a language barrier, and I want to be sure that your point is clear. (Please don't feel badly about the language barrier; you are far, far better at expressing yourself in English than I would be in Japanese.) Again, I am remaining neutral as seems necessary and not weighing in on the content dispute, but if I am reading you correctly, it sounds as though sourcing may indeed resolve the dispute or that neutral wording might be found that would satisfy both of you. Please do clarify if I have misunderstood you here. --Moonriddengirl(talk)17:16, 9 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
As you write, I will agree that the writer should be referred to as both a manga writer and a manhwa writer, but that I beleave that the work itself should be referred to as manga, unless a citation is found to verify that the work was printed as manhwa first. Thanks a lot for your comment, I will add some source if I could. But probably they will be Japanese ones. Unfortunately, this work is famous, but I think it would not be so famous that it have English sources about that point. Jazz81089 (talk) 19:08, 9 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
You may want to explicitly note that at the article's talk page, then, where those editors contributing to the conversation may determine how best to incorporate your opinion. --Moonriddengirl(talk)19:19, 9 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I know that sources in languages other than English are appropriate, when no English equivalent exists. I will read them. Thanks!.Jazz81089 (talk)
Hi, Moonriddengirl, thank you for the update, I'm very busy today (and will be until tomorrow or even after the other day). That is good to have the discussion ongoing. :) I already left a lengthy statement, so Jazz can read it and express his thought about it. Thanks--Appletrees (talk) 21:19, 9 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Hi
Hi, MoonG. I got back from my trip. I'm still a little short of sleep, even though I turned down a late-night social activity nearly two days ago: I'm not a night owl. I still posted a bit to Wikipedia while I was away, so maybe nobody noticed I was gone! (I even had 10 minutes in a cyber cafe while everybody else was ordering food in a restaurant. My excuse was to contact another person, who actually came and joined us at the restaurant. Well, that was the excuse for the first 5 minutes of the online time; and if there hadn't been another customer waiting to use that computer I might still be there...)☺Coppertwig (talk) 12:44, 9 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oops. I didn't answer this! Welcome back. :) Opposite of a night owl is a morning lark. Fortunately, I tend to be a bit of that, as I've got a lot of errands to run this morning (in my part of the world). But I wanted to drop a quick note before heading out to say that I got the message and will catch up when I get a chance! --Moonriddengirl(talk)12:59, 10 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
By the way, I have a question about closing AfD's. Actually, I think AfD is not my thing: I'd rather work in other areas – maybe I'd even rather do sockpuppetry and copyright than AfD. However, I'd like to know how to do it correctly.
OK, it's my understanding that votes that are backed up by arguments about policy or guidelines are to be weighted more than votes that don't say anything much. And it's my understanding that votes that are backed up by policy are weighted the same regardless of whether the closing admin agrees with the argument or not. The question is: is there such a thing as the closing admin properly downweighting a vote on the grounds that it's based on a mistaken interpretation of policy, or does that always count as the same thing as disagreeing with the argument and weighting it the same as other votes? (I'm guessing it's the same thing – otherwise one would start down a slippery slope.) ☺Coppertwig (talk) 22:00, 10 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
To give an unlikely example, if I encountered an AfD where User:BritishCrown said, "Delete. Copyvio. This is taken directly from the Authorized King James Bible and the British Crown retains rights to it." I'd have to discount that, as we are governed by US copyright law because the database servers are located in the United States, and in the US AKJ is firmly public domain. I'd have to discount that even if the next 30 participants followed up with "Per BritishCrown". They are citing policy, but misunderstanding it. And I would explain that in my closure rationale. (And first go re-read the Copyright policy & Copyright FAQ very nervously, as 31 people seem to be understanding this differently than I do.) But this is, as I said, an unlikely example, because any article that quoted that extensively from AKJ would probably be unencyclopedic and would probably be up for deletion for other reasons. :) In a less unlikely example, if I met an argument where User:BandXisAwesome said, "Band X is notable, because their official myspace page says that their only album was nominated for a Grammy", I would close in favor of User:RigorousSourcing, who said, "Their Myspace can't be used to verify that. I haven't been able to locate any independent verification that the band meets WP:MUSIC." User:BandXisAwesome is right that this fact, if true, would satisfy WP:MUSIC, but User:RigorousSourcing is right that WP:V is the governing issue here. (But note that if only these two users were involved, I would relist for further discussion. User:IKnowHowtoUseGoogle might very well come around the corner to say, "Keep. I found some. It's in the band profile at Rolling Stone.")
Now, if User:Inclusionist says, "Band X meets WP:MUSIC as having widespread press coverage based on these 6 articles" and User:Deletionist says, "Those six articles aren't widespread!" and all 12 of the User:Followup team say "Keep per User:Inclusionist", I would not close per User:Deletionist, even if I personally agreed. That's not so much misinterpretation of policy as different interpretation of policy. I might be muttering under breath "Six? Six?" If I felt strongly about it, I'd not close the AfD but stop to !vote with User:Deletionist. But I would not feel an admin had the right to close against consensus in such cases. Will of the community and all.
And I do think it's important to watch out for that slippery slope you mention. Wikipedia:Deletion guidelines for administrators does a pretty good job of explaining some of the complicating factors in closing AfDs. It also urges us to "respect the judgment and feelings of Wikipedia participants". I think this is an important reminder, since admins are not necessarily authorities in regards to content...while an admin does have additional tools and is expected to keep an eye out for issues like copy vios and BLP vios, questions of notability and what constitutes reliable sourcing are ultimately decided by a community of which the admin is precisely one (1) part. :) --Moonriddengirl(talk)15:23, 11 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Fabric Structure - speedy deletion info
Thank you for your note. However, this is not a copyright infringement. This information is on our website, and I have referenced that. Also, we do have permission from Fabric Architecture (IFAI). I can fax you the document if needed. Please advise. Mtc38118 (talk) 14:31, 9 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I've answered your question at the article's talk page and will duplicate that here:
Hi. As I pointed out at your talk page, the page from which the information is duplicated, here as online version, indicates that "Information provided herein adapted and reprinted with permission from Fabric Architecture, a publication of the Industrial Fabrics Association International (IFAI)." This assertion of permission does not verify that the material here has been released per GFDL, which means in part that it can be used commercially or noncommercially, altered and redistributed as Wikipedia's readers see fit, so long as authorship credit is maintained. If you have permission from IFAI to release this information according to GFDL, you should send an email with verification to "permissions-en (at) wikimedia (dot) org". See Wikipedia:Requesting copyright permission for instructions. Once verification is received, the copyright notice can be removed from the article and the contents restored, although other issues that have led to its prior deletion may still exist. I'll take a look at that in a minute, after I've properly filed your incomplete permission assertion for further evaluation. --Moonriddengirl(talk)14:49, 9 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, as long as the deletion rationale seems reasonable. I wouldn't delete, say, Clock Tower, Palace of Westminster for notability concerns. But I've seldom met a PROD that wasn't good to go. :) Of course, there's not so often a backlog at PRODS, so I've seldom met any of them.
Cool, I'll keep that in mind. My dashboard shows me prods which are (probably) ready for deletion, so that's why I ask =). xenocidic (talk) 13:00, 10 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry I haven't been signed into wikipedia often enough to notice this. You deleted the story on sacred heart church due to copyright infringement. It is not. I wrote the original article for Latino Perspectives magazine and I give permission for the article to be here. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Manchartes (talk • contribs) 06:26, 12 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Tactition
My first rationale for deleting Tactition was poor, thanks for pointing out that this word is used quite a bit even in the scientific literature. I have been teaching in the area of sensation and perception at the college level for over 20 years and recently have been writing a textbook on this topic (and in fact in the last few weeks have been working on the somatosensory chapter, which is how I stumbled onto this) so I've recently read about six review articles from Annual Review of Psychology and Annual Review of Neuroscience, and that word is unfamiliar to me. It was not in the OED. However, PubMed comes back with many hits. So people do use this word to refer to touch or tactile perception, and there are apparently many links to this term from other articles in Wikipedia. I was surprised, but it showed I had not done my homework.
My justification for deletion should have focused on the fact that this page contains little useful information in it, it includes a sentence concerning women's moral standards that seems to me quite irrelevant, and a little section on the "Aristoltelian definition" that makes little sense. So a merge into Somatosensory system would leave really nothing from this article, in my view. The Somatosensory system article is a serious, well-documented, informative discussion of the sense of touch in all its complexities and discusses the fact that the body senses are multidimensional. To me the best solution would be to redirect Tactition to Somatosensory system and the Tactile redirect page, which has many pages that link to it, should redirect to Somatosensory system rather than to Tactition. The term Touch which is a much more common term for what I think is meant by tactition, does appropriately redirect to Somatosensory system. Let me know what you think. --Cooper24 (talk) 09:40, 12 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I think that if you feel the article lacks real content, a redirect to Somatosensory may be appropriate. This is likely to be uncontroversial, since the PROD went uncontested for so long, though it can always be reversed later if others believe the article can be salvaged. If you do choose to redirect it, the redirect at Tactile would need to be redirected somewhere anyway, and redirecting it to the same point seems proper. :) --Moonriddengirl(talk)11:44, 12 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Copyright violation
Thank you for your response. I understand the issue better now. I looked at the article under discussion and have no problem with the changes you made to address the copyright matter. Frankly, the only reason for the duplication/similarity was my attempt to kill two birds with one stone and not write the same basic material twice. But I understand now that I really should do so when writing for both sites. Thanks for your courtesy and illumination. Monkeyzpop (talk) 16:51, 12 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
My pleasure. Good of the project and all that. :D Of course, my time was minimal. The "time invested" award for that article quite clearly belongs to you. :) --Moonriddengirl(talk)13:30, 13 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I've deleted it as a WP:CSD#G2, with a friendly note. I think the way you handled it was fine, although I'd be inclined to target your PROD rationale to the creator next time, as it seems likely to me that this contributor is young. :) His or her only other contribution, here, seems to be good faith, but the article was blatantly unencyclopedic. I think it might very well have been created as a test, to see if it could be done. --Moonriddengirl(talk)00:03, 14 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
