User talk:Jimfbleak: Difference between revisions

Content deleted Content added

Inline

Revision as of 06:49, 26 March 2021

Please add your message to the bottom of this page, give it a heading and sign it using four tildes ~~~~.

New page removed

You recently moved my new page pf HaimS (of March 11). Please restore and allow me to introduce the necessary changes. HaimS (talk) 08:39, 12 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Replied on user tal page, just his CV Jimfbleak - talk to me? 11:00, 12 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Shore scientific research, especially statistical analysis of the Bible and biblical Hebrew, is of encyclopedic value and important to millions of possible viewers. Also, regrettably, I have not yet had the opportunity to link the deleted page to at least five pages on Wikipedia because I was not aware of certain regulations of Wikipedia. Please restore the page and allow the necessay changes. HaimS (talk) 06:12, 13 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Replied on user talk page, unreffed, looks like another copyright violation. Jimfbleak - talk to me? 11:35, 13 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

New page removed

Hi, Jimfbleak You deleted my old draft named Draft:savvyapp I want to create the same article with different content and i've rectified my username as you told so please let me know how should I go ahead and post my article

Editor removed a message from my page here, and is a sock puppet, now blocked Jimfbleak - talk to me? 11:28, 12 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

TFA schedule

Thank you for the Easter scheduling. I feel free now to make the next suggestion, and looked at Wikipedia:Today's featured article/requests/The Coral Island, thinking about a second run. If Brian said then it was of Wikipedia's finest, there should be little problem. Are you interested in running it without great ado, or should I officially nominate on TFAR? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 14:17, 14 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Gerda Arendt, I already have a provisional list of articles to schedule this month, and it has no fewer three reruns on it without this. If it's not-date dependent, Gog the Mild is going to draw up a list for May, and it might be better if he runs it then. Jimfbleak - talk to me? 14:45, 14 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

And it would help me if it formally went through TFAR, thanks Gerda. Gog the Mild (talk) 16:04, 14 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Gog the Mild I will submit menstrual cycle at TFAR assuming it passes FAR on time-- any date that works. That will allow a medical article every two months (Buruli March, Menstrual cycle May, Dementia with Lewy bodies July). Maybe by September, we will have another old medical FA through FAR! Bst, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:29, 15 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted page AB Poland Travel

Concerning the page deleted recently - about AB Poland Travel, I wish to add the same page again but improving the content so it is more neutral (as it said in the feedback of the deletion). Is it possible to retrieve the text from the page you deleted so I can modify it and add it again? --Pppab (talk) 08:10, 15 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Replied on user talk page Jimfbleak - talk to me? 11:47, 15 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Deletion of Dolal Nur

Hello,

I don't seem to understand why you deleted the page Dolal Nur. I have not infringed on any copyrights whatsoever. I was not even aware that the blog you showed me even existed.

All the content has been sourced by reputable sources that I have used on other articles of his predecessors and successors. It doesn't make any sense to delete a page of a notable figure and a former royal at that. Dabaqabad (talk) 20:19, 15 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Dabaqabad There is some almost identical text in the two copies. I would normally assume that the blog page was a mirror of yours, but the problem we have is that your page was created on 15 Feb 2021, and the other is dated August 16, 2020, so precedes your article. Jimfbleak - talk to me? 09:16, 16 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Jimfbleak: That is strange. I can assure you however that I have never seen the blog before until you showed it to me. I'd say it's rather a coincidence. The blog page isn't even about the topic at hand, and doesn't mention Dolal Nur at all. Much of the contents in the Wikipedia article I created come from similar articles that cover the sultanate and its succession crisis as a whole.Dabaqabad (talk) 14:41, 16 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Dabaqabad, I see no reason to not AGF here, so I'll restore at least for the time being and see if SD nominator Onel5969 has any objections Jimfbleak - talk to me? 14:47, 16 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Jimfbleak, hi. I never have any objections when admins restore regarding copyvio issues. I'm simply attempting to follow the protocol, and alert others to potential copyvios. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 15:45, 16 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

No thanks, no breaks

Wow, you get no thanks and no breaks, huh? I was checking article histories and wanted to make sure you saw the situation at Wikipedia:Today's featured article/April 20, 2021 (blanked by editor). I thought about offering a reply/explanation at the Palace discussion, but decided to let it go. Bst, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:27, 15 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

SandyGeorgia thanks for that, would have been nice if LittleJerry had seen fit to tell us instead of just blanking, but there you go. Yes, the palace is best left for now Jimfbleak - talk to me? 06:31, 16 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

A barnstar for you!

	The Teamwork Barnstar
	Damn, that was fast ... I just not had reloaded my page :-) Draft:Dr Jacques Ludik Keep up the good work, CommanderWaterford (talk) 11:29, 16 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Dealing with Academe can be challenging

I see you have been discoverng that over the past couple of days. I've drawn their attention to WP:ACADEME, an essay intended to help editors handle academics. You've probably seen it before. It may help you to understand them a little more. Please don't see this as my patronising you, though it might be able to be interpreted that way. You've been here for ever and know what you are at. Sometimes, though, we can stand too close to the fire. Fiddle Faddle 15:40, 16 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Timtrent Thanks for that. I'm not quite sure what interactions you had in mind (and I'm obviously not going to ask), but I know what you mean. I think we all need to be able to adjust our style for the relevant audience. I used to be an expert witness, and writing reports for a court of law is different again from academia or Wikipedia Jimfbleak - talk to me? 16:42, 16 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, it was the gentleman with loads of equations im a draft. Wikipedia is a difficult place, because we have invented a together set of rules than anyone could ever conceive of. Heck, we even invented bureaucrats!

This gentleman is certain he's correct, and in Academe he would be

I used to do bullshit and hype (marketing) and I write fiction, probably not as well as I believe. Wikipedia is an excellent and disciplined form of writing. Succeed here and you can write almost anything

On a different topic, my brain always reads your ID as "Jim Of Bleak" which amuse me greatly. Fiddle Faddle 17:02, 16 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Fiddle, yes, that makes sense. And I think your version of my user name is fitting in the age of the pandemic Jimfbleak - talk to me? 08:49, 17 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Beaver FAC

I apologize for being too rash with orangutan. Would you be able to look at beaver? LittleJerry (talk) 23:38, 16 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

LittleJerry, that's OK. We get requests to move or not run suggested TFAs every month, and it's basically easier all round to do it that way, it keeps the bots happy. I hope to get scheduling finished today, so I'll look at beaver tomorrow, Friday at the latest if RL intervenes Jimfbleak - talk to me? 08:53, 17 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Women's Rehabilitation Centre

Hallo, I stub-sorted this article this morning, moved it to a better title, created a couple of redirects, even created a new stub template (applied to several other articles) but I now see you have speedy-deleted it (only because I was alerted to the disappearance of the redirects). Please could you reinstate it, or copy it to my sandbox? After Googling I believe it is notable - has been around 30 years, has produced major publications listed in Worldcat, is respected by many other organisations, quite a lot of coverage, etc. I'd like to see if I can work it up to something, rather than just have it disappear so quickly. I could just re-start the article but would prefer that the original article creator still got the credit for starting it, even if they misguidedly used a chunk of copyvio text. I can't remember what the stub looked like, but I seem to remember that there were established incoming links to it via the redirects WOREC and/or WOREC Nepal. Thanks. PamD 18:22, 17 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Pam, apart from the copyright violation, it's promotional established itself as leading national organization, doesn't appear to have any staff, income or expenditure, and the whole text is just promoting what they claim to do. Nevertheless, if you think you can salvage it, I'll shortly copy it to User:PamD/WRC Jimfbleak - talk to me? 06:37, 18 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. I'll have a look at it. Might not be today - there's RL stuff I need to get on with. PamD 08:24, 18 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

This is still a complete copyvio...not sure what the point of restoring it was. VAXIDICAE💉 17:18, 18 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Fouzi Lekjaa

Hi. I want to ask you a query in regards to the article Fouzi Lekjaa, an article that was recently deleted due to a copyrighted text from the source, and promotional text, which is not allowed. Could it be acceptable if I translate the article from any Wikipedia (eg. French Wikipedia) with this page in my own words? I feel like it's necessary to ask, since this article was deleted for copyright reasons. and if recreate it again, it would be deleted again, and worst case scenario, be protected from editing. Could I do it in my own words translated? Thanks Ivan Milenin (talk) 21:59, 17 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Ivan Milenin A translation of a text has the same copyright status as the original. For what you suggest to work, the foreign version mustn't itself be a copyright violation, the source of the translation must be attributed in the history, and, more importantly, the language wikipedia you are copying from must have the same copyright rules as en-wiki, which permits all uses, including commercial. I know that many other wikis, like de-wiki, have a licence that excludes commercial use. Jimfbleak - talk to me? 06:46, 18 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Deletion of Dr Umar Johnson

Why have you deleted my article? I am not this person and am in no way affiliated with this person so the page cannot be self-promotional or promotional.WaterSilicon (talk) 16:38, 18 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Replied on user talk page, mostly unsourced attack page with copyright image Jimfbleak - talk to me? 16:57, 18 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

You are very wrong about this being an attack page.
I have not given any of my opinions or conducted any review in this article.
How is the phrase a "prominent spokesman" promotional? I have seen plenty of similar phrases used on featured wikipedia articles: The first line of the Malcolm X wikipedia page reads "Malcolm X was an African American Muslim minister and human rights activist who was a popular figure." Is someone whose interviews have gained millions of views online not prominent?
I did say that "he claims to hold degrees in education and political science although the veracity of these claims is disputed widely by his audience" and sourced an interview on the Roland Martin show where Roland Martin brought this matter up and Johnson said, out of his mouth, that he "has degrees in education and political science."
I did not "copy text from elsewhere". Just because I have used words in my article that appear elsewhere does not mean that I have copied from that place. The word "appear" has existed in English literature for centuries — it does not mean that I copied this sentence from a random piece of work written in the early 1800s.
Why did you delete the article instead of simply returning it to draft space? Now I have lost hours of work.

WaterSilicon (talk) 18:18, 18 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

WaterSilicon, please read what I wrote. I said the image was a copyright violation, not the text. Your claim about the degrees had no source in the text, so both that and the suggestion that he is a criminal seem to be your opinions in the absence of any independent third-party source, YouTube is not an acceptable source, and number of subscribers is not a criterion for notability as defined on Wikipedia. We don't restore attack pages, which is what this is when you accuse him of untruths and fraud. For what it's worth, the article title is incorrect too, although that could be easily fixed if it was the only problem Jimfbleak - talk to me?

A NOTHERE editor and an article you deleted.

Mind telling what Religious objectivity was about? The editor who seemingly created that page (judging by their editing history; and comments like this and this one - the latter of which is entirely incomprehensible given my only interaction with them was this...) seems to be here to WP:RGW or something and promote "the truth [according to them, obviously]"... They clearly haven't changed much since their first edits, see for ex. Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Reasonism... Would a NOTHERE block be in order? RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 22:32, 18 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

RandomCanadian The deleted article was an unsourced promo for TruthSaves.org. I note the last warning for a personal attack on you too, which elicited little remorse. However, not all this user's edits appear to be disruptive, and there hasn't been a specific recent warning on NOTHERE, as opposed to civility. I'm thinking in terms of a fixed term block-rather than an indef, do you have a view on that? Jimfbleak - talk to me? 09:40, 19 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Your call seems right; to be fair they seem to be not too active around here (the edit of theirs which I reverted was back in february) so I'm unsure whether a short-term block will do any good in preventing further disruption of this kind. Though, yeah, sure giving them enough rope isn't a bad idea. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 19:20, 19 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Response modeling methodology

Please remove unjustified tags from this entry. There is no conflict of interest here (all references were published in peer-reviewed journals, namely after being reviewed by neutral anonymous academic reviewers), and there is not a single reference that is self-published. Thank you. HaimS (talk) 16:23, 19 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

HaimS I accept that self-written is not the same as self-published, I've changed that. It would be much better if instead of just listing your own papers you gave secondary sources, always referred to primary here. It would also look less self-serving if you included contributions to this topic from mathematicians other than yourself and your co-authors Jimfbleak - talk to me? 16:56, 19 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@HaimS:See also guidelines about conflicts of interest (such as promoting one's own papers, even if they're peer-reviewed etc - even if you probably now what you're writing about, it still looks like an apparent conflict of interest - see WP:SELFCITE) It's better, as Jim says, if you can cite other works as well instead of only your own papers. Cheers, RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 19:20, 19 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Request: your note on my talk page

Hi Jimfbleak:

Reference: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Jimfbleak&diff=prev&oldid=990134049

You left a note on my talk page, which implied that I had added material to an article where I had a conflict of interest.

I had mentioned to you, that all I had done was to add citations, and I am not associated with that person. I think you were satisfied with my response.

However the note you left is seen by other editors and administrators and biases them. The administrators work fast and rely on what they see quickly.

Can I request you to remove the note from my talk page, or add your judgement there that I had not done anything improper. Malaiya (talk) 19:17, 21 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Malaiya, I've done that, although you are free to manage your talk page as you wish anyway. There are only a few things, like block/unblock messages, that mustn't be removed. Thanks for asking though Jimfbleak - talk to me? 09:03, 22 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Books & Bytes – Issue 42

The Wikipedia Library

Books & Bytes
Issue 42, January – February 2021

New partnerships: PNAS, De Gruyter, Nomos
1Lib1Ref
Library Card

Read the full newsletter

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery on behalf of The Wikipedia Library team --11:27, 22 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Discovery Family

Excuse me, but I don't think the Discovery Family article was copied from the link. It was the other way around. - FilmandTVFan28 (talk) 12:41, 22 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

FilmandTVFan28 I think you are right, I'll restore Jimfbleak - talk to me? 13:29, 22 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Server is playing up at the moment though Jimfbleak - talk to me? 13:31, 22 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I keep getting a database error message, not sure how to get round that Jimfbleak - talk to me? 13:37, 22 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe next time, check over the facts before you jump to conclusions that the information was taken from some random, obscure website. Luigitehplumber (talk) 14:09, 22 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Time Warner Cable Full Service Network

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Wwinfl91 (talk • contribs) 14:14, 22 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I totally disagree with your decision on my submission for an article on the Time Warner Cable Full Service Network. It is not an advertisement since the FSN has not existed since 1997. It is an attempt to tell the history of a project that was the beginning of digital interactive TV that we use today. Some of the information was copied from another Full Service Network article on a company in Pa. The two are not related in any way and the original article should be separated into two separate articles and then I would not trying to create a new page. Please take another look at my submission with the understanding that it cannot be advertising for something that doesn't exist any more. I also disagree with the 63% copied unless you are talking about the section I copied from the article I mentioned above. I can go in and rewrite those sections also if that is necessary but first I need you to understand that in NO way is this an attempt to advertise anything.Cite error: There are <ref> tags on this page without content in them (see the help page).

11:01, 22 March 2021 Jimfbleak talk contribs deleted page Draft:Time Warner Cable's Full Service Network (G11: Unambiguous advertising or promotion: still 63% copied, this is just a promo, not an encyclopaedia article) (thank)

Warren (wwinfl91) ≈≈≈≈

Repliedon user talk page, WP:TFA needed Jimfbleak - talk to me? 16:17, 22 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Deletion of page

I am getting totally frustrated by your persistent deletion of my publication on the basis on notability. What makes someone notable? The article already cites credible media sources that authenticates the notability of the subject. I have made several adjustments against advertisement and self promotion (advertising) of the subject as you have stated. I wish to request that this pages be merged and removed from deletion Elijah Onyeagba and Elijah Chinezim Onyeagba PhD. I also wish to know why a page will be deleted even though yet published but still in the 'draft'. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Torksimlife (talk • contribs) 16:49, 23 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Replied on user talk page, unsourced/self-sourced promo, possible COI, copyright violation Jimfbleak - talk to me? 11:17, 24 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Jim

Thank you for taking time to enlighten me on the various errors in my article. I have made necessary adjustment and wish to republish the article inline with Wikipedia guidelines. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Torksimlife (talk • contribs) 14:00, 24 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Jim,

I wish to request for the restoration of my article Elijah Chinezim Onyeagba PhD for necessary corrections most importantly editing the text you indicated was copied from media sources. Thanks. Talk to me — Preceding unsigned comment added by Torksimlife (talk • contribs) 14:05, 24 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Torksimlife, please sign your messages using four tildes ~~~~ You haven't declared your [[WP:COI|conflict of interest as requested. I've already said that we don't accept copyright violation even in a draft. Jimfbleak - talk to me? 14:49, 24 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Heading

Hello Jim I was writing my first article, but wasn't done yet, and you've already deleted it. Could you bring it back up and let me make the necessary changes and hopefully have it be accepted? A Flaneur A Flaneur (talk) 18:09, 23 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Replied on user talk page. Autobiography, no sources, images at least are copyright violations Jimfbleak - talk to me? 10:55, 24 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

See c:User talk:A Flaneur where the remaining two files of the several uploaded are being discussed for deletion. File:Quality Expo International.jpg remains since there is every likelihood that it was a picture taken by the uploader. Fiddle Faddle 11:39, 24 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Fiddle, yes, I'd only seen one of those, but it's pretty clear the others were likely to be candidates for the chop. I've also seen the permalink where he states that he is Goodden. I agree with the Expo outcome too, obviously an amateur snap. Jimfbleak - talk to me? 11:52, 24 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I make it a practice when I do an AFC review to follow the pictures. I think it ought to be a standard part of our role. Fiddle Faddle 12:17, 24 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The Devil Is a Part-Timer! (season 1)

Sir, you have deleted a wrong page because the page was spilted in agreement with other editors. Spilting the page based on season is not a copyright violation. Please reconsider your decision. Thank you. いちかかすが (talk) 17:10, 24 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

You didn't even check the talk page for that one. That page was copied from List of The Devil Is a Part-Timer! episodes and split into a new page. SpectresWrath (talk) 22:21, 24 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

いちかかすが, SpectresWrath Not sure what you are saying here. After I ran the plagiarism script Earwig, the page was deleted as a copyright violation of this page marked © Copyright 2021 Episode Ninja, so how it was created doesn't seem to be relevant. Are you suggesting that the page that it was copied from might also be a copyright violation? If not, please clarify why you think the deleted page is not an infringement of the episode ninja page. I'm always prepared to restore if I've made an error, but it's not clear how that's the case here. Either it's a significant copy of the Ninja page or it isn't, how the page was created isn't a factor. The claimed discussion that led to this page being created can't override our rules or copyright law, so please be clearer why this page should be restored, explaining why you think the text isn't a violation of the Ninja page Jimfbleak - talk to me? 06:44, 25 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Sir, Article was originally taken from the article "The Devil Is a Part-Timer!". The article was then splited based on seasons released. So, content copied from a wikipedia article cannot be a copyrighted violation under the free-liciensing policy. Hence, I requested you to change your decision. いちかかすが (talk) 09:42, 25 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Here's an example:

Text and/or other creative content from this version of List of Yashahime: Princess Half-Demon episodes was copied or moved into Yashahime: Princess Half-Demon (season 1) with this edit. The former page's history now serves to provide attribution for that content in the latter page, and it must not be deleted as long as the latter page exists.

This is on the talk page. SpectresWrath (talk) 19:07, 25 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

This isn't my first time dealing with a case like this, Episode Ninja copied from wikipedia. Look at the history dates from List of The Devil Is a Part-Timer! episodes and you'll see these summaries were written years ago. Episode Ninja copied and pasted on their site with a Last Updated: Feb 3, 2021 on it. What more proof do you want. SpectresWrath (talk) 04:39, 26 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I dont know who you are but you just removed my new page.

It's hard for a scientist to see how Wikipedia editors run amok. I referenced everything, actually I wrote the article that you or one of you criticied as being copied, I changed it, contested it, reasoned, and yet it is now deleted. How can it be? How? Who is in charge here, how can an editor delete a page without substantial evidence for copyright violation? And without explaining why except for a copypasted official text that says nothing about the concrete situation. I write science papers for 20 years but what you guys do is unprecendented in science. You destroy stuff, not build stuff. I see I am not the only one whose text you remove without evidence. Not nice. --Hargitai (talk) 18:03, 25 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hargitai, if you read my comments, you would see that what you wrote was an 85% copy of a page which is not explicitly free to use for any purpose including commercial, confirmed with a plagiarism script. I'm sorry you find our rules and copyright law "not nice", but that's how we work. We have no other way of confirming who owns the copyright unless the site you copied states that it's public domain, anyone can claim to own the copyright. Jimfbleak - talk to me? 18:14, 25 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I am sure that you did violate Wikipedia's policy, because:

-- Part of that 85% text was my input (you can even SEE my name there in the source two times) -- All parts were properly referenced. IT CANNOT BE PLAGISARISM IF IT IS REFERENCED. It is referenced - source is given -- proper credit given. See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plagiarism. -- Wikpedia rules say: "If you have strong reason to suspect a violation of copyright policy and some, but not all, of the content of a page appears to be a copyright infringement, then the infringing content should be removed with the source url in the edit summary if possible." and --- If all of the content of a page appears to be a copyright infringement... the page will normally need to be deleted. In other words, if 15% was NOT copyright violation, even if I accept that you cannot identify the authors, the rest HAD TO BE kept as per wikipedia rules posted here. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Copyright_violations Wikipedia is clear on the disctinction betweeen "ALL" and "SOME,, but not all" and there is no 85% or other threshold that you have invented for the easy deletion. -- It was not at all obvious reason for speedy deletion. I guess that you did not even check my changes after you posted the speedy deletion note. --Hargitai (talk) 18:39, 25 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hargitai I ran the script immediately before I deleted, so it was 85% copied even then. There is a name, but we have no way of verifying that the author has released the text as PD if the page doesn't say so, nor can we verify that you are who you claim to be. Attribution is good, but it doesn't justify wholesale copying. We allow, like most sites, attributed quotes for illustration or exemplars, with a guideline of about 10% of text, but not unrestricted copying. If you don't like our tight copyright rules, I'm afraid you will have to post on FaceBook or similar where you can put pretty well whatever you want Jimfbleak - talk to me?

It was N O T unrestrcted copying. I edited the text, added proper references. How could you possible word things like "she was the honorary member of the International Cartographic Association's Commission of PLanetary Cartography until 2013" differently ?????????? You rely on machine made decisions and do not look at the text itself. This contained biographic data that is really impossible to word differently. If she died on September 13, thenn your machine will tel lyou that I copied it. How can you say it differently, especially since I wrote the original material and your machine only tells that I use the same words for describing the same things. This is really sad that you destroy content reclessly not even giving a chance. Its now not about copyright rules but common sense or the lack of good intentions Hargitai (talk) 21:57, 25 March 2021 (UTC). BTW are you serious that you frighten off someone to Facebook who wanted to contribute to Wikipedia??? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hargitai (talk • contribs) 22:10, 25 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Hargitai: You can't just copy large chunks of text. You need to avoid direct copying or close paraphrasing except in some unavoidable cases (but then the percentage would be much lower, something like 15-25%). Otherwise, it is a violation of copyright law - which is not compatible with the terms of use (the content needs to support the CC BY-SA license: except in cases of fair use or authorisation by the rights holder, that precludes wholesale copying. In fact, no matter the license of the content here, copying from other sources would be plagiarism, which is usually wrong not just from a legal point of view). See this for more information. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 22:45, 25 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Nice conversation between the blind. It was not a large chunk of text. If you would take the time to read the text, it was compiled from diffferent sources. Biographical data will be the same no matter who copies what from where. Facts of life cannot be stated dfferently that how they are. You are sooo inflexible and make arguments without looking into the actual text you delete. A percentage machine will not tell you what's in the content. Do you think that I would use my time for arguing with you if I just copied a "large chunk of text" in no time? No, I WORKED on this entry and you deleted my WORK with no trace. I CAN"T BELIVE someone destroying otther peoples works based on a machine decision.

Restoration of Draft:Frank_M_Fenton

Thank you for your comments on the username talk page. If you will kindly see, Mayor Fenton has passed away and the record is being corrected as the original editing was performed due to the Wikipedia information being inaccurate. Hence, per your comments, there is no COI. Further to that notice, the deletion of the draft of said page is not advertising nor self promotion. Rather, it is stunning that this username did not have a page upon a recent search. A team is painstakingly preparing a draft with proper citations to add to the Wikipedia library. Please kindly restore the draft page for this username so that it may be worked upon and reviewed by Wikipedia prior to publication.

FrankMFenton (talk) 01:53, 26 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@@ Line 228: / Line 228: @@
 BTW are you serious that you frighten off someone to Facebook who wanted to contribute to Wikipedia???  <!-- Template:Unsigned --><span class="autosigned" style="font-size:85%;">—&nbsp;Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[User:Hargitai|Hargitai]] ([[User talk:Hargitai#top|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/Hargitai|contribs]]) 22:10, 25 March 2021 (UTC)</span> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->
 :{{ping|Hargitai}} You can't just copy large chunks of text. You need to avoid direct copying or close paraphrasing except in some unavoidable cases (but then the percentage would be much lower, something like 15-25%). Otherwise, it is a violation of [[copyright]] law - which is not compatible with [[:wmf:Terms of Use|the terms of use]] (the content needs to support the CC BY-SA license: except in cases of fair use or authorisation by the rights holder, that precludes wholesale copying. In fact, no matter the license of the content here, copying from other sources would be [[plagiarism]], which is usually wrong not just from a legal point of view). See [[Wikipedia:Close paraphrasing|this for more information]]. [[User:RandomCanadian|RandomCanadian]] ([[User talk:RandomCanadian|talk]] / [[Special:Contributions/RandomCanadian|contribs]])  22:45, 25 March 2021 (UTC)
+: Nice conversation between the blind. It was not a large chunk of text. If you would take the time to read the text, it was compiled from diffferent sources. Biographical data will be the same no matter who copies what from where. Facts of life cannot be stated dfferently that how they are. You are sooo inflexible and make arguments without looking into the actual text you delete. A percentage machine will not tell you what's in the content. Do you think that I would use my time for arguing with you if I just copied a "large chunk of text" in no time? No, I WORKED on this entry and you deleted my WORK with no trace. I CAN"T BELIVE someone destroying otther peoples works based on a machine decision.
 == Restoration of Draft:Frank_M_Fenton ==


Jim	Talk	Contribs	Sandbox	Logs	Blocks	Deletions	Protections	Scripts	Bird talk	Commons