User talk:TransporterMan

---

If I left you a message: please answer on your talk page - it will be on my watchlist for at least a few days, so I will see your response If you leave me a message: I will answer on this talk page - please watchlist it so you'll know that I've answered. This will ensure that conversations remain together! Please click here to leave me a new message.

Thanks!

N5iln has eaten your {{cookie}}! The cookie made them happy and they'd like to give you a great big hug for donating it. Spread the WikiLove by giving out more {{cookie}}s, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend. Thanks again!

Spread the goodness of cookies by adding {{subst:cookie}} to someone's talk page with a friendly message, or eat a cookie with {{subst:munch}}!

oldcsd

Hello, TransporterMan. You have new messages at fuhghettaboutit's talk page.

Re: GoodSearch opinion

Thank you for the information. Understand the comments and agree with the suggestion. Uptodateinfo

{{Hangon}} for Course Selection at Earl Haig Secondary School

I have once again put the {{Hangon}} Template on the article, but I'm quite unsure why this article would be moved to deletion. It doesn't seem to have vandalized the copyrighted content, and also doesn't seem to have plagiarized someone's work. I can see what you are talking about, but I think that this article shouldn't be deleted. Otherwise, I will improve this article to Wikipedia's standard. But thanks for your notice.

Please contact me if you have any concerns.

Besides I'm only a Wikipedian for less than 6 months so I'm quite inexperienced. However the quality and standard of my articles will improve. Challisrussia (talk)

Village with offensive name

Just looked at your referral for Kotak, a village with an allegedly offensive name. The offensive word would be kotok (which is offensive slang for penis in at least Kyrgyz. However, Kotak should be ok -- it also appears on google maps for roughly the same location shown in the article -- Google Map of Kotak. Thanks for checking up on it, though! ~~

Wikiquette Alerts Notice Response

Hello, TransporterMan. You have new messages at Pie4all88's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

talkback

You have new messages

Hello, TransporterMan. You have new messages at Doc Tropics's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

...

Ok so It's my Image! So regarless I don't need to put nothing else but my Template:OWN And its Free Wikepidia so They can't remove my Images that I be posting up! It's Un-Fair so my suggestion is to leave my page/ Image of El Fresno alone.. Thanks (unsigned, but added 22:36, 2 February 2011 by User:Xchunksx)

Image was taken by me thank you, and no it does not need no license because it's my Own work work..

Re:

Hello, TransporterMan. You have new messages at Amog's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

talkback

Hello, TransporterMan. You have new messages at Wikipedia_talk:Wiki_Guides/New_pages#Who_can_participate_in_this_project.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

HomePipe Networks

Thank you for adding the reference list. I would like to hae our name correct in our listing, but I do not know how to change it. It should be HomePipe Networks, not Homepipe networks. Unfortunately, I am quite new to this so I do not know what to do to correct it. Any assistance would be greatly appreciated. Thank you kindly,

Cherie — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cherieblehm (talk • contribs) 20:27, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

Done for you. Good luck, TRANSPORTERMAN (TALK) 20:33, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

Thanks

Thanks for your 30 response.Curb Chain (talk) 01:06, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

Dravet Syndrome Foundation Page

I have just uploaded the final copy of the page with the same name. Thank you for your help with this and please let me know if there is a problem with this final copy Curedravet (talk) 22:16, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

THANK YOU - Please ignore below, received your other response! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Curedravet (talk • contribs) 19:42, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

Hello - sorry, relatively new to wikipedia and attempted to set up a page today for a nonprofit that raises research money and serves families of children with Dravet syndrome, a rare and intractable epilepsy. I meant to hit preview and instead I published the page, while it was still being worked on. After that point, I received a message that it could be classified under "speedy deletion". Could you please help me with this? Is it also possible to put it back to a state where it is not viewable until I complete it. Sorry! -mary anne — Preceding unsigned comment added by Curedravet (talk • contribs) 19:30, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, TransporterMan. You have new messages at Wikipedia talk:Wikipedia Toolbar.
Message added 19:05, 23 April 2011 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Question about page MEDINA

Hello TransporterMan,

thank you for your advices and comments about the page about MEDINA. As new author of Wikipedia articles I need your help:

On the page MEDINA, I just added some more appropriate citations from reliable sources (see reference 2,14,15). In my opinion, the current version of the article meets the general notability guideline of Wikipedia. What can I do to remove the two warnings?

The topic of this article may not meet the general notability guideline. Please help to establish notability by adding reliable, secondary sources about the topic. If notability cannot be established, the article is likely to be merged, redirected, or deleted. (April 2011)

This article needs references that appear in reliable third-party publications. Primary sources or sources affiliated with the subject are generally not sufficient for a Wikipedia article. Please add more appropriate citations from reliable sources. (April 2011)

Regards Hobramski --Hobramski (talk) 13:11, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

Since you posted the above message, the article has been listed at WP:AFD for a deletion discussion. You should make your case for notability in that discussion. Unless the three refs you mention above specifically refer to MEDINA in a substantial way - and I cannot see that they do, but I do not have access to the full articles and cannot say for sure - it would appear that they talk about the processes and problems which MEDINA addresses not about MEDINA. If that's correct, then the article still is not supported by reliable sources about MEDINA itself and it stands considerable risk of being deleted in that deletion discussion. Regards, TRANSPORTERMAN (TALK) 18:17, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

Richard Phipson

You are welcome to help improve the article, and I would not hold it against you if you removed the CSD tag. Thank you. Drmies (talk) 16:11, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

• Please see Talk:Richard Phipson. Let me reiterate that you may have been in your right to tag it, but that's based on a rather narrow interpretation of the (admittedly brief) stub. Also, for future reference, that an article doesn't have reliable sources is not in itself a ground for an A7 tag. Please see Wikipedia:Criteria_for_speedy_deletion#Articles, which is quite clear. Thank you, Drmies (talk) 18:01, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

• I agree with you entirely, but you mistake my reasoning; I A7 tagged it because it made no claim of importance or significance, not because there were no RS. (There are a million architects, each one has built some buildings. The fact that they have done so does not make them important or significant.) However, the addition of one or more RS is enough to get past A7. The sources that were added weren't notable, but they were enough to indicate some importance, or at least for me to give it the benefit of the doubt, so I would have detagged it. Regards, TRANSPORTERMAN (TALK) 01:04, 30 April 2011 (UTC)

• No, I am not mistaking you at all. What I am saying is that you chose to read that very stubby stub as not asserting significance. Your remark on sources came later, and my comment on that is separate. I simply disagree with your narrow reading of the stub, and as a somewhat experienced editor I thought I'd give you my opinion.

  But even that isn't so important as this: it is a cooperative project. If you see something you'd like to tag, you can afford to spend a half a minute Googling before you tag it; it's not a match to see who tags it first. Or you could see who the creator is, and in this case you might have seen that I'm not (unfortunately) a spring chicken. Nominating crap for deletion is one thing, nominating whatever comes by is another. Yes, you can claim that your reading of the stub (millions of architects, etc--but not a lot of them are diocesan architects, which is something you could have discovered) was correct, there was no assertion of notability. Or you can look further, and read more broadly, and actively contribute in a positive manner to the encyclopedia. Your choice. Had you contributed, you'd have a DYK template on your talk page in a couple of days. Now you got a "speedy denied" in your contributions. Thank you. Drmies (talk) 03:14, 30 April 2011 (UTC)

• I acknowledge and — honestly — thank you for your criticism, but that is not to say that I agree with or accept any part of it. Regards, TRANSPORTERMAN (TALK) 01:51, 1 May 2011 (UTC)

New book article

Thank you again for your kind interest and advice here! I really appreciated your input and that of User:Mr. Stradivarius. Inspired, I have now created an article about the book Throne of a Thousand Years and would like very much to leave it to whatever fate it may encounter, fairly. Would you please have a look, maybe monitor it a bit, to see if everything is OK and proceeds forward in some semblance of normalcy? SergeWoodzing (talk) 22:04, 1 May 2011 (UTC)

I took a quick glance and it looks like very good work. I'll try to take a harder look when I get a moment. Kudos, TRANSPORTERMAN (TALK) 13:03, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

Needed now rather urgently. Best regards, SergeWoodzing (talk) 22:07, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

Deletion of Tendong Hill article

I have been to this place while treaking in south sikkim and I felt this place should be there in wiki. Everyone in that area knows about the legend of Tendong(There is a story with every hill in that area like Maenam,Bhaledunga). I came to knew the meaning of Tendong from the local people. So I don't think it is goin to be a copyright issue. If you still feel it needs to be deleted I will rather rephrase it once before that.SurajitR (talk) 17:49, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

I would love to add the Tendong Hill entry, as it is one of the most popular treks in South Sikkim(There are not many). I have refreshed the article and hope that will not create any problem with copyright anymore. I mean I can't change the meaning of TENDONG or the legend, but ofcourse I can change my words. I have been to those places so many times while treking in Himalayan foothills, and all those information I gathered from local resident of that place. Will like to know your thoughts on that topic before adding it again. Regards SurajitR (talk) 18:35, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

Speedy deletion of Lifestyle Housing

I contested this deletion. I believe the copywright infrigment you are referring to is our own from our blog site www.mainlinelivingsimplified.com —Preceding unsigned comment added by JackMc66 (talk • contribs) 18:39, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

See my response on the article talk page. Regards, TRANSPORTERMAN (TALK) 18:48, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

Just in case you didn't see it before the page was deleted as a copyright violation: It doesn't make any difference if you are the copyright holder or if its use here is totally legal, Wikipedia policy prohibits its use here unless you follow one of the processes here. Please note, however, that doing so allows anyone in the world to use your online material, not just Wikipedia. There is no other way (at least none that Wikipedia will accept) to give permission in a way that only Wikipedia, but no one else, can use your material. The better and easier course may be to rewrite the material for the article, but be aware in that regard that mere paraphrasing, change of first to third person, changes in verb tense, and similar revisions of the material will be regarded to be close paraphrasing and will not cure the copyright problem; it really has to be entirely rewritten from the ground up. Even if you cure the copyright problem in that way, this article may still be subject to deletion under WP:NEO as a neologism which is not yet in general use, so I'd recommend that you find some reliable sources showing that it is in general use before you go to the trouble to fix the copyright violation, then fix the copyright problem, being sure to include those sources in the article. Regards, TRANSPORTERMAN (TALK) 19:56, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

You covered this pretty well, TM. Thanks for helping clear up the issue.  :) PMDrive1061 (talk) 01:36, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

I understand your assessment and it make sense. However, the term "Lifestyle Housing" or "Lifestyle Living" is a relatively new term used in the real estate market so there are really no "reliable" resources to refer to. This is the whole purpose of us putting it on Wikipedia so that people can get an understanding of what it is exactly. So you are saying that you can never start any new terminology on Wikipedia? That to me does not make any sense. It is like a chicken and egg situation. So how does it ever get started? —Preceding unsigned comment added by JackMc66 (talk • contribs) 14:25, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

Wikipedia is "The Free Encyclopedia" and encyclopedias only include things which have already proven to be significant, not things which are new, novel, or just now being promoted. So, yes, it does mean that new terminology cannot be started or promoted on Wikipedia. How does new terminology get started without Wikipedia? Just like it did before Wikipedia came into existence. (For more on the purposes of Wikipedia you might be interested in my essay here and in the Scrabble illustration here.) Good luck with your editing, TRANSPORTERMAN (TALK) 18:52, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

Frustrated

I just lost a big section of text I was putting into Sydney Downey because of an "edit conflict", that I guess occured when you added a tag that says the article is not notable and based on just one source. Ironically, I was adding more information and including a second source. This is quite frustrating as I now have to rewrite it all. I just made this article and am working on it. Can you please lay off while I work on it. I really don't want to lose more information. Can I trust that I have some time now to add back what I lost? Thanks. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Macomberaffair (talk • contribs) 15:19, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

There is a second source now. I thought you'd like to know. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Macomberaffair (talk • contribs) 15:36, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

Sorry about the edit conflict, happens to me on the receiving end all the time. I've removed the notability tag, AGF'ing that your sources are both substantial and reliable. Regards, TRANSPORTERMAN (TALK) 15:40, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

By way of amends, I've improved the coding of your references. Regards, TRANSPORTERMAN (TALK) 15:46, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

Thanks. I will have a look at how you did that for the future. The article I wrote on Philip Percival can definately use such a fix. Thanks again.Macomberaffair (talk) 15:58, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

BTW, I removed your next-to-last footnote because it was the same as the one at the end of the next following sentence. A footnote is generally presumed to cover all the material that proceeds it up to the last footnote from a different source. Regards, TRANSPORTERMAN (TALK) 16:02, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

Hey

[Moved from my user page to my talk page, TM]

you deleted a article that i published live but all that was on there was the name and the template completely blank. I have been banned multiple times from Wikipedia but my suspension is over, please help me make this time around more enjoyable sir. I am really looking for someone to help me publish an article but this website has plenty of links please check it out and collaborate with me on notability. JO has shows, has a mixtape, and is all over the web in different forms which are not all self published, in other words his work has spread virally. If you search "JO" "4 The Hustlas" Rough Cut Freestyle Flow Rap Underground Rapper Unsigned Hype "Josh Eastman Enterprises" JO "Josh Eastman" Ent J.E.E. Mixtape Hip Hop mix tape hiphop "hip hop" battle rap music youll find several things he has over 5000 views on his youtube channel, has several artists, DJs, even record exucutives like this one from JIVE on twitter. PLEASE TAKE a minute to go to JO's Google Profile if you havnt already and look at the links. I am 448th on the Rancho Santa Margarita Hip Hop Charts for Reverb Nation. I Know there is a way to help me get this article ready to publish please help. I believe that the links and article are notable, where does someone draw the line between indie/independent/underground music and unnotability for wikipedia. I think i deserve a shot. I am an aspiring musician and this legitimizes my movement, when a fan who heard my album or song and want to look me up the "JO" wikiarticle will provide them with an easy to read bio and info regarding who JO is and does with supporting links. — User:174.67.209.82 17:31, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

I concur with the answer given to you by Mike Rosoft at User_talk:Mike_Rosoft#Hey. — TRANSPORTERMAN (TALK) 17:56, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

Hello, TransporterMan. You have new messages at Crosstemplejay's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Your signature

Hi there. I just noticed the markup of your signature. While you are of course free to choose your HTML, I would suggest this alternative markup that produces the same result:

[[User:TransporterMan|<span style="font-family:Trebuchet MS; color:blue; font-variant:small-caps;">'''TransporterMan''']] ([[User talk:TransporterMan#top|<font face="Trebuchet MS" size="1">TALK</font>]])

Not only is it shorter than your current markup, it also avoids the problem that your username is harder to identify in the editing window. Regards SoWhy 08:09, 7 May 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for the suggestion. I'll implement it. I'm not much of a coder and all help is appreciated. Best regards, TRANSPORTERMAN (TALK) 16:43, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

Nairobi water shortage

Someone was trying to make an essay into a Wikipedia article, but the problem here is that it's a POV propaganda piece, which doesn't fit in Wikipedia. Nonetheless, there may be water issues in Nairobi. Anyone got a reliable source or two? — Rickyrab | Talk 16:25, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

Nonsense

I've declined your speedy on Within No Time because it isn't nonsense within the CSD meaning. That is for 'rtrtrfkjvld' and stuff that even a Surrealist wouldn't regard as usable. It's quite a restricted sense. This stuff is not encyclopaedic, fairly certainly essay - but it's coherent. As I can't think of anything better, I'll prod them. If you can think of a CSD that fits, go ahead... Peridon (talk) 18:42, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

That's fine, your call, of course. After rereading it I suppose that it could just be poor writing by an editor whose English skills are marginal, but ... wow. Regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 19:35, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

inre Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Con Games (movie)

Not to be a nudge, and I do understand your original nomination of a pretty crappy stub created by a newcomer, but in expansion and souring of the article, Film Threat is indeed considered a reliable source for film, and that is an important point that needs to be undescored, as several editors at the AFD, yourself included, seem unaware of this.

When you wrote "Film Threat has been rejected as a reliable source almost always", you were unintentionally and unfortunately incorrect. And your proffered diffs do not support your contention, and in fact did the opposite:

-Your diff 1 shows how an editor found Film Threat articles to support a keep of an article after which the nominator withdrew that one film from his multiple nomination.

-Your diff 2 shows an editor offering a Film Threat review of one film as "proof" that the filmmaker being discussed at that other AFD was notable.

-Your diff 3 shows my own comment about finding a Film Threat review of a puppet-infested film article that had been speedy deleted before I ever saw it and before the AFD was closed, and included my own observation that the review had only hours before become available online, and if more such reviews come forward the article might be worth reconsidering.

-and in your diff 4 one editor accepted it and another had an unfounded opinion that it was a fanzine... which it is most provably not, as it has editorial oversite, reviews and articles by accepted genre experts, and a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy (poinedly meting the criteria we use to determine what qualifies as a reliable source).

Film Threat is and has for a long time been considered a reliable souce by the majority of editors and through long standing consensus (Andrew Lenahan's sole and unsupported opinion notwithstanding). ever considered an unrelaible source. It is indeed a reliable source for film articles, and has been confrmed as such several times at both Project Film and inquiries at the Reliable Sources Noticeboard.

With respects, I hope others do not mind the TLDR of my responses and instead see the suitability of the two in-depth significant articles and the one book source used (so far) to cite the article. We have a full-length review of the film, a full-length interview of the filmmaker, and a book citation for required confirmation of the fillmaker's use of Roberts as a selling point... all accepted WP:reliable sources. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 03:44, 11 May 2011 (UTC)

• Here are some diffs of my own that support the wide consensus of Film Threat being a reliable source for films... some even as early as 2004 (predating my own arrival on Wikipedia by years): [1] [2] [3] [4] [5] [6] [7] [8] [9] [10] [11] [12] [13] [14] [15] [16] [17] [18] [19] [20][21] [22][23] [24] [25] [26] and there are many, many more. It can be seen that even in discussions of film articles that were deleted, Film Threat was acknowledged as a suitable reliable source. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 04:48, 11 May 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for your comments. I've replied at the AFD discussion page. Regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 14:37, 11 May 2011 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, TransporterMan. You have new messages at Kudpung's talk page.
Message added 03:13, 12 May 2011 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

FYI Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 03:13, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

burying any hatchets...

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Con Games (movie) was no doubt a difficult close. For myself, the article hovered slighty over the pointed edge of being just notable enough for Wikipedia, while for some others it does not quite make the cut. A no consensus was perhaps the best call, and I expect that after clarification of guideline elsewhere, it might return to AFD in a few months. At the very least, and in the interim, our having turned a very sorry stub into a somehwat better sourced and encyclopedic article serves the projects and its readers. I hope we can work together to clarify those guidelines that are sometimes seen as grey, as I found our discussion quite helpful. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 18:25, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

No hatchets to bury and no hard feelings. I agree that the guidelines could be improved, but I suspect that we'd go in different directions on the issue. If you'd like to propose something, however, let me know and I'll take a look. I'm concerned that we're coming to a point where because of the breadth of coverage on the Internet certain things - commercially-released record albums and films come immediately to mind - are almost notable by default. I don't think that's the way it should be, but I've not yet come to a conclusion about what the best solution might be. I have the same concern, BTW, about athletes. Regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 18:43, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

Aryan Cargo Express

Contested your speedy deletion because it adheres to Wikipedia:WikiProject Aviation/Notability, particularly to the clause "the following types of topics will almost always have sufficient coverage to qualify... *All airline companies". Please be familiar to policies and guidelines before hastely tagging an article for speedy deletion. OhanaUnited^{Talk page} 20:56, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

Was not hasty and the policies do not support your position, see my response on the article talk page. Regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 21:02, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

I had to get offline suddenly and I'm glad to see that the article was not speedily deleted in light of the one source which you provided on the article talk page. I do take serious exception, however, with your admonition, above, that I should, "Please be familiar to policies and guidelines before hastely tagging an article for speedy deletion." As you admitted on the article talk page, there was no policy or guideline which controlled this particular issue, but only an essay whose strongest claim for authority is a template which says that it "may be consulted for assistance during an AfD discussion" (emphasis added). Moreover, the use of the terms "meets" (on the article talk page) and "adheres to," above, in reference to that essay is an apparent attempt to give the false impression that it has some authority beyond just being an opinion. I would not presume to tell you what to do, but I am personally disappointed to see such a level of discourse from a person who has been entrusted with sysop tools. — TransporterMan (TALK) 14:32, 13 May 2011 (UTC)

Los Hermanos Castro

Yes, Los Hermanos Castro were on the top 10 Billboard in Puerto Rico. Go to www.gualbertocastro.com & click on Los Hermanos Castro to read the true backgorund of Los Hermanos Castro & the listing for the top ten Billboard & other awards & such. :) Chaos4tu (talk) 14:43, 13 May 2011 (UTC)

E. B. White House coordinates

Hi. I think I found the house and farm. See the article talk page. Of course I wouldn't dream of adding anything without the consensus of the full photo-reconnaissance team. Kenatipo ^speak! 18:48, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

That cookie tasted good!

Lumdeloo has eaten your {{cookie}}! The cookie made them happy and they'd like to give you a great big hug for donating it. Spread the WikiLove by giving out more {{cookie}}s, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend. Thanks again!

Spread the goodness of cookies by adding {{subst:cookie}} to someone's talk page with a friendly message, or eat a cookie with {{subst:munch}}!

Lumdeloo (talk) 07:53, 19 May 2011 (UTC)

Another go

Have a read of this that I wrote recently, and when you feel ready, let me know. --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 10:18, 19 May 2011 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, TransporterMan. You have new messages at Talk:Saint-Anselme Aerodrome.
Message added 15:27, 19 May 2011 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Ruth Glass

I have removed the CSD tag you placed on Ruth Glass. It was scarcely a "blatant" copyvio, as the CSD rationale requires. If you exclude the lengthy book title then there was in fact virtually no violation at all and what may have been considered a violation is easily rephrased. The CSD copyvio template states that it should only be used in the event that there is no free content capable of being rescued. - Sitush (talk) 19:55, 19 May 2011 (UTC)

Nonsense. Every sentence is a close paraphrase of the cited source. — TransporterMan (TALK) 19:58, 19 May 2011 (UTC)

The dupe report indicates zero? - Sitush (talk) 20:12, 19 May 2011 (UTC)

The dupe report is a blunt instrument which can be defeated by a close paraphrase, as is the case here. — TransporterMan (TALK) 20:14, 19 May 2011 (UTC)

So why not tweak the article further? Templated messages to an established editor for such a short article are also a blunt instrument. I was fixing it. The source, by the way, is itself a close paraphrase of the ODNB article. Honestly, this is overkill. It could have been resolved with a simple, polite request, such as "please can you take another look at the article which you have just created as I think it is too close a paraphrase of one of your sources." - Sitush (talk) 20:17, 19 May 2011 (UTC)

While I would ordinarily agree that templating a regular isn't the best thing to do, copyvios have legal implications and are not supposed to be here even temporarily, e.g. while being fixed. That's the reason that the procedure at Wikipedia:Copyright problems has you blank the article, unlike most other deletion processes which keep the text of the article exposed so that it can continue to be edited while the deletion process is proceeding. Just like unreferenced negative BLP articles, legal threats, and some other exceptional cases copyvio articles aren't supposed to be fixed, they're not supposed to be here at all, ever. Moreover, all you were doing is furthering or softening the close paraphrase, not rewriting the article from the ground up which is what's needed to move away from the copyvio. — TransporterMan (TALK) 20:29, 19 May 2011 (UTC)

Ruth Glass problem: There is a little question for you here: User_talk:Msrasnw#Copyright_problem:_Ruth_Glass. Best wishes (Msrasnw (talk) 20:41, 19 May 2011 (UTC))

(edit conflict) You did not give me much of a chance, nor the article creator for that matter. The policy does not in fact say "blank on sight". It says blank if it cannot be fixed. The thing was created barely 10 minutes before you CSD'd it, I found out because I happen to watch the creator's page (not sure why because I haven't actually looked at it in weeks). I've rewritten entirely articles of 90kb or so in size, so dealing with a tiny little thing like this would have been a doddle. I have requested that an admin with copyright experience looks into it, even though there is a formal process that will decide at some point in the next week. - Sitush (talk) 20:43, 19 May 2011 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Copyright_problems does not say blank if it cannot be fixed; it says if removal is complicated then tag and blank and, if one cares to do so, then "In addition to nominating potential copyright infringements for deletion" (emphasis added) attempt to fix the problem on a subpage of the original page. — TransporterMan (TALK) 21:03, 19 May 2011 (UTC)

More on the Ruth Glass problem: There is a reply for you here: User_talk:Msrasnw#Copyright_problem:_Ruth_Glass. Best wishes (Msrasnw (talk) 20:41, 19 May 2011 (UTC))

Ok I will await some action from someone. Given that you like bridges and I guess other similar such things (and to show no hard feelings for your unfortunate dislike of my little article) here is a gift link: Anderton Boat Lift. (Msrasnw (talk) 21:27, 19 May 2011 (UTC))