Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Abe Katsuyoshi

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. I'm closing this early because there have been no dissenting votes, the copyright owner is pissed, and there's no need to continue the debate any further. Mangojuicetalk 18:29, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Abe Katsuyoshi

  ATTENTION!

If you came here because somebody asked you to, or you read a message on a forum, please note that this is not a ballot, but rather a discussion to establish a consensus amongst Wikipedia editors on whether an article is suitable for this encyclopedia. We have policies and guidelines to help us decide this, and deletion decisions are made on the merits of the arguments, not by counting heads (or socks).

You can participate and give your opinion. Please sign your posts on this page by adding ~~~~ at the end. Happy editing!
Comments made by suspected single purpose accounts can be tagged using {{subst:spa|username}}.


The reason I have marked all these articles to discuss for deletion is twofold. The first one is the question of copyright. Every article I have tagged has a single source (http://www.samurai-archives.com/dictionary/A1.html or later pages in that same source - for now I have only tagged the A's). In most cases it is also an uncited source. Regardless, the text of each of these articles is merely an exact duplicate with a few words changed around. In nearly every case, the content (meaning) and order of the content (meaning) is the same, even if some words have been changed. Whether this is blatant copyright infringement or not may be questionable, but that is not the only issue.

Quality of scholarship The second issue is quality and scholarship. All of these articles only have that one source - the Samurai Archives website. In many cases, if not most, sources are not cited on that website. Therefore, we can not verify the validity of the entries on that website. One of the requirements of Wikipedia is that articles include information that is verifiable. Information taken from the Samurai Archives is not verifiable. The simple fact of the matter is, aside from it not being verifiable, if there are any errors in information on that website, we are now propogating them all over the internet. This is because all of the articles I tagged are created only from information on the Samurai Archives website. That is just plain poor scholarship, and has been noted on other discussions regarding this, adding articles such as the ones I have tagged cheapens wikipedia and it cheapens the work that we do in adding information to it. Another issue is that many, or possibly most, of the articles I tagged, have not been added to for months, which tells me that there is little information out there that can be used to supplement them. So the issue of both verifiability and scholarship leads me to feel that these articles need to be eliminated. The articles I have tagged are of low quality, and of almost no academic value, and I back that statement up with what I have written above.

There are over 100 articles almost identical in situation to the few that I have tagged here - and you will also notice that it is the same contributor on every article Darrin Fidika - he apparently been made aware of the situation many times over, but continues to blithely post articles of identical poor quality as those I have marked below. That worries me. He has been talked to many times according to his talk page, but he never stopped this activity.

Sorry it took me so long to figure out how to go about all this, I have always been happy to just anonymously add information to wikipedia from work during slow times, but this issue, first brought forward a few days ago, really caught my attention as a major quality control issue that all of us who contribute to wikipedia need to pay attention to. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Monkeyheadster (talk • contribs) . 20:07, October 30, 2006 (UTC)

Articles included for deletion

  • Abe Katsuyoshi
  • Ayukawa Kiyonaga
  • Atagi Fuyuyasu
  • Ashikaga Haruuji
  • Ashida Nobumori
  • Asari Nobutane
  • Asakura Norikage
  • Asakura Kagetoshi
  • Asakura Kageakira
  • Asahina Nobuoki
  • Arima Yoshisada
  • Arima Toyouji
  • Arima Noriyori
  • Araki Yukishige
  • Aochi Shigetsuna
  • Anzai Sanemoto
  • Anemori Yayoi
  • Anegakoji Yoshiyori
  • Anegakoji Yoritsuna
  • Ando Morinari
  • Anayama Nobutomo
  • Amari Masatada
  • Amakusa Hisatane
  • Amako Hisayuki
  • Akechi Mitsutada
  • Akechi Mitsukuni
  • Akazawa Tomotsune
  • Akamatsu Norifusa
  • Akamatsu Masanori
  • Akaike Nagato
  • Akai Terukage
  • Adachi Yasumori
  • Adachi Tokiaki
  • Abe Katsuyoshi

--Monkeyheadster 20:07, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletions. -- ···日本穣? · Talk to Nihonjoe 20:37, 30 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment: After looking through several of the articles listed above, I can see that one of the main sources was definitely Samurai Archives. However, all of the articles I looked at had more information than found in the Samurai Archives, leading me to believe there was at least one other source for the information. As all of these articles are quite short, it's understandable the information would be presented in similar ways—there are only so many ways to write 2-3 sentences. I do think the articles need to be sourced, however, so it can be more easily determined what information came from where. ···日本穣? · Talk to Nihonjoe 21:10, 30 October 2006 (UTC)
Frankly, I disagree - what you are seeing is "fluff" added by the contributor - throwing in that such and such was a lord of such and such province because the province is mentioned later in the text. It is one contributor, one known for this sort of thing, and frankly, I do not believe it can be argued that the only source is not the samurai archives, because it plainly is the only source - most of these articles only exist in the english language at the Samurai archives site, and I am most definately sure that Darrin is not translating his own information. Here is a good example:

Marume Nagayoshi Here is a good example of a typical "entry": Samurai archives - Nagayoshi was a retainer of the Sagara family of Higo Province. He is said to have met the wandering swordsman Kamiizumi Nobutsuna and studied under him, later forming his own school of swordsmanship on Kyushu. Wikipedia: Maruma Nagayoshi (1540-1629) was a retainer of the Japanese clan of Sagara of Hizen province during the Sengoku Period of the 16th century, extending to the 17th century of the Edo Period. It is said that Nagayoshi ran into the famous swordsman known as Kamiizumi Nobutsuna and began training under him. Nagayoshi later established his own school of swordsmanship at Kyūshū.

They are obviously the same. You can see how he adds fluff by stating that it took place during the sengoku period - that most definately does not indicate an "alternate source" - he even goes so far as to add incorrect information to hide his plagiarism - he changes Higo province to Hizen province.
I challenge anyone here to come up with another source, preferably a book rather than the internet, due to the sad fact that Samurai Archives information has been propogating due to wikipedia all over the internet. If there is a belief that multiple sources have been used, I challenge someone to provide one.
However, that is only a small part of the issue - the issue of poor scholarship is much larger. My argument above about poor scholarship stands. The unfortunate fact here is that we have let this go for 10 months now, and it has created a monster. People seem intimidated by having to remove over 100 articles, but any one of these articles on its own would be a solid candidate for deletion. We shouldn't let the volume of articles get in the way of objectivity in this matter. --Monkeyheadster 21:18, 30 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep for now and tackle the problem differently: there does seem to be a potential plagiarism issue here, but I do not think that AfD is the right way to tackle it. Five days is simply not sufficient time for people to check so many articles and confirm that your claim that they are all problematic. The AfD process was not designed to handle large-scale cases like this, and we run the risk of throwing babies out with bathwater.
    It would IMO be more appropriate to open a centralized discussion of the matter, possibly as a subproject of Wikiproject Japan, to give the full set of articles a proper consideration, establish which can be cleaned up and which cannot, and resubmit the unsalvageable articles for deletion with more than one editor's word for the claim that they need deleting.
    For example, it appears that in many cases there are articles on these people on the Japanese Wikipedia, which certainly will not be based on the Samurai Archives website, and which could thus almost certainly be used to salvage the English articles. — Haeleth Talk 21:45, 30 October 2006 (UTC)
It took me a mere 2 hours to confirm it. Not only is 5 days plenty of time, but this is a serious issue that needs to be addressed. There are nearly 100 more articles that are the same as the ones I have already tagged. It is time that we take care of the issue that Darin Fidika has been allowed to create. This has been discussed to little avail on LordAmeth's talk page and on the Japanese Military History task force talk page. Someone should have caught this months and months ago, and furthermore, the lone contributor must be brought to task for his actions.
All of the articles listed are identical in format, and from the same contributor. None of them use more than once source. This is specifically why I chose these to tag. Because they are all essentially the same. I believe they should be removed until such time as interested and responsible wikipedians can go through and create new entries with multiple sources.

As it can't be disputed that the tagged articles are rewrites of articles from the samurai archives and no other sources were used, I do not believe this can be considered fair use of the material. These articles duplicate the information from the samurai archives while not adding anything new to them - they are mere copies with different wording. This has gotten way, way out of hand, and I think removing the articles until such time responsible and interested parties come along to do actual orginal work is best. --Monkeyheadster 21:50, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

  • The precident is set - You will notice that the article called Hinarasu has been deleted. The author (a contributor to the samurai archives website) tagged it for copyright violation, made his case on the talk page, and it has been removed. His article is representative of every article I have tagged here, and this precident should show that I am correct in my request for deletion of these articles. Yet again this was an article added by "Darin Fidika". --Monkeyheadster 22:06, 30 October 2006 (UTC)
  • In Summary - I will summarize my points here, with detalied information standing above as the detailed talk.
  1. It can't really be argued - Darin got nearly every piece of information in the above articles from the Samurai Archives site, from the page I have listed. (See above quote from Marume Nagayoshi as an example).
  2. I do not belive this is "fair use" of the samurai archives information. "Fair Use" of information includes using multiple sources to pull together an orginal article - using any one source as a mere reference - "one among many". These articles are not original. They are copies of the Samurai archives, with some changed words, and a little "fluff" (see above) to make them look different. Hoever, the content (ideas) is nearly identical, as is the presentation of the order. These are not original articles by any reasonable stretch of the imagination. Furthermore, after checking the Samurai Archives forum, it has been made clear that all further research activity will stop on the page because of the wholesale gutting of the page by Darin Fidika. Understandable, I wouldnt want my hard work to be simply copied, pasted, and then a few words changed around and have it called an original work.
  3. The Hinarasu article. (see above) That article on wikipedia, placed here by Darin and taken from the Samurai Archives, was identical in form to all of the articles that I have noted here, and that one has been deleted. That sets the precident that these articles are justified in being removed. In fact, the author of the original article who requested it be removed pointed out that Darin also incorporated errors into his wikipedia article in his attempt to "hide" his plagiarism. He did the same with his copy of the Marume Nagayoshi article I mentioned above. Notice how he changed the province name to Hizen province. This guy will go so far as add wrong information to hide his plagiarism. That also needs to be addressed. I believe this could even be considered vandalism and could potentially invalidate all of his "contributions".
  4. Scholarship issues. Since these articles all do come from the samurai archives (with minor fluff and a few changed words), and they have not been edited hardly at all since they have been posted to wikipedia, that tells me that either there are no other sources to pull together, or at this time there is no one interested in doing so. Therefore, I believe that it is in the best interest of wikipedia to delete them until such time as more responsible and interested users can pull together multiple sources to create new, original articles. No one has added information in 10 months, so it is highly unlikely that enough, or even any, information will be added to change the state of these articles.
  5. Error propogation. Any errors made by the samurai archives site has now been moved to wikipedia, because no other sources have been used. There are references to "Uzu" castle, an accidental mistake on the samurai archives (recently brought to attention on that forum), and now "Uzu" castle has made it's way to wikipedia - and from there, all over the internet. It is actually "Uozu" castle, but wikipedia has secured it's place in hisotory now as "Uzu". Not to mention Darin Fidika adding false information into the articles he copies to help hid his plagiarism.
  6. Verification. One of the requirements of wikipedia is that included information be verifiable. The samurai archives for the most part does not cite sources. Since Darin has been using the SA exclusively, he is essentially using an unverifiable source. This is not good, and throws into question the quality of wikipedia itself if such articles are allowed to stay. Even where sources are listed, since Darin is only using one source (the samurai archives), the info he is pasting and changing words on has not been verified by him. His "addition" of Hinarasu further goes to show that he is not above adding errors into his articles to hide his plagiarism.
  7. Darin Fidika. Darin has a history of problems as evidenced by his talk page. It is very clear that he is incapable of utilizing sources correctly, and has a documented history of plagiarism. He is unfortunately incapable of creating an original article using multiple sources. Is he a "bad" person? No, I don't think so. Is he misdirected? Probably. What can't be disputed is that his information comes strictly from the samurai archives - he has stated as much on his talk page, saying "I did not realize that meager articles needed citations", and has also said he has taken from the samurai archives. Comparing his articles to the link to the samurai archives I provided shows that he just copied it, and changed words around. Like I mentioned, he has a history of questionable behavior, and has admitted to taking info from the samurai archives. As far as contributors go, he appears incapable of scholarship, and that alone throws any of his articles into a questionable light.
  8. Wikipedia quality. Keeping these articles would be a severe disservice to wikipedia, and also sets the precident that it is OK to steal, as long as you try to hide it by changing some words around. Maybe what I have tagged is not true outright copyright violation (most are certainly plagiarism), however my other points alone are more than enough to justify removing these articles. It is the right and moral thing to do.
  9. Precident. We need to set the precident that scholarship and research is expected, and that plagiarism and unverified information is not. It states clearly that "Content that violates any copyright will be deleted. Encyclopedic content must be verifiable. You agree to license your contributions under the GFDL." on the edit page. We need to stand by this. We have allowed this to go on for 10 months, and now we have to deal with a monster - over 100 uncited, unverifiable, plagiarized, low quality articles. It would be a simple matter if this had been tackled long ago, but we are dealing with it now, and qualms about the number of required deletions should not cloud objective judgement.

I believe that each and every one of my points have merit, and and every one alone justifies removing the pages. Please don't try to debate a single point while ignoring the rest. I believe, however, that removing the articles is the right thing to do, again, until such time that responsible and interested parties can come up with orginial article from multiple verifiable sources. I believe we should be working together here to make wikipedia a good place for information. I hope my belief that we can and should make wikipedia a better place for information is justified. Because, by leaving these articles copied by Darin up, we are hurting the quality, and the reputation of wikipedia - both as a source, and as a place where plagiarism and bad scholarship is not tolerated. --Monkeyheadster 22:30, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

  • Strong delete - This is absolutely ridiculous. Such blatant plagarism should be stamped out. This is copyrighted work. Rather than try to "improve" them, which I can assure you no one will volunteer to do, delete and start from scratch. Fairest thing to do. Wikipedia shouldn't about breaking honest rules to make our lives easier. John Smith's 23:16, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

I really appreciate your backup on this. It truly is ridiculous. I have been working for 3 or 4 days to bring this to someone's attention. I fully agree with you - NO ONE will volunteer to improve these, and so keeping them up just hurts wikipedia. We do have a problem here, however - There are over 100 more articles in an identical situation as these. How do you recommend I move forward with the rest of it? --Monkeyheadster 23:37, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

I'm not sure why you "worked 3 or 4 days to bring this to someone's attention," when a simple post on the Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Japan page would have gotten someone's attention. Almost all of the articles you mentioned are listed as part of the project on their talk pages (and have been for months). Additionally, I think you're hurting this AfD by posting a novelette in explanation when a few concise statements would have sufficed. Most people who participate in AfD don't want to have to spend 15 minutes reading the AfD, and I don't know any who want to spend 2-3 hours perusing and comparing all the articles that are part of just this one AfD when they have many others to go through daily (have you ever spent time going through the AfD pages? They fill up very quickly.) ···日本穣? · Talk to Nihonjoe 00:16, 31 October 2006 (UTC)
It has been done User Talk LordAmeth and Japanese Military History Task Force. The "3 or 4 days" were at these places. When nothing came of it, it was time to force the issue. As for the "novel length", I believe most people want a cogent argument and justification for removing 40 articles, and the literate members, I am sure, will appreciate it. I do appreciate you admitting that you con't care about the quality of wikipedia's articles or have any interest to put in the time that I and others are in order to guarantee quality (don't want to have to spend 15 minutes reading the AfD, I don't know any who want to spend 2-3 hours perusing and comparing all the articles that are part of the AfD.) but like myself, everyone else that does care about the major quality control issue we are facing will be glad to help out. Thanks for the input, it is appreciated, but rather than attack me, I believe we have a major quality issue here to deal with. We - you, me, and everyone else, are the ones responsible for wikipedia. If you are not interested in putting in the time to maintain that quality, your negativity really doesn't help things. ---Monkeyheadster 00:31, 31 October 2006 (UTC)
Please keep the mind-reading to yourself, as you aren't very good at it. Please show me where I wrote I didn't care about the quality of Wikipedia? As for spending time here, I imagine I've spent a far cry more time than you on Wikipedia. I've spent countless hours cleaning up articles, writing new ones, translating them from the Japanese Wikipedia, and generally helping out. So do most of the people who take time to go through AfDs, and I can tell you that many people will just skip over an AfD that's so huge right at the beginning. Maybe you have all the time in the world to spend here, but the rest of us have jobs, families, and lives outside of Wikipedia, and don't spend all our waking moments here. Therefore, my point was that it is a good idea to try to keep your reasons for posting an AfD concise so that it receives more attention from more AfD patrollers. It was just a friendly suggestion to keep in mind, so please don't take it negatively. I've adjusted my comments above to be more clear on what I meant. ···日本穣? · Talk to Nihonjoe 01:01, 31 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Strong Delete-I'm the one whose Hinarasu article got stolen. Since that was my research--no one else checked my sources or checked to see what I had was accurate. Check the Hinarasu discussion page for the low-down. Darin just copied what I had, with no checking. Even made some ridiculous statements to cover his tracks. Delete. Nagaeyari 00:58, 31 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom. In each individual case, the text is changed a reasonable amount. However, the fact that virtually every one of these are derived from the same source by the same editor is a serious copyvio concern. Mangojuicetalk 01:13, 31 October 2006 (UTC)
    • Comment: Let me add that the most troubling of these are the ones where there is hardly any information. That's actually a good argument for deletion: these samurai can't be very notable, and there are verifiability issues. Mangojuicetalk 05:55, 31 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Strong Delete--Mass copying seen in the above examples is unacceptable. The above numbered argument--especially numbers 5 and 6 hold true for wikipedia-- makes my decision final: copyvio Mhirama 01:47, 31 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Definately Delete -- I am in a state of shock and awe that a single user was allowed to plagarize to this extent, even after repeated warnings. I have compared at least 15 articles, side by side with two browser windows - in one I have the orignal source, the other I have the wikipedia "article". For all intents and purposes, even if he changed the words, the articles are identical. This is something of a minor scandal, and I suggest that we take care of this by removing these articles, and by disciplining the culprit. What I find most disturbing is that there are apparently over a hundred articles that this one user has put up that will now have to be taken down. --63.164.145.198 03:49, 31 October 2006 (UTC)
    • You might want to read WP:AGF. Truth is, these are very short entries, and often the WP article has a lot more in it than the source. I wouldn't object to any of them, because even from the first, the wording and structure was not the same, but the amount of material that has been treated in this was is just too large. Mangojuicetalk 05:55, 31 October 2006 (UTC)
Actually, that is the problem - the structure is identical, only words have been changed. And since he is only using one source, and just changing words and adding in fake info to hide his plagarism (see above), I find it hard to justify keeping these here. --Monkeyheadster 07:41, 31 October 2006 (UTC)
  • I agree - delete Funny, the night I decide to create an actual login after contributing tidbits here and there, I am shown that I have been a moron. Rather than researching facts, I should have been taking a source, change some words around, and create a new article with it. Yeah, that's the ticket! These articles should be deleted. The arguments for deletion by all involved are pretty much ironclad. I think that if the user had done the exact same thing, but had put it within a larger article, that probably would have been acceptable. However, this user didnt do that. He started countless articles from one source, which is plagiarism in my book. I've only looked at a few, but the ones that I have looked at have not been touched in months, except for the occasional additon of Japanese in the entry. I think this user really wanted to increase his standing by creating all sorts of articles. I think it must have been calculated, because it appears that he has also been adding in fake or false information in his wikipedia entries to cover his tracks. That is simply dishonest. I hope this issue is taken care of, I've had fun contributing, but this sours me a bit on wikipedia. --BranePan23 04:26, 31 October 2006 (UTC)
  • This AfD nomination was incomplete. It is listed now. DumbBOT 15:22, 31 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Speedy Delete, Copyvio. delete all articles, indef. block for creator, I am shocked that this has been allowed to stink up the encyclopedia for so long. L0b0t 15:36, 31 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete (and possibly relist in JapMilHist). This is not prejudice for recreating the articles in the future, but this is honestly poor research and plagiarism in the highest degree, because of the amount that was taken from one source. If it pulled together the original sources to create these articles, that would be a different story. (Having a single source is also problematic for notability issues.) I'd rather wipe these and restart afresh, this time taking proper care. This might mean a smaller amount of material in a longer amount of time, but it also means safety for Wikipedia. However, this does bring up a different point - since Wikipedia is so large, is it possible that many different articles by different editors will pull enough material for there to be a copyright violation based on amount of material pulled? ColourBurst 16:10, 31 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete as discussed above - this would be too difficult to go through and repair one by one; better to start fresh and allow recreation without the plagiarism and with better sourcing. Tony Fox (arf!) 21:10, 31 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Nuke and Pave - Nuke the current articles and pave the way to better sourced, non-copyvio versions. Torinir ( Ding my phone My support calls E-Support Options ) 22:48, 31 October 2006 (UTC)
  • So there seems to be a strong consensus...When does this end? What is the next step? Nagaeyari 00:35, 1 November 2006 (UTC)
    • This has been up for barely more than a day. AfD's are generally listed for at least 5 days. Patience. ···日本穣? · Talk to Nihonjoe 02:16, 1 November 2006 (UTC)
      • Wow, your kindness is amazing. Nice tone. Nagaeyari 03:56, 1 November 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment: Look at these: Compare earliest entry on the 380-word article on Hosokawa Tadaoki with http://wiki.samurai-archives.com/index.php?title=Hosokawa_Tadaoki. Are they identical? Only the "compare" function on a WP knows for sure. See also Hosokawa Fujitaka and http://wiki.samurai-archives.com/index.php?title=Hosokawa_Fujitaka. I had wondered why there was nothing on the Siege of Tanabe and I was going to add something on it myself. I am glad I did not. Hosokawa Yoriyuki and http://wiki.samurai-archives.com/index.php?title=Hosokawa_Yoriyuki (Note "costing an asset" was changed to "caused an asset," whatever that means.) Stone-turner 01:11, 1 November 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment: I tried listing the above 3 articles at Wikipedia:Suspected copyright violations. Maybe that will work.Stone-turner 01:30, 1 November 2006 (UTC)
    • The discussion here is doing the same thing, so listing it there will do nothing more. ···日本穣? · Talk to Nihonjoe 02:16, 1 November 2006 (UTC)
      • I've removed the AfD tags from Hosokawa Fujitaka, Hosokawa Tadaoki, and Hosokawa Yoriyuki: you shouldn't add new articles to an AfD unless you started that AfD, and you didn't start this on. Also, you suspect them of being copied from the "samurai wiki" section of samurai archives, which isn't the same thing as the larger concern in this debate. In fact, according to the history link on those articles, they were created on the Samurai Wiki in September of this year while all the articles on Wikipedia are older. Our articles aren't copyright violations: theirs are (since they are not licensing the info under the GFDL.) Mangojuicetalk 13:05, 1 November 2006 (UTC)
        • I've gone and made sure there are attributions on that site to Wikipedia in these articles, and raised this as a general issue. Hopefully they'll change their site to a GFDL license. Mangojuicetalk 13:27, 1 November 2006 (UTC)
          • Mangojuice. Check the user who added the Hosokawa bios to wikipedia. Yep. Same user who stole the rest of the above. Look at the Samurai Archives site (biographical dictionary). You will see them on the site. Members of the Samurai Archives have been copying and pasting that work into the SamuraiWiki, which is OWNED by Samurai Archives. Therefore, you just claimed that Darin Fidika had original work concerning these biographical entries that have been on the Samurai Archives site, copyrighted 2005. I see a major problem there....Do you know why wikipedia articles are older? Because Darin copied and pasted them from the Samurai Archives site months and months ago, while the SamuraiWiki is a new venture, where the old S-A information is being transferred over. I would know...I've been a part of the transfer. So that would be great if you could remove that information you just added. In case you don't believe me, check the Samurai Archives detailed update log. Here is a copy of pertinent information: " 01-15-2000 -Added descriptions for Hattori Hanzo, Hosokawa Fujitaka, and Goto Mototsugu". That's older than wikipedia. Nagaeyari 13:38, 1 November 2006 (UTC)


MangoJuice, you should be ashamed of yourself - I just saw this string. Those articles you claim came from wikipedia came from the samurai archives main page, what was originally called the "famous Samurai" page, which I then personally moved to the samurai wiki. Those articles have been up for years. You are again proving that wikipedia has been stealing from me. Here is the main page, first online in early 2000: http://www.samurai-archives.com/warrior.html

These biographies, which have been online at the samurai archives for at least 6 years, were the ones that have been recently moved to the samurai wiki. Since I own the copyright, I have full right to move them. I research Japanese resources, I would never even consider taking any of the worthless information from wikipedia, as most of the info on wikipedia is here by my or my associate, by proxy. These are the original articles that you 'claim' were taken from wikipedia, when the reality is, they have been on my website for 6 years, researched by me and my associate:

Also, here are the original battles, also up for at least 5 years, take a look at any matching wikipedia entry, I assume that they will be similar, because my site has been gutten and raped by wikipedia for years, mostly without attribution:

This is what happens when wikipedia is lax with its standards. It gets me accused of stealing my own work. I am drafting a letter to wikipedia's legal representative now, so do me a favor and leave up all of these articles that have been tagged for deletion, so that the lawyers will be able to see the violations when they get my letter.--Kuuzo 18:09, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

    • Yes, I have been corrected in my mistake by Nagayeri. My response to him was, basically, oops. I acknowledge that the material in question is clearly not stolen from Wikipedia, more like the other way around. I was simply going on the assumption that the history link on one of those particular files on the Samurai wiki was the true revision history of the file there, but that was false, so I apologize. As I said to Nagayeri, I am happy to assist in deleting ALL of these copyright violations once the AfD comes to a close. In this case, I had some evidence that I was mistaken about, and I apologize for that, but it was an honest mistake. (I would have amended my comments on the Samurai wiki too, but I've been blocked there, so I guess I can't.) Truly, this is not so much a failing of Wikipedia as it is an example of the nasty consequences of copyright violations in the first place. Mangojuicetalk 18:29, 1 November 2006 (UTC)
  • Look, mangojuice and everyone else. I am sorry if I come off as beligerent and angry. But, frankly, I am. I and my associate worked our asses off for 3 years researching and translating to put together the Samurai Archives, and now someone has the gall to tell me that I'm stealing my own work. I think you can understand the position that puts me in. I truly appreciate all the people here who have fought for me. I just want these articles off wikipedia. I am willing to eventually go in to wikipedia and contribute- and if you look at my contributions, I in fact have made a few contributions in the past, but I absolutely have to protest when our work is stolen wholesale and not even attributed. I am perfectly fine with having my work used as a resource among many, in fact I would be honored that my website could be one contributor among many (a term used here before, I see), but I protest my work being stolen. Again, Mango et all, I apologize for my tone today, but I think you can understand. --Kuuzo 18:24, 1 November 2006 (UTC)
    • I for one totally understand. Darin himself has even made some comments suggesting that he will help adjust the contents to address this issue; see User talk:Darin Fidika. In fact, your response to this leads me to change my own vote here to a strong delete; this situation is way past the point of being unacceptable. Mangojuicetalk 18:29, 1 November 2006 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../a/r/t/Wikipedia%7EArticles_for_deletion_Abe_Katsuyoshi_1961.html"