User talk:Duk/Archive5

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Contents 1 Wikipedia:Article rescue contest 2 205.222.240.2 3 VVAW 4 Thanks 5 Steven Chu 6 Pheasant 7 reply from user: 195.131.172.165 8 Re-usability of Falcon V 9 Copyvio and derivatives, in Winter Soldier Article 10 Hi again 11 Copywrite and fair use 12 you are a gentleman 13 How to lose friends and alienate people 14 Trashing your work 15 Read... 15.1 Derivative works 15.2 Redux 1 16 Fair Use on Jimbo's Talk page 17 What Happens to History 18 Specs 19 "Pickles" 20 Uploaded New Image 21 Admin nomination 22 My RFA 23 Thanks! 24 Copyvio baloney 25 I need to apologize to you 26 DYK 27 Some advice 28 Ok 29 Thank you 30 Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Halibutt

[edit] Wikipedia:Article rescue contest

I'm writing to tell you the contest has begun and will take 3 weeks. Since you've shown interest, I thought you'd like to know. You'll be pleased to know copyvio rewrites will be included. - Mgm|^(talk) 16:08, 1 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] 205.222.240.2

205.222.240.2 (talk • contribs • page moves • block user • block log)

Hi Duk!

I'm a bit concerned that blocking a shared IP for six months might be a bit... drastic. Sometimes shared IPs are used by a number of legitimate users who have created accounts and such blocks affect them as well. Any thoughts? Sjakkalle (Check!) 14:09, 3 October 2005 (UTC)

You are right, this is a little drastic. Check the block log and contribution history for more information. If you would like to revise this block, go ahead - I won't mind. --Duk 14:16, 3 October 2005 (UTC)

OK, from the block log I see that Shanes blocked it for 48 hours first, and when that one expires the IP will be unblocked, even the six month one. I know, vandals using shared IPs are a real pain. Who invented shared IPs in the first place? Sjakkalle (Check!) 14:18, 3 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] VVAW

Thanks for the thorough explanation. TDC has been known to use copyvio to fudge his POV, for example at the WSI article, which I sorted out simply by removing the exised points. I disagree with the notion that any post-vio edits constitute a "derivative work" particularly if such is in areas not directly in question. But I understand that limiting such is good policy and forces attention on the vio issue. After looking at the history, this should have been a WP:RFAR / WP:3RR, and if TDC was simply and properly removing the copyvio sections, then the page should have been protected, and the WP:DR process instituted. This is all the more true, IMHO, if as you say nobodys wanted to touch it. -St|eve 19:52, 3 October 2005 (UTC)

I have not been using Copyvio as a way to “fudge” my pov. The specific copyvio’ of this anon have been addressed by several other users, including myself to no avail. This was not a grey case, as I documented in talk the copyvio’s were blatant and constituted large sections of the article.

And speaking of which, this is the new version compared to the one just before the Copyvio tag was put up. [1]. TDC 14:25, 13 October 2005 (UTC)

I've merged the text from the /Temp page into the main article space. Thank you for your attention to the matter. 165.247.200.208 19:16, 13 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Thanks

Dear Duk,

Thankyou very much with your message. Looking at it with more consideration I totaly agree with you, thanks for bringing it to my attention about RipRap, as at the time I didn't think of it other uses. Also thanks for picking up on the spelling.

However, what is the purpose of a image tag and how do I categorise my articles?

Many Thanks, Josh

[edit] Steven Chu

It looks like the article was first deleted without any discussion. Would this be accurate? If it was copied under GNU as the history suggests, there was no copyright violation.

There sure was discussion- on [[WP:CP]. The article was copied from a source that was marked GFDL, but Encyclopedia Britannica had published the identical article several years earlier (copyrighted, non-GFDL). The discussion on WP:CP had links to both pages. --Duk 14:33, 5 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Pheasant

Thanks for reverting this. The perpetrator insists on Americanising this, despite the fact that all species of pheasant are native to only the Old World, and the article was written in British English. If this persists, would you consider protecting the page, I'm too directly involved to do so myself. jimfbleak 05:28, 6 October 2005 (UTC)

Thanks again, Jim

[edit] reply from user: 195.131.172.165

Please be carefull adding external links to articles. Adding excessive external links (like your edits to viscosity) might be reverted as spam. Probably a single link would be better. --Duk 17:23, 10 October 2005 (UTC)

Duke,

This 4 links are to 4 different converters/conversion tables since viscosity itself breaks into dynamic and kinematic... --User with static IP of 195.131.172.165 :)

[edit] Re-usability of Falcon V

Per the payload user guide, the second stage is not reusable. I've pulled an edit that suggested it was. - CHAIRBOY (☎) 21:27, 13 October 2005 (UTC)

You are confusing the Falcon I with the Falcon 5. SpaceX says both stages od the Falcon 5 are designed to be reusable, see[2].--Duk 23:06, 13 October 2005 (UTC)

Whoops! You're right, I did. Thanks! - CHAIRBOY (☎) 05:10, 14 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Copyvio and derivatives, in Winter Soldier Article

Please have a look when you get a minute or two.[3] TDC 19:52, 20 October 2005 (UTC)

While you are at it, could you please take a look at the article General Intelligence Directorate? Please note in this version of the wiki-article from August, there appears the line:

"Technical Support Division, responsible for production of false documents, communications systems supporting clandestine operations, and development of clandestine message capabilities."

Does it look similar to this content from this copyright protected website here?

"The Technical Support Division is responsible for production of false documents, communications systems supporting clandestine operations, and development of clandestine message capabilities."

In fact, it seems quite a bit of the content in the article is directly derived from this website. The edit history shows that the article was tagged as a possible Copyvio last month, but TDC swapped a few words around and reinstated the article. Does this seem proper to you?

Also while you are at it, could you please take a look at the article Massacre at Hue? Please note there appears the following paragraphs in this wiki-article:

"In November 1974, when a documentary film produced by South Vietnamese reporters about the Tet Offensive was shown to an American audience of more than 200 US Army officers in Fort Benning, Georgia, almost no one in the audience had ever heard of the full details of the atrocity. Many afterwards said that had they known the savage slaughter at the time, they would have acted differently while serving in Vietnam."

"Since April 1975, the Vietnamese Communist government has moved many families related to the victims out of Hue City. Some people in the city, however, still commemorate them every year. Because the people are mingling the rites with Tet celebrations, Communist local authorities have no reason to forbid them."

With the exception of a few words shuffled around, do they not look strikingly similar to these lines from the copyright protected website here?

"When a Tet Offensive documentary film by South Vietnamese reporters was shown to the American audience of more than 200 US Army officers in Fort Benning, Ga. in November 1974, almost 90 percent of them hadn't been informed of the facts. Many even said that had they known the savage slaughter at the time, they would have acted differently while serving in Vietnam."

"Since April 1975, the Vietnamese Communist regime deliberately moved many families of the 68-massacre victims out of Hue City. People in the city however, still commemorate them every year. Because the people are mingling the rites with Tet celebrations, Communist local authorities have no reason to forbid them."

I could cite many similar instances. Should these articles be blanked because of these cut-n-paste transgressions by TDC? Do they constitute copyright violations in their present form? Since you've been dealing with copyvios lately, I figured I'd ask your opinion. 165.247.213.210 09:03, 22 October 2005 (UTC) Before I post them, and other similar examples, on WP:CP I mean. If there is a way to retain valuable information while avoiding the blanking of whole articles, that would be great. I'd rather not add to your case load if at all possible. 165.247.221.190 20:17, 22 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Hi again

Hi, sorry to go off the handle with you--I jump to conclusions and am often wrong--sorry--it comes from being marginalized--I appreciate the info on the copyright argument

In regards to "talking behind your back" I will tell you everything I say to anyone to your face. This is what really bothers me about Americans, and I try as much as socially possible not to do the same. Travb 22:07, 21 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Copywrite and fair use

Fair use says "Fair use makes copyrighted work available to the public as raw material without the need for permission or clearance, so long as such free usage serves the purpose of copyright law, which the U.S. Constitution defines as the promotion of "the Progress of Science and useful Arts" (I.1.8), better than the legal enforcement of claims of infringement."

See [4] for further information.

"RULES OF THUMB FOR COURSEPACKS

The Classroom Guidelines that were negotiated in 1976 can provide helpful guidance and we recommend that you read them. 1. Limit coursepack materials to

• single chapters
• single articles from a journal issue
• several charts, graphs or illustrations
• other similarly small parts of a work. "

from [5] illustrates the principle of extracting part of a work being covered by fair use.

The New York Times itself quotes others.

"Copyright protects the particular way an author has expressed himself; it does not extend to any ideas, systems, or factual information conveyed in the work." [6] therefore a quote that essentially lists facts isn't even covered by copywrite in the first place.

Wikipedia primary servers are in the US.

While it would be nice to have no legal complications, the rich in this world are seeking to own everything including math equations (which is what software patents are).

Don't help memes that block the free flow of information. Help memes that promote freedom. Fair use is one such doctrine, law and meme. WAS 4.250 00:48, 22 October 2005 (UTC)

Hi Was, I'm glad to see someone is reading up on fair use. You should also read wikipedia's fair use policy (WP:FU). It is a litte more restrictive, and specific to our uses, than the stuff you quoted. Among other things, attribution is required. --Duk 01:29, 22 October 2005 (UTC)

Hi Duk, I argue that instead of deleting things, we find the source of things and add footnotes to the items, as I did in the Winter Soldier Investigation, and at H5N1. TDK spent a good amount of time finding the source of these articles, just to (what appears) to delete it. (Please mention this to TDK, if you feel)Travb 01:44, 22 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] you are a gentleman

You are teaching me how to be a gentleman Duk.Travb 01:40, 22 October 2005 (UTC)

See link: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Travb#copyvio_argument

[edit] How to lose friends and alienate people

You are not going to like my comments. I hammered you on the winter soldier talk page, and got chastized by WAS 4.250 for it. WAS 4.250 had some really good points.

I am going to lay off of wikipedia for a couple of weeks maybe.

When I first started to use wikipedia, about a month ago, I thought it was the most wonderful thing ever created, but since then I realize that their two types of people I simply can't get along with:

• People like TDC who destroy information because it does not fit their ideology
• People like yourself and Splash who actively destroy information of all types, for whatever reason.

(again, please let the whole world know about this message if you wish)

[edit] Trashing your work

Hi. I am a professional software developer. I'm probably one of the best in the world - or at least in the top 3%. One of the things I've learned is that the best thing you can do for your project sometimes is to delete the whole thing and start over!

What took a week to write, can be rewritten from scratch in half a day, usually. And it's often twice as good as what was lost - like if you didn't make back-ups and your hard drive crashed.

I'm not saying we should go around Wikipedia randomly deleting articles, just that in the case of WSI it probably will be no loss if we do just that: start fresh, with no disputed passages, no POV violations, no "copyvios". Start from a core version that everyone can agree with, and move on from there.

I'd even like to see the 4 paragraphs I left this afternoon trimmed even smaller, if you like. But let's get a tiny, indisputably OKAY core version hammered out by Sunday, okay? Uncle Ed 01:06, 23 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Read...

Talk:Winter_Soldier_Investigation#Removing_content_versus_fixing_content as well as Talk:Winter_Soldier_Investigation#Fair_use before you revert mass chunks again. If you find a copyvio sentence, delete that sentence and that sentence ALONE. Honestly, Wikipedia's position on this cannot be more clear of copyvios. The only reason to delete an entire article is iff the entire thing is a copyvio. Thanks Sasquatcht|c 04:37, 23 October 2005 (UTC)

You are flat out wrong. Read the instructions for dealing with copyright violations on WP:CP. Articles get reverted to the pre-copyvio verstion, not only the remove the copied text but to remove the possiblity of derivative work that occurred to, and in relation to, the copied text. --Duk 04:43, 23 October 2005 (UTC)

I believe that is refering to large chunks of copyrighted text. Right now, you're only pointing out a few sentences that can easily be reworded without too much trouble. In fact, find those sentences for me and I'll do it myself. I'll even footnote if you want it that bad. If you read Wikipedia:Copyrights carefull you will not that "If some of the content of a page really is an infringement, then the infringing content should be removed". Followed by "If all of the content of a page is a suspected copyright infringement, then the page should be listed on Wikipedia:Copyright problems and the content of the page replaced by the standard notice which you can find there." which makes it clear the you only list on CP when there are large chunks that are copied. Please do reconsider calling me "flat out wrong" before re-examining evidence. Sasquatcht|c 04:51, 23 October 2005 (UTC)

Also see m:Avoid Copyright Paranoia. Sasquatcht|c 04:53, 23 October 2005 (UTC)

And there's one comment I don't quite understand, that being "remove the possiblity of derivative work that occurred to[sic]". It is perfectly fine to base judgements off copyrighted work (i.e. to derive stuff from it). So there's absolutely no problem in basing a section off a copyrighted page as a summary of that page or an analysis of that page. Could you clarify that? Sasquatcht|c 04:56, 23 October 2005 (UTC)

Okay, now your getting a tad rude my friend. Saying "I am flat out wrong" is not very nice at all. Frankly, if you opened your mind a little and read that stuff, you can see all the evidence supporting my evidence. And don't patronise me on Wikipedia policy thank you very much. Again, reconsider the stuff i wrote and add a rebuttal. I quoted from Wikipedia:Copyrights directly which is actually the master page in dealing with copyright issues. Again, all you've cited is one page while I cited the ACTUAL policy page as well as a meta page discussing it. Sasquatcht|c 05:02, 23 October 2005 (UTC)

I did look at your comments and all you asked were more questions. While copyright law clearly states that using a few sentences is okay (although I prefer to reference them). Again, Wikipedia:Copyrights says... well, i've quoted it above. so why are you asserting that I have a problem with the policy when you seem to disagree with it too. Sasquatcht|c 05:18, 23 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Derivative works

Okay, so what is a derivative work? I read a bit about it and basing a movie off a book would be a derivative. But how is taking facts and restating them really derivative? If your more familiar clarify what constitutes a derivative and what doesn't on Wikipedia. It would be absurd to require all the stuff on Wikipedia to be completely original as they have occurred elsewhere. Also, there is the whole issue of fair use but I won't dig into that. Sasquatcht|c 05:05, 23 October 2005 (UTC)

• sigh* alright, I'm going to start rewriting. Are all the problems mentioned on the talk page? Sasquatcht|c 05:42, 23 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Redux 1

I have rehashed the offending section that I am aware of. If you know of any more problems, make note of them on the talk page and I will fix them. Sasquatcht|c 06:10, 23 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Fair Use on Jimbo's Talk page

Just wanted to let you know that I moved the entire Fair Use discussion from Jimbo's Talk page to the Wikipedia talk:Copyright problems page.

Cheers! -- Mwanner | Talk 16:41, 26 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] What Happens to History

What happens to an article's history, i.e. WSI, when it gets rolled it back? There is, yet again, another argument over what went where and when [7]. TDC 21:26, 26 October 2005 (UTC)

(answered on TDC's page)

[edit] Specs

The ASTM specs. are partially inapplicable to that table. The table is ISO 898-1 and SAE J429. I think it would be good if you or I remove the ASTM specifications. --Simian, 2005-10-28, 00:14 Z

(OK, i did)

[edit] "Pickles"

In one placement on my talk page you said you noticed that I put "Pickles" on the List of nicknames used by George W. Bush, I didn't do that so you're confusing me with somebody else I have never been on that article before. Patricknoddy 6:59 AM October 30, 2005 EDT

Wow, your talking about a note I left on your page fourteen months ago? (did you think the note was only two months old?). And, yes, you did edit that page [8]. Best regards, Duk 16:51, 30 October 2005 (UTC)

I think that you didn't look at the user name correctly. Patricknoddy 4:00 PM November 1, 2005 EDT

[edit] Uploaded New Image

Hi Duk; not been on for a while. I have just uploaded a scanned image of a personal item, from my own collection:-

Please could you check to see if I have put on the correct copyright info, so as to stave off any comeback or copyvio claims. I would also appreciate your 'experienced' feedback on this new website:- [9].Richard Harvey 17:14, 30 October 2005 (UTC)

• Duk; Yes! I own the badge, the scanner and have a Licenced copy of the software used to do it with. The badge wasn't photographed, with a camera it was put on the scanner direct. I scanned it myself then edited it to enhance the image. So I guess I own the copyright which I release as per the tag I put on it. I will add the extra info as advised.

As for the Website, It took a lot of work, a lot of time and the regiment, or I, own the images. I tried to keep all the gallery images low in size but high in quality to speed up loading, especially the audio and video clips. Thanks: Richard Harvey 18:02, 30 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Admin nomination

Hi there. I certainly appreciate your offer, and your kind words. Having seen some recent votes on WP:RFA, I'm suspecting I won't get the votes given the current standards, but I'm willing to risk it (and it's no big deal if I don't get it.) So if you'd like to nominate me, I'll certainly accept. Thank you! --Bob Mellish 01:22, 31 October 2005 (UTC)

• I've added my acceptance and answers to my RFA. Thanks once again! --Bob Mellish 04:15, 31 October 2005 (UTC)

• Hi again. Well, as you know I got through, so perhaps I was being too pesimistic above. Thanks for nominating me, keeping an eye on things, and that well-timed email to WikiEN-L. Cheers! --Bob Mellish 19:17, 7 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] My RFA

Thank you very much for supporting my rather contentious request for adminship, but now that I've been promoted, I'd like to do a little dance here *DANCES*. If you have any specific issues/problems with me, please feel free to state them on my talk page so that I can work to prevent them in the future, and thanks once again!  ALKIVAR™ 07:54, 8 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Thanks!

I just wanted to thank you for your support of my RfA which finally passed! I greatly appreciate it! Ramallite ^(talk) 04:28, 9 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Copyvio baloney

I looked at those links and I'm not seeing any obvious copyright violations -- unless you're claiming use of individual words violates copyrights. No, your knee-jerk blanking and paper-thin excuse told me all I needed to know about the intellectual honesty -- or lack thereof -- of TDC and your "copywrite violation" [sic] campaign battle.

I'll try to remember to pass along your note to Ed Poor, though: I'm sure he'll appreciate your calling him a liar. --Calton | Talk 01:28, 10 November 2005 (UTC)

Carlton, I'm sorry you left such an angry note on my talk page. I hope we can talk this through.

• First, can you show me where Ed claims I tagged as a copyvio an article he re-wrote from scratch. If he really said this I'd like to talk to him about it, because it's not true.

All right, I misremembered the "from scratch" part, for which I apologize. On the other hand, you blanked the ENTIRE page, despite, as Ed Poor put it in his very next edit, The first 4 paragraphs, having been written largely by me, can not posibly be considered a copyright violation. So I stand by my "knee-jerk" characterization.*

Ed_Poors words: "The first 4 paragraphs, having been written largely by me, can not posibly be considered a copyright violation."[10] "having been written largely by me" is not "from scratch" but "almost from scratch"

And the paragraphs that he didn't write were riddled with copyvios that are still showing up to this day. --Duk 14:22, 11 November 2005 (UTC)

The page languished for over a year with huge amounts of copyvio material because nobody would do anything about it. The copyvios weren't removed until I steeped in and got serious. When a copyvio showed up I tagged the dam page until someone fixed it. It's that simple. --Duk 16:07, 10 November 2005 (UTC)

It is much funner to be the editing cop then the editor huh?

As I've said before, I've only edited this page to deal with copyvios. --Duk 14:22, 11 November 2005 (UTC)

Sasqatch: "Oh.. My.. god... go fix it... you're really good at complaining about problems, I get it. But please do try to fix some of the problems... I mean.. that's all I ask of you.. really.. that's it. Thanks."

Sasqatch didn't even know that derivative works were copyvios until I explained it to him. --Duk 14:22, 11 November 2005 (UTC)

• Second, I gave an example of the copyvio that you said didn't exist on requests for arbitration. The example I gave is one of many you can find if you take a good look at the article's talk page and archived talk pages.

No, you gave a link to a diff on my Talk page and made the sweeping claim that this diff was a priori evidence of a copyvio. To be ACTUAL evidence of a copyvio, there should be, at minimum, some text to compare or reference to the thing being copied, so one can see if it's so. You did no such thing, merely presenting a diff and waving your hands wildly, crying "See? See?"

please re-read my response above, the example I gave was on requests for arbitration. Also, if you carefully read through the talk pages and archive you will find many, many more. --Duk 16:07, 10 November 2005 (UTC)

• Finally, you've all but accused me of a political agenda here. Carlton, I've resolved thousands of copyvios, but have almost no politically oriented edits (if you'd care to look). Politics aren't my thing, they don't interest me. I assure you that I have no political agenda whatsoever regarding this article.--Duk 03:11, 10 November 2005 (UTC)

Walks like duck, etc. Your unflagging nitpicking of copyright issues on this particular article -- and your out-of-policy complete blankings for many, at worst, minor violations, makes me think otherwise.

• That's right, thousands of resolved copyvios and pretty much no political edits, that's the kind of duck I am. As far as nitpicking and page blanking with a copyviotag, this page was an exceptional problem for over a year because nobody would do anything about it until I stepped in. The unpleasant characters and name calling probably had something to do with scaring away anyone interested in cleaning up the mess.

• As far as out-of-policy actions; read the instructions on WP:CP for resolving copyvios. Pages are supposed to be reverted to the pre-copyvio version (this eliminates the possibility of derivative work copyvios). I did not enforce this during the last few times a copyvio was found, instead letting people just edit the copyvio out. This was lax on my part, the opposite of nitpicking and kneejerking. However, none of the editors on this page would do _even that_ until they realized that the alternative was a copyvio tag. Again, this page was a copyvio disaster for over a year, and nobody would do anything about it until I started enforcing the copyvio tagging. --Duk 16:07, 10 November 2005 (UTC)

Of course, if you don't have a political agenda, maybe it's just that you're not very good at what you're trying to do.

Other way around, I'm very good at resolving copyvios. This page is, for the most part, copyvio free for the first time in over a year :-) --Duk 16:13, 10 November 2005 (UTC)

*Oh, and speaking of lack attention to detail, might I point out that my name is, and has always been, Calton, not "Carlton"? just like it says in my sig, just like it says at the top of my User Page in big bold letters, just like it says in the header on the Arbitration page. No "r" in the name. None. See over to the right, there? ---> --Calton | Talk 07:57, 10 November 2005 (UTC)

sorry, this was not intentional --Duk 16:44, 10 November 2005 (UTC)

Against my better judgement, but out of courtesy, which I promised to you before, I wanted to mention that I mentioned your name again on my talk page. Travb 02:30, 11 November 2005 (UTC)

Because of my better judgement, I have decided, a half hour later, to remove you from the arbitration. I don't agree with your copyvio, but you do it in such a way that it is within current copyvio rules.Travb 03:50, 11 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] I need to apologize to you

As you know, I have been digging deep these past two days for evidence about the arbitration. I found that I was wrong, that you seem to be apolitical in this revert war. I still disagree with your copyright zeal and how you apply the copyrights in a heavy hand way to the winter soldier page. That is my opinion, and I would rather not discuss it anymore. But I don't think you have a political motivation. I believe your statment now:

i've no interest in this article other than trying to resolve old copyvios[11]

I apologize for my accusation otherwise.

When I came to wikipedia just over a month ago, it was from frontpagemag.com, and I was used to insults etc. More than anyone, you have made me become more civil here. For that I thank you.

We will probably butt heads again, but I felt like I owed you an apology.Travb 06:57, 11 November 2005 (UTC)

Thanks. --Duk 23:54, 11 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] DYK

Did you know? has been updated. A fact from the article Bull Run Hydroelectric Project, which you recently created, has been featured in that section on the Main Page. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the "Did you know?" talk page.

[edit] Some advice

I'd appreciate some advice on The Kinks (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs). In January, Painbearer (talk · contribs) inserted a large amount of material plagiarized from their AMG biography. This went unnoticed until about two weeks ago, when it was listed on WP:CP. While the article has since been edited such that I can't find any phrases of more than a half dozen or so words that are still exactly replicated from AMG, a close read shows that much of the article is still a directly derived work.

Bgruber reverted to the pre-copyvio revision, per the guidelines on WP:CP, when he listed it there; Painbearer immediately reverted back. When I started working the copyvio backlog, I also reverted to the pre-copyvio version, and Painbearer again reverted back, and pledges to continue doing so.

My specific questions are:

1. Is this amount of infringement worth worrying about?
2. If so, how would you suggest dealing with this user? I don't care if he ends up hating me, but I'd rather not have to deal with this every day for weeks on end.

If you reply, I'd prefer that you did so only here, instead of on my talk page where he's (more) likely to see it. —Cryptic (talk) 00:01, 14 November 2005 (UTC)

Thank you for the advice in this matter, and especially for the backup. It wasn't my intention to drag you into the situation, too. —Cryptic (talk) 17:10, 16 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Ok

I will change the copyvio information in the article with other words, so that there is no problem with the copyied info anymore and no problem with any kind of guides or thinks. I don't think that "much of the article" is "exactly derived work" and I think that you are exaggerating this, to nail me down. Nevertheless, I assure you that when the final output is on, there won't be no problems with copyvio anynmore.

Best regards: Painbearer 08:49, 14 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Thank you

Just wanted to drop by and thank you for taking the time to respond to my RfA. .:.Jareth.:. ^babelfish 16:27, 15 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Halibutt

Since you have supported me during my RfA, I wonder if you could review and comment on the RfA for Halibutt, the first person I have nominated myself. There seem to be a heated debate and votes of experienced, unbiased editors would be appreciated. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus ^Talk 17:12, 19 November 2005 (UTC)

templates substituted by a bot as per Wikipedia:Template substitution Pegasusbot 08:10, 26 March 2006 (UTC)