User talk:Purple Watermelon
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Contents |
[edit] Please join
| WikiProject Debating Invitation |
|---|
| Dear User, WikiProject Debating is inviting you to join as a participant. This special project attempts to standardize coverage of regional and world debate related articles. If you would like to participate, please join us from the following link WikiProject Debating. -- Niaz bd 15:24, 12 August 2007 (UTC) |
[edit] Berlin Debating Union
This is an automated message from CorenSearchBot. I have performed a web search with the contents of Berlin Debating Union, and it appears to include a substantial copy of http://www.debating.de/node/9. For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or printed material; such additions will be deleted. You may use external websites as a source of information, but not as a source of sentences.
This message was placed automatically, and it is possible that the bot is confused and found similarity where none actually exists. If that is the case, you can remove the tag from the article and it would be appreciated if you could drop a note on the maintainer's talk page. CorenSearchBot 04:55, 25 August 2007 (UTC)
- The opening two very generic sentences were largely - though not word for word - copied from their website. This hardly constitutes a copyright infringement.) Purple Watermelon 04:59, 25 August 2007 (UTC)
- When two of an article's four sentences are largely copied from another website, that is copyright infringement. I have no objection to you recreating the article, provided you write it in your own words and explain why the group is notable. If you could include citations to reliable sources to confirm notability, that would be great! -- But|seriously|folks 03:18, 26 August 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Controversey surrounding Erskine
I created one of those pages, and I don't think your POV is more valid than mine. In any case, the info is referenced, and is no more biased than any criticism surrounding him. Don't edit it again thanks, rather go to the talkpage, and if you can build consensus to remove it, we'll see won't we...JJJ999 05:58, 10 October 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Controversey of AUDC
Looks like you're up to your usual tricks of claiming to be seeking consensus, then rounding up partisans. Time to AfD this thing with actual 3rd parties yet?JJJ999 (talk) 07:29, 19 May 2008 (UTC)
