User talk:Edriza

From Wikitravel
Jump to: navigation, search

Unwanted section heading edits[edit]

Please stop changing section headings from ==Unwanted section heading edits== to =='''Unwanted section heading edits'''==.

Every time you do this, someone has to change them back again. There are no circumstances whatsoever where this is necessary, likewise no circumstances where it is permissible. Thanks. ~ 203.144.143.4 09:44, 24 January 2008 (EST)

Copyvios[edit]

Please read the copyleft guidelines (especially the Can content from other sites be used on Wikitravel? section) and if there's anything there you don't understand, please ask.

Is any of the content you're adding not copied from other websites? And if so, exactly which parts? ~ 203.144.143.6 23:43, 24 January 2008 (EST)

Please help me to determine which of your contributions can be kept, and which need to be removed because they are copyright violations. Obviously the last thing anyone wants is to delete everything you've contributed, but to avoid that you need to clarify exactly what you did and what you did not copy from other websites. ~ 203.144.143.4 02:17, 25 January 2008 (EST)
As you're continuing to add copyvio content, I've just reverted [1] all your edits to Klang as everything you've contributed to that article has been copied from other websites.
Please help me to determine which of your other contributions can be kept, and which need to be removed because they are copyright violations. Thanks in anticipation. ~ 203.144.143.4 02:48, 25 January 2008 (EST)
You had erased my original works on ==Do== phrases, and others I shall erase yours.
Not sure what you mean. Can you give me an example? If it was an error I'll be happy to apologise, otherwise I'll do my best to explain why I've made any changes. ~ 203.144.143.4 03:25, 25 January 2008 (EST)
==Do== phrases,in Klang section
You're trying to tell me that some tiny proportion of the content you added wasn't a copyvio, and you're miffed because I deleted it? How would you expect me to know that? Haven't I made every effort to ask you to help me determine which of your contributions are copyvio and which are not, so that the non-copyvio content can be kept? ~ 203.144.143.4 04:29, 25 January 2008 (EST)
And now you're adding MORE copyvios [2]? ~ 203.144.143.4 04:31, 25 January 2008 (EST)

OK, so, can we make a fresh start?

Klang:

I've reviewed the Klang article and as far as I can tell it's now free from copyvios. If you find any copyvios in there, you can delete them, but it's best to mention the source of the copyvio in the edit summary or on the talk page (or, preferably, both). Anything you delete without a reasonable explanation will be put back in again.

Please put your ORIGINAL WORK back in. ORIGINAL WORK is very welcome! - thanks in anticipation.

Other articles:

Any copyvios you've contributed to other articles still need to be removed (so far you've contributed - as Edriza - to Bagan Lalang, Fremantle, Shah Alam, Sungai Pelek, and of course Klang). It would be great if you could remove any such copyvios yourself. I propose to do nothing for a short while and then check back. Then, on an article-by-article basis, if I find copyvios that you've added, I propose to state the source for the example I've found, and then simply remove everything you've added to that particular article. Sorry if this sounds a bit harsh but if you think about it, really it's not. You understand the problem, and it will be a lot easier for you to fix than me, as you know what you've written yourself and what you've copied, and nobody else does.

So in a nutshell: please delete any copyvios you've added, and then the original work you've contributed can be kept.

Cheers. ~ 203.144.143.4 05:57, 25 January 2008 (EST)