Article The Great Explosion at Faversham listed on WP:VFD July 1 to July 7 2004, consensus was to delete. Discussion:
CONSENSUS REQUIRED 7 DAYS EXPIRED... Faedra 23:55, 1 Jul 2004 (UTC) (Above comment by Faedra copied and pasted from vfd mainspace Graham ☺ | Talk 00:15, 6 Jul 2004 (UTC))
Faedra listed this for VfD, but didn't leave a reason. Looks like it was manually copied from a book. I can't get any Google matches on the text. - Lucky 6.9 19:34, 24 Jun 2004 (UTC) Addendum: This was originally on Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Old, but lacked consensus and thus has been moved back to VfD. Johnleemk | Talk 09:17, 30 Jun 2004 (UTC)
- (not a vote) Discussion on Talk:The Great Explosion at Faversham suggests Faedra believes it's a copyvio, but it was Faedra who uploaded it. We can't proceed - Faedra either needs to decide it's a copyvio, and list it on the appropriate page, or needs to come up with grounds why it should be deleted by the VfD process (where non-copyvio deletions are covered). -- Finlay McWalter | Talk 19:40, 24 Jun 2004 (UTC)
- It gets weird, now. Check out Faversham munitions disaster/temp. Same user. There's a copyright notice at the top of the page. No Google hits, though. For that matter, no wikis and lots of misspellings. - Lucky 6.9 23:41, 24 Jun 2004 (UTC)
- There's some sort of copyright message on User:Faedra page that I don't quite get. Is he posting copyrighted material, and then working on de-violating it once its up? Maybe he's putting up the copyright notice to let people know he's not finished??? Joyous 00:47, Jun 25, 2004 (UTC)
- All no google hits means is that google's spiders have not found it, which should not be a surprise if it has never appeared on the web, which can be said to be true of practically all non-notable twentieth century works. I'm betting this is the work of a professional writer, and the material constitutes a copyvio, but because it was never electronically transliterated, who knows for sure? I'd like to say keep, because it's interesting and well-written, but my instinct says it's too clean to be true. I vote delete, and let's follow the debate. Denni ☯ 06:55, 2004 Jun 25 (UTC)
The location of a website containing the source for the main body my wiki pages (at this time) resides temp. at my user page. Initially I had wished to remove some of my contributions as I saw them as superficial to an encyclopaedia, I have chosen to rework them because of positive feed back on this page, my copyright notices are self explanatory. I am a careless speller, and I am not a professional author, having not made a shilling on my work, which is why I was initially concerned for my copyright, hence the need to rework everything I have submitted before I continue with new material.
NB THIS PAGE: (VfD) URGENT: I find this page unwieldy, and hope someone can sub divide it into a page for each week or set up a frameset with shortcuts. This contrib. does not help in that regard, but I hope clarifies my desire to present the community with unproblematic content at the same time preserving my original content, still under construction, and with copyright problems unresolved. phew! Faedra 17:58, 26 Jun 2004 (UTC)
- It's a little less unwieldy if you put your comments on the Template page instead of using the section edit feature. Rossami
End discussion
Article The Great Explosion at Faversham listed on WP:VFD July 1 to July 7 2004, consensus was to delete. Discussion:
CONSENSUS REQUIRED 7 DAYS EXPIRED... Faedra 23:55, 1 Jul 2004 (UTC) (Above comment by Faedra copied and pasted from vfd mainspace Graham ☺ | Talk 00:15, 6 Jul 2004 (UTC))
Faedra listed this for VfD, but didn't leave a reason. Looks like it was manually copied from a book. I can't get any Google matches on the text. - Lucky 6.9 19:34, 24 Jun 2004 (UTC) Addendum: This was originally on Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Old, but lacked consensus and thus has been moved back to VfD. Johnleemk | Talk 09:17, 30 Jun 2004 (UTC)
- (not a vote) Discussion on Talk:The Great Explosion at Faversham suggests Faedra believes it's a copyvio, but it was Faedra who uploaded it. We can't proceed - Faedra either needs to decide it's a copyvio, and list it on the appropriate page, or needs to come up with grounds why it should be deleted by the VfD process (where non-copyvio deletions are covered). -- Finlay McWalter | Talk 19:40, 24 Jun 2004 (UTC)
- It gets weird, now. Check out Faversham munitions disaster/temp. Same user. There's a copyright notice at the top of the page. No Google hits, though. For that matter, no wikis and lots of misspellings. - Lucky 6.9 23:41, 24 Jun 2004 (UTC)
- There's some sort of copyright message on User:Faedra page that I don't quite get. Is he posting copyrighted material, and then working on de-violating it once its up? Maybe he's putting up the copyright notice to let people know he's not finished??? Joyous 00:47, Jun 25, 2004 (UTC)
- All no google hits means is that google's spiders have not found it, which should not be a surprise if it has never appeared on the web, which can be said to be true of practically all non-notable twentieth century works. I'm betting this is the work of a professional writer, and the material constitutes a copyvio, but because it was never electronically transliterated, who knows for sure? I'd like to say keep, because it's interesting and well-written, but my instinct says it's too clean to be true. I vote delete, and let's follow the debate. Denni ☯ 06:55, 2004 Jun 25 (UTC)
The location of a website containing the source for the main body my wiki pages (at this time) resides temp. at my user page. Initially I had wished to remove some of my contributions as I saw them as superficial to an encyclopaedia, I have chosen to rework them because of positive feed back on this page, my copyright notices are self explanatory. I am a careless speller, and I am not a professional author, having not made a shilling on my work, which is why I was initially concerned for my copyright, hence the need to rework everything I have submitted before I continue with new material.
NB THIS PAGE: (VfD) URGENT: I find this page unwieldy, and hope someone can sub divide it into a page for each week or set up a frameset with shortcuts. This contrib. does not help in that regard, but I hope clarifies my desire to present the community with unproblematic content at the same time preserving my original content, still under construction, and with copyright problems unresolved. phew! Faedra 17:58, 26 Jun 2004 (UTC)
- It's a little less unwieldy if you put your comments on the Template page instead of using the section edit feature. Rossami
End discussion