You blanked an entire article except the lead. You did not identify issues. You reverted it 3 times in about an hour. You blamed me for your choice to blank the entire article. You blanked sections I never did not edit. Does not seem like "good faith". Why would you blank sections did not edit? Why did you never create a talk topic to discuss the issue? AgntOtrth (talk) 14:42, 20 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Hey, AgntOtrth – can we be totally collegial on the wiki? I truly mean you no harm. I would enjoy being your wiki friend (or on your coaching team). That being said, I can't birddog and mop up your ubiquitous copyvios. I make lots of mistakes but I try to mop them up or learn from them. Or, let somebody fix it for me.
I expect that soon your efforts will be inscrutable and that your skills will exceed mine ten-fold.
We are required to set the {{copyvio}} template via substitution without alteration. For some reason they do not let us pipe-in of the detail you are asking for.
You know more easily than me which of your content edits are copy/paste, close paraphrasing, or unattributed quotations. It would be easier for you to just go undo it all on your own. More later. Take care always. Cheers!{{u|WikiWikiWayne}} {Talk}16:23, 20 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I question whether you want to be collegial. You attacked me from the start. You went to my user and said me edits were terrible. I repeatedly ask for clarification on what the offending edits were; you did not provide any guidance.
As to whether you are acting in good-faith, you posted "You know more easily that me which of your content edits are ... ". Seems like you are saying you blanked an entire article without a sufficient review.
Again, you blanked an entire article, saying the entire article is riddled with my violations; but you blanked parts that did not edit.
Also, you posted on the talk that "we can quickly rewrite in our own words and unmask it." The tone and your conduct suggest you sought to exclude me entirely from rewrite. Yet I am the only one making and effort to rewrite on the temp page.
I have been collegial with you, you have repeatedly accused me of conduct with little to no evidence. You have attacked me on my user page. I question whether you are acting in good-faith, and I question even more if you want to collegial toward me - your conduct suggests you do not. AgntOtrth (talk) 19:41, 20 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I only reverted the removal of the {{copyvio}} template. That is not an actionable reversion, as the copyvio template text clearly says only admins, clerks, etc. may remove the article's template.
I'm not going to wikilawyer with you, nor defend myself, going forward. I will only talk about solutions, going forward.
I really would enjoy being on your team. We all bring something to the table. Let's go to email. Take care always. Trying to have fun. Cheers! {{u|WikiWikiWayne}} {Talk}16:35, 20 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@WikiWikiWayne: are you really doing this over one sentence? Because that seems to be the only violation you've identified, and for that, this is clearly excessive when you could've remedied the issue yourself or simply removed it. Elli (talk | contribs) 15:14, 20 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, Elli – No. Sorry if it's coming off like that. Please assume good faith in me. It's the whole page that has vios, except the untagged part. This is not personal. It's chronic. We have discussed their content adding style a little. There is much warring that they constantly insist we must only use sentences or words that are contained in the attached inline citation. They do not consider that sources are also general and holistic, and the article must be in our own words. They're a newbie SPA editor, so if they're here in good faith they'll stop with the copyvios and reverting to copyvios, and insisting that we must copyvio too. I'm hitting this from a new angle just now at content dispute resolution. I mean them no harm. Maybe you can gently coach them? Or, figure out a way to handle this hot mess. I want to heal, not harm. Hit me back if this reply is muddy. Thanks for asking. Take care always. Cheers! Wayne {{u|WikiWikiWayne}} {Talk}16:10, 20 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@WikiWikiWayne: thanks for clarifying and sorry for my initial tone here (upon re-reading my message it's definitely not up to my standards of how I wish to interact).
As to the article... what a mess. This is going to be a very difficult rewrite, and dealing with this seems very frustrating. I'm happy to help, but I'm not up for doing a full rewrite but given the nature of the violations, not sure what else could be done. Elli (talk | contribs) 16:24, 20 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Yo, Elli. Thanks. I feel on thin ice about reverting anything. I'm encouraged that you acknowledge the big picture. I would have been fine too if you had schooled me on how I was off my ass about the vios. I left the lead because it had no vios. But, today, a vio was added and I'm not safe reverting content, so I set the tag as a codicil to the big tag. I don't blame AgntOtrth for the whole article, but the whole article is riddled with their chronic and cocksure vios. Since the lead's vio is discrete, AgntOtrth can fix it quickly and easily, move on, learn from it, and not conflate it with the issues of the big tag vios. They have the ammo and chops to restore this article to goodness. Take care always, and if I'm ever off base, I can take the heat and man up. I am blown away by your self awareness too, and your immediate repreparations. Kudos and wikihugs. Cheers! (prefers the pronoun Wayne as that's his IRL name). {{u|WikiWikiWayne}} {Talk}16:49, 20 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Article cleaned by investigator or others. No remaining infringement. I don't think it's worth revdelling 4.5 years of history, especially considering how much activity is on it. Sennecaster (Chat) 23:57, 27 March 2023 (UTC) Sennecaster (Chat) 23:57, 27 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
No vio found, claim cannot be validated. Tag removed from article. Wasn't even tagged in the first place. Sennecaster (Chat) 23:22, 25 March 2023 (UTC) Sennecaster (Chat) 23:22, 25 March 2023 (UTC)
Article deleted due to copyright concerns. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 18:56, 27 March 2023 (UTC)
Revision deletion completed. Copyright problem removed from history. @C1K98V: In the future, you can use {{cv-revdel}} to request revision deletions instead of listing here. Sennecaster (Chat) 23:23, 25 March 2023 (UTC) Sennecaster (Chat) 23:23, 25 March 2023 (UTC)
Article cleaned by investigator or others. No remaining infringement. I don't think it's worth revdelling 4.5 years of history, especially considering how much activity is on it. Sennecaster (Chat) 23:57, 27 March 2023 (UTC) Sennecaster (Chat) 23:57, 27 March 2023 (UTC)
