User talk:Mikeguth

Talk:Eugene Guth/Temp

I think I need to point out what my actions were with respect to Eugene Guth article. On January 8, I discovered that it's a suspected copyright violation,[1] but seeing that the article had been posted by subject's son and understanding that the matter is sensitive I placed appropriate notices in the article and on your talk page, instead of going for outright deletion. Sadly, you have managed to produce nothing more than this personal attack. After revisiting the article on January 30 I found that a replacement written by Bduke was ready, so I moved it in place of the article. Several days later, you show desire to review my contributions. This looks like retaliation, really, I don't like it at all. Who's biased?

As for your questions about my particular training, you should read who Wikipedia:Administrators are. And well, someone has to process WP:CP anyway. Conscious 07:11, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

First, a comment to Conscious. I asked administrator User:Blnguyen, to move the temp copy I wrote into place and he told me he had done so on January 15th. I recall seeing it in place, so I do not know what went on. I did not realise that you were an administrator.

Bduke 08:04, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment to User:Conscious. You state that "I placed appropriate notices in the article and on your talk page, instead of going for outright deletion." That is outright lie! Any user searching for the article would have found the outrageous copyright violation and no content. That is tantamount to a deletion. You acted in December, not on Jan. 8, and you DELETED the article without any notice to me. Your behavior was appalling.

You are correct that I want to see content that you personally wrote. I am confident that you do not have any original ideas of your own, and everything you contribute is indeed a copyright violation. Accordingly, I intend to scrutinize all of your writing on Wikipedia and have any content removed for copyright violations. When you learn you can't write any content without violating copyrights, then maybe you will exercise a little more self-control when you go around sniping at and cutting down other people's work.

Finally, I believe it is COWARDLY for you to hide behind an anonymous name so that you can take pot shots at people and their writings but don't suffer any consequences.

Comment to User:Bduke. I have followed your suggestions with respect to shortening the article on my father. I put in the GNU open source material notice at the bottom of my father's home page. I have really gone out of my way to accommodate your requests.

Mikeguth 16:04, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No, you are wrong. I have deleted the article only once, on 30 January, to make way for move from the temporary page. All my actions are logged, see [2]. Indeed, on 8 January I have replaced the page with the copyvio notice, as recommended at WP:CP#Instructions. This was not a deletion, but a reversible action preserving all the page history. To say I did this with no notice to you is also wrong [3].

I also think you will have a hard time finding any copyright violation made by me, but if you find one, feel free to point it out. Conscious 17:21, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Treat my requests as coming from the Wikipedia community. One of those rules is that material from talk pages is not removed to keep the discussion current. If you want to do that, you start a new section at the bottom and at some point the user will archive the material above. However boring the discussion, its history should be kept. It is also convention that user pages are the responsiblity of that user. You may visit and add material, but you are a guest. Thus, if you remove material from your talk page, here, I will not remove it, but if you remove material from my talk page I will revert the change. I am now seeing the GNU open source material notice at the bottom of our father's home page.

Regarding your comment to Conscious, you are both wrong and rude. Clearly you do not understand copyright. Wikipedia is not for "original thought" but to document material of others which is notable (WP:N) and verifiable (WP:V) and sourced (WP:RS). Doing that is not a copyright violation. Wikipedia is not for original research - see WP:OR. Take care and best wishes. As far as I am concerned this matter is now finished. --Bduke 20:57, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Guth Picture

Mr. Guth:

Is it necessary to link your father's picture to so many others with no personal or professional connection?