Talk:Traditional Cambodian medicine

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Alternative medicine, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Alternative medicine related articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Alternative medicineWikipedia:WikiProject Alternative medicineTemplate:WikiProject Alternative medicineAlternative medicine articles

Cambodia

Traditional Cambodian medicine is part of WikiProject Cambodia, a project to improve all Cambodia-related articles. The WikiProject is also a part of the Counteracting systematic bias group on Wikipedia, aiming to provide a wider and more detailed coverage on countries and areas of the encyclopedia which are notably less developed than the rest. If you would like to help improve this and other Cambodia-related articles, please join the project. All interested editors are welcome.CambodiaWikipedia:WikiProject CambodiaTemplate:WikiProject CambodiaCambodia articles

???

This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

Cambodia To-do:

Let us work in the best reference and presentation of archaeological sites of Cambodia beyond Angkor like Sambor Prei Kuk, Angkor Borei (Takeo), etc.

Should disambiguate Republican Party for Democracy and Renewal and generally try to link up social conscience with right-wing values.

I'm looking for the best picture or any informations about the KAF's U-6 (Beaver). It seem that the KAF had 3 aircrafts. But in 1971, during the viet cong's sapper attack at the Pochentong Air Base,at least 1 Beaver was destroyed.In 1972 at leat 1 Beaver was refurbished with a new engine. http://www.khmerairforce.com/AAK-KAF/AVNK-AAK-KAF/Cambodia-Beaver-KAF.JPG

Thankfull for this info. [Unsigned]

This article was submitted as part of the 2016 Wikipedia Asian Month.

Copyright?[edit]

@Diannaa: has recently been obstructive in the publication of this new page.

For documentation I can refer to my personal TalkPage, were things began 22 November 2016.

After this short introduction, let me address the concrete case here, where the action is taking place.

Instead of doing a rewrite of text snippets that Diannaa found to be unacceptable under Wikipedias copyright policy, he/she deleted it. Is that constructive? I say no. Who is Dianna trying to help here? Does this approach benefit Wikipedia in any way? If editors cannot contribute with anything positive or constructive, please spend your time on other things. Simple as that. Everyone is busy, so having many tasks, does not justify careless actions. If you cannot handle a certain amount of tasks, cut out those you cannot handle. Simple stuff.
Anyway, I took it upon myself to rewrite the text snippets, so they would not violate any policies or interpretation of policies. As editor however, I cannot leave out crucial information from a source or a ref of course. That is not part of the copyright policy and that is not how they work. Of course not. Otherwise, sources and references cannot be used at all and everything on Wikipedia should close down immediately. Wikipedia cannot be a self-referencing entity. It is self-evident. I cannot believe I feel I have to explain such basic stuff here.
The new text I wrote up, for this page in particular, was subsequently deleted by Dianna without any argumentation whatsoever. It was just falsely claimed that I had "restored the copyright content" that Dianna found to violate Wikipedias copyright policies. Complete bollocks. Just take a look at this articles history to see for yourself. Oh wait! Dianna has made my work inaccessible!
Now Dianna is threatening me with "being blocked from editing"! Should such threats be tolerated and accepted? Of course not. I am a WP editor and person that spend my time and effort here for free to share what I find to be crucial information with the general public, and then I have to endure this kind of hostility and aggressive behavior? Hell no. I am rightfully getting quite angry here.
A general question: I am struggling to figure out how we editors should react when we encounter this kind of obstructive behavior in our daily work? Should we just bow down and accept other peoples random interpretations of some murky copyright issues just like that and without question? No. Should we accept it again when we actually tries to engage in the issue in a constructive way and spend precious time to please said person? Of course not.

I demand:

an apology from Dianna
that Dianna makes my contributions at least accessible to readers of this discussion, for the sake of documentation
Dianna actively and positively engage in a discussion about the meaning of all this.

RhinoMind (talk) 21:20, 23 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Replied on your talk page. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 01:04, 25 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

No you didn't.

On my TalkPage you just listed some links to the general rules and guidelines for how to tackle copyright issues on Wikipedia. Nobody but you believes there was a copyright violation in the first place. I have - quite loudly and more than once - complained about your judgement, but you didn't care, you didn't even noticed it. In addition to that, you have made the history and documentation inaccessible. That is just outrageous and arrogant to the extreme. Now other people cannot make up their minds about this, even if they wanted or needed to. You have been playing but judge and executor, aspiring to punisher, with disregard to objections. Lastly, you haven't answered any of my questions above. You haven't even made clear that you have read them. I must conclude that you are an abusive administrator, incapable of doing your job in a responsible way. You are destructive in your actions and damaging to the Wikipedia community, terrorizing individual editors and unwilling to enter any constructive dialogue about your own actions. On the basis of that, and if I get the time and the chance, I will see to it, that you privileges are withdrawn from you account. RhinoMind (talk) 15:19, 27 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]