Talk:Repair cycle

Explanation of reversion
The first section of this article has clearly been copied straight from |long-established version of "Spare part", so it seems likely that the rest has been copied from other articles too. This is not the way to write a Wikipedia article, as it copies other editors' work without attribution. See WP:COPYWITHIN Pam  D  20:37, 23 September 2012 (UTC)
 * This article contained content that was no longer appropriate at spare part, but was appropriate to an article about the repair cycle. I don't know how to properly attribute such changes, but would be glad to do so.  Any differences between this article and the original at spare part originated with me, as a way to make the content more appropriate to this article.  I am surprised that my attempt to be relevant is being "used against me".  I don't think that squares with "Assume Good Faith".  In fact, almost all of the content on spare part is also of my origination, so the attribution question is largely one of attribution to me, to which I don't care.  As I mention above, I would like to attribute properly, but don't know how.  Please advise.  70.247.162.84 (talk) 20:01, 30 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Spare part has a long edit history with many editors contributing. (It may be that a lot of the different "IP" addresses are all the same person, but this isn't clear.) The link I gave above explains about the need to attribute when copying within WP.  Please read it and do as it says  - eg use the copied template to identify the sources of the copied material. I have reverted for now.  Pam  D  21:39, 30 September 2012 (UTC)