User talk:Shortiefourten/Former communities, company towns, and rail stations in Thurston County, Washington

Plagiarism
I agree that putting this together into one article is a good way to do this, provided you do it right and don't misrepresent what the places are. But you are stealing others contributions by copying and pasting from those articles without doing the proper attribution. Additionally, if any of those originals are deleted, and you copy this to mainspace it might cause other issues. What you should do is create this article in the mainspace and then do a proper merge of the others into it. These are the instructions on how to do this correctly. Merging James.folsom (talk) 23:25, 3 April 2024 (UTC)


 * James.folsom,
 * An accusation of plagiarism is an egregious one. Let's not get combative. I've been patient, understanding, supportive, cooperative, and open to all discussions regarding the GNIS cleanup. I'll ask you to please stop any further accusations.
 * Based on the Merge link you provided, I've done things, so far, rather correctly. It's just a draft, temporary, and not published. I am not done rewriting the potential inclusions because the AfD conversations are not completed. Once consensus is reached, I (others) will naturally rewrite the merged info appropriately. Additional calls of misrepresentation, and that of a failure of attribution, are uncalled for at this point on an unpublished, temporary draft.
 * To clarify more, due to the insistence of the use of 7-day uncontested PROD during the GNIS cleanup, which is geared almost solely towards complete deletion, I am saving the article info (as it is) before they go away permanently. My attempts are merely proactive to guard against the loss of articles and their content due in large part of the writing-on-the-wall : these articles are headed towards removal in some fashion.
 * After consensus is completed, and if a merge/redirect is agreed upon, then those tags and following Merge/Redirect steps can be added and taken.
 * Granted, I could have used the summary tag - Merged content from source page to here. See Talk:merge discussion section. but I felt the GNIS link and subsequent talks about loss of articles was as sufficient - for now. As I clean the page up as consensus is reached, I will, as I have done so in past work, attribute the original material correctly. I suggest you visit my recent edit here - - in case there's AGF doubt about my approach as an editor during these GNIS discussions. I've done a brief attribution summary, a dummy/null edit if you will, for the time being as well as a copied tag on the talk page.
 * But please, let's work together here. I understand this cleanup project is a heavy to-do list for you, but let's be collaborative and not combative.
 * Shortiefourten (talk) 19:50, 4 April 2024 (UTC)
 * Look, I'm sorry that you feel that I'm persecuting you, but I've done nothing that wasn't intended as an effort to keep you out of hot water with the admins. The deletions that you are raging about are being done by editors that are following policy. Your actions in response are violating several policies including the WP:AGF that you are so fond of quoting. You claim that you want to work cooperatively, but your actions demonstrate that will only do so only when it's done "your way". My advice to you is to take a couple deep breaths, calm down, and read about/learn the appropriate ways that you can contribute to wikipedia.
 * Now as to this 7 day deletion thing you like to complain about, it is in fact not "geared solely for complete deletion". For one, nothing is actually ever deleted from Wikipedia, it is simply moved out of the public space. It can be restored at anytime. PROD deleted articles can be restored on request for no reason, as I have explained to you. AFD deleted articles, depending on the circumstances may require filing a formal appeal for restoration. Regardless, your assertion that deletion is favored is patently ridiculous and you would know this if you had any experience with it. You need to understand that PROD doesn't occur in any arbitrary way. The nominator needs to make sure the article should be deleted according to policies. After, it is nominated, it is listed and other editors review it and either agree or disagree. If no one disagrees, an Admin will also review the situation before deleting it. These reviews tend to be very lenient, so anything that actually gets deleted most likely needed to be deleted. PROD is only the first step, AFD follows. AFD is heavily weighted toward keep as well, because editors have to agree in order to delete anything.
 * Regardless your stated intent to preserve this deleted material here is unnecessary, a waste of your time, and may not end well depending on far you choose to push it. James.folsom (talk) 22:17, 4 April 2024 (UTC)