Wikipedia talk:Articles for deletion/Depression and natural therapies (2nd nomination)

Second creation of Treatment of depression

 * Note also that Treatment of depression plagiarizes much of this material which has been copied by means of cut/paste in violation of the GFDL. Colonel Warden (talk) 00:22, 23 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Excuse me? What exactly is a "cut/paste in violation"?  I believe you're referring to WP:MERGE. --Ronz (talk) 14:29, 23 August 2008 (UTC)
 * See WP:CUTPASTE. Colonel Warden (talk) 14:35, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

This is simply harassment. Please stop. --Ronz (talk) 14:48, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

The article was a rename per discussions. Colonel Warden choose to ignore consensus, not participate in any of the discussions concerning the rename, and instead reverted all edits associated with the rename. Rather than reverting Colonel Warden's disruptive edits, I choose to make a new article which in effect is nothing more than a merge. Your misrepresentation of this is disruptive and harassment. --Ronz (talk) 23:53, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

It seems that you still don't understand. You are proposing that the article Depression and natural therapies be deleted. Material from that article has been cut/paste into Treatment of depression. This is a breach of copyright which violates the GFDL which is the basis of our work here. This technical point is significant in arguing against the AFD proposal. Your continued action of trying to suppress my argument is quite improper and if you continue to do so, I may ask to have you blocked for disruption. Consider how it would be if other editors started deleting statements which they did not care for - the AFD would be chaos. You must allow other editors to make their points freely. Colonel Warden (talk) 00:04, 27 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Thanks for finally responding.
 * "Material from that article has been cut/paste into Treatment of depression" Please stop misrepresenting the situation.  Thanks! --Ronz (talk) 00:27, 27 August 2008 (UTC)
 * "This technical point is significant in arguing against the AFD proposal." How so? --Ronz (talk) 00:46, 27 August 2008 (UTC)
 * When an article is deleted, its contribution history goes with it. The record of our contributions is our recompense for the effort of writing these articles.  This is one reason that deletion is tightly controlled - editors may not be lightly deprived of their notional wages.  Colonel Warden (talk) 00:53, 27 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Excellent point. It's a technicality that needs to be made clear.  The POVFORK needs to be deleted - that is still the consensus of all the discussions.  The edit history and talk page discussions are useful to retain, though mostly just the talk page discussions. --Ronz (talk) 01:53, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

POVFORK
I'd like to see some discussion on how the article is or is not a POVFORK. The only editor that has commented in this AfD besides myself is Sardaka, who created the article. --Ronz (talk) 18:01, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

Use of talk page

 * Discussion of your deletion proposal takes place on the main project page. This talk page is redundant to the main AFD discussion and the talk page for the article itself and you cannot expect any response here.  I shall be moving my comment above back into the main discussion where it belongs.  Colonel Warden (talk) 23:32, 26 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Topics not relevant to the deletion discussion should be moved to the talk page. In addition, I've tried to start a discussion on POVFORK issues. --Ronz (talk) 23:55, 26 August 2008 (UTC)