Wikipedia talk:Requests for comment/Futureobservatory

I'm not sure a RfC is the best way to deal with this, pointers to better procedures are welcome. I don't know if this would count as a "dispute" since, well, the user has not responded, but kept on editing in (what I consider) a troublesome way.

I put a notice on the copyright violations list: Copyright problems/2006 April 28, but there wasn't much of a reaction. Also, I felt something should be done fairly quickly, before there are too many pages to be examined/reverted. Flammifer 04:19, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

Although it is easy to use at the top level, one of the problems of Wkipedia is that, when you get into a complex debate such as this, its structure can leave users such as myself unclear as to what is happening. I have tried to sort out the questions a number of times, and thought I had been successful several times, but they keep popping up elsewhere. As my database of material runs to several million words - including a published encyclopaedia of my own - it is inevitable that I will have a fair amount to say. I had hoped that my additions, all of which are academically legitimate might be welcomed. In fact I have found even where there is stub asking for expansion my contributions have been reverted.Futureobservatory 16:06, 14 September 2006 (UTC)
 * From a quick look at the Compaq and IBM PC edits it's mainly a problem of not spending enough time getting a feel for the "house style" of Wikipedia before plunging in. The stuff on your site is legit reference material which we can reference, but it can't be just cut and pasted into Wikipedia by you - because of style/tone, not copyright concerns.


 * I'd encourage you to persist, but contribute newly written text, encyclopedic in tone and complementing the existing article - and referencing not just your own book and site. --Snori 20:21, 16 September 2006 (UTC)