User talk:Nayyurc

Welcome!

Hello, Nayyurc, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your messages on discussion pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask your question on this page and then place {{helpme}} before the question. Again, welcome! Span (talk) 10:44, 10 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

List of cases of penis removal‎

Hi, Thanks for your additions to List of cases of penis removal‎. Wikipedia prefers English Language sources if you have them. Do you have any for recent additions? Best wishes Span (talk) 20:36, 28 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Afd

I request you participate in the Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of cases of penis removal as you have contributed to the article before.Bunser (talk) 20:32, 9 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

November 2011

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 3 days for exceptionally inappropriate personal abuse, including the addition of outrageously inappropriate images to other users' talk pages.. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions. If you would like to be unblocked, you may appeal this block by adding the text {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}, but you should read the guide to appealing blocks first. DGG ( talk ) 02:22, 13 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Copyvio

It is critically important that if there is copyvio in the article, you confess it now with either this Nayyurc account, or your Karfks account. Since you admitted to being the same person, it doesn't matter If you confess, provide examples. If you do not confess, I will check it, if you do confess and don't provide examples, I will still chkeck for it, etc. Every single copyvio from a different source reprsents a lawsuit wikimedia foundation may face, so do it as soon as you see this. User:Bunser/Copyviolations on articles Bunser (talk) 20:55, 18 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Seeing that Spanglej deleted massive amounts of references while keeping the content, your work will be quite difficult.....Bunser (talk) 21:18, 18 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't know what copyvio was until you just told me now. Most of the list was copyviolation in the beginning, also most of the chinese language citations were copyvio then, since they were direct translations from google translate, with only a few sentences cut out. Spanglej modified a few by rewriting, but only about five to ten of them, for the rest, here merely cut out sentences, leaving the rest of the material still copyvio. The chinese language ones were put together by copying and pasting specific points from the article, then directly translating on google, only correcting minor grammatical errors that arise in machine translation. I will say that the majority is copyvio, with the rest close paraphrase, covering.

And You have compiled several examples already, do you really need me to do more?Nayyurc (talk) 22:36, 18 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

And before I even started editing the original Penis removal article, there was copyvio already on the list then, because some of the cases, like the Li Gengbao case were copied directly from the source.Nayyurc (talk) 22:38, 18 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

How about giving me a straight answer, I will ask the question very specifically- are the majority- over 80% of the cases- in the list copyvio? And are over 90% of the chinese language ones copyvio? just say yes, if that is true. I have analyzed multiple english language ones, and found a ton of copyvio. I have taken looks at the chinese language ones, and all i see are sentences copied from the citations. It is critical that the copyvio content be removed. That means the article has to be deleted under copyvio process, not AFD. Otherwise I think that copyviolaters accounts are terminated by police if they are found out. This is not just a simple matter of unencyclopedic material or vandalism, its about potential legal ramifications.Bunser (talk) 23:04, 18 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Take a look at Wikipedia:Criteria for speedy deletion and WP:Copyvio, and WP:Close paraphrase. Read closely G12 and the part about "history is unsalvegably corrupted", and G7, where an author can request removal of the article if the majority of content was only added by him. If these are the case, I will inform a copyvio admin rather than go through AFD. If the majority of the article was direct copyvio, both when you created it, and right now, then I request you to discuss application of G7 with the admin whom I inform. Because that "List" represents a barrage of lawsuits from news agencies and publishers, since its full of copyviolations.Bunser (talk) 23:11, 18 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You should confess if you own the other account which edited extensively on the list, User:Edmallars. and verify it. Because that would mean that the majority of the content was added by you, and we don't have to tangle other users into this copyvio mess. And any other account as well.Bunser (talk) 23:22, 18 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You should also consider G7, it would avoid alot of mess. We would appreciated if you considered choosing that option.Bunser (talk) 23:25, 18 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

straight answer- When I created the original List of cases of penis remova article, it was full of copyvio, and I copied directly from the sources. As of now, after all the other editors did their grammar fixes, punctuation fixies, and template fixes, and after Spanglej rewrote only a few- its still full of copyvio, the majority of most content copied from the sources. Spanglej, for the most part, only shortened the entries, and did not rewrite them. My other accounts, as you know the first is Karfks, and Edmalarrs (you spelled ir wrong), and Fernandi. So I did create most of the content of the page, other users additions consisted of only two or three cases, the rest of other users edits were template fixes, grammar and spelling fixes and adding images.

In conclusion , yes then G12 does apply and the history of the page is "unsalvegably corrupted", I created most of it. And yes, most of the article at present is still copyvio, and all of the previous revisions of the page are 90-99% copyvio.

Seeing as I originally created the article as a prank, I knew that the content was innapropiate, and not proper for wikipedia, but I created it as a joke to see how long it would last before it got detected and deleted, by including large amounts of cases from asia as a joke, and use the article for humour by posting links to it on other forums. I only knew it was inapropiate content, I did not know anything about WP:COPYVIO, what copyvio was, or that it wasn't allowed, or the severe legal problems with it. I will give permission under G7 to delete the article if it applies, and now that I know of the severe ramifications of copyvio, I agree to have it deleted under any other circumstance. In short- yes- most of the article is copyvio.

PS- the content I added about the filipino in taiwan on several other articles is also a copyviolation, you can check it out and remove it. otherwise I did not edit other articles, I mostly edited this List of penis removals.Nayyurc (talk) 02:00, 19 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I confirm that I am Nayyurc.Fernandi (talk) 02:01, 19 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]