User talk:Dr.K./Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

→

Archive 5

Hendrik wade bode

Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia! We welcome and appreciate your contributions, such as Hendrik wade bode, but we regretfully cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from either web sites or printed material. This article appears to be a direct copy from http://www.geocities.com/neveyaakov/electro_science/bode.html. As a copyright violation, Hendrik wade bode appears to qualify for speedy deletion under the speedy deletion criteria. Hendrik wade bode has been tagged for deletion, and may have been deleted by the time you see this message. If the source is a credible one, please consider rewriting the content and citing the source.

If you believe that the article is not a copyright violation, or if you have permission from the copyright holder to release the content freely under the GFDL, you can comment to that effect on Talk:Hendrik wade bode. If the article has already been deleted, but you have a proper release, you can reenter the content at Hendrik wade bode, after describing the release on the talk page. However, you may want to consider rewriting the content in your own words. Thank you, and please feel free to continue contributing to Wikipedia.

In addition to the basic sin of copy and paste: you got the title wrong - it should be Hendrik Wade Bode where someone, probably you has already tried to post this article three times. You removed a speedy delete tag. You show such contempt for wikipedia that you could not be bothered to format it - you just stuck <nowiki> around it. Bode almost certainly qualifies for a Wikipedia article but we are only going to accept one if someone is prepared to sit down and write one properly in their own words. -- RHaworth 03:35, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

• I properly attributed the article to its source IEEE. Under IEEE policy this article can be reprinted as long as proper credit is given to its source (IEEE). The link you quoted is a copy from the IEEE website. Why bother write an article in your own words when you can have a properly attributed copy from a recognized source. As far as showing contempt for Wikipedia, that's a bit too esoteric since I tried a couple of formats that didn't work, so I tried the unformatted version and it actually looked the best.

Under IEEE policy this article can be reprinted as long as proper credit is given to its source. If that is the case, it should have been stated on the article's talk page, preferably with a link to the IEEE website to confirm the fact. To invert your argument - why bother to copy to Wikipedia when the article already exists on the web? That is the real objection to copyvios. The whole point of writing here is that we can create wikilinks which add such richness to an article - but you seem unwilling to do that. As to format, the state you left it in is horrible - one solid unbroken slab of text - look at other biography articles here and see the difference! I am sorry to sound unwelcoming but I repeat my previous comment, until someone is willing to spend a few hours creating a proper article, it is better to have none at all. -- RHaworth 04:22, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

• I'm not sure why you think that I'm unwilling to create the article on my own. In fact I will attempt to create it in the near future. The reason I copied to Wikipedia is that I was rather disappointed to find out that there was no article on Bode. I thought that rather than finding it on Google, let's migrate it on Wikipedia in order to fill this gap with a properly attributed article, at least as a stopgap measure. However I didn't count on the Wikipedia culture, as well as the article editor that's not so intuitive, not to mention other structures such as the talk page for the article, that I don't really know how they are created or who is supposed to participate in them. Anyway I will submit the article, hopefully soon, and by then I would have succesfully navigated through the labyrinth of the Wikipedia editor.

Excellent. I look forward to seeing what you can produce. To be pedantic, it ain't the editor that is non-intuitive - the editor is so simplistic, there is noting one needs to intuit. I think you mean that wikitext markup is non-intuitive - which I would agree with. Hunt around the help pages - someone may have developed a wysiwyg wikitext editor. Trouble is I came from a programming background and so took to wiki markup like a duck to water - I find it easier than HTML which I write directly for my own web pages rather than using a wysiwyg editor. (One thing you need to learn is to sign contribs to talk pages - but not articles - with ~~~~.) -- RHaworth 05:27, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

Done. Please have a look. Thanks. Tasoskessaris 22:36, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

I guess you must approve. Take care. Dr.K. 22:22, 8 February 2006 (UTC)