Talk:Muar State Railway

Contested deletion

I'm not exactly sure what the problem is with this article. The entire page was rewritten with a basic understanding of the sources, and was created with minimal blatant copying. It didn't help that nobody else assisted to explain how it's a "copyright violation" or to improve phrasing in the article. Care to clarify? - Two hundred percent (talk) 11:36, 24 October 2011 (UTC)

• It's a word for word copy of http://www.malayarailway.com/2009/08/muar-state-railway.html. andy (talk) 12:36, 24 October 2011 (UTC)

I'm not fully convinced. While it is clear that this page matches the cited source, that source doesn't appear to be an official site, but may be the personal site of a fan. It may well be that there is a reverse copyvio. User:Two hundred percent, do you have any knowledge of that page and why it matches the text in the WP article?--SPhilbrickT 13:45, 24 October 2011 (UTC)

If the date on the website address is anything to go by, I would had written this article a full year before that website article showed up, and if I recalled, I created the Wikipedia article on the main namespace well before that too (feel free to check the deleted edits of this article if you need to). - 60.49.108.118 (talk) 13:59, 24 October 2011 (UTC)

• Well, there's a copyright notice at http://web.malayarailway.com dating back to 2008. The Malay text seems to indicate that some of the material is copyrighted by third parties. Ownership generally is claimed by the blogger. So I dunno. andy (talk) 14:10, 24 October 2011 (UTC)

• Looking at the original deletion notice in 2010 I think the article was wrongly attributed to another editor, now blocked for persistent copyvios. So reverse copyvio seems quite likely. Examination of the history of the original article (which I can't do) should resolve it. andy (talk) 14:12, 24 October 2011 (UTC)

Frankly, I'm disappointed that Wikipedia editors were able to allow this to happen in the first place. If a mere failure to check dates can happen with this article, various other legitimate articles may have been deleted from this misunderstanding. Wholesale copying from Wikipedia is a very common practice among plenty of local bloggers who are incapable of writing on their own. - 60.49.108.118 (talk) 14:36, 24 October 2011 (UTC)

You're a wikipedia editor too. This is a collective effort by a group of well-meaning amateurs, not a professional publication. andy (talk) 14:40, 24 October 2011 (UTC)

Was a WP editor, mind you; I'm only back to settle a couple of things from my sandbox. The point is the ability to spot chronological discrepancies is a very basic skill that any editor should have when judging whether an article contains copyvio. It's true I managed to help clear matters in this case, but what about the many other articles that I don't know? Are they going to be deleted unfairly because editors have no attention to detail? - 60.49.108.118 (talk) 17:44, 24 October 2011 (UTC)

60.49.108.118, I see it differently, instead of being disappointed, I'm encouraged. WP, very appropriately, takes a hard line on copyright. We want to ensure that material is not violating copyright. When a page triggers a hit on the detection algorithm, over 99% of the time it is a copyright violation and deserves removal. Despite this high probability and the ease of restoring mistakes, we still add a layer of protection – rather than enabling any editor to delete anything that appears to be a copyvio, we ask one editor to propose, and a second set of eyes to confirm. In this case, I was the second set of eyes, and I saw some things that lead me to ask some questions. They haven't all been satisfactorily answered, but the original tagger, andy, now agrees it isn't clearcut. The article isn't being speedily deleted, it is going through a more deliberate review to determine whether it should remain. . Even if it had been deleted, it wouldn't be the end. I've deleted thousands of articles, and on occasion, make mistakes. In almost all cases, the original editor was unaware of our rules regarding copyright, and the deletion was warranted. In a very few cases, there was a reserve copyvio which I missed, or permission to use the material existed but hadn't been posted, or something similar. In those cases, the editor contacted me, I checked it out and restored the article. It's that simple.--SPhilbrickT 20:56, 24 October 2011 (UTC)

• I've sent this up to AFD for wider review. I'm confident that the editors there will examine the situation and come to the correct conclusion, whatever that may be. causa sui (talk) 18:21, 24 October 2011 (UTC)

Spelling

Is this word spelled openning or opening ? Tabletop (talk) 07:50, 25 February 2012 (UTC)

Both spelling occur in the hundreds of thousands.

www.thefreedictionary.com/opening seems to prefer opening.

Tabletop (talk) 07:53, 25 February 2012 (UTC)