Talk:Car dealer auctions

message: * verision [] was essentially copied from 
* external references are not used inline
* a single user, no longer active, has defended removal of these references to merchant circle blog advertisement for a company, modtobidia
* after accounting for plagerised content, no meaningful content would remain. JetheroTalk 04:09, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I disagree that this is an advertisement: the article provides information about a somewhat hidden, non generally known part of the used cars market and is usefull. External links have rel="nofollow" atribute so the online magazine gets no pagerank credit. The article survived a VFD, it is definitely not for "speedy". --5ko 14:48, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  speedy deletion 

message: * I just noted that I quoted the wrong version in my first reference. the history indicates that the material was added to wikipedia as the first revision of this page in august, 2006 , not november as I claim above. JetheroTalk 03:50, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  wrong date in my posts above 

message: * Do all three of us agree that it is important that whomever reads this article will NOT have immediate concerns about copyright violation, when they checks the references or do a web search for some of the text? JetheroTalk 04:57, 19 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree: if it was the case, this discussion wouldn't have started. I wrote a better line that explains it, if it can be improved, it should. If you have doubts about this, you may contact the person at Motobidia and have an response if he is really the same as Cfherbert. See also User talk:Cfherbert. --5ko 07:55, 19 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Good. Is the statement "The article, in it's original version, was reprinted in edited form with permission from What Kind of Vehicles Are Sold at Dealer Auctions? by Motobidia.com" seems to imply that the article originated at MerchantCircle. However, this is the chronology as I can see it:
** posted on Wikipedia, '22:55, 12 August 2006'  by Cfherbert
** very similar article posted in MerchantCircle, 'Posted 11:16 AM September 23, 2006'  by Motobidia
** very similar article posted in EzineArticles 'October 14, 2006'  by Chris Herbert / motobidia
** very similar article posted in ArticleCity, October 2006  by Chris Herbert
** 22 other postings of a very similar article on a varierty of webpages between October 26, 2006 and now. (I am assuming that all of these are inconsequential duplications of some earlier work)
* Does the order of publication above suggest that the line 'reprinted with permission from' is no longer accurate?
* If the link to MerchantCircle is not a reference to a source of information, and is not a reference to the original document, should we remove it? JetheroTalk 01:06, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

text:  I agree on this point too: your research indicates that the article was first published here and later to Merchantcircle. If that is the case, it is inacurate to link to Merchantcircle as a reference (this may bring back the WP:OR issue if any unclear statement is not backed up by a verifiable source). --5ko 02:05, 20 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Can we agree on this? 

message: * 5ko, can we also assume WP:AGF and WP:DBN on behalf of someone new trying to improve the quality of a wikipedia as well as new authors of content?  Please don't assume I'm being abusive, as some of your responses and version comments seem to imply, (it's always tricky with text communications).  These policies apply just as well to someone trying to maintain quality as it does to someone trying to add content.  It was because the db-copyvio didn't request that I blank the page that I first selected that template, thinking it was more friendly than copyvio.  Then later when it looked more like a copyvio, it was partly because of the false-alarm clause that I felt the copyvio template was appropriate and not too extreme.
:: WP:AGF: "This guideline does not require that editors continue to assume good faith in the presence of evidence to the contrary." I would AGF, if you have not blanked the page the second day, while a discussion had started, and if you have not told me that only admins can remove a db-* template which is absolutely incorrect. You blank the page, and put templates with "This item is unquestionably a copyright infringement" when it unquestionably is, and this was not the case -- at worst it was questionable (we were 'able' to 'question' the editor), it appears that it may be not a copyright infringement at all. I am glad though that the discussion continues without you re-blanking the page and shouting for Speedy again. --5ko 08:12, 19 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Can we assume good faith?