Thread:Ducksoup/@comment-1370845-20141008093929/@comment-406947-20141009112949

Nobody's asking for a redirect with credit to the original author of a page (what's there to credit, a redirect is just a pointer to another page). Nobody's disputing that it's fine if content is moved or copied elsewhere. Of course we assume good faith, and I don't have any reason to believe that OluapPlayer not giving me attribution was anything other then a good faith mistake. What you said about how we discuss what that modification was and if it was better is true but beside the point, what I said about the license was in reference to lack of attribution only, not to the merge or deletion of the redirect. Weather to merge that article and weather to leave a redirect are content issues, not license issues, and discussing what those modification were and if they were better was exactly what I intended to do. Put another way, the mistake was not to merge the article or to delete the redirect, that's just a content disagreement to be discussed like any other, the mistake was to not give attribution. You're preaching to the choir.

I'm not sure what you mean by my protectiveness or by me taking it this far. I posted two messages to OluapPlayer's talk page, not counting the messages that were in response to Technobliterator, and the responses to Technobliterator (or at least the 2nd and 3rd responses) were much more about trying to resolve the misunderstanding then they were about lack of attribution. Perhaps we've had a bit of a misunderstanding ourselves, if you think I was using the lack of attribution to object to the merge itself (or something). Yes I did send a message to the staff, but that too was much more about trying to resolve the misunderstanding then about lack of attribution. It looked like Technobliterator didn't believe what I was saying about attribution, so I thought that if a staff member could confirm that what I said was true, and not just some BS I was using to attack OluapPlayer over the merge, the misunderstanding would be cleared up. I was pretty baffled and I wanted some help resolving the misunderstanding. At the time I hadn't quite realized that Technobliterator thought I was assuring some right to prevent other's from editing my work. And anyway, this wasn't a licensing spat, this was a spat over what Technobliterator thought was an editor who didn't want to let other editors touch his edits.