IDK whether I am allowed to respond here. Strike me if not. But this is not copyright violation. I replied on the talk page and on my talk page.
It's clearly a false positive interpretation of copyright violation when her works (metadata grabbed elsewhere), alma mater, job titles, dates, and parentage are most of the hits on Earwig. I could change "she became the first woman..." to "Seymour was eventually the female adult who did it before any other female adults..." and "national society of readers and writers" to "writers and readers" or perhaps to "country-wide organization of the literate and those who produced content for them". This is not meant as snark--I'm just trying to show the challenges of rewording basic biographical statements. Thank you. Compulsive Researcher (talk) 15:35, 8 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Due to the bad faith accusations and suggestions of punishing me for reviving a recently-deleted page in my userspace (which I did to bring the article up to the admin's snuff), I request direct communication on my talk page and elsewhere only from other admins, not the one above. Why don't we focus on the content rather than how terrible of a human being I must be, OK? Compulsive Researcher (talk) 21:31, 8 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
