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]
I do not know whether this will be read, as the page is from weeks ago and it seems the other items of the day were resolved. I have blocked WP on all but one browser and I may block it on this browser after I post this. I just saw that the article has been deleted due to CSD G7.
I want the record of my time here to note that I did not ask for the article to be deleted. I asked that the linked blank draft in my userspace be deleted because I was uncomfortable db-authoring that page when edits related to that userspace page were viewed as so problematic. I think it was a simple misinterpretation of my request for help ("it" linked to my userspace's blanked page where I'd attempted to progress on the issue, not to the article in the mainspace). My words have been misinterpreted elsewhere in this experience and such has contributed to escalation of the situation, and maybe it'll do so here again, but I want the last word on me to be as accurate as I can make it.
The article would best be restored to the revision before it was deleted, with the copyright violation notice, and the eventual attention of the copyright violation editors or perhaps the removal of a few sentences and the use of revision delete could take that woman in red again to woman in blue, or perhaps to a draft, so another WiR editor would not need to repeat some of the work already done when there are more women in red who could be addressed with their valuable time, but that is not my call and is perhaps a better posting for WiR than it is here.
Article cleaned, revision deletion requested. Sennecaster (Chat) 02:13, 15 June 2023 (UTC)
Revision deletion completed. Copyright problem removed from history. MER-C 16:32, 15 June 2023 (UTC)
Article deleted for a reason other than copyright concerns. WP:CSD G7 per CR at AN. -- Tamzin[cetacean needed] (she|they|xe) 02:30, 11 June 2023 (UTC)