Talk:FL (programming language)

Regarding the content deletion, I noticed that a fair portion of the article was word-for-word copied from a PS file it linked to (except that, IIIRC, a couple of examples were changed). I didn't have time to thoroughly check it, and thought (perhaps mistakenly) that if I put it on the potential copyvios page, someone else would before they deleted the article. I then forgot about it. I really didn't expect the entire article to disappear of the face of the planet. If what I did was wrong, then I apologise for it. Is the original article still in the database for admins only or something? A good portion of it was still (I think) okay. Of course, maybe it wasn't, and it was honestly all copied. —Felix the Cassowary (ɑe hɪː jɐ) 14:23, 1 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

It's quite possible that the issue here was an over-eager admin. Also note that the (perhaps redundant) external links I tacked onto this stub article might have the original content. The answers.com link, for example, credits wikipedia.org as its source. The postscript file might be the one you had noticed earlier.

I doubt that copyright is an issue if the postscript file in question is the one I linked to and/or if the original material was much like what I see in the other external links. Mathematics gets special mention in international copyright law, and judging from the other external entries there wasn't enough copied material to be much of an issue. That said, it is a good idea to give credit where credit is due. RaulMiller 14:55, 1 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Ah well. I think that PS file was the one I saw, that or I saw them at once. Sorry bout all this—I suppose you live and learn. I would volunteer to try and re-create the article, given it was partly my fault it was deleted, but um ... I don't really know all that much about it and I really ought to be busy with Uni work... If there's nothing there in a month or two tho, I'll certainly try and fix it :) —Felix the Cassowary (ɑe hɪː jɐ) 15:12, 1 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I've nominated the original article [1] for undelition; you may wish to vote. —Felix the Cassowary (ɑe hɪː jɐ) 14:18, 2 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I've restored the one revision I said I would. It's a perfectly decent stub that can be expanded with a little effort. -Splash^talk 16:21, 7 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

restored some content which is clearly not copyright violation

I've restored content which appeared at answers.com and which was creditted there as originally coming from wikipedia.org, and which does not appear in the postscript document. I searched for each sentence individually by looking for the major terms in the sentence as well as obvious variations. However, please note that I do not have a working implementation of FL, and so I cannot be certain that the bits of code I posted are syntactically correct. RaulMiller 20:28, 7 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

That site, like hundreds of others, copies Wikipedia's content quickly after it is posted. That is part of the reason we blank pages when they have copyright problems. That it credits Wikipedia doesn't mean anything about originality in this case. What it does mean is that it is verbatim identical to the previously deleted article, apart from some bits of wikimarkup. This means it has the same copyright problems as before.

I have removed the revisions again, and restored the article to its state after my last edit earlier today. If you can write a good article on this, it'd be great if you did so. It'd be great too if you can expand it just a little. But please don't restore the original text again. Thanks. -Splash^talk 21:04, 7 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]