Wikipedia:Copyright problems/2017 June 2
- Harold B. Lee Library (history · last edit · rewrite) from https://sites.lib.byu.edu/internal/naslo/docs/selfAssessment.pdf. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 14:30, 2 June 2017 (UTC)
Article cleaned by investigator or others. No remaining infringement. ···日本穣 · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WP Japan! 18:24, 15 June 2017 (UTC)
Rewritten article moved to mainspace. ···日本穣 · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WP Japan! 18:24, 15 June 2017 (UTC)
- Nihonjoe, I'm sorry, but I can't understand exactly what you have done here. If, as seems to be the case, the first copyvio from the source identified by Diannaa was introduced in the hidden edit by Eustress on 14 April 2008, why did you not (a) simply revert to the preceding version, which appears clean; and (b) revdelete all intervening versions so as to remove copyvio such as "ground was broken on September 20, 1996" completely from the history? I'm also, incidentally, a bit confused as to why you would move a text written by a "Coordinator of Wikipedia Initiatives" at the library over our existing article when our COI guideline "strongly discourages" edits to affected articles by such editors. Could we perhaps take a fresh look at this? Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 08:30, 16 June 2017 (UTC)
- @Justlettersandnumbers: "Strongly discourage" is not the same as "forbid". If someone is willing to work within our policies and guidelines, there is no problem with them editing anything here. After all, Wikipedia is the "the free encyclopedia" that anyone can edit. Rachel Helps (BYU) has a long history of working very clearly within the policies and guidelines here, and when advised of issues, she corrects them quickly. She is exactly the kind of editor we want working on articles here. She did not originally create the article, nor did she add the copyvios to it (that would be Eustress, who is apparently retired from editing since late 2014). All of the edits from the beginning to when Diannaa slapped the copyvio tag on it have been revdeleted. If you want to restore one or more of them, feel free to let me know which. ···日本穣 · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WP Japan! 18:34, 16 June 2017 (UTC)
- Thanks for dealing with the revdeletion, Nihonjoe. Clearly I had misread the situation – I thought that versions up to and including the third edit by Eustress were OK. Obviously if the copyvio was foundational you had nowhere to roll back to. Where was the content taken from, by the way, what did I miss? Perhaps if you put a standard {{cclean}} on the talk-page it'd be easier for others to follow your trail, both now and in the future? Thanks, Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 19:02, 16 June 2017 (UTC)
- @Justlettersandnumbers: It was more of a "nuke from orbit, it's the only way to be sure" approach. Going through every single edit and comparing it to various possible origins would have taken far too long. I'm fine with un-revdeleting up to the point you mention if you think things were okay up to that point. Just let me know. ···日本穣 · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WP Japan! 19:05, 16 June 2017 (UTC)
- Thanks for dealing with the revdeletion, Nihonjoe. Clearly I had misread the situation – I thought that versions up to and including the third edit by Eustress were OK. Obviously if the copyvio was foundational you had nowhere to roll back to. Where was the content taken from, by the way, what did I miss? Perhaps if you put a standard {{cclean}} on the talk-page it'd be easier for others to follow your trail, both now and in the future? Thanks, Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 19:02, 16 June 2017 (UTC)
- @Justlettersandnumbers: "Strongly discourage" is not the same as "forbid". If someone is willing to work within our policies and guidelines, there is no problem with them editing anything here. After all, Wikipedia is the "the free encyclopedia" that anyone can edit. Rachel Helps (BYU) has a long history of working very clearly within the policies and guidelines here, and when advised of issues, she corrects them quickly. She is exactly the kind of editor we want working on articles here. She did not originally create the article, nor did she add the copyvios to it (that would be Eustress, who is apparently retired from editing since late 2014). All of the edits from the beginning to when Diannaa slapped the copyvio tag on it have been revdeleted. If you want to restore one or more of them, feel free to let me know which. ···日本穣 · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WP Japan! 18:34, 16 June 2017 (UTC)
- Nihonjoe, I'm sorry, but I can't understand exactly what you have done here. If, as seems to be the case, the first copyvio from the source identified by Diannaa was introduced in the hidden edit by Eustress on 14 April 2008, why did you not (a) simply revert to the preceding version, which appears clean; and (b) revdelete all intervening versions so as to remove copyvio such as "ground was broken on September 20, 1996" completely from the history? I'm also, incidentally, a bit confused as to why you would move a text written by a "Coordinator of Wikipedia Initiatives" at the library over our existing article when our COI guideline "strongly discourages" edits to affected articles by such editors. Could we perhaps take a fresh look at this? Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 08:30, 16 June 2017 (UTC)
- Interactive architecture (history · last edit · rewrite) from https://segd.org/interactive-architecture. (t) Josve05a (c) 19:00, 2 June 2017 (UTC)
- Article cleaned by investigator or others. No remaining infringement. Calliopejen1 (talk) 23:28, 29 September 2017 (UTC)
- Sybil Ludington (history · last edit · rewrite) from https://www.newspapers.com/clip/9001069//. 32.218.35.60 (talk) 20:03, 5 June 2017 (UTC)
- Article cleaned by investigator or others. No remaining infringement. Calliopejen1 (talk) 23:28, 29 September 2017 (UTC)