Talk:Llanllwch: Difference between revisions

Content deleted Content added

Inline

Revision as of 22:00, 11 September 2009

Wales C‑class Low‑importance

	Wales portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Wales, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Wales on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.WalesWikipedia:WikiProject WalesTemplate:WikiProject WalesWales articles
C	This article has been rated as C-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

this is breach of copyright in the several places I checked

original sources

cors goch: http://www.welshwildlife.org/attachments/Reserves/Handbooks/Carms/CORSGOCH.PDF

church: http://stmarysllanllwch.webeden.co.uk/#/our-history/4533613368

manor: http://www.churchinwales.org.uk/parishholding/david/d203-en/history-en

too much evidence of problems to just strike out individual sections - whole article needs rebuilding from scratch from known original work —Preceding unsigned comment added by Data added (talk • contribs) 03:55, 10 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I have addressed the copyright violation issues by editing the article. If you believe there is still content here that violates copyright, please rewrite it or raise it here so that others can do so. Thanks.--Michig (talk) 13:35, 11 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I thoroughly disagree with the latest reinsertion of the material which I recently removed again. What has been reinserted is all the way through material from the original source with the most minimal of rewording. If you want to insert *facts*, then fine, but be aware that there is no golden rule about complete sentences as such, but rather a principle that work which "exhibits a degree of labour, skill or judgement" is subject to copyright, at least in UK law. When paragraphs show up on Wikipedia with what is, roughly speaking, the same sequence of facts as in the original, expressed using the same choice of vocabulary for things and indeed a great many identical phrases if not quite sentences, it is evident that the product of that skill and judgment is being copied. I don't know the situation in the USA, but given that this material was originally added by a UK resident, copied from UK websites, and likely to be read by a UK audience, I would not be in the least bit surprised if the UK courts claimed jurisdiction notwithstanding that the website itself is based in the USA. Fortunately for the person concerned, the original authors are basically the church, who are probably therefore too nice to sue him.

I'm not going to pursue this any further, as I don't have time, and I suspect from the speed with which you reinserted the material that you would in any event "win" the argument just by sheer persistence. But I've said my bit at least.

@@ Line 16: / Line 16: @@
 too much evidence of problems to just strike out individual sections - whole article needs rebuilding from scratch from known original work  <small><span class="autosigned">—Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[User:Data added|Data added]] ([[User talk:Data added|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/Data added|contribs]]) 03:55, 10 September 2009 (UTC)</span></small><!-- Template:Unsigned --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->
 :I have addressed the copyright violation issues by editing the article. If you believe there is still content here that violates copyright, please rewrite it or raise it here so that others can do so. Thanks.--[[User:Michig|Michig]] ([[User talk:Michig|talk]]) 13:35, 11 September 2009 (UTC)
+I thoroughly disagree with the latest reinsertion of the material which I recently removed again. What has been reinserted is all the way through material from the original source with the most minimal of rewording. If you want to insert *facts*, then fine, but be aware that there is no golden rule about complete sentences as such, but rather a principle that work which "exhibits a degree of labour, skill or judgement" is subject to copyright, at least in UK law. When paragraphs show up on Wikipedia with what is, roughly speaking, the same sequence of facts as in the original, expressed using the same choice of vocabulary for things and indeed a great many identical phrases if not quite sentences, it is evident that the product of that skill and judgment is being copied. I don't know the situation in the USA, but given that this material was originally added by a UK resident, copied from UK websites, and likely to be read by a UK audience, I would not be in the least bit surprised if the UK courts claimed jurisdiction notwithstanding that the website itself is based in the USA. Fortunately for the person concerned, the original authors are basically the church, who are probably therefore too nice to sue him.
+I'm not going to pursue this any further, as I don't have time, and I suspect from the speed with which you reinserted the material that you would in any event "win" the argument just by sheer persistence. But I've said my bit at least.