Talk:William M. Plater

Contested deletion

This page should not be speedy deleted as an unambiguous copyright infringement, because it does not appear to be a blatant copyright violation. In viewing the duplication reports, it appears that a lot of the academic terms and titles are inevitably repeated, but not full sentences or passages. Given the number of different sources here, it would be surprising if this were a copyvio of a single, or even several, sources. 32.216.140.250 (talk) 21:25, 7 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The fact that multiple sources are cited is not an indications that content of an article cannot violate the copyright policy. ~~Over 65% of the article content was copied from~~ Almost all the content of this source was present in the article. Even if don't speedy it, I will tag it appropriately. MrX may like to leave a comment. Wikic¤l¤gy^{t@lk to M£} 22:05, 7 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The report does not state that 65% of the content was copied; it says there's a 65% chance that it was: [1]. In looking at the contents side by side, the only words copied were proper names and titles, not the substantive content. Are we looking at the same report? If not, I'd like to see what this is copied from; the link you provided appears dead. 32.216.140.250 (talk) 22:21, 7 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

corrected my earlier comment. Wikic¤l¤gy^{t@lk to M£} 22:55, 7 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict)I reviewed the duplication detector, and the only phrases that I saw that were the same were things like:

office of the dean of the faculties executive vice chancellor records 1966 2007
indiana university purdue university indianapolis iupui
at indiana university purdue university indianapolis
william m plater civic engagement medallion

which would not be protected by copyright. If that's the 65% that you're referring to, I'm not concerned. If there's something I'm overlooking, an example or two would help.- Mr X 22:22, 7 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I think the problem centered on the fact that almost all the content of that single source are present in the article. If all the content (or over 80%) of a particular source is present in an article, its likely to infringe the copyright of that source, which has happened in this case. I understand that you may not notice it because the content of the wikipedia article seemed huge. Nonetheless, you are allowed to disagree with me because, I may sometimes be wrong. Wikic¤l¤gy^{t@lk to M£} 22:55, 7 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed--none of the intellectual content or phrasing of this article appears to have been copied. 32.216.140.250 (talk) 22:25, 7 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Wikicology, I'm good at pegging copyright violations, and I don't think this can by any stretch be considered a copyvio. Rather than me removing the template, which I don't think is justified, would you mind if we ask an expert, say Moonriddengirl? 32.216.140.250 (talk) 00:38, 8 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]