Jump to content

Talk:Speyside single malt

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Untitled

[edit]

What about Craigellachie, would this one belong in this list? Abrax5]] | [[User talk:Abrax5|Talk (talk) 23:30, 11 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The map used to show the Speyside region is incorrect. See the Scotch Whisky Association, Whisky Region page and the wikipeda page of the river Spey. Please correct! QV (talk) 12:31, 2 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted every word of new content??

[edit]

Reverted good faith edits by Peter K Burian (talk): Copyright issue re https://www.visitscotland.com/see-do/food-drink/whisky/distilleries/speyside/ (TW)

@User:Sphilbrick Insights would be appreciated here. What was the Copyright issue? And did that mean that every word of the new content needed to be deleted?

e.g. The Malt Whiskey Trail section was supported by a BBC citation. And the map was from Wiki Commons. Why was that not acceptable?

Many wikipedia articles use block quotes; when I have done so in the past, I have NOT found that administrators consider the content as a copyright violation. Why is it a violation here?

Peter K Burian (talk) 15:12, 13 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Peter K Burian, It is standard practice, when identifying an edit with a clear copyright violation, to undo using rollback, which reverts all consecutive edits by the same author. That sometimes also undoes perfectly fine edits, but it sometimes picks up other problematic edits. I can send you the relevant material, but not right away, because I have to head to the hospital shortly. S Philbrick(Talk) 19:41, 13 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, @User:Sphilbrick please, do send the material; some of it is very useful. This article has so little real information. OK, I won't do block quotes this time. Cheers, Peter K Burian (talk) 20:05, 13 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Peter K Burian, To be honest, I missed that you were using blockquotes. That makes it technically not a copyright issue, but that text is clearly promotional. I don't see any value in restoring it as not a copyvio, then removing it as spam. S Philbrick(Talk) 23:18, 13 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Peter K Burian, I changed my mind. While I think the edit is very problematic, I'm single focused on copyright issues at the moment, so will leave it for others. S Philbrick(Talk) 23:25, 13 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

OK, @User:Sphilbrick, I have done a final revision; I reduced significantly the quotes from Visit Scotland; I felt that the block quotes were fine, but perhaps not. The current version of the article should be perfectly acceptable re: Copyright. Peter K Burian (talk) 00:56, 14 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Peter K Burian, Thanks. S Philbrick(Talk) 12:35, 14 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]