User talk:The Banner
(Redirected from User talk:Night of the Big Wind)
User talk:The Banner/Airport vandal
 | Beware! This user's talk page is monitored by talk page watchers. Some of them even talk back. |
Part 1: Old archives, organised per year.
Part 2: Current archives, organised per month
|
Archive 2011, Archive 2012, Archive 2013, Archive 2014, Archive 2015, Archive 2016, Archive 2017, Archive 2018, Archive 2019, Archive 2020, Archive 2021, Archive 2022, Archive 2023 |
|
This page has archives. Sections older than 6 days may be automatically archived by ClueBot III. |
 Archives (Index) |
|
This page is archived by ClueBot III.
|
St Munchin's College
[edit]Hello.
Your recent revert over at St Munchin's College seems a little odd. You claim copyright violations, however, are happy to revert to a version in which the entire history section of the article has been directly copy and pasted from the history section of the website with not even one reference. All I have done is add references to it, however, I have not yet made time to take action on this further. Other information I have been adding to the article since yesterday has been reworded as best as I can in order to avoid copyright. Goodreg3 (talk) 23:49, 20 September 2024 (UTC)
- Copyvio detector. I have reverted the copyvio again. The Banner talk 23:52, 20 September 2024 (UTC)
- I see that, but yet, you do not address the fact that the entirety of the history section on the article is unsourced and a direct copyright violation as it has been copied word for word from the history section of the website. That hardly seems fair?
- You have reverted the entirety of the edits on the basis of copyright violation, where I would disagree that a full revert was warranted. If a 1% copyright violation is suggested in the reverted article, then something is off. I would encourage you to sit with the article and history section of the website side by side and see clearly for yourself. Goodreg3 (talk) 23:55, 20 September 2024 (UTC)
- Please, stop your excuses. The Banner talk 00:19, 21 September 2024 (UTC)
- 88% copyvio in your version. Just 1% in the reverted version. The Banner talk 23:54, 20 September 2024 (UTC)
- The versions were substantially identical, and after reviewing closely, I have to agree with @Goodreg3. The reason their version was showing so much copyvio on Earwig is because they added links. They didn't add infringing text. I've gone ahead and removed all the suspect text, because while webarchive doesn't go back far enough for me to prove a violation conclusively, the very first revision of the article (where the text was introduced) looks like it was copy-pasted from the school's website. I also removed some promotional-sounding text that, at best, I could only source to the school website. Because I removed so much text, there's a possibility the odd sentance or paragraph could have been retained- but given the unsourced nature, and the fact that to source the material, I'd have to use the school's own website (which is not ideal for obvious reasons) I didn't try. GreenLipstickLesbian (talk) 00:44, 21 September 2024 (UTC)
- In fact, more recent edits of Goodreg3 are suspect for copyvio. The Banner talk 00:48, 21 September 2024 (UTC)
- I did see a few lines which made me suspect they're flirting with the line between close paraphrasing and writing their new content. The earwig report doesn't show that, however. But what I was trying to say is that the reason your version looked clean was because you removed the links, so Earwig didn't have anything to compare the article text to. Your revert still left all the potential copy-vio in. GreenLipstickLesbian (talk) 01:09, 21 September 2024 (UTC)
- I was in fact checking and removing but you were quicker in saving. The Banner talk 01:28, 21 September 2024 (UTC)
- Oh, I finally won an edit conflict? Ahaha! GreenLipstickLesbian (talk) 01:40, 21 September 2024 (UTC)
- I am glad that someone finally saw the point I was making. Every word in the history section of the version you reverted to was copyrighted. Albeit, I have spent today rewording the article and providing sources with paraphrased text to avoid any further claims of copyright violation. The article was long due attention. Goodreg3 (talk) 18:37, 21 September 2024 (UTC)
- Yep, you did a better job. Not 88% copyvio but just 60% copyvio (https://copyvios.toolforge.org/?lang=en&project=wikipedia&title=St+Munchin%27s+College&oldid=&action=search&use_engine=0&use_links=1&turnitin=0). You have still loads of work to do in rewording. The Banner talk 18:50, 21 September 2024 (UTC)
- I was in fact checking and removing but you were quicker in saving. The Banner talk 01:28, 21 September 2024 (UTC)
- I did see a few lines which made me suspect they're flirting with the line between close paraphrasing and writing their new content. The earwig report doesn't show that, however. But what I was trying to say is that the reason your version looked clean was because you removed the links, so Earwig didn't have anything to compare the article text to. Your revert still left all the potential copy-vio in. GreenLipstickLesbian (talk) 01:09, 21 September 2024 (UTC)
- In fact, more recent edits of Goodreg3 are suspect for copyvio. The Banner talk 00:48, 21 September 2024 (UTC)
- The versions were substantially identical, and after reviewing closely, I have to agree with @Goodreg3. The reason their version was showing so much copyvio on Earwig is because they added links. They didn't add infringing text. I've gone ahead and removed all the suspect text, because while webarchive doesn't go back far enough for me to prove a violation conclusively, the very first revision of the article (where the text was introduced) looks like it was copy-pasted from the school's website. I also removed some promotional-sounding text that, at best, I could only source to the school website. Because I removed so much text, there's a possibility the odd sentance or paragraph could have been retained- but given the unsourced nature, and the fact that to source the material, I'd have to use the school's own website (which is not ideal for obvious reasons) I didn't try. GreenLipstickLesbian (talk) 00:44, 21 September 2024 (UTC)