- Emanuel Zíma (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (restore)
Deleted for alleged copyright infringment, however, nothing is of the sort. The rationale used for G12 was "Unambiguous copyright infringement of mzv.cz/budapest/en/about_the_embassy/index_2.html". Other sources were used and this link from the Czech Foreign Ministry page was used as a source multiple times in the article. I wonder how it is unambiguous when more than one source was used to confirm the same information. All information used was not copied and pasted onto the article. I wonder if the admin who deleted the page actually went piece by piece to see if this violated the G12 policy. This is part of the pattern of the tagging editor to just delete, remove, and move pages to draft without seeking to fix the issues. --WikiCleanerMan (talk) 19:17, 3 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
- I am the admin that deleted the article. I reviewed the article and checked using WP:EARWIG, and also looked at the article and source manually to confirm that there was material copied with the same wording in the article and the source. The entire article was not a copy but a significant enough portion that was interleaved throughout the article. There was no non-infringing version to revert to so it was deleted. -- Whpq (talk) 19:33, 3 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
- The article has encyclopedic value. The least anyone could have done was just give my attention to it. I would have worked on it. The article should be undeleted so I can address editing out the copyright issues. --WikiCleanerMan (talk) 20:20, 3 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
- That's not how copyright works. Replacing a copyvio with an obfuscated copyvio makes the problem worse, not better.—S Marshall T/C 02:48, 4 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
- The article was deleted for copyright violations only. You are free to write a new version of the article in your own words. Do not copy the text of a copyrighted source and alter the wording as that likely be a close paraphrase which is also not allowed and considered a copyright violation. I can provide you with a list of the references and further reading the article. I'll place it on your talk page. As a note for future reference, you skipped step 1 of the instructions for DRV which is to contact me before filing this. This conversation could have been had on my talk page without filing a formal DRV. -- Whpq (talk) 03:04, 4 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
- Nothing to do here we have the appellant admitting copying text and an admin saying that copying was out of line and offering guidance to help fix it. I trust that a non-copyvio version will be made presently, and trust that the restorable bits can be reworked into the new version. We don't restore copyvio material--we overturn G12s when there's clear evidence the assumptions about licensing or copyright ownership were erroneous, and that's not being argued here. Jclemens (talk) 23:39, 4 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
- Allow creation of new article as per Jclemens. The request to restore the copyvio material so that it can be cleaned up is stupid. The copyvio material exists on the Internet. You can find it and do a real rewording of it. Robert McClenon (talk) 04:38, 5 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
|
