Talk:The Washington Papers

Copyright problem removed

Prior content in this article duplicated one or more previously published sources. The material was copied from: http://gwpapers.virginia.edu/project/index.html. Infringing material has been rewritten or removed and must not be restored, unless it is duly released under a compatible license. (For more information, please see "using copyrighted works from others" if you are not the copyright holder of this material, or "donating copyrighted materials" if you are.) For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or published material; such additions will be deleted. Contributors may use copyrighted publications as a source of information, but not as a source of sentences or phrases. Accordingly, the material may be rewritten, but only if it does not infringe on the copyright of the original or plagiarize from that source. Please see our guideline on non-free text for how to properly implement limited quotations of copyrighted text. Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously, and persistent violators will be blocked from editing. While we appreciate contributions, we must require all contributors to understand and comply with these policies. Thank you. VernoWhitney (talk) 18:26, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

Removing PROD

I've removed the PROD - I don't think that removing the page entirely is necessary. What we really need in this case is to have a ticket filed through OTRS to give permission to use the text from the UVA website. Some of the content would still need to be re-written, but this would give us a little more leeway with things, since we would be able to closely paraphrase things while trying to re-write them in a neutral fashion. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 03:25, 19 February 2016 (UTC)

• OK, I've expanded the article some, but there's still a few chunks of information to expand on with the material that used to be on the page. I'll have to come back to this in a little bit after I'm done with my schoolwork for the week. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 06:53, 19 February 2016 (UTC)
• I took a brief break to do a bit more. There's more I want to add in here, but I'm waiting on the OTRS ticket to clear, as some portions are taken word for word from the official website. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 10:44, 19 February 2016 (UTC)
• There is a ticket in OTRS for the content, if anyone is wondering - it just hasn't been added to the article. Tokyogirl79LVA (talk) 12:56, 16 May 2016 (UTC)
• I've added the OTRS pending tag - it's not pending but I did want to get the ticket number added to the page. Tokyogirl79LVA (talk) 13:44, 18 May 2016 (UTC)
  • @Tokyogirl79LVA: THis seems to have been forgotten. Please see the "source for the OTRS template above, and possibly intregrate some of it, in to the artice. --(t) Josve05a (c) 09:50, 21 July 2017 (UTC)
    • Actually never mind. It is under cc-by-sa 4.0. (t) Josve05a (c) 09:52, 21 July 2017 (UTC)
      • (To further clarify, we can't use that content until Wikipedia's licenses get updated from 3.0 to 4.0, per WMF legal). (t) Josve05a (c) 01:49, 17 October 2017 (UTC)

Josve05a, do we know which revision the infringing material was inserted in? We typically revdel CC-BY-SA 4.0 material. I'm pinging Diannaa on this as she has been working on the other 4.0 issue we had today. TonyBallioni (talk) 01:52, 17 October 2017 (UTC)

I haven't checked, but the OTRS ticket is from February 2016, and Tokyogirl79 did some rewriting then, so I'm guessing revisions prior to that. ;) (t) Josve05a (c) 02:18, 17 October 2017 (UTC)

The content was added beginning with 18:24, February 25, 2011 and was removed at 19:53, February 17, 2016. Revision deletion complete. The current version looks okay from a copyright point of view. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 12:56, 17 October 2017 (UTC)