Talk:Arnoldus Vander Horst House

United States: South Carolina Low‑importance

	United States portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject United States, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of topics relating to the United States of America on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the ongoing discussions. Template Usage Articles Requested! Become a Member Project Talk Alerts United StatesWikipedia:WikiProject United StatesTemplate:WikiProject United StatesUnited States articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
	South Carolina portal This article is supported by WikiProject South Carolina (assessed as Low-importance).

National Register of Historic Places Start‑class Low‑importance

	National Register of Historic Places portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject National Register of Historic Places, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of U.S. historic sites listed on the National Register of Historic Places on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.National Register of Historic PlacesWikipedia:WikiProject National Register of Historic PlacesTemplate:WikiProject National Register of Historic PlacesNational Register of Historic Places articles
Start	This article has been given a rating which conflicts with the project-independent quality rating in the banner shell. Please resolve this conflict if possible.
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

It is requested that a photograph be included in this article to improve its quality.

Wikipedians in South Carolina may be able to help!

The external tool WordPress Openverse may be able to locate suitable images on Flickr and other web sites.

Upload

Copyright

The person who tagged this entire article for deletion needs to actual identify the material causing the problem. It was drawn from several sources. The tagger is just tagging entire articles for deletion based on a some bot response without either trying to fix the problem or even giving fair notice of what bothers her.ProfReader (talk) 15:15, 1 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

There is no bot response here; this is entirely human review. The content needs to be rewritten due to material copied from the source identified and possibly others. Please see your talk page, where a note of explanation has been left, and the CCI. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 15:39, 1 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

When an article has several sources, you're not helping Wikipedia when you blank entire articles upon a belief that one piece of the article from one source is a problem. Add some specifics so someone can try to fix what bothers you (or try to fix it yourself).ProfReader (talk) 16:27, 1 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Copyright problem removed

Prior content in this article duplicated one or more previously published sources. The material was copied from: http://www.nationalregister.sc.gov/charleston/S10817710062/. Copied or closely paraphrased 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, and according to fair use may copy sentences and phrases, provided they are included in quotation marks and referenced properly. The material may also be rewritten, but only if it does not infringe on the copyright of the original or plagiarize from that source. Therefore such paraphrased portions must provide their 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. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 22:15, 21 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Possible copyright problem

This article has been revised as part of a large-scale clean-up project of multiple article copyright infringement. (See the investigation subpage) Earlier text must not be restored, unless it can be verified to be free of infringement. For legal reasons, Wikipedia cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or printed material; such additions must be deleted. Contributors may use sources 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. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 22:15, 21 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

RD1 Cleanup

{{onhold}} - please review below

@Justlettersandnumbers:, I was working though the RD1 cleanup list, please review your submission on this article; The copyvio owner identified appears to be a State of South Carolina department, however Copyright_status_of_work_by_U.S._subnational_governments#South_Carolina suggests that these are public domain works. (please {{ping}} me on your reply here.) — xaosflux ^Talk 04:45, 24 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note, same for Jonathan Lucas House (also on hold, outcome of this will be for both) — xaosflux ^Talk 04:55, 24 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, Xaosflux, I see what you mean. For what it's worth, my understanding is that National Register listings are not PD. The specific re-use notice of this site is here, and does not allow commercial re-use; I'm pretty sure the use of this particular site has come up before. However, in these two cases I was just cleaning up problems identified as such by Moonriddengirl, so I suggest we ask her opinion. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 10:47, 24 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, I'm taking them off hold, but will pause before deleting for a day or so in case there is any other information-though any other admin may end up cleaning before then. There is no question that the text was lifted; just not sure if this state department is claiming usage rights in conflict with their apparent public domain state law. — xaosflux ^Talk 14:01, 24 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, User:Xaosflux, Justlettersandnumbers. :) When it comes to National Historic Register materials, what matters is who prepared the description. People are not required to relinquish their copyright when submitting requests; we received confirmation of this from the NHR some time ago. The form is credited largely to Elias B. Bull (along with vague "staff"), who is or was affiliated with the Berkeley-Charleston-Dorchester Council of Governments, which is a voluntary association of local governments. Local governments, of course, may not be subject to the provisions of the state law, and without knowing who employs Mr. Bull, or if he did this research independently, we really can't be sure that the content is public domain. Beyond that, it's worth noting that the diff above is to the opinion of the South Carolina State Library. It's not a legal ruling. The State of South Carolina itself seems to have a different opinion than the library, as their official government portal claims full reservation. ("All materials on this Site (as well as the organization and layout of the Site) are owned and copyrighted, licensed by, or used with permission that is granted to the State or SCI.") Public records and public domain are very different things. :) --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 15:20, 30 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the information, these are usually so much easier to wipe! — xaosflux ^Talk 18:15, 30 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]