Jump to content

Talk:Church of the Ascension, Episcopal (Manhattan)

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

On April 15, 2015 User:Schetm put a copyright violation tag on this article, which outlined extensive copying from the church's website without attribution or re-writing. The tag, with the evidence, can be seen in this version of the article.

As a result of this tag, I removed all unsourced material from the article, and added new material from sources at my immediate disposal. At this time I believe that all statements in the article are accompanied by citations to reliable sources, so I removed the copyvio tag.

The material from the church's website can certainly be re-added to the article if an editor wants to, but only if it is properly attributed, and is not copy-and-pasted or closely paraphrased, making it a copyright violation or plagirism. I don't plan to do any re-adding myself, but I will be keeping the article on my watchlist and will be checking to make sure that any new additions, from whatever source, carry proper citations and are not copyvios. Any violations will be immediately deleted.

I believe from examining the article's history that the copyvios were put into the article when it was created. That editor does not appear to be editing anymore, at least under that username.

BMK (talk) 01:31, 16 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Good job, Beyond My Ken! The copyvios do indeed date right from the creation of the page, so it might have been preferable to start from scratch on the rewrite (just in case there's ever another time ...). I removed one more bit, I think between us we've got it all (see below). Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 14:46, 22 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Prior content in this article duplicated one or more previously published sources. The material was copied from: https://web.archive.org/web/20041206170001/http://ascensionnyc.org/history.shtml and https://web.archive.org/web/20041206164129/http://ascensionnyc.org/artistic.shtml. 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, if allowed under fair use, may copy sentences and phrases, provided they are included in quotation marks and referenced properly. The material may also be rewritten, providing 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) 14:46, 22 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

No material remaining in the article is copied from or paraphased from that source, which I didn't even look at when I was re-writing. Everything was written entirely from scratch. If there is a similarity, it is because some facts have a limited number of ways in which they can be presented, or because the church websoite itself copied from a source I used. BMK (talk) 19:41, 22 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, shit -- yes, you're right that one damn sentence I left in, thinking that I would rewrite it after sourcing it independently. Very sharp eye, you are right. My mistake and my apologies. BMK (talk) 19:44, 22 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
No apology needed, BMK. You got almost all of it; sometimes all it takes is a second pair of eyes to spot a small oversight like that. In cases where the copyvio goes right back to the beginning, I usually remove all the body text, save, then rewrite and/or try to add back the later good-faith bits. Thanks for your work here, Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 21:55, 22 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Church of the Ascension, Episcopal (Manhattan). Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 11:54, 7 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Church_of_the_Ascension,_Episcopal_(Manhattan)&oldid=1200903170"