Talk:Llanllwch

this is breach of copyright in the several places I checked

original sources

cors goch: http://www.welshwildlife.org/attachments/Reserves/Handbooks/Carms/CORSGOCH.PDF

church: http://stmarysllanllwch.webeden.co.uk/#/our-history/4533613368

manor: http://www.churchinwales.org.uk/parishholding/david/d203-en/history-en

too much evidence of problems to just strike out individual sections - whole article needs rebuilding from scratch from known original work —Preceding unsigned comment added by Data added (talk • contribs) 03:55, 10 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I have addressed the copyright violation issues by editing the article. If you believe there is still content here that violates copyright, please rewrite it or raise it here so that others can do so. Thanks.--Michig (talk) 13:35, 11 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I thoroughly disagree with the latest reinsertion of the material which I recently removed again. What has been reinserted is all the way through material from the original source with the most minimal of rewording. If you want to insert *facts*, then fine, but be aware that there is no golden rule about complete sentences as such, but rather a principle that work which "exhibits a degree of labour, skill or judgement" is subject to copyright, at least in UK law. When paragraphs show up on Wikipedia with what is, roughly speaking, the same sequence of facts as in the original, expressed using the same choice of vocabulary for things and indeed a great many identical phrases if not quite sentences, it is evident that the product of that skill and judgment is being copied. I don't know the situation in the USA, but given that this material was originally added by a UK resident, copied from UK websites, and likely to be read by a UK audience, I would not be in the least bit surprised if the UK courts claimed jurisdiction notwithstanding that the website itself is based in the USA. Fortunately for the person concerned, the original authors are basically the church, who are probably therefore too nice to sue him.

I'm not going to pursue this any further, as I don't have time, and I suspect from the speed with which you reinserted the material that you would in any event "win" the argument just by sheer persistence. But I've said my bit at least. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Data added (talk • contribs) 22:00, 11 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If you still have concerns please flag the article for administrator attention as detailed at Wikipedia:Copyright violations. Thanks.--Michig (talk) 07:39, 12 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Llanllwch. 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:

Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20081205142041/http://www.carmarthenvets.co.uk/index.asp to http://www.carmarthenvets.co.uk/index.asp

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) 08:07, 18 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]