Talk:Next-Generation Transit Survey

Copyright problem removed

Prior content in this article duplicated one or more previously published sources. The material was copied from: http://www.ngtransits.org/. 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) 22:25, 10 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Despite sterling efforts to eliminate the copyvio problem here by copy-editing, substantial overlap with sources remained, as this comparison shows. In general it is safest to follow the (rather ungrammatical) advice on the bot notice: "Note that simply modified or rephrased text is still an infringement—to remove the copyrighted contents you will need to completely remove them and then write totally new text to replace it". That's what I've done here; I'm not an astronomer, so I apologise in advance for any errors I may have unwittingly introduced. Also, unless there has been a very recent change, the Creative Commons 4.0 licence is apparently not compatible here, though it seems to be OK on Commons. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 22:25, 10 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for calling my efforts "sterling", but they weren't. They were really just an emergency patch to prevent the article from being deleted entirely. I've intended to do a complete rewrite using multiple sources, but I haven't yet had a chance to do so. What you've written is pretty good. No need to apologize! Stigmatella aurantiaca (talk) 17:48, 11 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Completely rewritten and tested for copyvio

Tested text with Earwig's Copyvio Detector with a score of 34.6%. Stigmatella aurantiaca (talk) 15:15, 26 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]