Talk:St Edward King and Confessor Catholic Church, Clifford

Copyvio?

Two examples of cut and paste editing have been reverted by me.

• A Joseph Maxwell of Boston Spa bought the design for £50 from Ramsay, who was dying of consumption on an estate in Traquair, Scotland at the time. The design was passed on to J.A. Hansom who built the church, in the Romanesque, between 1845 and 1848.

Reference version

• Joseph Maxwell of Boston Spa bought the design for £50 from Ramsay then dying of consumption on an estate in Traquair, Scotland; the design was passed onto Josepth Hansom for execution.

• There is some stained glass attributed to Augustus Welby Pugin in the Lady Chapel and north aisle. There is some other glass, by Andre Lusson and Bourdant of Paris and Mons, dated 1854.

Reference version

• Stained glass: some attributed to Augustus Welby Northmore Pugin (Lady Chapel and north aisle); some other glass by Lusson and Bourdant of Paris and Mons,

As this has been reinserted I will remove it again.J3Mrs (talk) 09:04, 3 June 2012 (UTC)

These are useful facts from a good source. They have not been added verbatim and have been incorporated into the existing text. If you honestly think they breach copyright, why not simply adjust them, instead of throwing them away just to prove your point? It appears a little vindictive if you chase other editors around because of previous edits you have disagreed with on other articles. Martinevans123 (talk) 09:40, 3 June 2012 (UTC)

I have made several edits to this article and it is on my watchlist. The comparisons I made above speak for themselves. I am not chasing other editors around, and to accuse me of doing so is a smokescreen to hide your inability to recognise copyvio issues. If you have done this elsewhere you should sort it out. J3Mrs (talk) 09:50, 3 June 2012 (UTC)

I'm more interested in trying to add useful material to articles than in accusing, insulting and scolding fellow editors. I'd like the advice of other editors as to whether these small, copy edited, additions violate Crown Copyright. Martinevans123 (talk) 10:40, 3 June 2012 (UTC)

Excuse me, you have accused me of following you around (to an article I have made several edits to, any you had made none) and being "a little vindictive", can you point where I have been "accusing, insulting and scolding fellow editors"?J3Mrs (talk) 10:45, 3 June 2012 (UTC)

Could we establish if there is any violation of copyright here? Thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 10:54, 3 June 2012 (UTC)

So you can't answer my question, not surprising really. You need to read Wikipedia:Close paraphrasing and write stuff in your own words. J3Mrs (talk) 10:58, 3 June 2012 (UTC)

Don't you need to gather consensus that copyright has been breached? Perhaps you'd like to show how these facts can be re-written in "own words"? There is a great deal of good material at the britishlistedbuildings article that is currently unused. Martinevans123 (talk) 11:09, 3 June 2012 (UTC)

No you don't need consensus and this is a very straight-forward example. I spent ages re-writing bits of the Whitby article to get rid of similar copyvios requested by the reviewer so I recognise them when I see them here. It is much easier not to introduce them in the first place. There is indeed much material not used in that reference and if you want to use it then this will be a good learning experience for you. J3Mrs (talk) 11:20, 3 June 2012 (UTC)

That's your opinion. No, I think it's very unlikely to be a "good learning experience", as if you personally decide it's copyvio material you can simply throw it all away again, apparently based on your experience at the Whitby article. Martinevans123 (talk) 11:29, 3 June 2012 (UTC)