Wikipedia talk:Text copyright violations 101

	This page is within the scope of the Wikipedia Help Project, a collaborative effort to improve Wikipedia's help documentation for readers and contributors. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks. To browse help related resources see the Help Menu or Help Directory. Or ask for help on your talk page and a volunteer will visit you there.Wikipedia HelpWikipedia:Help ProjectTemplate:Wikipedia Help ProjectHelp articles
Mid	This page has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Rev-deletion

I can't seem to find the text at the moment, but wasn't there some technical problem that could result from Revision Delete on more than one revision at a time? VernoWhitney (talk) 14:04, 16 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Buggered if I know. There's nothing on the policy page, and there's plenty revdels on the deletion log with a lot more than one single deletion in the mix. Absent a written statement on WP:REVDEL, I'm not inclined to go and do textual forensics. MLauba ^(Talk) 14:17, 16 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, I found it at MediaWiki:Revdelete-text (though I don't know where that's used), and an explicit mention of it at WT:REVDEL#Only one at a time?. I haven't found direct reference to the bug yet. VernoWhitney (talk) 14:26, 16 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

According to User talk:FT2#REVDEL multiple revisions at once? the bug's still out there, at least for now. As I'm not an admin it doesn't affect me directly either way, but I figured I should point it out. VernoWhitney (talk) 18:18, 16 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Bold

Given the current uproar about copyright concerns and some confusion documented about how to handle them, I've boldly moved this to article space and retagged it as a how-to page. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 14:54, 31 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

IMDB example

Randomstaplers. Quick question about your edit. A lazier approach that may violate the GFDL: Edit out the IMDB plot synopsis. Why would deleting copyrighted text from Wikipedia violate the GFDL? –Novem Linguae (talk) 11:06, 17 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Novem Linguae If you read the text of the (notoriously vague) GFDL license, Section 4, you'll notice that you are obligated to J. Preserve the network location, if any, given in the Document for public access to a Transparent copy of the Document, and likewise the network locations given in the Document for previous versions it was based on. These may be placed in the "History" section. You may omit a network location for a work that was published at least four years before the Document itself, or if the original publisher of the version it refers to gives permission.

Rev-deleting affects the network locations, hence the need for a notice, technically speaking. ⸺(Random)staplers 19:55, 17 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Compare this to the CC license, where you are only obligated to preserve a a URI or hyperlink to the Licensed Material to the extent reasonably practicable, which is less strict than preserve the network location. ⸺(Random)staplers 19:58, 17 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I genuinely don't believe that we need to get into the specifics of the GFDL and it's oddities on a "how to deal with copyvios" page which is already overcomplicated as it is. I also don't see the admins in copyright doing what was described with backporting with a cc-by-sa 4.0 notice when it comes to revdel and removing long-standing text. I'm challenging this on grounds of it simply not being done routinely, ever since CP and CCI was founded. Sennecaster (Chat) 23:50, 17 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. A simple workflow that lets us delete copyrighted text without restriction is the de facto and is probably best here. –Novem Linguae (talk) 00:27, 18 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]