Difference between revisions of "Talk:Len Blaylock"
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
m (to clarify...) |
|||
| Line 3: | Line 3: | ||
Thanks! --[[User:DavidB4|<font color="ForestGreen">DavidB4</font>]] <sup>([[User talk:DavidB4|TALK]])</sup> 16:51, 12 November 2019 (EST) | Thanks! --[[User:DavidB4|<font color="ForestGreen">DavidB4</font>]] <sup>([[User talk:DavidB4|TALK]])</sup> 16:51, 12 November 2019 (EST) | ||
:Any yes, I do realized that WP deleted it "presumptively" so I'm taking that with a very large grain of salt. --[[User:DavidB4|<font color="ForestGreen">DavidB4</font>]] <sup>([[User talk:DavidB4|TALK]])</sup> 18:44, 12 November 2019 (EST) | :Any yes, I do realized that WP deleted it "presumptively" so I'm taking that with a very large grain of salt. --[[User:DavidB4|<font color="ForestGreen">DavidB4</font>]] <sup>([[User talk:DavidB4|TALK]])</sup> 18:44, 12 November 2019 (EST) | ||
| + | |||
| + | :David, WP uses "copyright violation" to delete objectionable articles without going through the Articles for Deletion process, which is usually rigged against the challenged article anyway but takes some time to complete. The Blaylock article was on WP for ten or more years. There were no challenges to the content. Nor did anyone claim the material was in violation of copyright. I don't see anything there in violation of copyright. Facts can't be copyrighted.[[User:BHathorn|BHathorn]] ([[User talk:BHathorn|talk]]) 19:03, 12 November 2019 (EST) | ||
Revision as of 00:03, November 13, 2019
I'm, finding copies of the introduction currently on this page, on other wesites as well. These include: [1] and [2]. However, I know this page was also briefly published on WP, so it might have been copied from there. Since then, WP deleted this page, giving "copyright violation" as the reason.
Was part or all of this page copied from somewhere other than WP? In any case, it needs clean-up, as it was just copied and pasted from WP.
Thanks! --DavidB4 (TALK) 16:51, 12 November 2019 (EST)
- Any yes, I do realized that WP deleted it "presumptively" so I'm taking that with a very large grain of salt. --DavidB4 (TALK) 18:44, 12 November 2019 (EST)
- David, WP uses "copyright violation" to delete objectionable articles without going through the Articles for Deletion process, which is usually rigged against the challenged article anyway but takes some time to complete. The Blaylock article was on WP for ten or more years. There were no challenges to the content. Nor did anyone claim the material was in violation of copyright. I don't see anything there in violation of copyright. Facts can't be copyrighted.BHathorn (talk) 19:03, 12 November 2019 (EST)