Talk:William M. Plater

Contested deletion

This page should not be speedy deleted as an unambiguous copyright infringement, because it does not appear to be a blatant copyright violation. In viewing the duplication reports, it appears that a lot of the academic terms and titles are inevitably repeated, but not full sentences or passages. Given the number of different sources here, it would be surprising if this were a copyvio of a single, or even several, sources. 32.216.140.250 (talk) 21:25, 7 April 2015 (UTC)

The fact that multiple sources are cited is not an indications that content of an article cannot violate the copyright policy. Over 65% of the article content was copied from Almost all the content of this source was present in the article. Even if don't speedy it, I will tag it appropriately. MrX may like to leave a comment. Wikic¤l¤gy^{t@lk to M£} 22:05, 7 April 2015 (UTC)

The report does not state that 65% of the content was copied; it says there's a 65% chance that it was: [1]. In looking at the contents side by side, the only words copied were proper names and titles, not the substantive content. Are we looking at the same report? If not, I'd like to see what this is copied from; the link you provided appears dead. 32.216.140.250 (talk) 22:21, 7 April 2015 (UTC)

corrected my earlier comment. Wikic¤l¤gy^{t@lk to M£} 22:55, 7 April 2015 (UTC)

(edit conflict)I reviewed the duplication detector, and the only phrases that I saw that were the same were things like:

• office of the dean of the faculties executive vice chancellor records 1966 2007
• indiana university purdue university indianapolis iupui
• at indiana university purdue university indianapolis
• william m plater civic engagement medallion

which would not be protected by copyright. If that's the 65% that you're referring to, I'm not concerned. If there's something I'm overlooking, an example or two would help.- MrX 22:22, 7 April 2015 (UTC)

I think the problem centered on the fact that almost all the content of that single source are present in the article. If all the content (or over 80%) of a particular source is present in an article, its likely to infringe the copyright of that source, which has happened in this case. I understand that you may not notice it because the content of the wikipedia article seemed huge. Nonetheless, you are allowed to disagree with me because, I may sometimes be wrong. Wikic¤l¤gy^{t@lk to M£} 22:55, 7 April 2015 (UTC)

Agreed--none of the intellectual content or phrasing of this article appears to have been copied. 32.216.140.250 (talk) 22:25, 7 April 2015 (UTC)

Wikicology, I'm good at pegging copyright violations, and I don't think this can by any stretch be considered a copyvio. Rather than me removing the template, which I don't think is justified, would you mind if we ask an expert, say Moonriddengirl? 32.216.140.250 (talk) 00:38, 8 April 2015 (UTC)

I've gone ahead, [2]. 32.216.140.250 (talk) 00:42, 8 April 2015 (UTC)

Hello. I'm new to Wikipedia so I don't quite understand the problem here. I don't believe there to be any copyright violations but if you could point me to the exact problem I'd be happy to take a look and try to figure out a solution. Thank you for your time and help. Joshflynniupui (talk) 16:17, 8 April 2015 (UTC)Joshflynniupui

Paraphrasing

Hi. :) Following a request at my talk page, I've stopped by to take a look at this issue. It's great to be conscious of copyright and close paraphrasing issues - really important that we keep content on Wikipedia free in accordance with our licenses and our terms of use. In this case, it all seems to be okay. What I'm seeing here is a bunch of duplication of titles and names - which are not copyrightable. I did a spot-check of content throughout in case I was misunderstanding, but I did not identify another source. For that reason, I've removed the close paraphrasing tag. If retagging, please offer some examples of issues to help others see and address the concerns. Thanks! --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 19:42, 8 April 2015 (UTC)

Thanks. Wikic¤l¤gy^{t@lk to M£} 20:33, 8 April 2015 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on William M. Plater. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20150402120711/http://academicaffairs.iupui.edu/media/59b45067-64ae-48fa-8fee-0cdacd5d2169/v0BDuw/AAContent/04-FundingAwards/Campus%20Awards/Guidelines/Chancellor's%20Professors%20Guidelines%20(2015).pdf to http://academicaffairs.iupui.edu/media/59b45067-64ae-48fa-8fee-0cdacd5d2169/v0BDuw/AAContent/04-FundingAwards/Campus%20Awards/Guidelines/Chancellor's%20Professors%20Guidelines%20(2015).pdf

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

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: 18 January 2022).

• 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.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 19:41, 26 February 2016 (UTC)