This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
I am split between policies: should the history be retained for attribution purposes or deleted as copyvio. I have restored some of the history. If any other admin feels like wading through and doing a different set of selective deletions of copyvio stuff, I have no objection. — RHaworth ( talk · contribs) 11:42, 7 August 2014 (UTC)
For the moment at least, I have commented out the findings section as a copyvio from here. Possibly an acceptable treatment would be to present these findings in a {{ quote box}}. failing that they should be paraphrased. — RHaworth ( talk · contribs) 11:42, 7 August 2014 (UTC)
I don't understand what has been happening to this article. What's this business about a "deleted version" that needed replacing? Who deleted it? Where is the deletion discussion? Where was the proposal to delete it listed so concerned editors could have some input? Why has it been so ruthlessly stubbed? It needs expanding, not stubbing. The findings belong in a quote box. -- Epipelagic ( talk) 22:04, 7 August 2014 (UTC)
This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
I am split between policies: should the history be retained for attribution purposes or deleted as copyvio. I have restored some of the history. If any other admin feels like wading through and doing a different set of selective deletions of copyvio stuff, I have no objection. — RHaworth ( talk · contribs) 11:42, 7 August 2014 (UTC)
For the moment at least, I have commented out the findings section as a copyvio from here. Possibly an acceptable treatment would be to present these findings in a {{ quote box}}. failing that they should be paraphrased. — RHaworth ( talk · contribs) 11:42, 7 August 2014 (UTC)
I don't understand what has been happening to this article. What's this business about a "deleted version" that needed replacing? Who deleted it? Where is the deletion discussion? Where was the proposal to delete it listed so concerned editors could have some input? Why has it been so ruthlessly stubbed? It needs expanding, not stubbing. The findings belong in a quote box. -- Epipelagic ( talk) 22:04, 7 August 2014 (UTC)