Cut and Paste move by sole contributor, already redirected to new location, no action required though could optionally be histmerged.
Monty84519:31, 14 June 2012 (UTC)reply
recent
reversion to a 2010 version has been reverted again to the most recent one until June 05, 2012, for unspecified copyright reasons. While I appreciate the caution here, I must say that the version in use now (which I am not editing yet) is a very poor version indeed, much less useful than the earlier one. Why not keep the July/August 2010 version on display until any copyright issue is brought forth and judged to be valid. Most of the material in the earlier article provides sufficient documentation, so far as I can see. Secondly, and no less important, the name of the subject of this article, as can be verified from all historical records, is "Ahmed Ali" (not "AhmAd Ali"). The title of the article should be changed accordingly to avoid somebody else's name copyright.
Sealkeeper (
talk)
16:36, 6 June 2012 (UTC)reply
The name change is easily dealt with and I agree with you on that (but perhaps after this issue is resolved). The point about the copyright is that it was identified in 2010 and acted upon then. It's unfortunate there are no details of what the issue was, but if the article is a copyvio again now then while that is suspected the material cannot be left up. I know that smacks of guilty until proven innocent by with copyright that has to be the case to protect editors and WMF.
NtheP (
talk)
15:52, 6 June 2012 (UTC)reply
The issues are fairly easy to identify. For one example,
some of the sources here date back 5 years. Beyond that, there are extensive paragraphs marked as "excerpts" from recent publications (extensive quotation is forbidden by our copyright policy). Whole sections are copied from other sources. I'm afraid we can't do this, even if it does make a better article. :/ --
Moonriddengirl(talk)21:10, 18 July 2012 (UTC)reply
A recent edit by
user:68.175.56.46 removed the original Wiki content of this article and replaced it with material from the subject's website. Attempts to revert the edit and restore the non-copyvio material were reverted by user:68.175.56.46.
TheMindsEye (
talk)
17:32, 6 June 2012 (UTC)reply
Issue resolved. Redirect as subject does not seem notable. Not a copyright problem as source is PD but will need attribution if restored --
Dpmuk (
talk)
15:52, 14 June 2012 (UTC)reply
Article cleaned by investigator or others. No remaining infringement. Close paraphrasing was there, but a potentially larger issue is autobiography. Reverted. --
Moonriddengirl(talk)21:21, 18 July 2012 (UTC)reply
Cut and Paste move by sole contributor, already redirected to new location, no action required though could optionally be histmerged.
Monty84519:31, 14 June 2012 (UTC)reply
recent
reversion to a 2010 version has been reverted again to the most recent one until June 05, 2012, for unspecified copyright reasons. While I appreciate the caution here, I must say that the version in use now (which I am not editing yet) is a very poor version indeed, much less useful than the earlier one. Why not keep the July/August 2010 version on display until any copyright issue is brought forth and judged to be valid. Most of the material in the earlier article provides sufficient documentation, so far as I can see. Secondly, and no less important, the name of the subject of this article, as can be verified from all historical records, is "Ahmed Ali" (not "AhmAd Ali"). The title of the article should be changed accordingly to avoid somebody else's name copyright.
Sealkeeper (
talk)
16:36, 6 June 2012 (UTC)reply
The name change is easily dealt with and I agree with you on that (but perhaps after this issue is resolved). The point about the copyright is that it was identified in 2010 and acted upon then. It's unfortunate there are no details of what the issue was, but if the article is a copyvio again now then while that is suspected the material cannot be left up. I know that smacks of guilty until proven innocent by with copyright that has to be the case to protect editors and WMF.
NtheP (
talk)
15:52, 6 June 2012 (UTC)reply
The issues are fairly easy to identify. For one example,
some of the sources here date back 5 years. Beyond that, there are extensive paragraphs marked as "excerpts" from recent publications (extensive quotation is forbidden by our copyright policy). Whole sections are copied from other sources. I'm afraid we can't do this, even if it does make a better article. :/ --
Moonriddengirl(talk)21:10, 18 July 2012 (UTC)reply
A recent edit by
user:68.175.56.46 removed the original Wiki content of this article and replaced it with material from the subject's website. Attempts to revert the edit and restore the non-copyvio material were reverted by user:68.175.56.46.
TheMindsEye (
talk)
17:32, 6 June 2012 (UTC)reply
Issue resolved. Redirect as subject does not seem notable. Not a copyright problem as source is PD but will need attribution if restored --
Dpmuk (
talk)
15:52, 14 June 2012 (UTC)reply
Article cleaned by investigator or others. No remaining infringement. Close paraphrasing was there, but a potentially larger issue is autobiography. Reverted. --
Moonriddengirl(talk)21:21, 18 July 2012 (UTC)reply