There is a disagreement about whether they should be merged back together, I have added appropriate attribution in the mean time, so as far as copyvio it should be resolved.
Monty845 20:42, 10 May 2012 (UTC)reply
There is a disagreement about whether they should be merged back together, I have added appropriate attribution in the mean time, so as far as copyvio it should be resolved.
Monty845 20:47, 10 May 2012 (UTC)reply
Current version does not appear to be a copyvio, copyvio was in original revision, so no way to clean history without destroying attribution.
Monty845 21:25, 10 May 2012 (UTC)reply
Most of the article text is the poem itself, which is obviously PD, there was one copied sentence that would not be PD, and it has been rephrased.
Monty845 21:34, 10 May 2012 (UTC)reply
Same author, new topic, no need for attribution based on the report, there may be a page somewhere to which the formatting should be attributed, but no evidence here of it.
Monty845 21:43, 10 May 2012 (UTC)reply
There is a disagreement about whether they should be merged back together, I have added appropriate attribution in the mean time, so as far as copyvio it should be resolved.
Monty845 20:42, 10 May 2012 (UTC)reply
There is a disagreement about whether they should be merged back together, I have added appropriate attribution in the mean time, so as far as copyvio it should be resolved.
Monty845 20:47, 10 May 2012 (UTC)reply
Current version does not appear to be a copyvio, copyvio was in original revision, so no way to clean history without destroying attribution.
Monty845 21:25, 10 May 2012 (UTC)reply
Most of the article text is the poem itself, which is obviously PD, there was one copied sentence that would not be PD, and it has been rephrased.
Monty845 21:34, 10 May 2012 (UTC)reply
Same author, new topic, no need for attribution based on the report, there may be a page somewhere to which the formatting should be attributed, but no evidence here of it.
Monty845 21:43, 10 May 2012 (UTC)reply