Talk:British police strikes in 1918 and 1919

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

	This article is part of WikiProject Organized Labour, an attempt to better organize information in articles related to Organized Labour. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.	Organized Labour Portal
B	This article has been rated as B-Class on the quality scale.
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the importance scale.
	This article has been selected for the Organized Labour Portal Article Of The Day for August 29.
	If you have rated this article please consider adding assessment comments.

	British police strikes in 1918 and 1919 is within the scope of the Law Enforcement WikiProject. Please Join, Create, and Assess. Remember, the project aims for no vandalism and no conflict, if an article needs attention regarding vandalism or breaches of wikiquette, please add it to the article watch list.
Start	This article has been rated as start-Class on the quality scale.

There are several reasons why I think this article is a copyright violation. It was written in a single edit. The poster made no changes to the article after posting. Finally, it has no context. It is like the text is part of a bigger document and was copied and pasted here. -- Kjkolb 09:07, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

So what do we do about this? I didn't delete it as i couldn't find anything concrete to suggest it was a copyvio; at the very least, there is nothing currently on the web that this is copied from. But your suspicions do seem well-founded . . . --heah 19:51, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

Previously, suspected copyright violations without sources were listed on copyright problems. They remained there for a few months and I think the most blatant ones may have been deleted eventually. Then, a new system was created (with good intentions) (see Wikipedia talk:Copyright problems/Without online source for more information, also, my view is on the bottom). Now we're supposed to put the notice above on the talk page of the article, but there is no information about what happens next. I speculated that the copyright violation templates would stay on the talk page indefinitely, because in most cases there is little chance that someone is going to be able to find a copyright violation whose source is not online or no longer online. This creates a problem in improving the article. Someone who knows that it is a probable copyright violation is much less likely to work on the article. Someone who doesn't know, since the notice is only one the talk page, may not have done so if he or she had known and probably won't be too happy about it if they find out or the page is deleted. Also, whether they know or not, the editors may be wasting their time if the article is eventually deleted. Finally, I think the new policy makes it appear that Wikipedia is willing to use copyright text, as long as its source cannot be found (only "appear", I know there is no support for using copyvios). I don't know what to do in this case. Thanks, Kjkolb 06:01, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

No way is or was this copied from a published source. The original version to what's there now isn't much different except for wikification, and both have severe writing issues. "It was written in a single edit" means absolutely nothing. I've written articles in a single edit, which means writing them on Word and then posting them on Wikipedia. There's a reason the onus is on the accuser to prove there's a copyvio, which is because making such a accusation without evidence is the ultimate assumption of bad faith. bobanny 06:32, 26 May 2007 (UTC)