Talk:Port of Los Angeles

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Port of Los Angeles article.

Article policies

[edit] An advertisement?

I think given the first paragraph and the lack of a lot of hyperlinks, it's pretty clear this article was probably not written in the spirit of information so much as advertisement. Cwilli201 (talk) 06:02, 11 January 2008 (UTC)


[edit] "An Advertisement?" Rebuttal

Using a minimal amount of effort I found the first paragraph at the About page for the LA Port website [1] word for word. So while not an advertisement it is probably in violation since it is not credited. I don't know exactly what the previous writer was talking about but I assume they meant citations and not hyper links since by my count there were more than 35 hyperlinks not including the 2007 Facts and Figures table.Sanran825 (talk) 04:26, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

What do you think the Port of LA's web site is, if not an advertisement? And if content from that site was moved here verbatim, that's a clear copyright violation the offending text must be removed. -- Gmatsuda (talk) 04:34, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
Actually, the entire article appears to just re-word the content of the Port of LA web site, which means the entire article is a copyright violation. -- Gmatsuda (talk) 04:45, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Copyright violations

I have identified the sections that clearly are no more than re-wordings of the content on the official Port of LA web site. Some of it isn't even re-worded. It was copied verbatim. -- Gmatsuda (talk) 04:57, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

Good catch! Thanks for finding that. No need to tag individual sections; either remove the offending material yourself, revert to a "clean" revision if there is one, or blank the entire article and replace with the template if there isn't any non-copyrighted content in the whole thing. I'm going to try and figure out which content is cv and remove it right now. delldot talk 18:39, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
After a long look at the history, it looks like the cv content was added in these edits. I reverted to before them, and now I'm trying to reinstate the good edits that were made afterwards. Please check me to make sure I didn't miss anything, good edits or cv's. delldot talk 19:06, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
I would have looked for the older "good" edit, but I didn't have time. Sorry. -- Gmatsuda (talk) 19:29, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
In a REALLY QUICK look at the article, it still appears to have some stuff that's just a re-wording of the content from the official Port of LA web site. I'm not really interested enough in this article to go over it with the proverbial fine-tooth comb and fix it, but I do hope someone will take a close look and do the necessary rewrite. As it stands now, I believe the article is still a copyright violation in several instances. -- Gmatsuda (talk) 19:32, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
Hrrrmm, depends how close they are. Can you give an example? I don't have time to look right now, and I also don't really care about the subject either ;-) I'll try to do it tomorrow morning. delldot talk 03:56, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
That means I'd have to look at both sites again. :( -- Gmatsuda (talk) 04:09, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
Yeah, what an annoyance. Don't worry about it, I'll look at it in the morning. delldot talk 06:43, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

Well I looked at the links you provided in the original cv notice and didn't find anything I thought was unacceptable. That doesn't mean that it's not there, just that I didn't find it. If you see a specific problem, definitely bring it up here. delldot talk 16:48, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

Oh...it's there, IMHO. I just don't have the time to do the work. And then there's the reason I already listed above... :-) -- Gmatsuda (talk) 21:19, 25 January 2008 (UTC)