Talk:Adultery (novel)

Novels Low‑importance

	Novels portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Novels, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to novels, novellas, novelettes and short stories on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and contribute to the general Project discussion to talk over new ideas and suggestions.NovelsWikipedia:WikiProject NovelsTemplate:WikiProject Novelsnovel articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Content in ==Excerpt==[edit]

I am concerned about the content in the Excerpt section as, although, the copied content is placed in block quotes it might still have some issues due to the amount of content placed in it, I guess. On the basis of past handling of such things, I'll be pleased to see Primefac to have a look on the issue, if there is any. Thanks :). Simranpreet singh (talk) 09:31, 30 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Pinging Primefac again as it looks like it was missed earlier. Thanks. Simranpreet singh (talk) 17:06, 10 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Never got the original ping. Content removed. Primefac (talk) 17:33, 10 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Reverting deletion of ==Plot== per copyvio[edit]

I apologize for not investigating thoroughly before deleting the content under copyvio. After examining the website, I believe that the website has copied the content from Wikipedia. Things that forced me to say this:

The website doesn't look a lot reliable.
I couldn't find any website history on archive.org, to see when the content was wrote on that website.
Assuming that the date wrote above the article on the website is correct, the date of content on Wikipedia is earlier to that of the website's.

If there's something I am missing, I am happy to talk. Thanks.:) Simranpreet singh (talk) 14:39, 30 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Reliability doesn't matter much (point 1), and point 2 isn't as necessary since there's a date. As you say (per point 3) the page in question was written after the content was added to Wikipedia, so it is indeed reverse copyright (assuming it wasn't taken from somewhere else beforehand). Primefac (talk) 17:35, 10 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]