Talk:Drumcondra, Dublin

Possible copyright problem

This article has been revised as part of a large-scale clean-up project of multiple article copyright infringement. (See the investigation subpage) Earlier text must not be restored, unless it can be verified to be free of infringement. For legal reasons, Wikipedia cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or printed material; such additions must be deleted. Contributors may use sources as a source of information, but not as a source of sentences or phrases. Accordingly, the material may be rewritten, but only if it does not infringe on the copyright of the original or plagiarize from that source. Please see our guideline on non-free text for how to properly implement limited quotations of copyrighted text. Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously. Sennecaster (What now?) 23:32, 12 June 2021 (UTC) Sarah777, explanation. Please read the edit summaries carefully, this content is possibly copyvio and must be completely rewritten before being reinserted.

• Seems to have been added by the CV problem editor in this diff. PamD 05:07, 13 June 2021 (UTC)
  • @Sennecaster:, I am glad to see that after you reverted the restoration by Sarah777, the text has been restored[1] by The Earwig, who correctly noted that no source has been identified for the alleged copyvio.
    I did some checking myself, and 12 non-Wikipedia hits for the opening 27 words of Ardfern's original addition: "The Cat and Cage Pub on the Drumcondra Road was the site of an old postal stop and the point at which rebels, during the 1798 rebellion". A looser keyword search found 28 hits for "cat and cage" "postal stop" "1798" -wikipedia.
    This seems to indicate that the en.wp test has been reused many times (which is fine), but also that there are many similarly-worded summaries of this episode. Given the proliferation of similar summaries of the story, I think it would be very hard to sustain any allegation of copyvio.
    So it seems to me that this cleanup is being pursued with excessive zeal. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 06:54, 13 June 2021 (UTC)

    Hi BrownHairedGirl. I restored the text because this diff was misunderstood as Ardfern adding the paragraph about the Cat and Cage Pub when he only relocated it from lower on the page (indicated in the diff view with a special symbol that I often miss myself). It was originally added in this 2006 edit by another editor. Had Ardfern been the original editor of the content, I would've permitted its removal; the CCI has revealed extensive copyright violations over time, with many sources either offline or no longer accessible due to their age, making confirmation difficult. Presumptive deletion has been common here and is supported by policy: If contributors have been shown to have a history of extensive copyright violation, it may be assumed that all of their major contributions are likely to be copyright violations, and they may be removed indiscriminately, and Sennecaster is far from the only editor doing it. The original removal here was a mistake, so I don't think there is much else to discuss on this talk page, but if you have further issues with prospective removal in this investigation, I suggest you bring it up more widely at WT:CCI or similar. — The Earwig (talk) 08:37, 13 June 2021 (UTC)

    @The Earwig: My concern here is that when Sennecaster's initial removal was reverted, they reverted[2] rather than discussing.

    Subsequent discussion has revealed Sennecaster's initial judgement to to be wrong. That is no criticism: we all make mistakes, and I get that there is a presumption here of copyvio. The reason I say "excessive zeal" is the edit-warring. In a case like this, the response should have been to discuss, not editwar. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 17:34, 13 June 2021 (UTC)