Talk:Arnoldus Vander Horst House

Copyright
The person who tagged this entire article for deletion needs to actual identify the material causing the problem. It was drawn from several sources. The tagger is just tagging entire articles for deletion based on a some bot response without either trying to fix the problem or even giving fair notice of what bothers her.ProfReader (talk) 15:15, 1 January 2015 (UTC)
 * There is no bot response here; this is entirely human review. The content needs to be rewritten due to material copied from the source identified and possibly others. Please see your talk page, where a note of explanation has been left, and the CCI. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 15:39, 1 January 2015 (UTC)
 * When an article has several sources, you're not helping Wikipedia when you blank entire articles upon a belief that one piece of the article from one source is a problem. Add some specifics so someone can try to fix what bothers you (or try to fix it yourself).ProfReader (talk) 16:27, 1 January 2015 (UTC)

Copyright problem removed
Prior content in this article duplicated one or more previously published sources. The material was copied from: http://www.nationalregister.sc.gov/charleston/S10817710062/. Copied or closely paraphrased material has been rewritten or removed and must not be restored, unless it is duly released under a compatible license. (For more information, please see "using copyrighted works from others" if you are not the copyright holder of this material, or "donating copyrighted materials" if you are.) For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or published material; such additions will be deleted. Contributors may use copyrighted publications as a source of information, and according to fair use may copy sentences and phrases, provided they are included in quotation marks and referenced properly. The material may also be rewritten, but only if it does not infringe on the copyright of the original or plagiarize from that source. Therefore such paraphrased portions must provide their 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, and persistent violators will be blocked from editing. While we appreciate contributions, we must require all contributors to understand and comply with these policies. Thank you. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 22:15, 21 January 2015 (UTC)

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. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 22:15, 21 January 2015 (UTC)

RD1 Cleanup
- please review below
 * , I was working though the RD1 cleanup list, please review your submission on this article; The copyvio owner identified appears to be a State of South Carolina department, however Copyright_status_of_work_by_U.S._subnational_governments suggests that these are public domain works. (please  me on your reply here.) —  xaosflux  Talk 04:45, 24 January 2015 (UTC)


 * Note, same for Jonathan Lucas House (also on hold, outcome of this will be for both) — xaosflux  Talk 04:55, 24 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Thank you,, I see what you mean. For what it's worth, my understanding is that National Register listings are not PD. The specific re-use notice of this site is here, and does not allow commercial re-use; I'm pretty sure the use of this particular site has come up before. However, in these two cases I was just cleaning up problems identified as such by , so I suggest we ask her opinion. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 10:47, 24 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Thank you, I'm taking them off hold, but will pause before deleting for a day or so in case there is any other information-though any other admin may end up cleaning before then. There is no question that the text was lifted; just not sure if this state department is claiming usage rights in conflict with their apparent public domain state law. —  xaosflux  Talk 14:01, 24 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Hi, User:Xaosflux,  Justlettersandnumbers. :) When it comes to National Historic Register materials, what matters is who prepared the description. People are not required to relinquish their copyright when submitting requests; we received confirmation of this from the NHR some time ago. The form is credited largely to Elias B. Bull (along with vague "staff"), who is or was affiliated with the Berkeley-Charleston-Dorchester Council of Governments, which is a voluntary association of local governments. Local governments, of course, may not be subject to the provisions of the state law, and without knowing who employs Mr. Bull, or if he did this research independently, we really can't be sure that the content is public domain. Beyond that, it's worth noting that the diff above is to the opinion of the South Carolina State Library. It's not a legal ruling. The State of South Carolina itself seems to have a different opinion than the library, as their official government portal claims full reservation. ("All materials on this Site (as well as the organization and layout of the Site) are owned and copyrighted, licensed by, or used with permission that is granted to the State or SCI.") Public records and public domain are very different things. :)  --Moonriddengirl (talk) 15:20, 30 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Thank you for the information, these are usually so much easier to wipe! — xaosflux  Talk 18:15, 30 January 2015 (UTC)