Talk:Arthur Stein (political scientist)

Hangon
There is a copyvio, but the first three sentences are both legit and sufficent for a stub. --Schuhpuppe (talk) 17:57, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

Copyright problem removed
One or more portions of this article duplicated other source(s). Infringing 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, 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, 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. VernoWhitney (talk) 18:37, 17 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Whatever the issues present in the article at its creation, there was no serious copyright infringement in the text you deleted. The article is way too short to avoid a certain number of key words coinciding in a sentence. You also removed an inline citation. Am reverting your edit and making a couple of superficial tweaks to the text to remove any further objections. --Technopat (talk) 18:55, 17 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Thank you for rewriting the text, it is no longer a copyright problem. I will note, however, that it was word for word copied (except for the inline reference) from the source I cited above. Please at least check the source material before concluding that it was not a copyright violation. VernoWhitney (talk) 20:16, 17 June 2010 (UTC)
 * We are discussing seven (7) lines of text (in the original) from the subject’s biography at the learning institution he works for. Surely that is covered by the FAQ/Copyright? Hardly justifies extended discussions and speedy deletes. But if it makes you any happier, yes, it was clearly a copy and paste job. I shall now get back to dealing with articles that really need speedy deletes and major vandal reverts. Thank you. --Technopat (talk) 20:43, 17 June 2010 (UTC)